Jump to content

Talk:Two-state solution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Extended-protected page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reorganization and cleaning up

I have reorganized the introduction and moved the material there into separate sub-sections. One section, so formed, is the "Diplomatic Process". However, this just repeats most of the "Peace Process" article already created elsewhere. I am replacing this whole section with a summary to that article.

I have also added some background on the 2-state solution and UN 242 in the "History" section. Kingsindian (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redir

Why does this page Two state solution redirect to a page that describes a One state solution. The two are not the same. The two states solution is not described in One state solution. The matter of a Two state solution is critically important to Jordan [1].

I propose to remove the redirect within a week. Lance6Wins 20:57, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree it's an inappropriate redirect. Why don't you put content into the two state page, though? Noel 12:47, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi, not having heard from you (or seen the page done), I took a first crack. Feel free to upgrade it, but I managed to get past 'stub' stage already. Noel (talk)

Factual inaccuracy

It was initially conceived under the 1947 UN Partition plan for the division of the British Mandate of Palestine. The Peel Commission report of 1936/7 predates partition and envisions a second partition of the area (the first occurring in 1922). There may be other plans that predate 1936. Lance6Wins 22:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, fix it! Noel (talk) 00:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't realize you'd been forbidden to edit in thie subject area. I have fixed the error (it was mine!), and included the Peel plan. (I didn't have time to research earlier plans; I just said "the idea has a long history" and then launch straight into Peel, without calling it the first.) Noel (talk) 02:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Number of Arab and Jewish states in Palestine

Since Jordan is at least partially in the region of Palestine, then that makes (arguably) one Arab state already. If West Bank and/or Gaza Strip become another Arab state, that will increase the count to TWO. And if Israel is permitted to retain its sovereignty, that will make a total of three states in Palestine:

  1. Jordan
  2. whatever the PNA morphs into
  3. Israel

Or if "two-state solution" refers only to the Western portion of the region, i.e., Western Palestine, then we can drop Jordan from the list, reducing the count from three to two:

  1. whatever the PNA morphs into
  2. Israel

I keep bringing the meaning of the word "Palestine" because it's important not to lose track of the definitions of Palestine which advocates are using. There are very few objective, laid-back, matter-of-fact historians discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict; almost everyone has taken a side. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 16:20, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Circumstances Surronding the Birth of the Two-State Solution

This section does not contradict the rest of the article! The Two-state solution was conceived by the US government in response to Saudi pressure. Colin Powell the then Secretary of State was to make public his peace plan for Israel-Palestine on 9/12. Here is the full transcript of the show on BBC 4 Storyville "House of Saud" [2]

These words in particular should be pointed out:

ADEL AL JUBEIR: As soon as the Bush administration came into office, we had discussions with them about the American policy in the region. We were urging the United States to get engaged in the peace process. And when there was an escalation of violence and the president was asked about Sharon's actions, his response was perceived in the region as a signal to Sharon that he could do whatever he wanted.

Pres. GEORGE W. BUSH: The Israelis will not negotiate under terrorist threats! It's as simple as that. And if the Palestinians are interested in a dialogue, then I strongly urge Mr. Arafat to put 100 percent effort into solving the terrorist activity, into stopping the terrorist activity. And I believe he can do a better job of doing that.

ADEL AL JUBEIR: And at that point, the crown prince sent a very powerful message to the president, "It is obvious that you have decided to support Sharon, irrespective of what the consequences are to American policy or to your interests or to the interests of your friends. You're a sovereign country. You can do whatever you want. We are now in a position where we have to take actions that serve our interests without any regard to how they may affect your interests."

Prince AMR AL FAISAL, Great-Grandson of King Abdul Aziz: And the letter to President Bush merely is a reflection of his character, of his willingness to challenge the United States. "We can't take this anymore. We have had it up to here. Either you be more fair, more equitable in your dealings with the Arab world, or we will simply find a different arrangement than the one we are having with the United States. We can no longer have the same kind of relationship that we have had for the last sixty years."

ADEL AL JUBEIR: And within 24 hours, we had a response from the president to the crown prince, in which the president laid out his vision for the Middle East: two states, shared Jerusalem, just settlement of the refugee issue, in very clear terms. And he said, "But we can only do that if we can stop the violence." The crown prince responded to the president and said, "This is a positive step, and you need to articulate this publicly." And the president agreed to do so two or three days before September 11th.

It certainly does contradict the rest of the article. The latest Saudi plans are just the last of a very long string of plans, which date back many decades, and are not too different from the Fahd and Fez plans of the early 80's. The two-state solution dates goes back more than 60 years, so I am moving and correcting the added section.John Z 17:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The two-state solution is not a Saudi solution although they have one that is similar called the "Arab Peace Initiative" the Two state solution was conceived by the United States government and I by Colin Powell himself and yes it is a modification of previous peace US peace plans. Also I would like to add that the Christian communities of Israel also support this plan as it can resolve the conflict [3]. And the UN supports it with Security Council Resolution 1397 [4]. I would include the link to the petition online page in the main article but it has been blacklisted. The letter can also be used to type our the previous history of peace plans in the middle East.
No, this is simply wrong, as Zero and I have said. The two state solution was not conceived by the US government in 2001/2. Variaptions have been proposed for decades, and explicitly called the or a two state solution. It got explicit support recently from the US (an earlier version supported by the USA was the 1947 plan, and there are earlier less explicit statements in the 25 years preceding 2002. Your latest addition again puts the information out of place. It belongs at the end, the article is organized chronologically. The UN (non-US) support is very old, what is new is explicit US support. John Z 18:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you I beleive it was created by the US. We could go on debating this forever. Supply a link to justify this is not Colin Powells plan. [[User::Courageous|Courageous]] 19:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Courageous, there is plenty of data in the article already that refutes your unique, almost unbelievable assertion that the 2 state solution began with Powell. This is OR, and completely wrong. It had been talked about with that name for decades.You are the one who needs to provide a link saying that it began with Powell; you will not find any. Here is something picked at random from googling that refers to decades of support for the two state solution. [5] John Z 20:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks John Z I am satisfied with the article now, but to state who concieved the Two-state solution was never my intention I just wanted to point out that this peace plan was delayed by the events of 9/11 and that the peace plan was to be brought to public view on 9/12 and the decision for this was a few days before the attacks. Hence anyone who knew this was to happen and was opposed to the plan could order the hijackers to attack and stop the peace plan. [[User::Courageous|Courageous]] 21:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out and contributing to the article. It seems important and something I had not realized or heard about before. John Z 21:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peel Commission

Someone removed "the Jewish leadership, while not accepting it, wished to use it as a basis for further negotiation" and replaced it with "the Jewish leadership accepted it reluctantly". Ah, no. According to:

  • Aharon Cohen, Israel and the Arab World (Funk and Wagnalls, New York, 1970), pp. 209

the response was:

The Twentieth Zionist Congress (Zurich, August 1937) resolved, by a vote of 299 to 160 ... b) not to accept the partition plan of the Royal commission but to empower the executive to conduct negotiations "to clarify the specific points of the British government's proposal to found a Jewish state in Palestine".

See also our own article on the Peel Commission, which quotes the 20th ZC as saying the partition plan proposed by the Peel Commission is not to be accepted. I don't see how you can characterize this as "accepted" (even if qualified by "reluctantly"). Noel (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1949 armistice as a border

Territories that Israel captured in the West Bank and Gaza during the Six-Day War would become a new Palestinian state. - says who? See 1949 Armistice Agreements#Cease-fire line vs. permanent border. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli apartheid has a whole section related to this article

Why is a "see also" undue weight? Isn't a "see also" the least weight possible?? If you are so insistant, I will add a whole section to the article explaining the relevancy. -- Kendrick7talk 20:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a paragraph isn't exactly deserved, but if see also is the only alternative then i guess go ahead with that.--Urthogie 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trash Survey

This is the actual question asked in the survey reported in the intro provided by this link http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=15253

Some believe that a two state formula is the favored solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict while others believe that historic Palestine cannot be divided and thus the favored solution is a bi-national state on all of Palestine where Palestinians and Israeli enjoy equal representation and rights, which of these solutions do you prefer?

