Far left Gaza Strip Hamas Israel Israeli occupation one state solution Palestinians

Why Albert Einstein can’t help the orphans of Gaza

Over at MondoWeiss, Adam Horowitz gives us a “Zeitgeist Alert” and proclaims that “The two-state solution is dead.”

He quotes a piece by Sandy Tolan in the Christian Science Monitor that presents all-too-familiar arguments for why it is too late, there is no hope, the Palestinians have been deprived of a state of their own, give up, give up, all you two-state idealists, the settlement enterprise is irrevocable, nothing can get the Jews out of Ariel…

That might be true, of course. The odds are more daunting than ever. But these warnings are hardly new. What is new is the turned-up volume of the one-staters, who have decided that, somehow, magically, out of the torn limbs and mangled homes of Gaza, at a moment when the utter hatred between Israelis and Palestinians has never been more raw, the answer comes from…Albert Einstein.

Here is Horowitz, quoting Tolan:

Yet it was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in “sympathetic cooperation” between “the two great Semitic peoples” and who insisted that “no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein’s theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein’s friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a binational state of “joint sovereignty,” with “complete equality of rights between the two partners,” based on “the love of their homeland that the two peoples share.”

Even though Tolan uses examples from the past, it’s clear the discourse is moving forward.

Those who agree with Einstein and Buber today have not come up with a practical political path to get from here to there. They just content themselves with keeping the “discourse” alive, preferring to reside in a kind of rarified, ideological never-never-land where simply advocating a dream is sufficient. There is a reason why only a “relative handful” of Israelis and Palestinians are surveying “proverbial ground.” The reason is that the rest of them must live on real ground, in the actual world. As former Palestinian negotiator Ghaith al-Omari once told me, “It is easy to live in Chicago and believe in a one-state solution. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza understand that the most immediate priority is to end the occupation, as soon as possible…That means two states.” They cannot afford to wait until Esperanto becomes a universal language, nuclear weapons are dismantled everywhere, and Israeli Jews decide to renounce their state and become a minority group, like Jews everywhere else.

I would like to believe that, had I been a contemporary of Buber and Judah Magnes and the other Israeli idealists who strived for a binational state, I would have agreed with them. But I am not their contemporary. Check out this screed from Realistic Dove, from April, 2007, for a few reasons (mostly from Uri Avnery) why the one-state solution is simply unworkable. This is not the place for yet another rendition of that tired argument.

It is worth pointing out, though, that those who are perpetuating the one-state idea now are inadvertently hurting Palestinians in the ravaged Gaza Strip.

A fascinating JTA op-ed last week by Americans for Peace Now’s Ori Nir has not gotten the attention it deserves. It offers compelling reasons why, right now, “the only real viable hope for Gaza is a link to the other Palestinian territory, the West Bank. Only a strong relationship with the West Bank, reinforced by unhindered safe passage between the two Palestinian territories, can provide the remedy for Gaza. In other words, the only real hope for Gaza lies in the two-state solution.”

Here it is, in full:

Two states the only hope for Gaza normalcy
By Ori Nir · January 25, 2009

WASHINGTON (JTA) — Last week I dug up an old, yellowing Israeli intelligence report from April 1987 headlined “The Gaza Strip toward the year 2000.” It was authored by the “Civil Administration,” Israel’s military government, only several months before the eruption in Gaza of the first intifada.

The secret document, distributed to Israel’s top security leadership, provides both a high-resolution snapshot (more than 200 pages) of Gaza and a careful forecast. Amazingly, it predicted a process of multifaceted integration of the Gaza Strip into Israel.

Reading the report, written less than 22 years ago, is like a voyage to ancient history. What the report clearly shows, however, is that policy mistakes and misunderstandings about Gaza are as old as Israel’s 41-year-old occupation of the strip.

The population of Gaza in 1987 was 633,600. Today it has climbed to more than 1.5 million. The report predicted that by the year 2000, the strip’s population would reach 1 million — a “maximal forecast” depicted as “unreasonable,” meaning unreasonably high. In fact, by 2000, the strip’s population had mushroomed to 1.132 million. The fertility rate for 2000 was predicted to drop from 6.60 to 5.80, but it remained at 6.55 and was estimated at 5.19 in 2008.

