Originally Posted by
atsawin26
Pragmatically speaking, this whole situation would have ended decades ago if Israel's Arab neighbors had put their money where their mouths were and had actually absorbed the Palestinians (most of whom CHOSE to leave Israel after the declaration), instead of keeping them in camps or enclaves in order to continue to use them as a cudgel and casus belli against Israel. I don't see what would have been wrong with a population shift. The West loved the idea when it came to previous conflicts, like Greece/Turkey, where over 1 million refugees were created by a mandated population transfer.
The unacceptable options are:
1. Genocide of Palestinians (besides, if that's what Israel was really doing it'd have been done years ago)
2. Genocide of Jews in Israel (Arab states have tried, but it won't happen)
3. Jews migrating out of Israel (not a feasible solution, and honestly, if you think so, you do have issues with Jews)
So both sides need to live there now. That leaves a 1-state solution and a 2-state solution.
2-state solution won't happen, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians 97% of their demanded lands in the 90s, and they still turned him down. The Palestinians want, at the very least, 100%, they won't accept any agreement where they don't get every single thing they want. And for some of them, that would mean Israel disappearing, for others it would mean crippling Israel.
A 1-state solution is really the only logical way forward as I see it now. The problem with that is the fact there are elements on both sides that would rather see war than give in and live in one state.