It clearly biases the respondents answer by giving a favored position for the two state option. It's complete trash and not RS. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doright (talk • contribs)

If a source makes your argument, feel free to add it. You're a wikipedia editor, not a media critic.--Urthogie 15:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So a survey which says "Do you like A or B" is biased in favor of A because it is mentioned first? -- Kendrick7talk 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've read the bias is actually towards B. For example, I love you BUT... [insert B here]--Urthogie 21:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It's nice to see you both finally sharing some common ground. However, I trust the following two edit summaries will start you on your separate ways again. You're both wrong. Please read edit summary here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Binational_solution&diff=125682979&oldid=125533941 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two-state_solution&diff=125677598&oldid=125617914 . Doright 01:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick7, let's not make this into another edit war. Your edit is still wrong. Perhaps you didn't notice that it was a survey among Palestinians.

Here is one of several possible correct edits that I reccommend:

In 2007, a Jerusalem Media & Communication Center poll reported that when forced to choose between a two-state solution and a bi-national state over one quarter of the Palestinian respondents in the West Bank and Gaza Strip preferred neither, 46% of respondents preferred the two-state over the bi-national solution while 26% preferred the binational over the two-state.

If anyone disagrees, let me know why.Doright 05:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source says "adults" not "Palestinians". They also were not forced to choose one or the other -- the phrase I think you are looking for is "given a choice between". -- Kendrick7talk 18:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again, your source, specifically with regard to the survey, says "respondents." And, the source that actually conducted and published the survey, which by the way is titled, "On Palestinian attitudes towards ...," and the claims they make about the survey results refer to the respondents as the "Palestinian public." There is no point in denying this.
Also, you may not know that a questionnaire that only gives the choice between a predetermined and fixed set of responses is called a "Forced-Choice" questionaire, hence the use of the phrase in the article.Doright 19:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, for example when someone has to chose A, B, C, or D. But that's not the case here; respondants where given a choice and apparently could respond however they liked. -- Kendrick7talk 20:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I still have not idea where you are getting "Palestinian" from. The poll says "Methodology: Interviews with 1,198 adults in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, conducted from Mar. 19 to Mar. 21, 2007. Margin of error is 3 per cent." -- Kendrick7talk 20:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: the lead is not meant to give statistics, but to summarize data in a non-mathematical fashion.--Urthogie 19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of having this in this short article twice. It's really confusing to say this option got a "plurality" when the respondants where asked to choose between two things. -- Kendrick7talk 20:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They gave more than two answers, and the plurality was towards two-state. Other polls corroborate this, and I can add them if you like. If you want to get unnecessarily in depth, feel free to add a section on polls for a more detailed discussion of individual polls and how they were conducted. Make sure to follow rules on no originalresearch tho.--Urthogie 20:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there are better polls. When asked to choose between chocolate and vanilla, a plurality chose chocolate just sounds wrong to me. But, I just popped onto this article to do a little clean-up. I think I need a wikibreak from Israel related articles for a while.... -- Kendrick7talk 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel/Jewish Agency's rejection of the UN partition plan

The common notion is that the J.A. led by Ben-Gurion accepted the UN partition plan, however this is factually incorrect. The J.A. supported the notion of the creation of Israel however they disapproved of the partition plan giving the Palestinians a state. This important fact should be highlighted in this article as well as others related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ben-Gurion is also quoted saying that Israel cannot accept anything less than all of Palestine.

Israel's actions of today also support their initial reactions to the partition plan including the ever increasing area of occupied land and the subsequent and illegal settlements on the occupied land.

I just noticed this unsigned comment from about a year ago. I am leaving it here -- unlike the section below it, which I am removing because it deals entirely with the subject and not at all with the article -- because parts of this comment do deal (if only peripherally) with the article. If the writer is still around, I would ask: Do you happen to have a source for any of this. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reorg

Can we get the material reorged around topics or timeline?

For topics we could start with the current "Western" policy, then the history of the area, followed by the various issues like borders (no possible border line is acceptable), Right of return (an ethnically cleansed state with no right of return? Didn't Europe have some sort of problem like this in the 1930s, 1990s, etc.?), security (neither side trusts the other so both will remain insecure), outside problems (because of all of the above, others will use these issues to deflect problems in their own states) then move on to the lack of alternatives such as permanent occupation (which isn't acceptable to anybody), genocide (it's never a final solution), single state (if they can't live side by side they surely can't live together) and annexation by third parties (really it's the only times the place has been at peace, but who can both sides trust today?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcobb (talk • contribs) 19:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are these issues: partition or two-state proposals that were made or taken seriously and usually rejected by one or both parties; identification of periods when such a solution was considered or rejected; negotiations based around a two-state solution; and issues relating to the practical aspects of the solution. Fred Talk 13:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic concerns and defensibility of borders

A topographical map shows that any Palestinian state in the West Bank would contain the heights commanding Israel's main population and economic zone. Pictures taken from the mountain ridge show that Ben Gurion Airport and Tel Aviv are visible with the naked eye from the mountains, and in particular, that they would be be within the range of even primitive rockets and artillery. If a Palestinian state were established in the West Bank with borders in the pre-1967 configuration, Shimon Peres described it as "liable to be an arrow-head directed at the very heart of Israel with all the force of the Arab world behind it." Moreover, declassified United States documents give the strategic recommendations by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff for Israel to redraw its borders within territories captured in 1967 in order to maintain defensible borders. "From a strictly military point of view, Israel would require the retention of some captured Arab territory in order to provide militarily defensible borders. Determination of territory to be retained should be based on accepted tactical principles such as control of commanding terrain, use of natural obstacles, elimination of enemy-held salients, and provision of in-depth defense for important facilities and installations." In the document, the Joint Chiefs recommend that Israel annex all but the northeastern West Bank. [1] This objection should be covered in the article, at the very least, as a justification for Israel's security demands (control over strategic points in the mountains and in the high points overlooking the Jordan Valley as well as a fully demilitarized Palestinian state that is unable to form alliances with countries that do not recognize the state of Israel's right to exist). Without those guarantees, a two-state solution would be suicidal, and even the presence of a substantial population of Palestinian irreconcilables could just lead to a reoccupation of the West Bank if the Palestinian Authority were unable to control it. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Palestine's security demands would entail what, annexing parts of Israel, a fully demilitarized Israeli state unable to form alliances with countries that do not recognize the state of Palestine's right to exist? We're not here to further ridiculous arguments. Sepsis II (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine is not surrounded by hostile countries that have committed repeated aggressions against it, and moreover, Israel has not served as a base for international terrorists who have stated as their goal the destruction of the state. Further, since Israel is the country that controls the territory, we are talking about concessions by Israel in terms of military position. No country is obligated to undertake actions that would threaten its existence (self defense is an inherent right), so any military concession by Israel would have to be credibly met by a situation guaranteeing its security. That is, Israel is not bound by any obligation to the Palestinians to give them a sovereign state at all, and it will rationally not recognize such a state if it leads to a situation in which it is left in a worse security position than it had been previously. Since the Palestinians do not control the territory, I do not see how they can demand that Israel demilitarize or even leave. The point of negotiations is to achieve a result that improves the security and ends the bloodshed for both parties. Without Israel's consent in negotiations, the Palestinians cab either wait for an international intervention (not going to happen), or they can try armed 'resistance' (terrorism) again (a war that they will lose again). So ultimately, if the Palestinians refuse to take steps that Israel deems necessary for its survival, they will not have a state (and might even lose the limited degree of self-government that they already have). You can argue that the Palestinians are entitled to self determination, but ultimately, Israel has a veto over the borders of any future Palestinian state beyond (de facto, and de jure by the Oslo accords). The objections to a two state settlement that I raised are the objections from the right to a two state solution on the Israeli side. No similar argument applies for the argument from the right on the Palestinian side because it has no power to defy Israel or exercise forceful control of any areas of Israel. So don't be deliberately thick.70.192.64.90 (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.73.104 (talk) [reply]
The source for this objection is Martin Sherman, an Israeli political scientist and also JCPA, a think tank run by Israeli diplomat Dore Gold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.70.195 (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ www.acpr.org.il/publications/books/33-Zero-editorial.pdf‎

Note

Notice that in Israel the solution is called The Two states for two nations solution. The "Two nations" subject is very important for the Israelis, because it contains a recognition of the Jewish state by the palestinians (which they never comitted or agreed to declare).

