What’s the root cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 фев 2024
- Eli Lake of 'The Free Press' debates author Jeremy Hammond at The Soho Forum
--------
reason.com/podcast/2024/03/01...
--------
On Monday, February 26, 2024, reporter and podcaster Eli Lake and author Jeremy Hammond debated the resolution, "The root cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the Palestinians' rejection of Israel's right to exist."
Taking the affirmative was Lake, the former senior national security correspondent for The Daily Beast and Newsweek. He is currently a reporter at The Free Press and host of The Re-Education podcast. He has also contributed to CNN, Fox, C-SPAN, Charlie Rose, the I Am Rapaport: Stereo Podcast and Bloggingheads.tv.
Hammond, an independent journalist and author, took the negative. He is the author of several books, including Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.
Woah an actual nuanced discussion on Israel that didn’t immediately evolve into a violent fight. How rare!
I notice that Eli Lake is wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the image of Menachem Begin, who was a commander of the Irgun, a terrorist organization famous for detonating a bomb in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing 91 people on 22 July 1946, and the _Deir Yassin_ massacre that killed at least 107 Palestinian Arab villagers, including women and children, carried out together with Lehi on 9 April 1948.
Albert Einstein, in a letter to The New York Times in 1948, compared Irgun and its successor Herut party to "Nazi and Fascist parties" and described it as a "terrorist, right wing, chauvinist organization". [source: Wikipedia]
Maybe his Pol Pot shirt was in the laundry.
"In 1988 Arafat declared an independent Palestinian state." So why didn't they declare it in 1948 and we could have avoided all of this?
Because the conflict isn't about Arabs wanting a Palestinian state. It is about Arabs not wanting Israel to exist.
Because they never wanted Palestine partitioned. They wanted one country for everyone, jews, muslims, christians
@@nilskp Why should they care if they live in a Jewish country? The Arabs in Israel have the highest standard of living of any Arabs outside America. They are supporting Israel in the war against Hamas. Half the Arab countries are supporting Israel. None of them want Iran extending its influence.
@@nilskp To quote the Stones, you can't always get what you want. But if you try some time, you just might find, you get what you need.
@@nilskpNot for Jews. Arab states sent armies to exterminate Jews.
I attended the debate. I was expecting some sort of demonstration outside or disruption inside, but basically there was none. A couple of times people in the audience blurted something out, but they quickly calmed down. The debate proceeded in the best traditions of the Soho Forum.
I don't think either debater did particularly well, but it seems to me the Eli Lake guy probably won. Was that the consensus in the audience?
@@jeremyblock7032 I don't know that there was a consensus, and these debates are subject to tactical voting. If I want one side to win, I could vote for the other at the outset knowing that I will change my vote at the end. Of course, *I* would never do anything so dishonorable. We should ask Nick Gillespe or the organizers if they got more feedback.
@@jeremyblock7032Jeremy won the debate by taking more votes from the originally undecided group.
Constructive criticism (actually about a persistent problem on all videos from Soho Forum): the camera operator needs to stabilize the master shot camera, and not touch it unless necessary to recompose the shot (almost never). This has always lent an amateur look, and the shake is an unnecessary distraction. Even though the Sheen Center's balcony has a slight bounce, properly using lenses with Optical Image Stabilization will make this problem disappear. If the camera operator is being paid for this work, all of the above is "should have known" practice.
Hamas militants number approximately 30,000 depending on the source that you look at. But it was approximately 30,000 at the beginning of the war. There are 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza. This means that Hamas makes up approximately 1.3% of the population. According to Al Arabiya news which is not friendly towards Israel two civilians die for every member of hamas that dies. 1/3 of those killed are members of Hamas. That is 33% of those killed being Hamas fighters, even though Hamas only comprises 1.3% of the population. This means that a member of Hamas is 33/1.3= 25.38 times as likely or 2538% more likely to die than a civilian.
What’s the root cause?
People
No, its the Rothschilds and their Balfour Agreement. They own all the lands of Palestine and offered it to the Jews to call Israel if they could get America into WW2.
Incorrect
The Balfour Agreement is the root cause. The Rothschilds promised the lands of Palestine to the World Jewry if they could get America involved in WW2.
ego...
