Replies

The Arabs could always form their own state in the current territories, the issue is they want Jerusalem.

The eastern half of the city still has an Arab population. But the issue is more than just Jerusalem. There is the question of the settlements that Israel wants to keep and would break up any contiguous Arab territory, Israel also wants to maintain underground water rights, and the Jordan Valley. The latter would deprive the Arab state from having a non-Israeli international border. On the Palestinian side there is their refusal to give up on the return of the refugees.

Annexing and granting them citizenship is suicide

As a Jewish state, granted. Either choice is unpalatable. The problem started with unrealistic expectations of the founders of Israel. At the time of the partition the Jews only comprised around 30% of the population yet were to be given half of the land. They ended up with 70% of the land after independence. Additionally, the partition was imposed on the Arabs without negotiations and without their consent. Thus conflict was inevitable. While am truly not any fan of the Arabs, there can be no peace until the Jews recognize that the Arab population of the territory have the same rights as they do. Israel needs to face the reality and make some hard choices. I do not envy them and of the two choices, annexation or partition, I do not know which is better.

No, the “settlement” issue is a canard blown out of proportion by anti-Israel leftists.

There are no “unrealistic expectations” for Israel. There is a pervading antisemitic spirit, especially out of Europe, that does not want the Jews to have Israel as its own.

The British screwed the pooch when the Ottoman Empire finally disintegrated; ever since then its might equals right when the British washed their hands of the place. The Pope should let nature take its course and work "on his own glass house".

Palestinians have plenty of other options if they would only assimilate and pipe down. But no, you have Western sympathetic voices prolonging the situation by trying to shoe horn peace where there will be none. If fact, the more the West is involved (Hands on, not just trading partners) in the ME the worse the situation gets.

At the time of the partition the Jews only comprised around 30% of the population yet were to be given half of the land.

The partition never took place. There was a war. The final state did not have a 70% Arab population, because they left, either by invite, or in blind panic after the Jews remained standing and breathing, or in blind panic after the overblown rumors of the Deir Yassin incident.

They ended up with 70% of the land after independence.

This of course is 70% of 30% of the land, since the other 70% was taken from the Jewish Homeland by the League of Nations in order to invent the state of Transjordan.

Additionally, the partition was imposed on the Arabs without negotiations and without their consent.

Ha! The Arabs refused to negotiate, because they refused to consent to a Jewish state or a Jewish homeland of any size whatever, as they did in 1937 as well.

Thus conflict was inevitable.

No, it could have been avoided if the Jews had only abandoned any claim to a Jewish Homeland pursuant to the League of Nations charter ratified by the UN, and agreed to live as dhimme in Southern Syria and Northern Egypt, for so long as they would be tolerated by their Arab neighbors, which would not have been long.