The report did talk, casually , about the “increase in the strength” of the fundamentalist Islamist political stream, but noted that although the Islamists support Israel’s destruction, they believe that their first focus ought to be “preparing the hearts and minds” within their community.

Around that time, as a reporter covering Palestinian affairs, I met with the Israeli governor of Gaza, who told me that Israel had “no problem” with the Islamists because they were not engaged in any subversive or violent activity. To the contrary: Israel’s military government in Gaza, dividing and ruling as it always did, gently nurtured the Islamists as a counterweight to the Palestinian Liberation Organization during the 1980s.

The most fascinating — and today fantastical — chapter in the report is the one examining the social trends in the strip. It predicted the accelerated socio-political integration of the Gaza Strip into Israel, as well as “an increase in reciprocal dependency between the Gaza Strip and Israel.” It predicted the “penetration of the Strip’s employees into high-level professions in Israel,” and even Gazans’ “imitation of the Israeli life style.”

So much for that. The Palestinians of Gaza rebelled against Israel’s occupation months after the report was issued and have been fighting for independence for more than two decades.

The Palestinians of Gaza, just like their brethren in the West Bank, need and deserve political independence. But the Gaza Strip simply cannot live in political or economic isolation. The 22-year-old Israeli report is clear about that. Its message is that the Gaza Strip has no viability, no future, as an isolated, detached entity.

At the time there was no fence between Israel and Gaza, not even a roadblock or a checkpoint at the entrance to the strip. Today it is impossible to imagine open borders between Israel and Gaza.

Israel will not become again an economic lifeline for Gaza in the foreseeable future. Neither will Egypt, its southern neighbor. Both Israel and Egypt see Gaza as nothing but trouble.

The only real viable hope for Gaza is a link to the other Palestinian territory, the West Bank. Only a strong relationship with the West Bank, reinforced by unhindered safe passage between the two Palestinian territories, can provide the remedy for Gaza. In other words, the only real hope for Gaza lies in the two-state solution.

Israelis and Palestinians must keep in mind that a cease-fire is not an alternative to peace. Israelis and Palestinians, and the international third parties that help them advance toward peace, must remember that just as a two-state solution is the only way in which Israel can secure its long-term character as a Jewish and democratic state, so does the two-state solution provide the only hope for Gaza to reach a reasonable level of normalcy and sustainability in the long run. Only a two-state solution can provide the uninterrupted, robust lifeline to the West Bank that the Gaza Strip needs.

The war and the cease-fire that followed show yet again that only a two-state solution provides a horizon of hope for Israelis and Palestinians to reach the peace and long-term security that they so much deserve.

15 thoughts on “Why Albert Einstein can’t help the orphans of Gaza

  1. Thank you for reposting your article about the famous Avnery-Pappe debate. Avnery brings some good arguments about why the “one-state solution” would never work. Of course, he leaves out the fact that no Arab state is a democracy, all Arab states are essentially “mukhabarat states”, i.e. states run by a secret police accountable only to the ruler. Arab society is inherently anti-democratic, as we see in Israel itself in the conduct of the Israeli communities….municipal elections in that community are indeed open and fair, yet they are completely dominated by voting on clan lines which removes any real choice from the voter. This persists in spite of 60 years of exposure of the Israeli Arab community to the pluarlistic, democratic society of their Jewish neighbors. So how good two different entities, with such different forms of civil society and values ever live together in peace? Permanent Civil War or permanent inter-communal tension Lebanon-style would be the outcome of a “One-state” solution.