@@mkultra7760 religion of peace
On the one hand "no state has a 'right' to exist" on the other hand "Palestinians have the right to self determination". Is it just me or is that a difference without a distinction?
A state has a right to exist though.
There is a clear difference. An abstract ‘state’ could exist while denying all rights to the population of that state. In that case, the right of the state to exist would contradict the right of the population to self-determination. The argument is that the existence of the state of Israel as currently constituted denies the rights of about half the population (ie the Palestinians in the occupied territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and arguably Gaza) to self-determination.
@@christoffel840meanwhile every single Arab country denies the rights of non Arabs
@@christoffel840 a state is not an abstraction.
...the the extent that a state is a collection of people in a region ✌️
If you don't know the difference between an armed gang of criminals claiming power over all with the individual people, you won't be able to progress further with an honest, intellectual debate.
"Much of the land was the negev desert" he conveniently doesn't mention access to the red sea
You could see how this went by following the stuttering counter arguments of the second guy.
I felt a bit sorry for him.
From the negative side (pro palestine) it sounded like very few facts but a lot of ya but this guy said "x" and this guy also said "x" so we must agree with them.
A fine _ad hominem_ argument !
In international there’s no such thing the right of a state to exist, but the right of the individual to exist that must be protected by the state. I’d want this line of argument to expand.
Hammond isn't arguing from international law; he's arguing from natural law based on libertarian principles. International law very clearly respects the right of states to exist and to defend themselves.
Thanks!
Both sides don't want to be neighbors
Israel has consistently shown a willingness to compromise for peace.
false
@@thistle_boy i think this is more true than anyone in the west would like to admit, regardless of their political sympathies. the simple fact is the israelis think historic palestine belongs to them and that the palestinians are arabs who should go live in one of the numerous arab countries in the region. and the palestinians still see the israelis as foreign interlopers who should give back the land taken in 1948 and 1967 etc. and either leave or submit to a single arab majority state encompassing the whole territory.
They were neighbors, but the jews wanted an exclusive ethnostate
@@meshzzizk The Jews have repeatedly and publicly accepted the right of an Arab Palestinian state to exist alongside Israel. From 1948 to 1967 there was nothing Israel could have done to stop it if Egypt and Jordan wanted to establish one. And as recently as 2008 Israel has agreed to terms for a Palestinian state. It's the Palestinians who have never been able to accept any form of partition.
Has anyone else made the observation that Israel supporters seem to always convey that they are pro two states and do admit Israel has done things wrong and that palestine can and SHOULD exist. While palestine supporters dont feel compelled to do ANY of that? Even if it is just for show, i think it speaks volumes that pro palastine people feel no need to acknowledge jews rights to ANYTHING or even that palastine has done anything wrong ever.
because it's a one sided issue, where most of the damage has been wrought one side that this isn't so much a conflict as it is one side occupying and colonizing the other. not that palestinians should absolved of what they've done either, that's not what they are even asking, but they got a right to their anger.
@@GrokEight the problem is that the conflict is one sided. Israel cannot lose, victory for Israel is assured. The best Palestine can hope for is a compromise and every conflict reduces their strength and Israel's willingness to compromise. That the losing side is the one that demanding a one state solution is exactly why it will eventually be a single state - just not the one they want.
@@TombaFanaticit's not really a war though. it's just an occupier and colonizer punishing the occupied. they are not on equal footing.
@@GrokEight, do you understand anything you're saying? Have you ever been there? Or do you just cite talking points without thinking... Don't embarrass yourself, read a bit...
Gaza has not been occupied since 2005, it has a blockade from Israel and Egypt from importing anything which can be used to slaughter Jews or Egyptians... Needless to say the blockade is not 100% tight...
@@GrokEightcould be. Yet they had multiple opportunities to claim their independence and take their destiny into their own hands. For that you need to compromise.
But if you see the Israeli state as a Zionist entity that doesn’t have a right to exist in the region, it doesn’t make much sense to compromise, does it?
Even when Arafat signed the Oslo accords he portrayed it
The his own people as a Trojan horse, backed by the idea of “Hudna” and Mohammed’s hudeiba agreement (peace only as long as were to weak to wage war basically).
20:19 to 20:28 - Does he not know that some people do _not_ think that Israel has a right to exist? What does he think "from the river to the sea..." means?