Changes by Shootsrubberbands

There are several problems with Shootsrubberbands' edits, including POV original research ("Barak's map illustrating war tactics of surround, divide, occupy, and discontiguity"), content allegedly supported by unreliable sources (kingjamesbibleonline, electricitymachine), personal opinions ("we can learn a lot about what NOT to do when we study the 2000 Camp David Summit Barak's map"), and off-topic articles listed in the "See also" section (with wrong titles such as "Palestinian concentration camps").--Zeremony (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism-Edit-Warring by Zeremony

My input is factual, encyclopedic and well resourced by reliable sources. Zeremony is trumping up false claims, if Israel uses the Holy Bible to make historical document claims to disputed land, then others might use the same. Zeremony, lol we CAN learn a lot about what not to do in learning from barak's map, if you haven't thrown it into the delete bin,'In critique[1] and After-action review (analysis) we can learn a lot about what NOT to do when we study the 2000 Camp David Summit Barak's map.' i have no articles in the See Also section at the moment, but when i did before the articles were perfectly contextual and make for interesting reading. You are in the wrong Zeremony please quit making edit war and vandalising due to your own personal bias, sorry i wrote something on your talk page, never having done this before. Regardless though you are in the wrong Zeremony. This conversation should not go on with the good info/input off the page. If you would like to collaborate - then re-write the sentence you are objecting to and i will consider putting it in the page just go ahead and put it in the page, no big deal. I do not intend to use the See Also section because vandals keep deleting the list of spot-on on-topic contextual entries i put there, such as Quartet on the Middle East. i have never used one of these "page talk" pages before, i did not realize i was supposed to write the signature Shootsrubberbands (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootsrubberbands (talk • contribs) 18:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What???? You haven't answered any of the objections I raised above. If you don't understand plain English, didn't read (or don't care) the rules of this encyclopedia, or don't possess the basic level of WP:competence that is required to discuss and contribute to an article, don't even bother to edit in Wikipedia. Probably it's not the place for you. If you want people to know your personal opinion about Barak's proposal and other related issues, I suggest you to make a blog and leave us alone.--Zeremony (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Barak Corrected PDF

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Two-state solution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two-state solution → Two-state solution (Israeli–Palestinian peace process) – The two-state solution is rather a general concept which can refer to various peace negotiations, such as the Two-state solution (Cyprus) and Two-state solution (Iraqi–Kurdish negotiations); indeed the two-state solution issue is mostly discussed concerning the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, but it is not specifically tied with it. The Two-state solution is to become disambiguation page, and possibly to become an article in the future.GreyShark (dibra) 07:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the vast majority of references to "Two state solution" are to the Israel-Palestine conflict (a point agreed to by the nom too), I would prefer that the situation be handled by using a disambiguation page which is not the main page. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation. My preferred solution would be a disamb hatnote. See, for an example: Particle. Something like: For other uses, see Two-state solution (disambiguation). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's clear that when most people hear "two-state solution" they think Israel/Palestine. It's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A hatnote on this article would be sufficient to disambiguate.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As Kingsindian noted, the nom acknowledged that this is the primary topic. The disambiguation page is appropriately named Two-state solution (disambiguation). — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I concur that most news and newspaper refer to the situation in I-P when talking about the 2 state solutions but I think that per npov we have no way to state that the situation in Israel/Palestine would be historically more important than the one in Cyprus or the India/Pakistan solution and the debates around them. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with npov? Historical importance is not about neutrality but due weight and primacy. Even still we are not a crystal ball and can't just disregard a name because it might not be the primary topic in the future, if that was the case then we should get rid of virtually every primary topic as they may not be the most historically important. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

1947 Plan in lead

Shouldn't the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (1947) be included in the lead also? It clearly left out that the Arabs also against two-state solution at one point. --Horus (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

@EytanMelech: The lede is a summary, and if we want to cherrypick from the body, namely one piece of information that the Arab leadership rejected the peace plan, and not that, for example, it was heavily biased towards the Zionist perspective, then this is not a summarization but a misrepresentation. The current wording of it was not implemented is much more NPOV. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If in the lede, you would like to note a deal rejected by Israel or other decision made by their government that is key to the progression of the situation, you are more than free to do so with ample sourcing. I think that it is not a bad idea to include details that are so key to the issue. The deal was not simply "not implemented". That makes it sound like it was wrapped up in bureaucratic issues, it was an outright rejection by one side. It isn't a "zionist perspective" to note that one side disagreed with a compromise idea. EytanMelech (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First Paragraph of the Lead

The current lead (by Corriebertus) is explicitly dismissive of the two-state solution, describing a specific individual's perspectives on the practicality of the solution rather than the nature of the solution itself, and does not cite any reliable sources. I propose that the article either be reverted to this version with the original first paragraph ("The two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict envisions an independent State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel, west of the Jordan River...") or that an entirely new first paragraph be written based on an objective description of the fundamental points of the plan, rather than a critique of the feasibility of its practical implementation, for example using the "What is the two-state solution?" section of this NYT article or a similar source. PtolemyXV (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support The current version is strongly biased against the two-state solution and dismissing of what is not an "abstract, theoretical, linguistic formula" but the main Israeli–Palestinian conflict solution supported by the international community.
The statement that "there is no concrete (two-state) solution [...] being proposed by influential, (potentially) intermediating or brokering outside parties" is blatantly false, unless we don't consider US [6], EU [7], Arab League [8] (and many more) to be "influential and potentially intermediating outside parties".
I urge to revert the article at the proposed version to avoid spreading misinformation on such a hot topic. Such heavy modifications as the ones made by Corriebertus should be discussed beforehand. Ripepette (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renewed calls for a two-state solution

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Renewed calls for a two-state solution. I am about to create the new section in this article. Your input and comments are very much welcome. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim in lede

I am not sure the claim "There have been many diplomatic efforts to realize a two-state solution", which currently sits in the lede, is factually accurate, let alone uncontentious.

