We will never get there.

It is an unsolvable solution.

I don’t foresee a solution any time soon. So many of Israel’s enemies want all the land to be Arab, and see a retreat to the 1967 boundaries not only as Israeli weakness, but more importantly, a stage in the eventual destruction of Israel. That is, in stages, beginning with pushing it back to the 1967 lines, rather than complete destruction all at once. Many see the “right of return” (which doesn’t exist at all, in fact, but if it did, would only apply to those in Israel proper in 1948, not to their descendents or other family members, no matter what activists and Arabs claim) as a demographic weapon with which also to destroy Israel eventually.

“Jdledell,” while over the edge often, did imply that there might be a need for a corridor if a (second) Palestinian state (in addition to Jordan) were set up in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (because, as he said, the Gazans don’t want to be part of Egypt instead). Gaza would be an exclave of a nation based mainly in the West Bank and connected by a corridor. (I have no problem with Israel’s severing the corridor in the event of any future terrorism.)

Where the problem becomes insoluble is where the Arabs show a history of misconduct and continued threat, which in turn leads to Israeli demands which do nothing to solve the problem. Specifically, the Arabs have shown themselves to commit horrible terrorism, not only against Israelis but against each other, so Israel has often demanded that any new Palestinian nation-state not have a military. This, of course, is nonsense, because this means the nation is not really sovereign, i.e., it isn’t really a nation. But the reason for the ridiculous demand isn’t ridiculous at all — terrorism is bad enough, but what if the same people had tanks and ballistic missiles and artillery?

Also, a corridor is the most Israel should concede; it is not acceptable to have a nation of people who have long committed terrorism be given more land in the name of contiguity that severs Israel in two. (Again: I have no problem with Israel’s severing the corridor in the event of any future terrorism. There is no equality between the two sides; far from it!)

It’s details like those that lead me to believe we won’t see a solution any time soon.

The end-point of this ordeal has to be a two-state solution. [...] But a plan that doesn’t see its endpoint as one that provides both Palestinians and Jews with a stable, secure nation of their own is not a plan at all.

You are incorrect. That is merely one option and what most people happen to envision. What you want is not the same as what is factual. (This isn’t the first time.)

It is an unsolvable solution.

The Arabs’ claim is pressed, ironically and hypocritically, by those who otherwise, since the 1960s, have decried nationalism and nation-states — Western nation-states, that is. Arab or “Palestinian national” enclaves inside Israel proper would address what actually does not exist at all and is the source of dishonesty by Arabs and activists: the so-called (and misnamed) “right of return.”

Even a not-so-tidy boundary between Arab and Jew is interesting only in theory; it cannot be put into practice:

Given the record of the Arabs, something like this,

with enclaves on both sides of an international boundary (Jewish settlements to the east, Arab settlements inside Israel proper to the west, even better than the bogus “right of return” demand, which simply does not exist as fact at all for descendents of those who left Israel in 1946), is simply not possible. (Who would come? What would come? [guns, bombs, RPGs, anti-tank weapons, surface-to-air missiles...])