And...Eli Lake wins the Interwebs! "If you want to get straight, read Norman Mailer," Lloyd Cole once sang, "Or get a new tailor." Today, one ought to say, "If you don't want to be fake, listen to Eli Lake, or all hope forsake." Get blue-and-white pilled, E.L >is the messenger of Elohim, got it?
Is that a rhetorical question?
Your first mistake is thinking that particular Arab group have any claim to the area.
When Jeremy asserted that "no state has a right to exist", that should have been the end of the debate. It's plainly obvious that refusal to accept the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state has always been the root of the conflict. When Jordan occupied the West Bank from 1948-1967, Palestinians didn't consider it occupied. Only Jews and other infidels can be "occupiers" on what Arabs consider to be Muslim lands. Until they let go of that belief, there can never be a two state solution.
Fundamentally, the debate question is mis-framed. Since the problem was started by Arab violence, perhaps half a century BEFORE there was a state of Israel, the root is not the Arab rejection of the right of the State of Israel to exist. Rather it is the Arab elites' stoking of prejudice against Dhimmis having first class rights in dar-al-Islam. Arab glorying in violence against Jews is the root of the problem. All the reciprocal wrongs stem from this original wrong and would not have occurred but for the original Arab violence.
Somehow you do not want to see obvious that all the problems started by the Zionist project. Arab violence was the answer to the Zionist project.
No the problem was started by the denial of the palestinians the right to self determination. If an armed militia group today declared an independent state that included your neighborhood and half the state you are in there would inevitably be violence. If i declare your house my house and am willing to defend my declaration with violence there will inevitably be violence. The use of violence by arabs definitely does not negate their legitimate grievances against the israelis.
@@jepper6140 Did you actually read what I wrote? Arab violence against Jews began at least half a century BEFORE there was a state of Israel. And the major massacres of Jews, stoked by Amin al-Husseini began in 1920, almost three decades BEFORE the state of Israel. Please explain how the declaration of the state of Israel somehow justified the Arab violence predating it by many decades?
@@rational-being Did you know Jewish violence against Arabs began at least half a century BEFORE there was a state of Israel. If you are going to claim that no jews killed a single arab even in the times of the ottoman empire then you have no credibility. Did you know European violence against the Jews began centuries before the formation of a Jewish state. The Shaw Commission found that the reason for the hostility between jews and arabs was because the arabs rightfully thought that their national aspirations were in jeopardy with large migrations of jews.
If you think I am here to justify violence against the jews then you are mistaken The jewish people do not get to declare a state against the wishes of the majority of people who live there. This is basic stuff. Everything that follows should be viewed from the lens of a violation of the Palestinian's right to self determination. They have the right to be angry.
@@rational-beingIn response to the 1920 Nebi-Musa riots, the British Palin Commission issued a report. From Wikipedia:
“The report blamed the Zionists, 'whose impatience to achieve their ultimate goal and indiscretion are largely responsible for this unhappy state of feeling’ and singled out Amin al-Husayni and Ze'ev Jabotinsky in particular.”
Unfortunately your Zionist propaganda is easily rebuked by anyone willing to familiarize themselves with the true history of the conflict.
9:44
Oh yeah let's talk about the Israeli tunnels under Old Jerusalem or their plans to re-build an ancient temple.
International law has a principle in place for the basis of what the borders of a new country should be based on.
It's called the
UTI Possidetis Juris Principle. For creating these new States. ( It uses the last geopolitical borders of the last entity that existed there. It doesn't basis it on population demographics).
And in Israel's case the last geopolitical entity to exist before the land was occupied by various Empires, was the Jews. And under the San Marino agreement it was agreed that the Palestinian Mandate would be Israel. Just as other mandates created IRAQ, syria and Lebenon Hence claim, 'Palestinian land' has no legal or historical basis to support it.
Root cause
Religion of peace
that's really the definitively incorrect way to view this as organizations before hamas were secular, there are palestnian christians and many secular and atheist israelies.
looking at this way, only perpetuates the conflict, it's not religious conflict, like at all.