    However, a “2-state solution” wouldn’t work either. Because of Avnery’s “religious” devotion to the idea, he didn’t mention all the problems with it, but he could easily extrapolate some of his arguments against the one-state solution to that of the “2-state solution”. One big reason is the very economic disparity he claims vitiates Jew and Arabs living in one state. Avnery and other advocates of the 2-state solution say that the Palestinian “must be able to develop their own economy”. Please tell me how they are going to do this? Judea/Samaria plus Gaza have few natural resources. Agricultural is marginally profitable for a small part of the population. Although there is some light industry, it is not really competitive on an international scale and there is no real heavy industry. But what I am saying is true of ALL Arab states, outside of the oil-producing Arab states. The entire industrial production of the entire world is IIRC comparable to that of Finland, a small country. Poverty and inefficiency is endemic in all the non-oil-producing Arab states. So that would leave the Palestinian state being on the dole permanently as a permament recipient of handouts from the world. This is the case today regarding both the FATAH-controlled Palestinian Authority which gets handouts from the US and EU, and for HAMAS-controlled Gaza which gets money from Iran and some Gulf States. Of course, if the Palestinians do open up somewhat it is logical that Israel would come to dominate them economically, again for the reasons that Avnery explained. Of course, they could try to develop a form of “economic nationalism” which would exclude trade and investment with Israel but because Israel is close and Jews and Arabs have experience in communicating and trading with each other, there would always be pressure to allow economic ties with Israel, if for no other reason that it would be easier and cheaper for them. We must also point out the problem of Gaza which Dan brought in the posting here. There is no solution to their problems in sight. If a Palestinian state were created, the insoluble economic problems there would be major drain on the limited resources of the Palestinian state, which would be another major factor in preventing the Palestinian state from ever being viable, and it would also be a major source of political instability, as we have seen with the breakup of the Palestinian Authority and its loss of control of Gaza. The HAMAS rulers of Gaza acknowledge the problems there, their solution is to tell their people that Israel will disappear in the next few years and they will return to wherever they came from within pre-67 Israel. Those Israeli who oppose this (99.97% of the population) might suggest that Egypt should open up the empty Sinai Peninsula to allow the Gaza population to expand there, but Egypt would never allow this. They will not give up their territory to the Palestinians, nor will they allow Gazans into Egypt, as we are seeing now. Thus, there is no “solution” to the problem of Gaza.

    However, it is becoming more and more apparent that BOTH the 1-state solution and 2-state solution are dead. I know this causes discomfort for “progressives” who want a nice neat solution.
    But there is none. The only “solution” is the continuation of the status-quo. I know that frightens many people but I do not view that as a “hopeless” situation. The goal must be reduction of violence over the long-haul but this can happen only when political Islamic extremism is seen to be discredited, much like Nasserite Pan-Arabism became discredited after the Six-Day War. We are not at the stage of seeing this decline yet…it will only happen when the Arab world sees that political Islamic extremism is seen to be a failure. Right now it is perceived to be “winning” (although I don’t think that is really the case). As long as Israel (and the West, for that matter) keep projecting weakness and attempting appeasement (which Obama seems to be trying) it will only strenghthen it. Once Israel (and the West) stop making concessions to extremism will the tide turn. Once Islamic extremism leaves the scene, then all problems between Jews and Arabs can be solved in an atmosphere of good will, without Jews or Arabs giving up their rights. But this is not in the cards in the near future. Right now we need Jewish “tsumud” and Arabic word meaning persistence. This will eventually give the Arabs the message that Israel is here to stay and not going to disappear as HAMAS, HIZBULLAH and Ahmedinejad keep preaching. They must be shown to be wrong, as a first step.

  2. That is the Likud line. A one-way heart valve.

    Until the Palestinians “give in”, there will not be peace.

    All the while there are other options.

    One important question is what is desired even in a Jewish state? Those of us that are religious in principles, but not in details find the notion of a halachic or even neo-halachic (“these are the messianic times”) state as a form of oppression.

    A pluralistic accepting Israel as Israel with a strong Jewish majority, but equal rights for minorities is appealing.

    Among diaspora Palestinians, the same aversion to sharia and preference for a cosmopolitan Palestine is predominant. I don’t know what sentiments are in refugee camps and West Bank and Gaza. Ethan Bronner described Gaza as much more cosmopolitan than yours. Perhaps even what is near, is not near enough for you to know, Y Ben David.

    My sense is that the peace is MOST LIKELY and MOST APPEALING in the two-state solution with BOTH accepting of minorities.

    For the reason of seeking a choice, and MAKING that choice as appealing and healthy as possible, I prefer the Arab League proposal.

    It creates the setting where 75-80% majorities rule in each (assuming that some settlers choose to remain as Palestinian citizens). 75-80% majorities is a strong enough majority to have a cultural identity, but not enough to impose a norm, especially if there were multiple accepted minorities.

    The single state solution has a MUCH HIGHER bar of mutual acceptance as a prerequisite for any civil unity.

    Nationalist backbone might seem the most effective solution, but in fact it isn’t one, as the tensions harm and harm over an extended time.

