Israel/Palestine

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.