Question: Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Title: Is a Two-State Solution (Israel and Palestine) an Acceptable Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Con Content: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has reached a critical stage. For more than two decades, the two-state solution has been the basis of international efforts to make peace in the region... A failure of the two-state solution will generate further instability in the region, strengthen rejectionist elements on both sides and likely mean that the conflict will drag on for generations... The Palestinian leadership remains committed to a peaceful, negotiated settlement to our conflict with Israel based on the two-state solution.

Title: A two-state solution is the least bad option Content: Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "The difficulties of a two-state solution are numerous, but it remains the only realistic and moral formula to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: A two-state solution makes Israel too narrow, vulnerable.

Title: Two-state solution and peace is critical to regional stability. Content: For years, the middle east has been up in arms regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a source of tension between the Muslim world and the west, and a source of tension between populations and their governments. And, as a source of tension between Muslims and the West, it has been considered a source of terrorism. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical to relieving these various tensions. In so far as a two-state solution helps end the conflict and establish peace, it helps relieve tensions and restore stability in the broader middle east and in the global fight against terrorism.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution would alienate Palestinians in Israel.

Title: Two-state solution would alienate Palestinians in Israel. Content: A two-state solution, particularly one that enables a Jewish state, will alienate Palestinians living in Israeli territory. At best, they would be second class citizens. At worst, they would be pushed out, directly or indirectly.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution would prevent return of Palestinian refugees.

Title: A two-state solution is best for peace Content: Palestinians and Israelis will not be able to live together in peace in the same state any time in the foreseeable future. The idea that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and harmony in one state, with tolerance for each other and in keeping with democratic principles of inclusion, is simply naive. This idea has been made impossible by nearly a century of direct conflict between these people. While this might change in coming centuries, it is unacceptable to adopt a one-state policy now based on these naive ideas. Israeli President Shimon Peres has argued: “Establishing a single multinational country is a tenuous path that does not bode well for peace but, rather, enforces the conflict's perpetuation. Lebanon, ravaged by bloodshed and instability, represents only one of many examples of an undesirable quagmire of this nature.”(1) This stance has been endorsed by leaders and officials from around the world: US special envoy George Mitchell has stated “In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we believe that the two-state solution, two states living side by side in peace, is the best and the only way to resolve this conflict.”(2) Pope Benedict XVI has similarly called on Israel’s leadership to embrace the two-state solution for peace with the Palestinians: “I plead with all those responsible to explore every possible avenue in the search for a just resolution of the outstanding difficulties, so that both peoples may live in peace in a homeland of their own, within secure and internationally recognized borders.”(3) Even Colonel Gaddafi, the late Libyan leader, argued that a two-state solution was essential for peace.(1) The reason the two-state solution has been recognised as the best for peace is because it respects the democratic will of both peoples for a state of their own. As Peres argues, “The Jewish people want and deserve to live in peace in their rightful, historical homeland. The Palestinian people want and deserve their own land, their own political institutions and their right to self-determination. It is vital that this cause be based on the prospect of coexistence between Jews and Arabs, which translates into cooperation in fields such as the economy, tourism, the environment and defence. Achieving all this will be possible only by granting each people its own state and borders, to enable their citizens to pray according to their faiths, cultivate their cultures, speak their own languages and safeguard their heritages.”(1) Because only a two-state solution allows for this peaceful co-existence and development, a two-state solution is best for peace and thus more justified than a one-state solution.

Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish

Title: Two-state solution gives Palestinians unequal rights Content: "The One State Declaration". Issued by participants in the July 2007 Madrid meeting. November 29, 2007: "A two-state solution is] predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora. Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return."

Title: Is a Two-State Solution (Israel and Palestine) an Acceptable Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Con Content: http://articles.latimes.com... I ask the voters on this debate to consider this when voting on conduct.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: One state is more peaceful then a two state solution.

Title: Two-state solution would prevent return of Palestinian refugees. Content: A two-state solution, and the establishment of a Jewish state, would kill the idea of the return of Palestinian refugees that were expelled from Israel during various wars and conflicts.

Title: Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution Content: A two-state solution could succeed in partitioning the land and the two peoples by including the largest Israeli settlements within Israel, possibly by allowing for non-contiguous “islands” of Israeli territory around the larger settlements surrounded by the new Palestinian state.(13) In any case, a two-state solution can find practical solutions to these problems, while having the advantage of solving the inherent and insolvable problems of having two opposed nations and identities in perpetual conflict within a single state.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution and peace is critical to regional stability.

Title: Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides Content: A two-state solution can offer sufficient territory for both Israelis and Palestinians. For Israel this would mean keeping the vast majority of areas inhabited by Israeli citizens within the state of Israel. The two-state solution would also, however, offer sufficient land to the Palestinians. While cynics might question the size of the West Bank and Gaza, optimists should look no further than Singapore for reassurance. The area of the West Bank and Gaza is nine times as large as Singapore's, yet the combined population of Palestinians in both regions is smaller than that of Singapore. Singapore enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. The Palestinians are capable of achieving similar success, through instituting a modern economy based on science, technology and the benefits of peace.(1) Moreover, throughout the years polls have consistently showed respectable Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favour of a negotiated two-state settlement.(6) Even the Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has stated that Iran would support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The success of a two-state solution, therefore, would, at a minimum, gain the support and possibly cooperation of the Iranians. This would be valuable diplomatically, particularly in resolving the larger conflict between Iran and the West.(7) Therefore, the best way to satisfy both sides and achieve peace is to adopt a two-state solution, which is therefore the most just solution.

Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: Only a one-state solution can guarantee equal rights for all

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution does not offer Palestinians enough space.

Title: Israeli settlements make a two-state solution impossible Content: Sandy Tolan. "George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution". Christian Science Monitor. February 4, 2009: "The two-state solution is on its deathbed. [...] Since the Six-Day War of June 1967, the two-state solution, based on the concept of 'land for peace,' has been the central focus of almost all diplomatic efforts to resolve this tragedy. But because of Israel's unrelenting occupation and settlement project in the West Bank, the long-fought-for two-state solution has finally, tragically, become unworkable. Consider: In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are 275,000, in more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land." [Forcibly removing these settlers would be too difficult, could foment a kind of Jewish civil war, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: A Palestinian state would threaten its neighbors.

Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides

Title: General statements in support of a two-state solution Content: US special envoy George Mitchell: "In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we believe that the two-state solution, two states living side by side in peace, is the best and the only way to resolve this conflict."

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Palestinians want two-state solution, assuming settlements stop.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Palestinian support for two-state solution declined around 2008.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution offers adequate territory to Palestinians

Title: The will make that a two-state solution will be the final settlement even if its contours are unclear Content: In the long-run UN action may freeze the negotiations into a discussion of a two-state solution, but UN action is not required to reach this eventuality. Even Avigdor Lieberman on the Far Right accepts that there will be two states, and that has been the basic premise of the Peace Process since 1994. On the issues which have actually prevented a two state solution from coming to fruition- disputes about borders, armaments, security, and settlements, the UN would accomplish nothing. Furthermore, it might well make both sides intransigent, the Israelis due to perceiving themselves as being backed into a corner internationally, the Palestinians due to the belief they no longer need to make concessions.

Title: A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish Content: The two-state solution would have Israel relinquish the West Bank, known to the Israelis as “Judea and Samaria”. Yet, these are historic regions to the Jews. Israel would similarly have to undermine its identity to give up these two regions, and so any two-state solution acceptable to Israel would have to mean the retention of Judea and Samaria. Because of the large Palestinian population in the West Bank, even a two-state solution would mean Israel could not be both Jewish and democratic.(3)

Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: A two-state solution is best for peace

Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: A two-state solution will not assuage Iran.

Title: A two-state solution is best for peace Content: Simply because past conflict has existed is no reason to believe that peace and understanding cannot be established through co-operation, shared institutions and interaction. This is exactly what a one-state solution would foster in the long term, but which a two-state solution prevents by separating the two communities. Even if they each have a state of their own, unless the Israelis and Palestinians learn to live in proximity to each other in co-operation, there will be no peace.

Title: Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides Content: Palestinian support for two-state solution declined around 2008, and is waning even among the 'moderate' Palestinian camp, as well as among additional Arab elements.(8) It is also naïve to think that a two-state solution would gain the favour or even support of Iran. Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and it wants nuclear weapons so that it can threaten not only Israel but other states in the region.(9) To this end, Iran has an incentive to keep the Israeli-Palestinian conflict big and bloody so as to distract the West from its own regional agenda. Furthermore, an independent Palestinian state would probably be perceived as a security threat to some of its neighbours, particularly Jordan, and thus might actually prompt further tensions.(9)

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: One-state would see Israeli minority ruling over Palestinian majority

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Many/most Israelis and Palestinians support two-state solution

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: A two-state solution is the least bad option

Title: Only a one-state solution can guarantee equal rights for all Content: A one-state solution is the most just because a two-state solution would inherently result in a worse situation for the Palestinians than the Israelis, whereas a one-state solution would guarantee equal rights for all. The July 2007 Madrid meeting in favour of a one-state solution put firth that: “A two-state solution is predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora.” Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return.”(14) A two-state solution, particularly one that enables a Jewish state, would also most likely alienate the Palestinian population remaining within Israel. At best, they would be second class citizens. At worst, they would be pushed out, directly or indirectly.(13) A two-state solution, and the establishment of a Jewish state, would also kill the idea of the return of Palestinian refugees that were expelled from Israel during various wars and conflicts. The Palestinian state created would also- if past experience is any judge- be highly divided (between factions such as Hamas and Fatah) and dysfunctional. This situation would have a material impact on the quality of life of citizens of the new Palestinian.(15)(16) Therefore, a one-state solution is more just than a two-state solution.

Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: Only a one-state solution can end the conflict

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Idea of Jewish state, in two-state solution, is undemocratic

Title: Two-state solution offers peace, the most important factor Content: Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "Those not committed to this solution argue that, after the creation of a Palestinian state, Israel's waist would be too narrow -- some six miles -- to ensure security for its citizens. [...] Indeed, six miles will be too narrow to guarantee full security, which only reinforces our belief that Israel's safety is not embedded only in territorial defense but in peace. Peace provides breadth of wings, even when the waist is narrow."