None of the succeeding peace agreements mentioned in that paragraph endorsed a two-state solution, although they have been interpreted as doing such. I think if we're going to have this statement, it needs to be caveated that this is how those agreements have been interpreted, because I don't think it's true to say they unambiguously endorsed or tried to realise a TSS. Yr Enw (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody is objecting, I'm going to remove those sentences from the lede. Yr Enw (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Yr Enw, which sentences do you want to remove? Misha Wolf (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think, unfortunately, the entirety of the following needs to go:
“There have been many diplomatic efforts to realize a two-state solution, starting from the 1991 Madrid Conference. There followed the 1993 Oslo Accords and the failed 2000 Camp David Summit followed by the Taba negotiations in early 2001. In 2002, the Arab League proposed the Arab Peace Initiative. The latest initiative, which also failed, was the 2013–14 peace talks. ”
None of the mentioned diplomatic efforts endorsed a TSS. That said, I know some people do interpret them as doing such, so I’m not opposed to caveating the sentence with “have been interpreted as attempting to realize”. Yr Enw (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was slightly incorrect. The Arab Initiative did. Yr Enw (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Yr Enw, I would object to the deletion of any of the text but would not object to the injection of some qualifying words. I do not consider, though, that "have been interpreted as attempting to realize" would be suitable words as -- for at least some of the participants in all of these efforts -- a two-state solution was the goal, not an interpretation of the goal. It would also be necessary to treat the Arab Peace Initiative distinctly. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I’ll have a think over a way to try and strike that balance, then. But I am trying to be conscious of the fact that a lot of scholarship (like Seth Anizka’s Preventing Palestine, for eg) now makes the case the peace process has been about stifling Palestinian statehood rather than establishing it. Yr Enw (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Misha Wolf. Just thinking out loud about some of the significant processes/agreements mentioned in the current paragraph (formatted for emphasis where appropriate):
  • Madrid & Oslo - I don't think we can say with any confidence whatsoever that these attempted to "realize a two-state solution". Palestinian statehood was not mentioned in any document arising out of these, though Oslo instituted a sort-of limited autonomy. Indeed, per scholars like Anziska (here: Oslo Accords#Undermining Palestinian aspirations for statehood), it's been suggested this autonomy was in fact to stifle full-fledged statehood
  • Camp David (2000) - There is a legitimate case to be made that this was probably the first set of negotiations that explicitly posited future Palestinian statehood as a goal for both sides, albeit falling way short of Palestinian expectations
  • Taba - A potential Palestinian state appears to have formed a key part of negotiations
  • Arab Initiative - As above, but Palestinian statehood was never seriously considered by Israel. So can we frame it as an attempt to realise two states when it was - at this point in time - totally opposed by one side? (genuinely asking, not rhetorical)
  • 2013-14 talks - Palestinian statehood again formed part of the discussions, but it doesn't appear this was ever from the Israeli side. So same question as above.
Out of all of these, Oslo was the only process that actually led to any agreement and implementation. Nevertheless, I accept it's been a stated goal of the international community and has definitely formed a part of at least some of the above-named peace processes. So my suggestion is something like the following (but, of course, I would welcome input):

There have been many Recent diplomatic efforts have centred around to realizing a two-state solution, starting from the 1991 Madrid Conference. There followed the 1993 Oslo Accords and the failed 2000 Camp David Summit, followed by the Taba negotiations in early 2001. A two-state solution also formed the basis of the In 2002, the Arab League proposed the Arab Peace Initiative. The latest initiative, which also failed, was and the 2013–14 peace talks.

I wanted to add something at the end about a TSS being the most broadly accepted basis for negotiations amongst the international community, but that just feels a bit wordy. Have you any suggestions? Yr Enw (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of bringing in even more information, the international consensus has been for decades to resolve the conflict on the basis of UNSC242 and 388, which is seen in the yearly GA vote on "Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine": https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3996093?ln=en
but maybe that can help keep your sentence pithy?
See Finkelstein's Gaza book:
The international community has consist- ently supported a settlement of t e IsraelPalestine conflict that calls for two states based on a full Israeli withdrawal o its pre-June 1967 borders, and a “just resolution” of the refugee question based on t e right of return and compensation.42 The two notable exceptions to this broad consens s have been Israel and the United States. Consider the annual UN General Assembly (UNG ) vote on the resolution titled “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine.” T e resolution incorporates these tenets for achieving a “two-State solution of Israel a d Palestine”: (1) “Affirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition f territory by war”; (2) “Reaffirming the illegality of the Israeli settlements in t e Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem”; (3) “Stresses t e need for: (a) The with- drawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied sin e 1967, including East Jerusalem; (b) The realization of the inalienable rights of t e Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to the r inde- pendent State”; and (4) “Also stresses the need for justly resolving the prob- l m of Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) of 11 Decemb r 194."
the votes since 1997 have consistently been 150+ for and <10 against. DMH43 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're best avoiding mentioning 242 and other UNSC resolutions in this part, because few of them explicitly advocate for a Palestinian state, only Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders. But the "Peaceful Settlement" resolution from the Finkelstein quote says effectively what we need - the international consensus is in favour of the TSS - so maybe we can work that in to the end to read:

There have been many Recent diplomatic efforts have centred around to realizing a two-state solution, starting from the 1991 Madrid Conference. There followed the 1993 Oslo Accords and the failed 2000 Camp David Summit, followed by the Taba negotiations in early 2001. A two-state solution also formed the basis of the In 2002, the Arab League proposed the Arab Peace Initiative. The latest initiative, which also failed, was and the 2013–14 peace talks. Nevertheless, international consensus remains in favor of a two-state solution to the conflict.

With the final sentence citing Finkelstein and the resolution you've linked to. Or something to that effect? Yr Enw (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about changing: "Nevertheless, international consensus remains in favor of a two-state solution to the conflict." to:
"Despite the failure of these efforts to produce a final agreement, the international consensus has for decades supported a two-state solution to the conflict."
The slight rephrase since:
  1. "nevertheless" seems awkward since the previous sentence doesnt highlight failure
  2. I didn't like use of the word "remains". I think at this point, with so many people arguing that the two state settlement is dead, especially as a result of the past few months, it would be misleading to suggest that the international consensus favors a two state settlement at the current moment. But arguably, scholars arent part of the "international consensus"? I'm not sure.
DMH43 (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the help. I agree with your first point, but the second point I think, yes, we need to make a distinction between the international community and scholars, they are quite distinct I feel. Would be helpful to get @Misha Wolf’s thoughts on all the above Yr Enw (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Yr Enw, @DMH43 and others. I think that we're having a productive discussion here. I'm snowed under with other stuff, so won't be replying in any detail. Do keep striving for a consensus wording. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any issue with the phrasing I suggested above? I liked that it avoids having to say anything about the *current* consensus. DMH43 (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi both, sorry for the delay in responding. So we are going with:

There have been many Recent diplomatic efforts have centred around to realizing a two-state solution, starting from the 1991 Madrid Conference. There followed the 1993 Oslo Accords and the failed 2000 Camp David Summit, followed by the Taba negotiations in early 2001. A two-state solution also formed the basis of the In 2002, the Arab League proposed the Arab Peace Initiative. The latest initiative, which also failed, was and the 2013–14 peace talks. Despite the failure of these efforts, international consensus has for decades supported a two-state solution to the conflict.

I've slightly tightened up the suggested last sentence (I think either "to produce a final agreement" or "to the conflict" can be missed off, as they render the other superfluous. My pref is how it's presented above. How does it work for you? Yr Enw (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
great, thank you DMH43 (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Water as a key issue

Just wanted to leave a brief note that water is also a key issue in the two state solution DMH43 (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The Palestinian leadership has accepted the concept since the 1982 Arab Summit in Fez, although it has consistently turned down repeated proposals since 1937."

I think that having two instances of "has" in this sentence is not good as they relate to very different time periods and so suggest that we replace the second "has" with "had".

We could also consider switching the two parts of the sentence, so that it becomes something like:

"The Palestinian leadership had turned down repeated proposals for a two-state solution from 1937 onwards but has accepted the concept since the 1982 Arab Summit in Fez."

My wording could probably be improved. Misha Wolf (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence should also make clear:
- who the proposals were made by (i.e. these were primarily US-Israeli proposals)
- they rarely if ever turned them down outright, but objected to details
- the PLO accepted Oslo, which was a path to a two-state solution
We must avoid a version of the nonsense propaganda line about Palestinian rejectionism.
Onceinawhile (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just one nitpick, portraying Oslo as a path to a two-state solution is disputed, as a lot of scholars now see Oslo as deliberately attempting to frustrate Palestinian statehood, rather than realise it. Yr Enw (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Perhaps the correct statement is "…which was sold to them as a path to a two-state solution". The story of the maps at Palestinian_enclaves#Oslo_Accords is a good illustration of how it was cooked up and served to Arafat. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a neutral statement. “Sold to them” implies an act of deception, not backed up by any serious scholarship on the topic. There are diverse views on whether Arafat and the PLO should have accepted the July 2000 Camp David offer or the December 2000 Clinton Parameters, but those viewpoints are already reflected in the articles about those two-state offers. KronosAlight (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Proposals have been offered for over 50 post-evacuation compensation of settlers [...]"

