The two state framework hasn’t worked, but isn’t a one state framework a time-bomb at Israel’s expense?
Perhaps annexing the land then allowing some form of self-rule for the Arabs in their sector would work out, as long as they couldn’t vote in Israeli elections.
Israel could administer some form of governance too, so that the Arab areas would be financially stable and independent of foreign interference.
This will upset the Peoples' Front of Judea, and the Judean Peoples' Front.
She’s right.
That solution always sounds good ... initially ... and without further thought, by many supporters of Israel. Many times it’s prefaced with something to the effect that it all belings to Israel anyway.
But it turns out to be a TOTAL DISASTER upon further thinking!
The further thinking is this: Israel already has 20% of its population right now ... who are Arabs, and who have been given full Israeli citizenship BY LAW (Israel’s own law). They voted for their own Arab party this last election and are the THIRD LARGEST PARTY in Israel (with only 20% of the population). If Israel were to take over ALL THE LAND that they conquered in the war, that would mean another SIX MILLION ARABS in Israel, besides the 20% already there!
With those SIX MILLION additional Arabs, who now BY LAW have the vote (because Israel says it is not an Apartheid state, and that’s true) ... the nation of Israel would turn into an ARAB-CONTROLLED STATE and no longer be the “Homeland for the Jews”. It wouldn’t be long before the Jews became second class citizens in their “former nation of Israel”!
As usual, Glick is correct. I am sure there is something Egypt would like in order to give up the Sinai for a new “homeland” for the Philistines.