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state plan respects democratic will for separate states

Title: Israel and Palestine issue: Palestines future in the world map Content: Although the two-state solution is increasingly losing support among Israelis and Palestinians, it still remains the basic approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The struggle over the historical British Mandate of Palestine/Eretz Yisrael, now divided between Israel, Jordan, and the territories in between, can possibly be resolved by confederative arrangements. It can be politically transformed into a trilateral confederation"a system that combines self-rule with shared rule. It will be comprised of three distinct, independent, sovereign states: the Jewish State of Israel, the Arab State of Palestine, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and run by a Jerusalem-based confederal authority. Such a political arrangement may be the best form of government for the resolution of the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the key for a full normalization of the relations between Israel and all Arab states. This concept was first presented in 1937 by Britain"s Peel Commission and subsequently proposed by the United Nations in the 1947 Partition Plan. Since 1993, this solution has been accepted not only by the international community, but also by Israel and the Palestinians themselves. In 2002, it was proffered by President George W. Bush as a new vision for the Middle East, and supported by the Arab League. Since President Barack Obama"s first inauguration in January 2009, he too has been promoting this vision. Even Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his famous speech at Israel"s Bar-Ilan University in June 2009, spoke of a Palestinian state, albeit one with very strict limits and certain conditions. At the basis of this confederation solution is the recognition that despite the moral and historical rights of the Jews to the Land of Israel, or Eretz Yisrael, we cannot ignore the realty on the ground: Palestinians will fight tooth and nail for national self-determination. The Israelis and Palestinians have had their destiny interconnected by virtue of the common land they live in, so they must accept that the constraints of Middle Eastern geography and demography engage in cooperation and compromise. Their historical aspirations and dreams of maximizing their territory must be compromised so that the two peoples can share the disputed land of historical Palestine/Eretz Yisrael.

Title: Iranian support for a two-state solution is diplomatically valuable Content: Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has stated that Iran would support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The success of a two-state solution, therefore, would, at a minimum, gain the support and possibly cooperation of the Iranians. This would be valuable diplomatically, particularly in resolving the larger conflict between Iran and the West.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution offers peace, the most important factor

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israelis/Palestinians are too intermingled for two state-solution

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution gives Palestinians unequal rights

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israel will simply not accept a two-state solution

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israeli settlements ought not justify denying Palestinians a state.

Title: Israelis/Palestinians are too intermingled for two state-solution Content: Mohammed Khaku. "The Case for One-State Solution for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". Cross-Cultural Understanding. May 2008: "The only solution for the Palestinians is the creation of a single state in Palestine-Israel. Since the Palestinian and Israeli populations are so intermingled and a million Palestinians live throughout Israel the feasibility of a bi-national state, with the two peoples living in a kind of federation, seems workable. Given this 'reality' on the ground, the most practical solution seems to be a united democratic state offering equal citizenship for all: One Person, One Vote."

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: A two-state conflict will not end conflict

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Palestinians are too divided to constitute a state.

Title: UN support would breath new light into the two-state solution Content: Jonathan Freedland. "Britain should say yes to Palestinian statehood – and so should Israel." guardian.co.uk. September 13th, 2011: "UN recognition of a Palestinian state in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 will breathe fresh life into the ailing idea which, despite everything, remains the last best hope of Israeli-Palestinian peace – a two-state solution. By recognising a state of Palestine alongside Israel, the UN will entrench the notion that the only way to resolve this most stubborn of conflicts is for these two nations to divide the land between them into two states. In so doing it will halt the steady drift, born of despair more than enthusiasm, towards the so-called one-state solution – so-called because while it would bring one state, it offers no solution, just a single entity that would frustrate the yearning for self-determination of both sides."

Title: Israel will simply not accept a two-state solution Content: There are many indications that, despite the rhetoric, Israel will not accept a two-state solution. The most important factor is the growth of settlements, which would have to be removed under a two-state solution, which many believe would be met by violent resistance by Jewish settlers. Territorial vulnerabilities from a two-state solution, and the inability to control the borders of the Palestinian state are also problems that make Israel unlikely to accept a two-state solution.

Title: Does Palestine Deserve autonomy Content: Israel finally accepting the two state solution would be a good thing since the apartheid would end, military oppression would be stopped and peaceful stability could be achieved. The Palestinians will be free of the Knesset, be aloud to properly partake in political elections and not be culturally violated. This solution would entail the removal of the wall, granting most of the West Bank and Gaza independence, signing a peace treaty, Establishing stronger diplomatic relations with each other, halting all building of illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land and call for the complete retraction of the Israeli military in the occupied territory (Won't go into any more hypothetical detail). Both are victims of each other (con-temporarily Palestine more so though)

Title: Two-state solution does not offer Palestinians enough space. Content: A two-state solution offers the Palestinians a very small amount of territory in the West Bank and Gaza strip. This small amount of space is not going to work for such a large and rapidly growing population of Palestinians.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: One-state solution would end Israel as a Jewish state

Title: The will make that a two-state solution will be the final settlement even if its contours are unclear Content: The recognition of a Palestinian state by the UN would have de facto effect of freezing out alternative plans for a settlement – i.e. a one state solution, or some sort of autonomy – and making clear that the end result, if not necessarily two states on boundaries approximating those of 1967, will none the less be two states in some form. This is because the Palestinians, once they have gained recognition as a state, are unlikely to ever bargain it away. This in turn removes a number of the fantasies about “autonomy” floating around in Israel, as well as fears about Jews being swamped in a bi-national state. The issues of dispute will therefore be reduced to those of settling boundaries, setting up trade and customs policies, and deciding on sovereignty over holy places.[1] [1] Rosenberg, M.J., ‘Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations’, HuffPost World, 22 July 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obama-should-support-pale_b_9...