    Any nationalist orientation reveals its internal tensions over time.

    Even, the basis of Israeli “prosperity” becomes very difficult, especially if Israel ignores issues like land carrying capacity, ecological toxicity, ecological effects of population density, public health, social strife that is based on economic disparity and over-concentration of population.

    Disease for example, is often a function of poverty. Cholera, diptheria, tuperculosis, etc. develop where a population does not have the means, knowledge, social order, to develop water purification or waste disposal.

    Its NOT something that can just be isolated or ignored.

    The way that Israel can disappear is by continuing the policies of Likud of gradual annexation and/or apartheid-like conditions for West Bank and Gaza Palestinians, and Jim Crow-like conditions for Israeli Palestinians.

    Its possible to preserve the Jewish identity of the community without suppression of the other.

    Either solution would accomplish that if pursued in earnest. Either solution would FAIL to accomplish that with the conspiracy of neglect inherent in “they must be subdued.”

  3. On Einstein and Buber.

    The quotes of theirs that suggest a non-state solution occurred prior to the ratification by the UN.

    Both later stated that they accepted the relevance of a Zionist state once it existed.

    It wasn’t their preference, but they regarded the community as most important, and the community was fostered by having a state.

    They preferred a state (even with its moral compromises) to a condition of oppression.

    I don’t know what they would think of current Israel.

  4. Richard, I think it’s safe to say that Buber, Magnes and the rest of their gang would be appalled by what Israel has become. But they would also assign responsibility to both sides and the international community, as opposed to just one side, like Y Ben David, on the one hand, and the far left on the other.

  5. As a union attorney by trade for more than 20 years, perhaps I have become overly accustomed to hearing that this or that will never happen across the table. And the naysayers are always right. . .until they’re wrong. Nobody really knows what the future will bring. The fact of the matter is, however, that those with influence who are pushing for a deal share a consensus, at least to some extent, that the two-state solution is the only viable long-term solution, and so that is where negotiations will continue to be directed. The one-state folks have the lingo down, they’ve got a bit of a following, they make compelling and logical arguments, and perhaps they even win in that ever-important groovy-sounding category. And, in life, such attributes plus two bucks (and maybe soon three), generally get you on the subway.

  6. By the way, Y Ben-David is a frequent contributor over at the TPM Cafe, and he and MJ Rosenberg often get down and dirty, with MJ often ending discourse by advising YBD that he has no standing to post because he left this country and is now just a crazy extremist settler. YBD and I generally do not agree the peace process (he thinks I’m one of those idealistic, naive lefties–which makes me feel all warm and fuzzy because most lefties think I’m a naive hasbara-spouting stooge–and I think he’s a right-wing extremist). But we’ve always been cordial to one another, and I have to see that it is heartening to see that at Dan Fleshler’s place, YBD gets treated with the courtesy that every one with an opinion and who posts from the heart and in good faith should be entitled to. Kudos to all of you for that in addition to Dan.

  7. Mr. Ben-David,

    I agree with your first part, with the stipulation that I don’t believe that the economic weaknesses are limited only to the non-oil producing states. The Arab oil producers are one-industry states where most of the industry was developed by foreigners and in some cases is still dependent on expat supervision. Arab economies are dependent on the price of that one “crop” and they pay the price for that in bad times. But that is the problem of the Arabs.

    You state that 99.97 % of Israelis are opposed to the one-state solution. I find this hard to believe. It is only true if the Arab citizens of Israel are not considered to be Israelis, because at one-fifth the population of Israel and about one-seventh or one-eighth of the electorate, the Islamists who oppose the existence of the state and would like to see it done away with through the one-state solution must be higher than .2 % of the adult Arab population.

    The two-state solution is unworkable at present, partly for reasons from the Arab side and partly for reasons from the Jewish side. Israeli democracy is a dysfunctional democracy when it comes to foreign policy, as incapable of negotiating a peace with the Arabs as the French Fourth Republic was of withdrawing from Algeria. Today Algeria is no longer Algiers Francaise because a leader was found who was capable of tricking the colons into supporting him while he changed the constitution to a presidential system. Israel presently lacks such a leader in power today. The one closest to fitting the bill lies probably brain dead or severely damaged in a coma in a hospital for three years now.

