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.
= new reply since forum marked as read