Title: Palestinians do not want peace and a two-state solution Content: Jeff Jacoby. "Peace isn't Arab goal". Boston Globe. May 20, 2009: "International consensus or no, the two-state solution is a chimera. Peace will not be achieved by granting sovereignty to the Palestinians, because Palestinian sovereignty has never been the Arabs' goal. Time and time again, a two-state solution has been proposed. Time and time again, the Arabs have turned it down."

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Iranian support for a two-state solution is diplomatically valuable

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israeli settlements make a two-state solution impossible

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: A Palestinian state would be dysfunctional

Title: Palestinian state would be base for terrorism Content: "Gaza and the two-state solution". The Recliner Commentaries. May 16, 2009: "Gaza was the perfect test case for Palestinians to prove they were ready for "the two state solution" which everyone seems to think is the best solution to peace in the mid-east--everyone but Muslim hardliners who want nothing less than Israel's destruction, that is. [...] And yet the Gaza experiment has failed miserably. The people elected a terrorist government which has spent so much of its money, not on the welfare of the Palestinian people, but on attacking Israel! [...] How can Israel be expected to support a two-state solution when Gaza has only turned out to be a base for attacking Israel?"

Title: Two-state solution offers adequate territory to Palestinians Content: Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "Dissenters from the two-state solution contend -- not without some reason -- that Gaza and the West Bank are too small to absorb the Palestinian refugees. Yet this would also be the case under the one-state formula; it would result in a state that is merely 24,000 square kilometers and that already overflows with a population exceeding 10 million (5.5 million Jews and 4.5 million Arabs). While cynics might question the size of the West Bank and Gaza, optimists should look no further than Singapore for reassurance."

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israel loses strategic West Bank mountains in two-state solution

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Palestinians do not want peace and a two-state solution

Title: Many/most Israelis and Palestinians support two-state solution Content: The New York Review of Books reported in a 2008 review of the middle east situation that "[t]hroughout the years, polls consistently showed respectable Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favor of a negotiated two-state settlement."[2]

Title: Only a one-state solution can end the conflict Content: It was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in 'sympathetic cooperation' between 'the two great Semitic peoples' and who insisted that 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.' A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein's theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein's friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a bi-national state of 'joint sovereignty,' with 'complete equality of rights between the two partners,' based on 'the love of their homeland that the two peoples share.'(10) This position has been adopted by some Palestinian leaders: In October 2005, Nusseibeh, then president of al-Quds University in Jerusalem, and several other liberal Palestinian political activists and intellectuals held a press conference in Jerusalem, stating: “We are pressing now for equal political and legal rights within a single, democratic Israel, and we are confident that our Israeli brothers and sisters will welcome us and that together we will build a free and democratic state in which Jews and Arabs will live together in peace.”(5) A two-state solution, however, would most likely foster continued conflict, for two reasons. Firstly, a Palestinian state would be base for terrorism. As seen when Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinians there did not embrace the two-state solution, but the Muslim hardliners who controlled Gaza continued to want nothing less than Israel's destruction, and Gaza's newly-elected Hamas government spent much of its money not on the welfare of Palestinians but on attacking Israel.(11) Similarly, a two-state solution makes Israel too narrow and vulnerable. A two-state solution would make Israel only 6 miles wide at a number of points where the West Bank juts into Israeli territory.(1) This creates a number of vulnerabilities, particularly the risk that Israel may become divided during a war (a not unlikely prospect). For all these reasons, a two-state solution cannot offer true peace, but a one-state solution built on co-operation and equal rights can, and so a one-state solution is more just.

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: General statements in support of a two-state solution

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israel will not relinquish Judea, Samaria in two-state solution

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Inclusive one-state solution adopts democratic principles

Title: Do you think that a two state solution for Middle East is a must Content: I will argue that (1) a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli territorial dispute is a must if we are interested in arbitrating according to a common standard of justice. (1): it is hopeless to assign an exact magnitude of blame in which one side or the other receives a predominant burden of fault. (2): in absence of exact calibrations, a 50-50 model to dispute resolution is both most practical and fairest. (3): natalist combat (meaning the struggle to demographically erode away the other party is practical but immoral)

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israelis/Palestinians can coexist peacefully in one state

Title: One state is more peaceful then a two state solution. Content: "The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more." -- Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000.

Title: Palestinians are too divided to constitute a state. Content: MJ Rosenberg. "Loving The Two-State Solution to Death". Huffington Post. December 22, 2008: "we are further from implementing the two-state solution today than we were in 2001. In fact, it can't be implemented because the Palestinians themselves constitute two states. Without Palestinian unity -- unity that ended with the Hamas election and then full seizure of power in Gaza--the two-state solution is simply not achievable."

Title: A two-state solution makes Israel too narrow, vulnerable. Content: A two-state solution would make Israel only 6 miles wide at a number of points where the West Bank juts into Israeli territory. This creates a number of vulnerabilities, particularly the risk that Israel become divided during a war (a not unlikely prospect).