    The logic of the two-state solution for the Middle East is as valid as the logic of power sharing in Northern Ireland. Power sharing failed twice before it finally seems to have taken hold. The first time it was rejected by republicans and most unionists. The second time it was accepted by most republicans (the Republican Movement of the IRA/Sinn Fein) and by about 55% of unionists initially. When the IRA failed to disarm within two years as required by the Good Friday Agreement, support for the agreement began to collapse among unionists and power sharing lasted for just two months under three years compared with five months the first time. This third time around power sharing has been in effect for some 21 months and seems to be stable.

    Maybe if you would pay less attention to pretending to read the minds of the Arabs and pretending to be their enlightened benefactors and concentrate on the things that Israel needs to implement for a two-state solution to work we would be further along in the process.

  8. Y Ben David,
    If you are a settler, as someone earlier referred, at some point, you will be faced with the question of whether to stay as a Palestinian citizen, or to leave the West Bank.

    The vision of gradual annexation (say over 50 years even), is a vision that you can’t get there from here and continue to follow the commandments in any genuine manner.

    There is no Moses now. The proponents of neo-religious messianic times are rationalizing. It represents a collective hypnosis in the midst of otherwise very sober practice.

    It is close as the crow flies, but a crevasse that you can’t cross, and instead must divert from.

  9. Tom,

    You are the historian in this motley crew. I always hear comparisons between the Israeli settlers and the pied noirs in Algeria, the French colonists who moved en masse back to their mother country at the end of the civil war. Is there a book you can recommend on this topic? Any insights you can share? Does the experience of the pied noirs offer at least a glimmer of hope to those of us who want many of Mr. Ben-David’s neighbors to get the hell out, and who want to think that a two-state solution is not yet impossible?

  10. Dan,
    Ian S. Lustick, an Israel specialist who in the past has written on Israeli Arabs and on the settler parties of the far-right, wrote “Unsettled States, Disputed Lands” looking at the process of France’s return from Algeria and Britain’s retreat of Ireland (the 26 counties) and in a final section he compares them with Israel and the territories. The biggest difference, of course, is that there was the Mediterranean Sea between France and Algeria and the FLN never threatened to take over France.

    The crucial step in the process was Charles de Gaulle’s organization of the Fifth Republic as a presidential republic instead of the previous 3rd and 4th parliamentary republics. The closest figures to De Gaulle in Israeli history are Yigael Yadin, Rabin and Sharon. Yadin lacked the necessary seats to reform Israel’s electoral system and ended up a failed politician. Neither Rabin nor Sharon made any attempt to reform the system–maybe Sharon was planning on carrying this out after the Mar 2006 election.

    I’ve written a piece for the MeretzUSA blog, that hopefully will be up shortly, arguing that as in N. Ireland the logic of the two-state solution will reassert itself in the future, but at a higher price. Just as the Palestinians have paid an ever higher price for refusing to accept the existence of Israel.

  11. The two-state solution is the only one that is a solution.

    The rabbis and other leaders that have authorized the settlement strategy, are guessing.

    Imagining that their interpretations are “God’s words”.

  12. Bruce – Thank you.

    Dan – it is interesting that both you and MJ assume I am a “Judea/Samaria settler”. Actually, I live in a suburb of Tel Aviv that has quite a lot of “Right-wing” activists. I presume you came to this conclusion from the media’s portrayal of “settlers” as a “tiny group of extremists who are holding the nation hostage”, which, of course, is not true. Most Israelis, including many who favor giving up some settlements in a peace agreement view the settlers in a positive light, as idealisic pioneers continuing the path of the early halutzim. The fact that the Leftist intelligentsia has turned against these values does not mean the bulk of the population has, this is the reason Sharon refused to call new elections or a national referendum in order to get a public mandate for destroying Gush Katif—he knew he would lose, just as he lost the Likud party referendum on the matter. In any case, as far as the Arabs are considered, I am just as much an “illegal settler” as the Jews in Judea/Samaria are, and so is Shimon Peres (and Tel Aviv University, for that matter) who lives in Ramat Aviv which is sitting on the land that once belonged to the Arab village of Sheikh Munis and whose Arab residents are now most likely in a refugee camp in the Gaza Strip.