That's the start of the first sentence of the third para of section "Settlements in the West Bank". Something's wrong with that sentence but I don't know what the intended meaning is so can't fix it. Misha Wolf (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a "Clarify" template to that sentence as the above request for clarification has had no effect. Misha Wolf (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 April 2024

Yr Enw, you reverted my contributions with the explanation that they were superfluous and just repeated verbatim info later in the article. Also moving one para (re de facto one state) that had already been moved to the end previously, for better flow. Lede is long enough as it is, I don’t think we should be adding much more unless absolutely essential (which Likuds 1977 manifesto isn’t)

Per MOS:INTRO, the introduction should summarize the main points. The two-state solution should absolutely be contextualized with regard to the one-state solution/reality in the first paragraph.

Why did you remove the nature of the two states in question from the first paragraph? Also, why did you change Palestine to Mandatory Palestine when the Golan Heights were never part of Mandatory Palestine?

If one-state/two-state pronouncements from the Likud and Netanyahu are not absolutely essential, why do we include those from Hamas?

Why did you remove the fact that the two-state solution dominates official efforts to resolve the conflict?

Also, my name isn't Ayan. إيان (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for the tag. Firstly, apologies, I neglected to see the hamza in your name and transliterated it incorrectly as an alif. To take all points in turn:
1. Per MOS:INTRO, yes it should summarise the main info, but the text you had put in was verbatim text that appeared later in the article. I do support (and retained in my edit) the mention of the one-state reality, but felt this works better at the end of the lede, rather than where you had put it.
2. I removed the nature of the two states because as much as “a state for the Palestinians” is the aspiration of Palestinian two state advocates, the fact is that many of the proposals discussed in this article retain a degree of Israeli control over the West Bank and therefore could arguably be portrayed as less than a state “for the Palestinians” (I think it’s unnecessary, but don’t feel strongly about this enough to fight a re-revert though). I changed it to Mandatory Palestine because (a) I felt it was a bit more specific than Palestine as a region, and second to that (b) to my knowledge, no significant proposal has ever included the Golan Heights.
3. The pronouncements are necessary, but the text you included was verbatim text included later within the article. Thus, it wasn’t a summary of the info later in the article. The lede at present summarises the general Israeli position, Labour or Revionist, and I think specifics belong in the body.
4. I removed the sentence you added about TSS dominating international efforts to end the conflict because this information is already in the lede (4th para from end, the wording of which was already subject to a previous talk discussion). Yr Enw (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I’m just giving advanced notice I am going to revert the change you made to the lede, but because I really don’t want to give the impression I’m arbitrarily singling you out, I will just briefly summarise the reason. Happy to discuss if you want:
1. The wider context of the rise of Zionism and Jewish immigration to the territory isn’t directly relevant to the two state solution. Sure, it’s some context, but this is already in the linked Isr-Pal conflict article, I don’t think repeating it here is warranted.
2. The added wording implies a direct causal link between the Jewish immigration and the British decision to advocate partition, but I think this misses a lot of crucial information - not least that immigration itself doesn’t intrinsically carry with it separatist ambitions per se, but rather it was a specific territorial nationalist logic underpinning both Zionism and the post-WW1 international order, as well as the fact it neglects that the First Aaliyah didn’t (by most measures) possess this logic at all.
3. The lede is already long enough as it is, and that existent paragraph will need to be cut down. If you really feel so strongly as to keep the information added, I think it needs to go into the body. Definitely not the lede, which is only meant to summarise the info in the body of the article. Yr Enw (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yr Enw, I think there's a lot up here to sort out, but to start: The wider context of the rise of Zionism and Jewish immigration to the territory isn’t directly relevant to the two state solution. How? The two-state solution is a proposed solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the matter of Zionism is rather of essence, both to the conflict and to any solution. Why should it not be appropriately covered in the introduction? إيان (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like you say, it is of essence to the conflict. The TSS is, of course, a solution to the conflict, but the link to the main article on the conflict is sufficient in my opinion. If we are going to start including all the wider context in this article, why not repeat absolutely everything in the main I-P conflict article? Yr Enw (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yr Enw, to acknowledge the fundamental role of Zionism in the conflict (and therefore its importance in any discussion of a potential solution to the conflict) is not to repeat absolutely everything in the main I-P conflict article. Appropriate weight is due in the introduction. If you disagree, we can open an RfC to have input from other editors. إيان (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should because I just think it’s superfluous in this article. If a reliable source is discussing it in reference to a TSS, that’s a different matter, then it would be relevant imo. Yr Enw (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yr Enw, chapter 2 in Where Now for Palestine? The Demise of the Two-State Solution (cited 139 times) is "Zionism and the two-state solution." Benny Morris starts talking about the history of political Zionism on the first page "The History of One-State and Two-State Solutions" of his 2009 One State, Two States: Resolving the Israel/Palestine Conflict (cited 210 times). If the prominence of Zionism in these two reputable sources about the TSS is somehow not enough to convince you, we can open an RfC. إيان (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact Morris mentions Zionism (which obviously is absolutely central to the conflict - I'm not disputing that) in a book whose main focus is OSS/TSSs does not convince me that your proposed addition is necessary. If Morris is saying the logic of Zionism makes territorial partition (and thus a TSS) inevitable, that's a completely different matter.
So, I won't oppose an RfC, but just to clarify my position:
1. This discussion has (to my mind) always been solely about the lede, to which you added the words:
In the wake of mass Jewish migration from Europe in the context of Zionism and intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine
to come before:
the British Peel Commission report of 1937 first proposed the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states in the territory.
2. That wording has now changed to:
The first proposal for a separate Jewish and Arab states in the territory was made by the British Peel Commission report in 1937.
3. I remain of the view mentioning Zionist immigration is not appropriate because the added wording implies a direct causal link between the Jewish immigration and the British decision to advocate partition, which I think this misses a lot of crucial information - not least that immigration itself doesn’t intrinsically carry with it separatist ambitions per se, but rather it was a specific territorial nationalist logic underpinning both Zionism and the post-WW1 international order, as well as the fact it neglects that the First Aaliyah didn’t (by most measures) possess this logic at all.
4. If you want to add stuff about Zionism to the body of the article (per One-state solution), I don't see why I would oppose it (but not the proposed wording, for the reasons given in 3) Yr Enw (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@إيان I literally stated above that: "I remain of the view mentioning Zionist immigration [in the lede] is not appropriate because the added wording implies a direct causal link between the Jewish immigration and the British decision to advocate partition, which I think this misses a lot of crucial information - not least that immigration itself doesn’t intrinsically carry with it separatist ambitions per se, but rather it was a specific territorial nationalist logic underpinning both Zionism and the post-WW1 international order, as well as the fact it neglects that the First Aaliyah didn’t (by most measures) possess this logic at all."
And you have gone ahead and stuck this in anyway, knowing I will oppose it and inevitably revert it. I have less of a problem with your changes to the body, in which you mention this stuff (albeit my reservations above still stand without a larger context). So please open the RfC. For clarification, I also think it's just superfluous in the lede, which is already long enough. Yr Enw (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The [...] Palestinian Liberation Organisation has accepted in principle [...] a two-state solution [...] but has turned down the offers made since."