@@GrokEight you don’t know a damn thing. I am from Iran. I studied Quran for 12 years. Educated yourself
ok cool, you're still wrong@@whousa642
@@GrokEightit might have not originated as a religious conflict, but it has certainly become one. The fact that there are some Christian Palestinians or different people of different religion and ethnicities is irrelevant to that fact. There are many other people who do see this as a religious conflict, and many of them like Hamas since the 80’s are extremely popular on the streets. There are enough of them, and by now enough Israeli religious extremists, to make this a religious conflict as well as a national one.
The Jews in the USA were never evicted from the USA. The USA is the homeland for millions with ancestral roots allover the world.
Why did so many USA, especially NYC Jews feel the need to displace a people who lived for decades in Palestine aka Israel? Or when once in Israel had to upsurp even more Palestinians in the West Bank?
Israel is NYC East more woke & secular. So many English speaking "Israelis" with NYC accents.
The more I learn about Israel the more I see their arrogance and greediness.
As an American i see the need for Israel as an ally. But I'm perplexed.
Also, if a Christian Street Preacher in Jerusalem speaks about "Jesus" there's a lot of verbal insults from the Jews, calling them "antiSemitic" even "Nazis" along with occasional physical assaults. Meanwhile, so many Christians "Stand with Israel".
An eastern european ethno nationalist state in arab land. To expect there wouldnt be problems is naive. Another british caused problem post WW1
Informed take.
@@youngKOkid1 A very UNINFORMED take. The majority of Israeli Jews are from middle-eastern communities.
I’m sure this is offensive to someone but is he wearing a shirt with his own face on it?
It's Menahem Begin.
Xenophobic rhetoric on both sides, like all the damn rest. Pointless if you can’t push past that
Hammond immediately lost because he argued the situation today, when the topic of the debate is the "root cause", which goes back to 1948. He says the Jews ethnically cleansed "Palestine". But Palestine includes the WB and GS, as well as parts on the eastern side of the Jordan river. Those Arabs who fled what would become Israel, mostly went to the WB or the GS and therefore never left "Palestine", hence they were NOT ethnically cleansed from Palestine, only from Israel. He acknowthen?ledges that the occupation started after the 1967 war. So, what happened from 1948 to 1967? No Jews were oppressing them, or occupying them, or militarily threatening them. Why couldn't they exercise their right to self-determination before 1967? Because Arab culture is one of barbarism, where they'd rather remain martyrs forever - their kids and their grandkids and their great grandkids. It's better they should live as refugees than to just form a state in 1948 and get on with life.
wrong
It never takes long before ones intent is clear. Arabs are subhumans, barbarians, violent and savages?
Palestinians fled to numerous parts of the ME. those close to Syria, Lebanon, Egypt etc fled there some did flee to WB and Gaza. PLO declared a state in 1968, Arab league declared a state for Palestine in 1948. Declaration while occupied and as the weaker state is pointless
From 1948 to 1967 Palestinians considered that the territory under Israel's control was occupied territory and they made a big mistake when they recognized in Oslo the borders of 67 giving Israel a huge present and what they got for that. More settlements on the West Bank. They should stick to the UN resolution that acquiring land by war is not permissible and that should be applied to war 48-49. They should not accept Green line borders as permanent and in their negotiation should discuss those borders also. But the main error they made was to accept those "peace" negotiations, which Jeremy properly addressed, to discuss how much land and what kind of control they could get on the land that Israel occupied. They should only ask that Israel respects international law and that any peace talks could start when Israel withdraws from occupied territories.
It should be obvious now after what is happening in Gaza that Isreal never wanted to accept an independent Palestinian state as its neighbor. The maximum that Palestinians could get from Israel are some kind of Bantustans and its borders under Israeli control.
@@sandicirak6223 So you should be able to attack someone, lose badly, and then have everything go back to the status quo ante? There's no consequence for attacking another country?
@@sandicirak6223 Except Israel DID NOT occupy the WB until 1967. From 48 to 67 the WB was occupied by Jordan and the GS was occupied by Egypt. But that's just Arabs treating other Arabs like crap. Nothing to see there.