    Your comparison of the Jews of Judea/Samaria with the French “Pieds Noir” in Algeria reminds me of a column written during the height of the recent war by A B Yehoshua. He was a supporter of the war and he was criticizing Gidon Levy of Ha’aretz who was a blistering opponent of the war from the beginning. Yehoshua pointed out how both them condemned the cold blooded murder of Tali Hatuel and her 4 daughters (residents of Gush Katif) in 2005, but in spite of that, they both found the murders “understandable” because, no doubt, the Arabs of the Gaza Strip resented seeing prosperous Jewish settlements right next to their impoverished dwellings in the Gaza Strip. But, this statement by Yehoshua simply shows his obtuseness and political blindness. As a matter of fact, the settlements in Gush Katif (along with almost all those in Judea/Samaria) were built on empty land that had never been developed. Those murderers Yehoshua managed to find some “understanding” for can walk up to the border fence and see prosperous kibbutzim a few meters away SITTING ON LAND THOSE ARABS OWNED THEMSELVES. They can look in the distance to the north and see Ashqelon and Ashdod WHICH WERE ARAB TOWNS WHOSE RESIDENTS ARE NOW IN THE REFUGEE CAMPS IN THE GAZA STRIP. Same with Yafo and Ramat Aviv, as I pointed out above. Yet Yehoshua somehow thinks that it is NOT understanble that they are fighting to return to those places. Why? Because Yehoshua lives there. What he took is his, fair and square, but what the settlers are living on is “stolen”. Do you think the Arabs respect him for that, as a “peacenik”? No, they view him as a hypocrite.
    They do not view the Jewish state as being legitimate within ANY borders. As Tom pointed out the FLN never threatened to march into Paris no did they question the legitimacy of France itself. Thus, we see there is no comparison between the two situations.

    Now, mind you, I have no sympathy for Arabs demanding to return. They started the war that led to their becoming refugees. They intended to wipe us out, but fortunately they lost. They have no more right to return than do the Sudeten Germans, or the Germans of Pomerania, Silesia, or East Prussia, because they participated in agression in World War II against their neighbors.

  13. Yitzhak,
    I don’t agree that there is NO comparison, I merely pointed out two differences. In comparisons there are usually some things that are similar and some that are different. I’m sure if I spent two minutes thinking I could find many differences with the situations you just mentioned after WWII. But I do agree with the basic point that you make with the comparison.

  14. Y Ben David,
    You change your description of where you live and your role. You described yourself as a “settler”, and not in the rationalization format of “all Israelis are settlers in some way”.

    I don’t know if you are religious, neo-religious, obviously nationalistic, humanistic in what manner.

    I take seriously the phrases in the vhavtah prayer “IF you keep my commandments, I will give you the rain in its time…”, taken from the Torah section when Moses delivered the ten commandments, so stated as a description of those.

    So, “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s possession”, “thou shalt not steal”, “thou shalt bear false witness against thy neighbor”, are important commandments.

    They are NOT comparable to the conditional promises of God to Abraham and Jacob of sovereignty over the land in the hands of the Jewish people (that might include Palestinians if descended matrilineally from the 12 tribes).

    If Torah is relevant to your thinking at all, then I would think that you would follow it, and NOT hide behind the web of rationalizations of state expropriations of individual and communal Palestinians’ land, transferred to Jewish Agency, then to Jewish individuals.

    I would think that the tainted status of title would remain in your mind.

    If you’ve noted any of my comments here, or on other blogs, I’ve consistently described that I felt that settlers should be permitted to remain in their homes following any political settlement, but as law-abiding citizens of the state that they reside, Israel or Palestine. And, that they should do what is necessary to get to a consented status of perfected title (usually compensation to a prior landowner).

    The rule of law is what distinguishes a civilized from an uncivilized state, and that affords even those that differ with Israel, their day in court, even relative to laws originally passed in the early 50’s, that could be rescinded to achieve peace.

    The vision of “greater Israel” may appeal to a romantic notion of pioneer, but it doesn’t appeal to an authentic notion of what it means to be Jewish, except in the shell.

    “A stubborn people”, is meant to be changed by being Jewish and Torah adoption, NOT to be admired and cultivated.

  15. In the USA, when it was disputed whether the Northeast Purchase would contain five or six states, they were able to compromise by splitting Michigan.

    IMHO, Israel and Palestine do not have that option. The two-state solution should be literally only two regions. (ESTD)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.