The statement "but has turned down the offers made since" is not, IMO, honest as it makes it seem as if the PLO has withdrawn its earlier acceptance of a two-state solution, rather than that it has rejected the specific offers made. IMO, those words should be removed. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The lede has undergone a few troublesome changes in the past few edits. Yr Enw (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the words "but has turned down the offers made since". Misha Wolf (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, the intention of the wording was not to imply that the PLO has withdrawn its acceptance of a two-state solution in principle, just that they have turned down every particular two-state proposal that has been made since their in-principle acceptance (most significantly, the Camp David Summit in July 2000, the Clinton Parameters in December 2000, and Ehud Olmert's reiteration of the Clinton Parameters in 2008 to Mahmoud Abbas). KronosAlight (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @KronosAlight, to make things simpler, let's leave aside East Jerusalem, Gaza, transport links between Gaza and the West Bank, refugees, etc. Let's focus on the West Bank alone and let's assume that Israel refuses to part with 100% of it. I don't know how many square centimetres the West Bank covers, but I do know that there are an almost infinite number of proposals that could be made for which particular square centimetres will be part of Palestine and which will be part of Israel. So you tell us that the Palestinians have rejected three proposals for distributing square centimetres of the West Bank between the two countries. Which of the uncountable potential proposals would Israel accept and which would it reject? The word "but" in the text I removed strongly implies that the Palestinians either withdrew their agreement to a two-state solution or are being unreasonably picky. You are now saying that you were not trying to imply the former. So were you trying to imply the latter? Surely, a truthful statement would say something like "the two sides have not reached a mutually acceptable solution" and would not be linked by the word "but" or, indeed, by any other word to a statement about Palestinian acceptance of the two-state solution. Misha Wolf (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Misha Wolf. Let’s not make things simpler, simplifying history through counterfactual thought experiments rarely works well. “The two sides have not reached a mutually acceptable solution” would be a good way of expressing this neutrally, though it seems to me important that there’s some reference to the Wiki pages of the negotiations and proposals in July 2000 at Camp David, December 2000 via Clinton Parameters, and 2008 by Ehud Olmert, so that readers can click through to explore the issue in more detail on the relevant pages than a lede section can reasonably provide. The WPs of these proposals and negotiations already explore the assessments by figures on each side about whether or not the PLO should or should not have accepted the terms offered, which I agree is not for us to judge, and can be left to the individual pages. KronosAlight (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @KronosAlight, the 5th and 6th paras of the lede link, inter alia, to articles about the 2000 Camp David Summit, Clinton Parameters, Taba negotiations, 2006–2008 peace offer, 2013–14 peace talks. So readers already have the opportunity to click through to those articles. Misha Wolf (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HI @Misha Wolf. Great, we're in agreement then. "The two sides have not yet reached a mutually acceptable solution" is a fair and neutral way to phrase it. Thanks! KronosAlight (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was just hoping to clarify whether they you wish to edit this sentence into the lede or whether I should go ahead myself? KronosAlight (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @KronosAlight, I can't see any place in the lede where it would make sense. The para starting with "Recent diplomatic efforts" and the two subsequent paras make quite clear that the two sides have not [yet] reached a mutually acceptable solution. There is also the problem that for a lot of the time since the 1982 Arab Summit, Israel has had Prime Ministers who were not interested in the two-state solution. A phrase such as "not yet reached a mutually acceptable solution" presupposes that the two sides both want to reach such a solution. This does not appear to be the case. Misha Wolf (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Misha Wolf‘s concerns here. I think introducing anything else is going to confuse the matter. Yr Enw (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"[...] Hamas announced their revised charter [...] without recognising the statehood of Israel [...] which would not constitute a two-state solution."

Please could someone justify the inclusion of the words "which would not constitute a two-state solution". According to which definition of a two-state solution is this statement true? Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no definition of a ‘two-state solution’ which does not include mutual recognition between a State of Israel and a State of Palestine. It’s been an operative baseline assumption on all sides since 1947. Without mutual recognition, it’s not a two-state solution, it’s something else, and therefore outside the scope of this specific article. KronosAlight (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, that is WP:OR because it is drawing an inference that isn’t explicitly stated by the source. In my opinion, we need to remove that sentence Yr Enw (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Yr Enw, I agree that the source doesn't support the statement "which would not constitute a two-state solution" so I've moved the citation so that it's immediately adjacent to text which is supported by the source. I've also added citations to two texts which call for mutual recognition but haven't found any text which supports the categorical statement "which would not constitute a two-state solution". And so, IMO, that statement should be softened or removed. Softening would be difficult as any statement such as "most sources/authorities agree that this would not constitute a two-state solution" would itself require a citation of a source which reports on such an analysis. Such a source may exist but I don't have the time to search for it. Misha Wolf (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all your thoughts there. I wouldn’t oppose it being removed. Yr Enw (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @KronosAlight, are you able to provide a source which states that the absence of mutual recognition would make any arrangement reached not be a two-state solution? Misha Wolf (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s primarily derived from UN Resolution 181: https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=A%2FRES%2F181(II)&Language=E&DeviceType=Desktop&LangRequested=False
Further analysis by an academic and the Foreign Affairs journal which also presuppose this:
https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-the-two-state-solution-to-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict-221872
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/palestine-strange-resurrection-two-state-solution-indyk
Exemplar recent scholarship in peer-reviewed journals:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Two-State-Model-and-Israeli-Constitutionalism%3A-Masri/3c8fba939e64bf2c4de3db6e0af05a29b148a995
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Israel's-fateful-hour-Harkabi/27511a4a9323358184a5d7c00a9d8779f133735a
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Annexation%2C-normalization-and-the-two-state-in-Shemer-Kunz/c7b14a0a4dc6d78793db65ebb502e33522e7e0fb
This isn’t something that’s actually debated, it’s fundamentally presupposed by all sides and all academics that a two-state solution would involve two mutually-recognised states of Palestine and Israel. A ‘solution’ in which two states were created but with an asymmetry of statehood-recognition might be one solution to the conflict, but it would not be the two-state solution as it has been understood since 1947. KronosAlight (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet asymmetrical statehood has characterised the vast majority of the proposals listed under a TSS (per Slater, “Mythologies without end”). Yr Enw (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what is in question. It's presupposed by everyone on all sides that any two-state solution would involve both a State of Israel and a State of Palestine recognising the existence and legitimacy of each other. Nobody disagrees with this or disputes it. Nobody in the academic literature proposes a 'two-state solution' that doesn't involve mutual recognition nor do any discuss such a hypothetical proposal. I'm not really sure where this entirely confected concern is coming from.
If you can find sources demonstrating that there exist proposals for a 'two-state solution' that doesn't mutual recognition, be my guest, but you're going to be looking for a long time. KronosAlight (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t disputing that, it was your final point about symmetrical statehood. I really do, however, have a problem with explicitly saying it the way you’ve proposed. I accept by any definition so far, de facto acceptance of Israel wouldn’t constitute a TSS (bc of lack of mutual recognition), but I would favour simply not saying anything at all. Because, per WP:OR, synthesising the sources with this data shouldn’t be done if not explicitly done by the sources themselves. In other words, unless the sources say the Hamas position isn’t a TSS, then we can’t either. Yr Enw (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Misha Wolf (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the words "which would not constitute a two-state solution". They should only be reinstated if accompanied by one or more suitable citations. Misha Wolf (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The elephant in the room

The lede is rather bizarre in that it discusses the evolution of the PLO's and Hamas's positions regarding the TSS, but appears to be wholly silent regarding Israel's position (as opposed to the results of opinion polls). We need a para describing Israel's position, located either immediately before (this would be best, IMO) or immediately after the paras describing the PLO's and Hamas's positions. I don't feel qualified to write such a para so hope that someone else will tackle it. Misha Wolf (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misha Wolf, I agree. إيان (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment: should the introduction mention or address Zionism?

