Re: Johannes, I'm afraid his post is a question masquerading as an answer. I'm for two states too, but you can draw whatever lines and assign whatever sovereignty and citizenship rights you like, and the armed conflict over resources will not end. In principle drawing borders and creating governments is what you do after you solve the resource problem. In this context, the creation of 'States' is a way of ratifying and implementing an economic agreement. No such agreement means no real solution is on the table.
mbs
Dennis wrote:
> The cry that "all states must
> go" is nice to the ear, but empty, banner-waving rhetoric.
So let's return back from the empty rhetoric to the starting point of the debate:
The problem is the exclusively Jewish (or Zionist) character of the state of
Israel and the teritories it has occupied, its expansionist nature (as
expressed in the growth of the settlements) and the deportation of the
indigenous (Palestinian) population.
>From this the solution should be clear: A secular state on the teritory of
Palestina and the right of return far all refugees.
Some might argue now that the return of millions of refugees would result at
best in chaos. But Israel has accepted millions of immigrants in recent
years and secondly a just solution must include the opening of border of the
western states for those Palestinians who do not want to return to
Palestine, for those citizens of the state of Israel who do not want to live
in a secular state with an Arab majority and for those Jews are fleeing
anti-semitic prosecution.
Johannes