Both sides can run their portion as they please. No worries about finances, military, etc. Israel can run its country. Palestinians can run their country. It’s the best solution.

provided by the opinion writer that may well play into the shape of things and the success or failure and why it is not as simple as just carving borders? I took his piece to not be for or against but to rather say there is much more here than meets the eye to be dealt with.

then they both have to deal with each other and nothing will change. They need a complete divorce so both sides thrive.

So, if you don't like the proposed two-state solution, what do you propose? Israel, the West Bank and Gaza all merge into one country with religious pluralism? Yeah, that worked in Yugoslavia. Gaza becomes part of Egypt? The Egyptians have made it abundantly clear that they don't want Gaza. They can't absorb the extra people. Plus, Hamas is guaranteed to cause trouble for a country that is highly dependent on tourism.

My post is not about being for or against the "two-state solution".

written by some yahoo who doesn't like Jews. News flash, Zionism is a anti-colonial movement, because Jews are indigenous to Israel and the Levant and have been living in their homeland for thousands of years. People like the author are bigots and propogandists, in fact everyone that thinks Israel is an example of settler-colonialism is antisemitic whether they acknowledge it or not. It's like these self declared anti-zionist progressives who promote this neocolonial lie turn into magats in the way they reject real history and replace it with revisionist history. Its a concerning trend, and it's only going to get worse. Historical truth has somehow fallen out of favor.

of nuance here that I pointed out that the writer highlighted. One of those points is that simply rearranging "deck chairs" of someone's existence and then telling them "you are now free" is patent nonsense and is likely dooming the matter to complications that were in fact foreseeable and could have been addressed. He uses as an example some of the former colonies in Africa now being "independent" but still very much controlled by outside influences. So the reason I posted the opinion piece and gave the discussion of issues I did was not for the purpose of being for or against any position but rather to highlight to people that what sounds like a simple solution, aka "two-state solution", is anything but simple and may well be an exercise more of rearranging deck chairs than much else. No matter which way it goes it is not a simple matter.

I believe the opinion writer is 100% correct in saying that the Palestinian people, and I take him to mean the average person and not the supposed current leaders, should be clear about what it is in this proposed solution that they would actually be getting. Simply waving a wand over some manufactured border and claiming to people "you're now free" is folly if in fact their existence is going to be much like before.

I clearly stated that some of the words the writer used were needlessly inflammatory but I made it clear that I was pulling out from the piece as written some larger points that are appropriate for discussion and that are not typically in the conversation much in the West when diplomats,pundits and commenters on web sites talk about the "two-state solution". I don't believe the writer was advocating one way or the other regarding that proposed solution but rather pointing out some larger points about these sorts of matters and using post-colonial examples.

The editorialist is an unapologetic, anti-West extremist.

I placed in the post and therefore were unable to see that I was referencing a couple of specific points rather than the needlessly inflammatory words/statements as I said. It is a rule for posting in this forum that the entire article must be posted and not just excerpts. That was also the reason for my disclaimer placed up front in the OP. So if I wanted to exclude everything from the opinion writer with the exception, for example, of his point about the need for clarity about any proposal it would have been a forum violation.

As I have stated here and in the OP the general discussion in the Western media, politics and comment sections of web sites discusses the "two-state solution" proposal as though it is a simple matter of drawing borders and people not attacking each other. As the opinion writer points out it is a far more complicated matter than just that simplistic view. He uses the example of people in African countries being told they were "independent" when the reality is much complicated and may have lots of outside influence and control despite a label of "independent" being placed. So the writer states, correctly so, that the Palestinian people should have a clear understanding of exactly what this supposed "solution" would really be and the aspects that might not be what they thought because they can sow the seeds for issues to cause future strife and unrest. As exampled by the African countries.

As far as the disclaimer by Al Jazeera, that is a standard disclaimer that publications place on their editorial pages as it applies to outside editorials. As far as quoting any other writings by that editorial writer as a means to discredit the points I chose from the editorial I referenced it is meaningless. It tries to negate a simple point about the need, and indeed the right, for clear disclosure on a particular issue by pointing to statements by the author on other matters. The need for clear disclosure is an obvious thing on it's face but it is one, as I said, that is muddled by people thinking it can be reduced to a simple scenario.

The idea of a "two-state solution" is not a simple scenario and the opinion writer pointed out some aspects as to why that I felt were worthy of highlighting for discussion. I do not subscribe to an intellectually dishonest position that because much of what someone writes or expresses is, in my view or the view of anybody else, incorrect or inflammatory that everything they express on every aspect of every subject is to be discarded.

Any chance for a "two-state solution" was murdered on the evening of 4 November 1995
by those that now hold power .
Any chance that politically things could have changed was murdered on the morning of October 7th .

There never will be a "two-state solution" .

to highlight that the average Palestinian needs clarity and truth about what it is exactly that might be actual circumstances about something with that "two-state" label because, as the opinion writer pointed out, simply drawing borders and declaring that people are now "free" can be way more complicated than that and can sow the future unrest/failure of such a "solution". People in the West are too conditioned to the idea that it is only a matter of borders and not attacking each other. As the writer points out it is way more than that as he points out the nations of Africa have found out and the "independence" granted them may not have been full blown "freedom". So he points out what is what we are going to do here in this new push to establish a country?

I found the perspective on the question of "two-state solution" to be different than what is typically seen in the West and I drew out that part of his piece for discussion of the question he poses. As I noted I felt parts of his piece were needlessly inflammatory and I did so in order to try to focus on the central question.

where I said some of the words of the writer were needlessly inflammatory and that I was pulling some larger points from what he wrote? My point has been stated also in my response to comments. So if I tell you the inflammatory stuff is not what I'm referencing you can make book on it. Posting rules require that the entire article is put up even if we only are using a portion. I cannot help it if the writer had a few points that are worth discussing mixed in with much that isn't. I am not allowed per the rules to only excerpt.

It is a valid point of the writer to point out the need for clear disclosure to the Palestinian people what these supposed "two-state solutions" would actually be in reality for their daily lives. He uses the African examples of how people can be told "independence" will be one thing when in fact it is quite another. He rightly points out that the lack of clarity may well simply be sowing the seeds of future reasons for strife and unrest.