Should the introduction of this article mention or address Zionism? إيان (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's useful to the RfC, Yr Enw and I have discussed this matter here and disagreed.إيان (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, just to clarify, this relates to this edit[9] and this discussion. I am not opposed to mentioning Zionism altogether, I just feel the suggested sentence potentially invites more issues than it resolves. All my opinions have been aired already in the above talk page discussion (chief amongst them that it's superfluous for the lede paragraphs, and that the wording implied a direct causal link between Zionist immigration and the British decision to advocate partition) and going without the sentence does not take anything away from the lede or the article. To address the point made about mentioning Hamas's "Zionist entity" label, again, I think we can simply just delete those words if it proves to be a problem (but imo it's not). Yr Enw (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't opposed to mentioning Zionism altogether, how do you propose it should be addressed in the introduction? إيان (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know, I just don’t like the way it was framed as suggesting a direct link between the aaliyahs and partition. I remain of the view the historical background doesn’t need to be mentioned in the lede at all, but just wanted to clarify I’m not totally opposed to it if it can be made to work. Though, if we take One state solution as a guide, it’s not necessary. Yr Enw (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Peel Commission formed in response to the Arab revolt—the report itself is explicit about this. What was the revolt against? The Arab Higher Committee was explicit in its objectives: "stop categorically Jewish immigration and land transfer into Jewish hands and to establish a parliament to which a national government would be subordinated." See more here.
Why do you feel there is not a direct link between the aaliyahs and partition? On this, you've previously written:
[Jewish] immigration itself doesn’t intrinsically carry with it separatist ambitions per se, but rather it was a specific territorial nationalist logic underpinning both Zionism and the post-WW1 international order, as well as the fact it neglects that the First Aaliyah didn’t (by most measures) possess this logic at all.
I don't get your point. Are we saying that the goal of Zionism was not the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine? I don't see the relevance of the first Aliyah in the 19th century to a partition process that started in the 1930s; the mass migrations and land transfers of the years leading to the Arab revolt are what are of essence. We can be specific about that wave of migration if that would be suitable to you.
One-state solution is a different topic; we can't assume parity. Zionism, with its imperative of establishing/maintaining a Jewish state, is logically a fundamental factor in TSS approaches in a way that it's not in OSS approaches. إيان (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Jewish-majority state is the key concept - I support including this as the long-held mainstream viewpoint that political separation (and disenfranchisement)[10] are necessary to secure the Jewish majority state conceived by Zionism, but also including that other views exist. Ben Azura (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with that, but if we're going to be sticking this in the lede, do we have a RS that makes the explicit link between the separatist tendency of Zionism and the logic underpinning the TSS? If we do, I've got no problem with that going in. Yr Enw (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources in below subsection to keep discussion neat.Ben Azura (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance of the first Aliyah in the 19th century to a partition process that started in the 1930s; the mass migrations and land transfers of the years leading to the Arab revolt are what are of essence. We can be specific about that wave of migration if that would be suitable to you.
Yes, I think if we can be more specific that would be better. I agree that the First Aaliyah isn't really relevant, but that's the problem with the wording as you'd suggested it: "Jewish immigration" and "Zionism" in general includes the First Aaliyah, so - if we're going to have the rise of Zionism in there - I think there's a better way of saying it that makes it clear we're talking about the specific separatist ambitions of the Zionist movement. I'm sure there must be sources discussing that. Yr Enw (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first and second aliyahs were of similar scale, adding 25k people and 35k people respectively, building on an old yishuv population of c. 25k, so they were both meaningful increases. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes Zionism must be mentioned for any reader to be able to understand the roots of the need for a two state solution. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Ruth Gavison or Atalia Omer could be an RS to include Zionism in the lede. Atalia Omer may be undue/controversial for the lede but Ruth Gavison's statement is non-controversial and would be appropriate to mention.

  • Gavison, Ruth (2013). The Two-State Solution: The UN Partition Resolution of Mandatory Palestine - Analysis and Sources. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 10.:

"The carefully worded compromise of the resolution adopted by the Zionist Congress in 1937 supported the principle of partition in return for a sovereign state..the principle of partition (not the particular proposal of the Peel Commission) was therefore endorsed."

  • Omer, Atalia (2013). When Peace Is Not Enough: How the Israeli Peace Camp Thinks about Religion, Nationalism, and Justice. University of Chicago Press.:

"My argument is that while the Zionist Israeli peace camp identifies itself as "liberal" in its self-perception and self-representation, the peace platforms it advances betray a commitment to illiberal conceptions of nationhood. This underlying illiberality, however, is frequently sublimated, thereby legitimating the continuous maintenance of an axiomatic claim for Jewish hegemony within the Green Line or the 1949 armistice agreements. This is clearly illusrtated by the insistence on the so-called two-state solution guiding the Oslo Accords because it entails a persistent cultivation of ethnorepublican identity and practices. The designation "ethnorepublicanism" underscores that Israel maintains an interrelated commitment to an ethnocentric Jewish national identity and to a particularly Eurocentric and orientalist interpretation of this national identity."

Ben Azura (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gavison's statement is indeed controversial, since it contradicts the original. (She is in a large company with this misrepresentation, though.) You can read the congress resolution here in its original German, or here in English translation. I challenge anyone to find any in-principle support for partition in there. What I see is a declaration of the right of the Jews to "the whole of historic Palestine, including Trans-Jordan" and denunciation of things that partition would entail such as "closing of certain parts of the country to Jewish settlement". Zerotalk 13:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you are quoting from are the "findings of the Palestine Royal Commission" about the "Jewish National Home...at the time of the Balfour Declaration". This is a different matter from the "Jewish State".
The background of all this is the rejection of the Royal Commission's policy changes to walk back the Balfour Declaration including the British assertion that "the national aspirations of the Jewish people and of the Arabs of Palestine are irreconcilable..The Congress reaffirms on this occasion the declarations of previous Congresses expressing the readiness of the Jewish people to reach peaceful settlement with the Arabs of Palestine". This is absolutely what I would expect based on how scared and defenseless these displaced Jewish immigrants must have been to hear that the British had decided the Mandate (status quo) was "unworkable".
In response, hey strongly condemn the curtailing of Jewish settlement, as you pointed out. And they say "the scheme of partition" is unacceptable.
They do go on to say "Congress empowers the Executive to enter into negotiations...for the proposed establishment of a Jewish State."
The acceptance of the "Jewish State" and the use of that language is the acceptance of what Gavison calls the "principle of partition". It's so widely accepted as to already be included in many of our existing articles. Ben Azura (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is true that many authors interpret the last clause as in-principle acceptance of partition. That's why I'm not challenging it in article space. However, I'm yet so see where any author justified that interpretation. It might be clear in the discussion that led to the resolution but where is that case presented? I think it was not explicitly mentioned in the resolution because the framers wanted delegates totally opposed to partition to be able to vote for it. Zerotalk 04:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we do include Gavison, based on that quote Zionism should be mentioned chronologically just after the Peel Commission then (albeit making clear the Congress didn't endorse Peel). That's fine to me, because it's not the kind of mention Ian was proposing adding, which went much further back. Yr Enw (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Elmmapleoakpine states above, Zionism must be mentioned for any reader to be able to understand the roots of the need for a two state solution. Such a treatment as proposed by Yr Enw, in which the Peel Commission of 1937 would somehow precede Zionism, is insufficient in addressing the role of Zionism in the origins of the conflict to which a TSS would be a resolution. Our sources for this should be historians. I have cited Morris (the statement at Israeli–Palestinian conflict ascribing the origins of the conflict to the rise of Zionism in Europe cites his 1948: A History of the First Arab–Israeli War) and Pappé, but I'm sure we could find more. إيان (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m, again, not denying Zionism is at the root of the conflict, but if that’s the only reason to mention it here, I remain of the view it’s superfluous Yr Enw (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is superfluous to mention Zionism. If the purpose of the article is to educate readers on this topic, the root of the conflict (as you say) must be mentioned. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn’t that job already done by the linked main article Israeli-Palestinian conflict though? Yr Enw (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that consensus is against the view that the role of Zionism at the root of the conflict is somehow superfluous to the introduction for this article. It's pertinent context here too.
Now there is the matter of phrasing. This is what I initially offered:
In the wake of Jewish migration from Europe in the context of Zionism and intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine, the first proposal for a separate Jewish and Arab states in the territory was made by the British Peel Commission report in 1937.(cite Pappe) (cite Morris)
Do Yr Enw, Ben Azura, Elmmapleoakpine, Zero0000, Iskandar323 or other editors have commentary or ideas? إيان (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is explicitly about a partitionist solution, not the conflict as a whole, obviously my preference would be:
In the wake of Jewish migration from Europe in the context of Zionism and intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine, the first proposal for a separate Jewish and Arab states in the territory was made by the British Peel Commission report in 1937.
But, if we absolutely must retain something of Zionist migration in the sentence, then let's look at the two suggested citations:
1. Morris (who I'm hesitant about calling a RS post-2000, but nevermind), in the quote you suggest, says the idea of transfer was "inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism". That's fine, but it doesn't say anything about two-states. All he's talking about is transferring the Arab populations out of Palestine. This is a link between Zionism and the conflict, but it's not a link between Zionism and the two state solution.
2. Pappe appears to be talking about the Zionist movement's relationship toward partition (particularly its acceptance in the 30s, which we can definitely mention and is definitely relevant,) but do you have a particular passage you suggest we utilise for this?
I am also still unconvinced, as well, of the reasons against including the same in the one-state solution. Yes, the TSS and OSS are different things, but if the reason for mentioning Zionism is because it's at the root of the conflict, this also completely applies the OSS. Yr Enw (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yr Enw, we won't go in circles. You have removed mention of Zionism and haven't made an attempt to integrate the consensus position that Zionism should be addressed in the introduction of this article. Once we are done here, I'm happy to bring it up at OSS. إيان (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to integrate Zionism into the lede, and I agree with you we should take our basis for doing so from the sources. But how do you envision it happening? Because the sentence I removed isn’t really what your cited sources say? Yr Enw (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The wording of "Jewish migration from Europe in the context of Zionism" minimizes the historical reality faced by Jewish residents of Israel. Many migrants were refugees. They were left to fend for themselves with the British withdrawal from Mandatory Palestine.
The two-state solution is based on Zionist principles but it is not equivalent to the partition. The partition is a historical event and the TSS is a well-meaning political proposal to establish the Jewish-majority state envisioned by Israel's founders without negating the Palestinian people. Israel's unique immigration policies are central to that proposal and have resulted in a society with very different experiences of Jewishness, migration and settlement.
Post-Zionists are not casting blame on Zionist migration for the conflict. They simply argue that a solution to today's conflict has to be based on today's political reality to be successful. According to these scholars, the implicit foundation of the TSS is the Zionist vision of a "Jewish-majority state", and this needs to be re-examined to the extent that it can not adequately describe today's political reality. Ben Azura (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a strong opinion about it but there is a small typo to correct.
In the wake of Jewish migration from Europe in the context of Zionism and intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine, the first proposal for a separate Jewish and Arab states in the territory was made by the British Peel Commission report in 1937.(cite Pappe) (cite Morris) Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section "PLO acceptance of a two-state solution"

