Talk:Binational solution

message: Thia ia quotes from Rantisi.  The late Rantisi himself affirmed: "By God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine." Nor did Rantisi leave doubt about what would become of these Jews. Asked by an interviewer "what do you see ultimately happening to the people [of] Israel?" Rantisi replied: "They killed thousands of Palestinians.... so I think it is just to do with them as they did with us."
Nor are Hamas's intended targets limited to Israeli Jews. Hamas's covenant boasts: "HAMAS regards itself the spearhead and the vanguard of the circle of struggle against World Zionism [and] the fight against the warmongering Jews." It makes clear that there is to be no end of killing: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.'"
(the above comment is from User:Guy Montag according to the page history —Tkinias 23:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Palestinian Arab Groups that support Genocide against Israeli Jews

message: For NPOV purposes, I think in this article we ought to avoid making any reference to killing or genocide.  I would propose that the Binational solution simply be compared to the ideas coming from both sides that desire an ethnically or religiously homogeneous state—without getting into the methods proposed to achieve those objectives.  This article is about an alternative to the other ideas, and has gotten bogged down in arguing about those other ideas.  This argument should be going somewhere else IMO. —Tkinias 23:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be, but this is not the article to present those arguments.  This article is about the Binational solution, which is not the plan of the Jewish Right or of Hamas AFAIK.  A comparison of their ideologies or methods belongs somewhere else. —Tkinias 02:45, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong article? 

message: "an Islamist solution, which involves the military defeat of Israel, deporting and/or killing the Jewish population, and replacing Israel with an Islamic state." seems to be flipping between adding or removing the bit "deporting and/or killing the Jewish population" bit. 
If we must have this in the article, I believe that we need to expand this bit to who has said this. Even in the lead section. And if not all people who support the deportment of Jews support their killing, then this must be noted. Can we have a brief response under my comment of who has stated (with sources) that Jews should be killed? And if there are other people who want Jews to be deported but not wish for them to be killed can we also have them here to (again with sources)? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's clear that not all those who want an Islamic state want extermination of the Jews.  A strict, traditional Islamic state would extend dhimmi status to Jews (and Christians); killing them would be counter to Islamic law.  I don't know the individual spokesmen well enough to cite who has said what at what time, but given that the eliminationist version violates both law and tradition, I'm sure it has its opponents. —Tkinias 23:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  More contentious sections 

message: Here is a fragment from the text:
In the event, Begin won the election and announced (in May 1982) a formal policy of "extending state sovereignty ... over Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip" accompanied by a major expansion of Jewish settlement and the granting of "full autonomy" to the Palestinians. ...
Should this be maybe: In the event, Likud won the election, and ....
The point of the paragraph before this paragraph was about Labor vs. Likud. It is not clear then on whose side Begin was.
--Oleg Alexandrov 02:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question about a paragraph 

message: :The 1973 Yom Kippur War was both a military and a political disaster for the Arabs and the Palestinians in particular. The defeat of the Arab armies prompted a fundamental political rethink among the Palestinian leadership.
Could someone please explain/expand on this? The Yom Kippur War article suggests that the war was a success for the Arabs, as they regained some territory. —Ashley Y 12:26, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
::This 1st sentence is wrong, even bizarre.  The Yom Kippur War article is much more reasonable.  The standard assessment is that the Yom Kippur War was a military draw or stalemate, and thus a psychological success for the Arabs, and that in the long run, politically, considering war as a continuation of diplomacy by other means, that it was a success for the Arabs, Egypt in particular. This being said, the second half of the second sentence is correct that it was the turning point that convinced the Palestinian leadership that the (conventional) military option was illusory and that it thus produced fundamental political redirection in 1974. --John Z 20:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yom Kippur War 