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Palestinians/Israelis cannot live in peace in one state

Title: Palestinian support for two-state solution declined around 2008. Content: The Reut Institute described in a May 1, 2008 report, "a trend towards the erosion of the principle of the Two-State Solution among the 'moderate' Palestinian camp, as well as among additional Arab elements."[3]

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: General statements in favor of a one-state solution

Title: One-state would see Israeli minority ruling over Palestinian majority Content: "Is the two-state solution in danger?". Haaretz. May 21, 2009: "The left in Israel has long warned that if settlement construction continues and Israel does not separate from the Palestinians, the country will eventually slide into an apartheid-like reality in which a Jewish minority rules over an Arab majority. The result, they contend: the end of a democratic, Jewish state."

Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Palestinian state would be base for terrorism

Title: One-state solution would end Israel as a Jewish state Content: Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "A minority of Middle East pundits have recently emerged as advocates for a one-state solution, which would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of my forefathers. [...] From Israel's perspective, it is not possible for the Jewish people to accept an arrangement that signifies the end of the existence of a Jewish state." [The reason for this is that it could not be considered a Jewish state if it housed a very large Palestinian population].

Title: A two-state solution will not assuage Iran. Content: "Two States? Many Problems". Los Angeles Times, Letter to the Editor. May 7, 2009: "Iran's disbanding its nuclear weapons program is surely not dependent on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and it wants nuclear weapons so that it can threaten not only Israel but other states in the region. [...] If Iran's motivation to develop WMD was to effect resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Saudi Arabia and Egypt wouldn't have grave concerns."

Title: Only a one-state solution can end the conflict Content: These arguments about 'sympathetic cooperation' ignore the realities on the ground of two people who are and seem certain to remain violently opposed to each other as long as they struggle over control over a single state rather than each having a state of their own. Furthermore, offering the Palestinians a sovereign state of their own, free from Israeli control, would likely go a long way to satisfying the vast majority of Palestinians, and thus actually make a war against Israel far less likely. As Peres argues: “Indeed, six miles will be too narrow to guarantee full security, which only reinforces our belief that Israel's safety is not embedded only in territorial defence but in peace. Peace provides breadth of wings, even when the waist is narrow.”(1)

Title: Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution Content: A million Palestinians live throughout Israel even without the West Bank and Gaza strip, and when the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are considered also, it becomes clear that dividing these two populations is simply unfeasible. By comparison, the feasibility of a bi-national state, with the two peoples living in a kind of federation, seems workable. Given this 'reality' on the ground, the most practical solution seems to be a united democratic state offering equal citizenship for all: One Person, One Vote.(12) The ever-expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank particularly represent a barrier to the separation of the two peoples into two states. In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are 275,000, in more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land.(10) Forcibly removing settlers would be too difficult, could foment civil strife among Jewish Israeli citizens, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Title: A Palestinian state would be dysfunctional Content: "Why plans for a two-state solution in the Middle East have failed.". International Journal on World Peace. March 1, 2008: "The plan for a Palestinian state failed to comprehend that the Palestinians, unlike the Jews, had not created an apparatus for self-government."

Title: Blockade delegitimizes Hamas, preservers two-state solution Content: Yossi Klein Halevi. "There’s No Alternative." New York Times Room for Debate. June 1, 2010: "The political rationale for the siege is that only by eroding Hamas’s power can the two-state solution remain viable. So long as Hamas remains in control of Gaza, the Israeli public, which now overwhelmingly supports the principle of two states, will not agree to withdraw from the West Bank."

Title: US supports two-state solution, but not via UN Content: Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly. The White House. September 21st, 2011: "One year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine. I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. [...] the question isn’t the goal that we seek -- the question is how do we reach that goal. And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations -- if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians -- not us –- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem."

Title: A two-state conflict will not end conflict Content: Prof. Hassan Nafaa. "No Room for Two States". Global Research. February 12, 2008: "The conflict between the Palestinians and the Zionist movement is not over disputed borders or material interests and, therefore, resolvable by merely coming to an agreement over permanent borders and a give-and-take over material interests. Rather, it is a conflict between two identities, each of which claims sole propriety right over a given territory. Such a conflict cannot be solved by the same means that are brought to bear on conventional international conflicts."

Title: Communism is a logical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: My opponent argues that a communist government would unite Palestinians and Israelis because it would "combine their ethnicities". Forcing two groups of people who are deeply hostile to one another to live together is very unlikely to produce good results. It wouldn't "combine their ethnicities" it would just make tensions worse. My opponent argues that since communism distributes land equally, there would be no more territorial disputes. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians want equal land redistribution. The vast majority of Palestinians want an independent state--a fully realized and truly independent state--in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital (1). This means firstly that forcing the two countries together would be against the wishes of there people, and secondly that equal land distribution would not please either group. My opponent also argues that "Any class systems would vanish because everyone would become equal. This would also eliminate the large gap between wealthy and poor that plagues the Palestinian populace and allows the Israelis to keep power." Under ideal communism perhaps, but in practice in every "communist" country classes still existed, it would be very, very unlikely. My opponent argues that "unlike a parallel state solution this would solve the problem of unity by having the one communist party be made up of Palestinians and Israelis alike." Once again, the entire goal of the Palestinian people is to have INDEPENDENCE. What evidence is there that shows that the only alternative to a "strong central government" is a weak umbrella one? Once more, forcing them into becoming ONE people would be one of the worst things for both sides because the Palestinians want independence more than anything else. You argue that a single state solution would not unify the two groups without the constant use of force, when under your proposal of communism Israel and Palestine would be magically united without the use of force? What does China have to do with this debate? This is a debate about ISRAEL and PALESTINE, not CHINA. That entire paragraph is totally off topic, and on top of that inaccurate. Go look up the name Deng Xiaoping and then come back and tell me how "communist" China is. Communism would not solve any of the key issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is also highly unrealistic and illogical since it would not be supported by either of the people seeing as Israel is a very capitalist country and Palestine's entire goal is independence. Communism is not a logical answer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because it would not effectively solve any of the key issues, is not practically realistic, and would never be supported by the people. (1) http://www.endtheoccupation.org...