I find it very hard to follow those who oppose the existence of a Jewish State. On the one hand they call for a Two-state Solution, and the establishment of a Palestinian State. Not the restoration of a Palestinian State, for it is indisputable that there has never been a State of Palestine. Due to the fact that there has never been a Palestinian State, one has to ask who's land is Israel occupying. The Jeremy Hammonds of the world, whose constant focus is only negativity towards Israel, as a strategy to delegitimize the State of Israel, constantly refer to Israel as Occupied Land. One needs to ask, "From whom are they occupying it?" Surely they cannot mean Palestine, in lieu of the fact that there has never been a State of Palestine. Those who support Palestine, can no longer hide the fact that the establishment of a Palestinian State, would lead to a never ending war against Israel, and the formation of yet another legitimate Arab state dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel. The overwhelming majority of those who want a Palestinian State, do not recognize the legitimacy of the current State of Israel. One only has to listen to them for a half an hour . . .
They allow the Arabs to have Some representation in the government but it's a limited representation that can be taken away at anything.
Anytime such as the current time.
... With 20% Arabs in Israel, "they allow" is not what i would use...
Unfortunately most of these elected Arab parties do much more damage to the Arab population in Israel than good.
Most of them are Palestinian ultra nationalists (while the Arabs in Israel have just like any other segment of any population their own issues to address), and they give a bad name for the Arabs in Israel...
Religion.
You took an hour and a half… 🤦🏽♂️
You didn’t watch, did you.
@@knifedance2402 Lol, no.
Perhaps it just appears somewhat axiomatic at this point. Like, why on earth phrase that as a question? Then again, that might be my own arrogance speaking. I actually studied the conflict and even lived in Israel for 2 years. It's just hard for me to imagine that anyone doesn't know at this point.
Who thought that this was a sensible question to ask? Even if you could get an objectively correct answer, of what value is it? It surely won't displace the subjective views of the interested parties.
Yeah, I agree. The real issue is not the cause of the conflict or who is right. The real issue is how to achieve piece.
The Balfour Agreement is the root cause. The Rothschilds promised the lands of Palestine to the World Jewry if they could get America involved in WW2. Ever wonder why Japan would attack Pearl Harbor when America wasnt even involved? - Because the Balfour Agreement needed to be fulfilled. so they could claim Israel as theirs... But ask yourselves - Why would Japan attack the sleeping giant when it wasnt even involved? Its because the zionist occupied government began blocking Japans trade routes and stealing their cargo during Japans war time efforts. Then the zio's parked the entire navy at Pearl Harbor and shut down all Radar warning systems. Japan was forced into attacking for their own survival all so the world Jewry could get Israel - and they set it up for max damage - insuring America would enter WW2
Lefty jews
The Balfour Agreement is the root cause. The Rothschilds promised the lands of Palestine to the World Jewry if they could get America involved in WW2.
To end the conflict, one surely must know what is causing it?
Yes, to end the conflict is going to require immense bravery and sacrifice, on both sides.
Yes, perhaps you could get a peace deal without having to litigate the entire history of the conflict. That seems within the realm of imaginable, but the chance seems extremely remote, and more imaginary than imaginable. I doubt very much that anyone who is going to get anything like a peace deal done, or even the groundwork for it, can do so without a nuanced, detailed accounting of a variety of perspectives on the history of the conflict.
That alone doesn't get peace. But it's just wishful thinking that you could end this without fully understanding what it is everyone has been fighting overt for so long.
So you ask what good do conversations like this do?
The perseverance of conversations like this and their educational purpose cannot be understated. Indeed, it would be foolish to think that these two sides could ever find peace without understanding or even attempting to understand.
These conversations are invaluable, even when they seem redundant..
Yeah I've heard it all before, but it doesn't mean everyone has. The longer this conflict lasts the fewer the people alive to remember, the more important it is to pass on the knowledge of what has happened. If future generations are expected to have some chance at solving the problem, theyre going to need to know what the problem really is, and where it comes from.
Appealing to history to justify taking land by force is the same logic that Putin uses.
Virtue signaling on the Reason channel without understanding basic facts?
I thought this place was immune to it...
Educate yourself... It might be a bit less embarrassing...
Here, I'll help you a bit:
Prior to Israel there was the British mandate, prior to that the Ottoman empire (think modern day Turkey, they were Muslims yes, but not Arabs)
Another example of a person who can’t analyze one situation on its own, instead picking out any contemporary story about an invasion to explain their thoughts.
Human creativity at its best.