message: As a new Wikipedian, it is with some circumspection that I enter this
process, but with the object of making a good and informative page
yet more so, while cautioning that my ardent personal bias in 
favor of a binational solution should be taken into account when 
reading these remarks as we strive for the goal of NPOV.
Since much effort has gone into this page already, especially as a
newcomer I find it less daunting to "discuss first, and attempt
reverts later." The questions both of what is important enough to
include, and how to achieve NPOV, are areas where I seek guidance
from the authors of this page or other more experienced people.
First, a conceptual point: while binational proposals often call 
for one binational state in Palestine/Israel (1922 Mandate 
Palestine) "from the Jordan River to the sea," a single state is 
not a logical requirement of binationalism, and some proposals do 
call for two or more binational states, for example
         A two-state proposal
As the Two-state solution page discusses, a "two-state 
solution" typically implies "Two States for Two Peoples," that is, 
one state "owed" by Palestinian Arabs, and the other by Israeli 
Jews. In contrast, binational proposals involve one or more states 
with power sharing based on political parity and recognized 
nationality rights for both peoples in each state.
Practically, a "two-state solution" as usually formulated implies
that whatever might happen in the Palestinian state created in 
part or all of the 1967 territories, Israel proper within the 
Green Line (the pre-June 1967 borders defined by the 1949 
armistice lines) would retain the status quo as a "Jewish state" 
with Jewish predominance both politically and demographically.
In contrast, typical binational solutions involve "a different
Israel" (to quote the current page) transformed into "a state of 
all its citizens," with specific nationality rights for both 
Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews. This is the essential 
difference from a "two-state solution," even if the 1967 
territories are organized into a separate political entity, at 
least for a time. The program of the National Democratic Assembly 
or Balad Party in Israel might lead to such a result: two states 
in Palestine/Israel, but not a "Two-state solution" as usually 
understood. 
Also, as is suggested in the Two-state solution entry, this
approach differs radically from many binational proposals in its
response to the Palestinian exodus and the question of a
Palestinian right of return within the Green Line. While the
"two-state solution" favors the return of those refugees of 1948 
who so choose to the new Palestinian state rather than Israel 
proper, binational solutions often favor large-scale 
implementation of this right within the Green Line.
This right of return within Israel, if many 1948 refugees chose it
(for example, those living in nearby Gaza or Lebanon), could 
greatly accelerate demographic trends toward a Palestinian Arab 
parity -- an outcome compatible with a binational solution based 
on equal partnership between the two nationalities, but not with a 
two-state solution based on "a strong Jewish majority" in Israel 
proper. Thus one argument for a binational approach is that it 
would permit the full implementation of refugee rights which 
organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch 
see as basic under international law.
Another conceptual distinction is between the general approach of 
"a secular democratic state" with equal citizenship for all, and 
the more specific category of binationalism, where Palestinian 
Arabs and Israeli Jews are additionally recognized as 
nationalities enjoying certain collective rights.
In one perspective, these categories might have various shadings 
and degrees of emphasis between the theme of each individual as an 
equal citizen, and the state as also an association of national
communities. As one poster has mentioned, the "consociational"
structure of Lebanon (actually bi-religious rather than 
binational) is one model which has been discussed and debated in 
the dialogue about binationalism in Palestine-Israel.
One concern of a more structured consociational style of
binationalism analogous to the case of Lebanon is that it might
emphasize the individual's role as a member of a specific group 
above the individual's rights and responsibilities as citizen of a 
common society and state. Also, it has been argued that strict 
national or religious quotas or allocations for specific 
government positions can interfere with flexible and responsive 
democracy. 
Thus binational proposals must seek some balance between the 
themes of equal citizenship ("a state of all its citizens" or "a 
secular democratic state") and specific nationality rights for the 
two peoples.
One more comment for now: the topic of binationalism as a position
popular among the Palestinian citizens of Israel, and represented 
in the Knesset by the National Democratic Assembly or Balad party 
with Azmi Bishara, MK, as one noted leader, deserves at least a 
brief discussion, with Asad Ghanem of the University of Haifa as 
an important scholar and proponent of this position.
Why don't I leave it here for this note, and seek feedback before
writing some further suggestions for additions to the historical
presentation?
Most appreciatively,
Margo 03:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideas for possible revisions 

message: The most recent edit of this article removed an "unreliable source", specifically a sentence about a poll of Israeli attitudes toward transfer of the Palestinian and Arab populations.  The reference given was a link to informationclearinghoust.info.  If the unreliability of the source was the problem, replacing the link with a reference to the original source,
a Haaretz article about the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies poll, would have been a better edit, in my opinion.
As it turns out, I agree with removing the sentence, for another reason: it doesn't belong in this article.  There are many alternatives to a Binational solution.  We shouldn't begin listing them here. DRE 21:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unreliable Sources" 

message: I propose that citations to z-mag be removed; it makes no more sense to cite Z-Mag (pro-Palestinian) than it does to cite Arutz-7 (pro-Israel), Zionism On The Web (pro-Israel), or Electronic Intifada (pro-Palestinian). In my opinion, none of these sources meet the reliability and neutrality criteria of Wikipedia. ← Michael Safyan 18:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Z-Mag

message: A "binational state" is an oxymoron. A nation is defined as a collective that sees itself as a unique entity, and thus asserts it's right to self rule - to sovreigneity. It is obvious that no two nations can co-exist in one operating state: their very essence demands a unique nation-state. 
I propose to raname the article to "bi-ethnic" or "bi-cultural.--Lidless Eye 13:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can work. The United Kingdom has lasted for hundreds of years: England + Wales + Scotland + varying bits of Ireland. Rwendland 19:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An oxymoron 

message: The binational solution is a specific implementation of the one state solution.  However, this article seems to cover all varieties of the one state solution.  Therefore, I propose a move to one state solution.  Anyone oppose?--Urthogie 01:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you make a good point.Doright 02:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. One-state solution is the term most commonly used. The change hasn't been made yet; I'll do it. MP (talk•contribs) 11:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  articles name should be one state solution 

message: The second paragraph currently says: "The new state would have either secular character, or a dual Jewish-Islamic character, rather than being solely Jewish."  What does Solely Jewish Character mean?  What is the "character" of a state?  Is this implying that the "character" of Israel's Supreme Court is not secular?  Does this imply that Israel is a theocracy or not a secular state? Doright 03:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This also does not make any sense. Jewish, in the context of Israel, refers to a nationality whereas Islamic refers to a religion. -- Michael Safyan 05:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solely Jewish Character? 

message: Here are some examples from the article:
#"It had a few hundred members, mostly European-born intellectuals like Buber..."Intellectualism is a value judgement. The term should only appear within direct quotes to other sources.
#"...number of prominent Palestinian, Israeli and other academics and activists..."Prominence is also a value judgement.
#"...there was considerable debate..."How much is considerable?
← Michael Safyan 17:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel Words

message: I noticed that the words Islamist and Arabist are used early on; but then it talks about Israeli Jews, as opposed to Zionists. Lack of balance here ? If Islamist and Arabist are used (and they have strong political/extremist overtones), then shouldn't the word Zionist be used too? If this proposal is rejected, then perhaps it would be better to avoid Islamist and Arabist and substitute something less emotive (but I can't think of anything off hand). Just a few thoughts. Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 11:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query on emotive words.