Title: Israelis/Palestinians can coexist peacefully in one state Content: Sandy Tolan. "George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution". Christian Science Monitor. February 4, 2009: "it was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in 'sympathetic cooperation' between 'the two great Semitic peoples' and who insisted that 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.' A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein's theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein's friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a binational state of 'joint sovereignty,' with 'complete equality of rights between the two partners,' based on 'the love of their homeland that the two peoples share.'"

Title: A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish Content: As described in the above quote by Peres, the vast majority of Israelis desire to live in a Jewish homeland in which they can define their own institutions and culture in light of their Jewish heritage. A one-state solution, however, would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of the Jewish forefathers. From Israel's perspective, it is not possible for the Jewish people to accept an arrangement that signifies the end of the existence of a Jewish state, which would be the result of a one-state solution, as the state could not be considered a Jewish one if it housed a very large Palestinian population, possibly even a Palestinian majority.(1) For this reason it is unlikely that any one-state solution would be truly democratic, and rather would be a situation of an Israeli minority ruling over a Palestinian majority, who would be largely excluded from the running of the country and determining their own affairs.(4) A one-state solution would only produce an explosive situation in which Jews would dominate the economy and most other aspects of the new state, creating a reality of exploitation. At that point in time, the new state would be a new form of occupation that would only set the conflict on a more violent track.(5) Therefore, the new state created by a one-state solution would be unacceptable either to Israelis or to Palestinians, as it would cease to be either Jewish or democratic, and so would not be a just outcome. Only a two-state solution can keep Israel Jewish and democratic, and allow a Palestinian state similarly to be Arab and democratic, as it would most likely wish.

Title: Israel loses strategic West Bank mountains in two-state solution Content: Giving control over the West Bank to the Palestinians would deprive Israel of the strategic asset of the mountains in the West Bank, which provide a natural barrier to foreign invasions as well as a good vantage scouting invaders or nefarious activities.

Title: Palestinians want two-state solution, assuming settlements stop. Content: Jerusalem - PLO Executive Committee Secretary Yasir Abd-Rabbuh replying to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's statements that he is ready to negotiate immediately with the Palestinians by affirming that no negotiations will take place before the suspension of the settlement activities. "Abd-Rabbuh said in statements to Al-Ayyam: There can be no negotiations unless the Israelis stop the settlement activities and we no longer wish to meet with the Israelis on the same table to exchange views and ideas while they change the facts on the ground in Jerusalem and all the West Bank. This is a policy that represents the highest forms of deception."