Going much further back in time even
@meirm471
What does it matter that the Ottoman empire was Turkish? The local populace of Palestine was Arab.
@@polybian_bicycle , it matters because it was Ottoman land irrespective of who lived there.
The same as Jews in Ukraine, they lived in Ukraine (sometimes whole villages were pretty much Jewish, iirc due to some laws), nevertheless, if that territory was conquered they couldn't say it was Jewish, it was Ukrainian, and the new owner was the one who conquered it...
A simpler example would be renting vs owning... Arabs lived in what is modern day Israel (and some of them still do), but it wasn't an arab state...
I know it. Netanyahu and his criminal gang. Period.
How old do you think he is?
Nostrils
One world - Britains.
Several - This land is mine clip on RUclips/
An essay - This land had many and many people claimed it. Since Romans denied Israelians of their kingdom due to their rebellious nature this land was inhabited by (loosely) punicians, greeks, romans and others. Ofc one of the reasons of rebellions were terrible gouverning but hey we Romans we are writing history. But Arabs came with their Holy War and conqured this land, not a big deal in those times. Then turks rase to power and formed Ottoman empire. Time flows (like 1000 fkin years ok?) and arabs on those lands wanted to breaks free from the imperial yoke. Nationalism, sick man of Europe you know. Nothing special. Jews at the time although thought about national state. At Madagascar, In Russia (which contained the most jews withing its borders), in Palestine. 1st world war came, Lourens of Arabia, Britts said that Arabs could get their national state if the rise against Ottomans. And they did. In return Britts carved the land in half with France becouse who cares about arabs right? And some Jews started to immigrate in British Palestine. They were educated and good at administrating stuff. And useful tool to deny arabs of structires to self-govern. Revolution in Russia starts, some Jews fleen to palestine. 2nd world war starts, Jews were fleen from nazi. Where? Everywhere and To palestine ofc. After war ended Britts supported idea of Israelian state in Palestine becouse who da hell cares about arabs - they are POOR. So jewish settlers started to flow in like a river - with guns and walls, literally COLONISING land with people living on it and calling it home. They stole land from arabs and said that it was their land way before arabs (who lived this for CENTURIES). And they hated this landgrab/ bitterly. What can they do? Nothing, they hasn't got gravitas in politics. But they had guns. Soooo.... Thanks to British imperialism, Russian intolerance (pogroms) and German antisemitism (which they didn't invented btw but perfected).
Reason TV is a zionist controlled S hole media.
Not an argument and you sound pretty salty. Take a breath and use big boy words
@@Templarzealot89 Huh? Did you know every member of Congress is forced to sign a pledge of allegiance to ISrael, not America? Did you know its a crime to send federal aid to any nation that refuses to sign the Nuclear Arms Proliferation Act? Did you know Israel refuses to sign...? Making every single dollar sent in aid a crime.. neat huh? I suppose its lucky that Congress (Power of the Purse) are all Dual Israeli Citizens who have pledged allegiance to Israel.......
- you sound extremely informed....lol
@@Templarzealot89 Psssst, want to see the FBI working alongside the Israeli Defense Forces and the Anti Defamation League on camera to stage fake terror attacks on Americans? If so, I can show you..from multiple angles, cameras and sources.
Man oh man..
Richard Hammonds opening statements sound like the losing side of rushed high school debate team member who is only there for padding on his college applications.
I mean... Chomsky?? Manufacturing consent??
What year is it, and how old are you?
My God.
Chomsky was the guy who took the side of Pol Pot, because, capitalism.
Chomsky is a good linguist but my god the fuck he is at anything else.
The way consent is manufactured is not even contentious anymore. It's so obvious that MSM is a mouthpiece for the US government, and by extension Israel. Perhaps you should wake up?
You're absolutely right! In this day and age, we came to realise the absolute honesty of and truthfulness of state influnced media and journalists!
What a dumb opening to mention that US citizens' views on a certain foreign issue might've been manufactured!
@@aboyaser5608 by your own lights, your beliefs are manufactured. So why should we believe them? I know, I know, you have the TRUTH!
That's the problem here. Not that the news is bad, but whereby accurate opinion comes, and thus what the MSM gets wrong.
A ‘New-State Solution’
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution#New-state_solution