Well, I cut my internet teeth on creationists, so you might say that I'm used to the tactics that Terry employs. I really just wanted to drive home the point that the only thing forcing a one-state solution is the illegal settlements, and then the rest of the comment kinda grew from there. Also, new users who drop by wouldn't see the thread above because it was troll-rated into oblivion (for a number of extremely good reasons, I might add), so there kinda had to be a counter-post to Terry's ramblings.

Getting back on topic, I don't know how a resolution is going to happen either, but I think it will. Whether it'll be a one-state or a two-state solution is going to be entirely up to Israel, but in the long term they cannot afford to maintain a permanent state of low-grade civil war. Eventually, Israeli mainstream opinion is going to realise this, or have it dictated to them by the outside world, and tell the extremists to take a long walk off a short pier.

Personally, I think that it'll end up with a two-state solution, because most of the settlements will have to go away in order to make the West Bank a viable society, no matter whose jurisdiction it's in. And with the settlements gone, there's no reason whatsoever that Israel should annex the West Bank. I think, however, that Israel will get to keep East Jerusalem, and I think that there will be some minor border revisions in which Israeli lands are surrendered in exchange for some of the major settlements close to Israel proper. Even Hamas have said that they're willing to accept such a resolution, almost in so many words.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.