Title: Communism is a logical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: "Forcing two groups of people who are deeply hostile to one another to live together is very unlikely to produce good results. " They are hostile to each other for complex historical reasons, communism will not make that go away overnight. Once more, all the Palestinians want is independence, not equality. (1) There's a reason why the Palestinian Liberation Organizations is recognized as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. "Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians want equal land redistribution. The vast majority of Palestinians want an independent state" The outcome of war such as the one that occurred in 1948 is unlikely to reoccur for three reasons. 1. ) The Palestinians would be getting what they wanted, unlike in 1948. 2. ) The PLO has denounced violence and terrorism and become an observer state in the UN. 3. ) By recognizing Palestinian independence, Israel would be improving relations with its Arab neighbors, not hurting them. This would also eliminate the large gap between wealthy and poor that plagues the Palestinian populace and allows the Israelis to keep power. " Under ideal communism perhaps, but in practice in every "communist" country classes still existed, it would be very, very unlikely. If there has never been a communist country ever, what makes you think Israel could be the first one? This is an illogical answer because it is simply not realistic. Once again, the entire goal of the Palestinian people is to have INDEPENDENCE. What evidence is there that shows that the only alternative to a "strong central government" is a weak umbrella one? Once more, forcing them into becoming ONE people would be one of the worst things for both sides because the Palestinians want independence more than anything else. Just because every other option has flaws does not immediately mean that communism isn't a flawed option as well. "Real" communism under your own definition advocates class war, and something tells me that a class war wouldn't lessen the violence between Israel and Palestine. It is possible to have a fair and equal two state solution as well. I would like to congratulate my opponent on achieving the prestigious rank of "Level 69 goblin virgin mage". Once again, and I really don't know how many times I can emphasize this, the Palestinians want independence more than anything, and the Israelis want security. (2) Even now the Palestinians and Israelis live in relative separation. By forcing them together the Palestinians would be deprived of their independence, and as such would very likely lash out against Israel. This already happened in the "al-Aqsa Intifada" (3) Thus, the Palestinians would be denied their independence and the Israelis their security, meaning that neither faction had their main goal met, making communism a highly illogical solution once more. This is a debate about ISRAEL and PALESTINE, not CHINA. I used caps lock because you seem to get distracted from the argument easily and typed up a whole pointless paragraph about China, which has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. If you would like to argue the merits of Maoism, please save it for another debate. It is also highly unrealistic and illogical since it would not be supported by either of the people seeing as Israel is a very capitalist country What I meant is that Israel operates under a capitalist economic system, and that it's main export and import partner (4) as well as military ally is the United States, which would probably not take kindly to its main ally in the Middle East to turning communist. "True" communism would not work because as I have proven it would not help solve any of the main issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, would not give either faction what they wanted, and would simply not be supported by the people. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but in order to be logical something has to work practically, so you can't use semantics to try to distort the argument. Vote Con! Sources: 1. ) . http://www.endtheoccupation.org... 2. ) . http://www.endtheoccupation.org... 3. ) . http://www.endtheoccupation.org... 4. ) . http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Communism is a logical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: (No really you totally killed it) “Forcing two groups of people who are deeply hostile to one another to live together is very unlikely to produce good results. ” Must remind you that in the Communist Manifesto, Marx describes history as a class struggle, and that class ultimately divided us more than race and ethnicity, so according to the resolution “communism is a logical solution to the conflict” this is since confirmed because, we must face the facts all the Palestinians want is really equality, and the absorption and formation of a proletariat class is key to a happy society. “Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians want equal land redistribution. The vast majority of Palestinians want an independent state” Okay so here’s where I get to attack a two state solution, with a question. What happened in 1948, when the British removed troops from Palestine and the Israelis declared independence? What happened was the Palestinians immediately started uprising and six other Arab countries attacks. In my statements I addressed this by saying that the two countries would be at a constant struggle with each other, and therefore, the statement about equal distribution of land is met and affirmed. This would also eliminate the large gap between wealthy and poor that plagues the Palestinian populace and allows the Israelis to keep power. " Under ideal communism perhaps, but in practice in every "communist" country classes still existed, it would be very, very unlikely. I’ll dispute your statement by saying there has never been a true communist country ever, and according to the definition agreed upon, this would work in alleviating tensions, therefore this is also a logical answer. Once again, the entire goal of the Palestinian people is to have INDEPENDENCE. What evidence is there that shows that the only alternative to a "strong central government" is a weak umbrella one? Once more, forcing them into becoming ONE people would be one of the worst things for both sides because the Palestinians want independence more than anything else. It seems my opponent was not smart enough to catch this but, it has been my goal to attack every one of the proposed resolution to institute there flaws and irrationality’s, so that I could prove communism is a rational option. And you need to understand that no matter how much the Palestinians want independence, the resolution has to be equal and fair for both sides, and that is why REAL communism is a rational solution as it is for most other world problems. You argue that a single state solution would not unify the two groups without the constant use of force, when under your proposal of communism Israel and Palestine would be magically united without the use of force? First of all sir don’t talk lightly about magic around me I am a level 69 goblin virgin mage. :P And yes once again like Marx said “history can be viewed as a constant class struggle” so under this statement yes, the formation of the Israelis and Palestinians into a single proletariat would solve all problems of unity. This is a debate about ISRAEL and PALESTINE, not CHINA. Geez did your caps lock button have a seizure or something? This was simply to state that the rise of Maoism has worked very well for China and Maoism is a distort form of communism. It is also highly unrealistic and illogical since it would not be supported by either of the people seeing as Israel is a very capitalist country Okay, um ill just pretend you thought that one out and did not just say that… And so it is clear that TRUE communism would be a logical solution to the problem and that is all I had to prove, I never had to prove whether it would work (even though I did), and I have proven why it is logical and refuted all my opponents points, the victory is mine. Vote Pro! !! Sources: 1: . http://www.marxists.org... 2: . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3: . http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: A Palestinian State Content: The Israeli's may have control, but they are willing to compromise. In fact they have already tried. The Israeli government is not gunna straight up reject any propsotion that could result in peace. They will be more than willing to compromise. They dont really have another choice. You also said: "Now, giving the Palestineans an independent state would actually cause more problems in the Middle East than it would solve. It is the stated policy of several terrorist groups to use any land that the Israelis give to the PLO to launch further attacks on Israel. The Palestineans cannot manage themselves (as seen in the latest Hamas-Fatah civil war in which Hamas now holds the Gaza Strip and Fatah holds the West Bank). The Israelis, however, are able to keep their own house in order." Now lets talk through this. The Palestinians are mad. Why? Because we kicked them of of their land and gave it to the Jews. Gee, that explains all of the killing and hatred. Now how do we solve this problem. Well the way I see it, we have two options. 1. We can kill them all and essentially declare war on the entire islamic world. or 2. We can try to quech their anger by giving them comfort. Give them some of their land back. Give them some infrastructure; some healthcare, grocery stores, electric and water utilities. Give them less to complain about. Comfortable people dont shoot missles at their neighbors. Also, even if the Palestinians didn't quit attacking Israel, we can police the border. We can take military action. Its not like we dont do that already. Israel definatly will take military action. Palestine would hardly be a threat if they caused problems. Lastly, we HAVE to do something. Thousands have died from this comflict and more die every week. If we dont take action, this will continue. Its not just gunna work itself out. Now, I dont see any possible action that we can take except to give them a homeland. Whether or not it works is another debate entirely. The fact of the matter is, what we are doing (or rather not doing) right now isnt gunna solve the problem. At least if we try to quench their anger, we have a shot. Here is an equation to represent my point. Stolen Homeland = Unhappy people Unhappy people = War and Violence War and Violence = Death and more unhappy people Returned Homeland = Happy People Happy people = No war and violence. No War and Violence = Life and More Happy People Which equation do you choose. The answer seems completely obvious to me.