If the recent edits to this section by @Corriebertus are retained then the section should be abolished as the only remaining sentence says nothing about PLO acceptance of a two-state solution. Misha Wolf (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since then, even that last statement has been replaced, by me, from this (sub)section to another: currently, it is empty. Nevertheless, I haven't yet abolished the subsection, only referred it with a link to section 'Diplomatic efforts', where one, dubious ad unsourced, statement about the PLO is made. --Corriebertus (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic archiving

Other talk pages have automatic archiving bots. (See for example page Talk:Hamas.) I’ve never made such a thing, don’t know how exactly they work. But this talk page is getting much too long, I think. I propose, we start such an automatic archiving system. Can someone, who is experienced in this, make one, please? Not a rigourous one, I propose an archiving period of 90 days, for a start. --Corriebertus (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting and updating lead section

I’m updating the first paragraph of the lead section. In the previous version, sentences one and two contradicted each other, while sentence one made an uncorroborated suggestion and sentence two stated an uncorroborated fact.
The first sentence suggested that any tss [=two-state solution] plan already exists, which is not the case, at least not corroborated in the article. The second sentence stated that the two states need to be “State of Palestine” and “State of Israel”, which is unsourced: the ‘two states’ can be any two states. (The many quotes of top politicians in our article show that they most often speak in broad, general terms of ‘two states’, not defining them already.) In the old version, sentence one and two were at odds, inconsistent: “The” tss [in the first sentence] suggested that there is one tss (plan), while “a” tss [in the second sentence] suggested there exist or may or can exist several tss’s. This inconsistency is understandable: apparently some of our Wikipedia editors believed there is one, while some others believed there are or can be several (though the fact is: currently there is none, as far as we know). This confusion was a copy of the same confusion/inconsistency among politicians as cited in the article: some speak of “a”, others speak of “the” tss. Nevertheless, no politician refers to any concretely existing plan, so there’s no ground to assume that a/the concrete plan already exists. Therefore, it is essential to directly make clear in sentence one of the lead, with clear references to sources, that: (a) ‘the’ or ‘a’ tss does not yet exist, and: (b) leading politicians disagree as to whether they should say “a” or “the” tss.

While the searched plan concerns the area of Israel and Palestine, and many distant countries favour it, the inevitable thing to mention next in the lead section is that the government of Israel appears to be opposed to any such a plan; but this was strangely missing in the former version (as two people noted on the talk page, recently).
After this new, necessary, introductory part of the lead section, the rest of the lead (concerning the history of the region and of the peace efforts) might need to be shortened. I’m not saying that anything in it is unimportant, but long and important recounts can, and from a certain point should, be placed in lower sections, leaving only a shorter summary of them in the lead section (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). --Corriebertus (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your distinction between "a two-state solution" and "the two-state solution" seems to be OR. Are there significant RS that distinguish between the two? VR (Please ping on reply) 05:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @VR and @Corriebertus, I (too) reject the claimed distinction between "a two-state solution" and "the two-state solution". AFAIK, people who use these terms mean the same things by them. I have seen no implication that the use of "the two-state solution" assumes that there is a single, detailed proposal. At the moment, the lead (confusingly and wrongly) makes out that there is some important difference between the meanings of these two terms. We should get rid of this confusing word salad asap. Misha Wolf (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My ping of @VR failed, so I'm adding @Vice regent. Misha Wolf (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to lead

@Corriebertus has made some useful, albeit quite bulky, changes to the lede that I think should be discussed.

For me, sections like:

57 states have expressed their desire for such a two-state plan, notably not including Israel. Germany has published its specific wishes for such 'two states': the "Palestinian state" should be "based on the 4 June 1967 borders" (West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem), Israel should possess the remaining 78% of the former mandatory Palestine. The rest of the G7 countries have also mentioned that "a Palestinian state" should be part of the plan; the other 50 countries have given no specifications.

belong elsewhere in the article, not in the lede, not least the opening paragraph. Even for pure readability sake, it read a bit too long to act as an introductory paragraph.

There are a few suggestions I might have for cutting it down a bit, but wondered if other editors might be able to chime in with their thoughts. Yr Enw (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of @Corriebertus's changes are quite unacceptable. They added to the very first paragraph: "Palestinians who feel disinherited either by the mere existence of the state of Israel or by the laws and the comportment of that state". This POV-pushing should stop.VR (Please ping on reply) 13:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also what is the source that there are only 57 such countries? We know that 146 countries already recognize Palestine[13].VR (Please ping on reply) 13:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the majority of it has now been removed again Yr Enw (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unhappy about the rant, masquerading as a "clarification needed", in the third para. I don't believe that that style of writing belongs in a Wikipedia article. I'm not saying that none of the points it makes should be asked (in a NPOV manner) but I object to the current tone. Misha Wolf (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SEttlements

Notably lacking in lede is Israel's decades of silent killing of the two-state solution through the strategic construction of settlements that have turned the West Bank into a series of unconnected bantustans. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Two-state_solution&oldid=1249004930"