Title: Inclusive one-state solution adopts democratic principles Content: Prof. Hassan Nafaa. "No Room for Two States". Global Research. February 12, 2008: "The single, bi-national democratic state solution has the advantage of conforming to modern liberal democratic principles officially espoused in the West and in Israel itself."

Title: A Palestinian State Content: The answer is not obvious, because splitting the land between the two parties will not create happy people on both sides. Both sides want it all. Also, it is impossible to split the states among lines that will be acceptable to both parties. There is not a clear delineating line between "Jewish Areas" and "Palestinian Areas". Are you willing to force the sides to live apart? A solely Palestinian state will lead to reprisals against the Jewish communities. A solely Israeli state (perhaps with limited Palestinian administration) is the best option. This is why: Because the Israelis have shown that they are willing to live in a liberal democracy, not a terrorist theocracy (the Palestinians, when given the chance, voted Hamas into power in the legislature). The Palestinians are hostile to their neighbor Israel, while Israel just wants to live in peace.

Title: UN recognition would force final negotiations of two-state solution. Content: MJ Rosenberg. "Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations." Huffington Post. July 22nd, 2011: "Recognition of the State of Palestine by the United Nations would be a first step on the road toward successful negotiations which must follow UN action. After all, no UN action can force Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank. The army and the settlers will still be there, UN or no UN. That is why the Palestinian leadership says that one of the first things the new State of Palestine would do will be to ask Israel to commence negotiations over borders, security arrangements, refugees, Holy Places, etc. The only difference UN recognition would make is that it would be near impossible for Netanyahu to say 'no' after the United Nations had, in effect, declared that it was occupying not some vague entity but another people's state."

Title: Israel will not relinquish Judea, Samaria in two-state solution Content: The two-state solution would have Israel relinquish Judea and Samarra. Yet, these are historic regions to the Jews. Israel will not undermine its identity by relinquishing these territories, so it will not and should not accept a two-state solution.

Title: Israel is justified in their invasion of Gaza Content: Thank you for your response. "My answer to your first point is that diplomacy is completely useless in this situation because the Palestinians have 0% interest living with the Israelis, and the Israelis have 0% interest in living with the Palestinians." Although there are huge problems on both sides of the conflict, I don't believe that mass genocide is the only option to solve the middle east conflict. Diplomacy is the only acceptable long term solution, which both parties will have to undertake. "proportion is no longer relevant because Israel is fighting an enemy that has no qualms about killing civilians to win, so Israel can't either." Proportion is absolutely relevant, and key to the justification of the invasion action of Gaza. The fact that terrorists are attacking civilians in Israel does not give the justification to take reprisals against an entire Palestinian population in return. Just as (I'm not going to go to much into this) if an Iraqi terrorist attack an American citizen it does not give America the right to wipe out the entire Iraqi population. You have to concede that the vast majority are innocent of any crimes. "They hide in homes loyal to them, making the people they hide with just as culpable as them." Can you please provide any evidence to back up this statement? The Palestinian population often suffer when Hamas militants break in and commandeer their building to fight. This does not make them culpable for the actions of the militants. There are plenty of examples of people loosing children and family while these people also denounce Hamas. [1] "This is a misleading example, because that's not what is happening" Again can you please provide evidence for this statement. I have provided evidence that shows your statement to be false. Many of the people who have died are in no way allied to Hamas, simply bystanders caught in the conflict. "You quoted AL JAZEERA as evidence" Are you disputing the casualties involved in the conflict? I also provided links to two other sources. Your denouncing of Al Jazeera seems fairly irrelevant in this light. "And then you said that Israel is to blame for the humanitarian crisis in the aftermath. This is yet another fallacy. All Palestine has to do is throw the people who keep trying to start wars with Israel out, and this will all be over." This is similar to saying in a war, if one side simply surrendered then then atrocities would never have happened, therefore the atrocities are the fault of the victim. This does not justify the actions of Israel and the humanitarian crisis they created. "Don't act like this is a one-sided conflict." I'm absolutely not acting like this is a one sided conflict, and I agree that it's a very difficult situation, with no clear answers on both sides. However we aren't debating the entire conflict, rather the actions of Israel in the specific invasion of Gaza. My opponent has in no way demonstrated how the response from Israel was proportionate or reasonable, and as defined in the opening argument justifiable. He has tried to say that the Palestinian population is responsible for their own mess, and the blame should be attributed to them. I reject this statement because the Palestinian population on the whole is largely innocent, and shouldn't be subject to the humanitarian crisis and deaths as a result. [1]-http://news.bbc.co.uk...