This is quite the LSAT logic fallacy- you're taking the group and saying that this will be the result with this specific outlier. That's like arguing that the very places you were discussing earlier- Singapore, Malaysia- as well as the rest of Asia can't be democratic because China is Communist and because most of the other democracies that may exist in the area are corrupt, inefficient or really run by military juntas. That's not proof- that's implying that a certain type of people are incapable of democratic government. The Palestinians have already held fair and free elections, and they voted Hamas in specifically because they viewed Arafat's Fatah as corrupt and inefficient. If that's not democracy in action, I don't know what it is- lord knows it's a hell of a lot better than what we Americans are doing about our own bull politicians. Furthermore, the ability for people living under military occupation to have a really great and perfectly functioning government is incredibly difficult to do.
How long have they had democracy? You cannot compare having a democracy for a couple years with an ability to run a free state properly, respect the rights of others, respect the rule of law...etc...
The reason I look at the other Arab countries is that their culture is indeed similar to the Palestinians. The reason the Palestinians have formed this democracy is because it was encouraged by the west. However, their culture is still an arab one. So, in order to examine the possibility of them upholding all these western principles in long run, one must look at similar cultures to see how they respect these principles. There are other issues that would concern me too about Israelis freedom. Right now Israel allows freedom of speech, women have equal rights, hell, the high court even allowed a gay pride parade in jerusalem! I highly doubt a Palestinian state would allow these things to take place.
Actually it is that simple, as Jordan and the rest of the Arab world have already agreed at numerous summits that this land is the land of the Palestinians. They have already given up their claims to it. Furthermore, "legal" definitions are incredibly difficult to pin down here- every single settlement is "illegal" and yet Israel does nothing to follow those laws. Suddenly int'l law means something to them? Palestinians claim a right of self-determination as the indigionous people of that land, something that no int'l body would throw out on the grounds that the land techincally was "owned" by a colonial power. I highly doubt Britain would take it back. The Turks aren't stupid enough to try and dominate these people given all their problems with Kurds, let alone their own inner issues. Believe me, none of these other entities are at issue. This is a specific problem between Israelis and Palestinains.
Based on that logic Jordan would still be involved. Since people claim that Israel is "occupying territory" that implies that the territory is not theirs rightfully, but someone elses. Israel won this territory from Jordan. The previous sovereign power over the area was the Jordanian government. Therefore Israel would be occupying Jordanian land. Basically, they never took any Palestinian land. Now, as you have stated, by dropping their claim to this land, the Jordanians no longer have the rights of sovereignty. But since they were not in possesion of this land, it was not theirs to give to anyone else. If Jordan really wanted to transfer this land to the Palestinians, they should negotiate with Israel, receive the land and then establish a Palestinian state themselves. The point is that this issue and conflict has its roots in history. This history involves multiple parties, and therefore they should all be involved in the settlement. Furthermore as far as your comment about israel neglecting laws, you will notice with the ridiculous percentage of UN resolutions that have been made to condemn israel, international law has basically been tailored in order to help the palestinians.
"Palestinians claim a right of self-determination as the indigionous people of that land,"
The right of self-determination is a very complex one. Political theorists have speculated for years about what this right really means, or who the "self" is. Some have interpreted it as meaning that any group anywhere has the unilateral right to secede and form their own state. Others have argued that the idea of "self" can also mean anyone who would affected by such a secession. Additionally, do not confuse the right of self-determination with a right of sovereignty. They are not the same. In some situations this right many just mean that people are entitled to a great level of autonomy.
Additionally, there are many who are among the "refugees" that are not "indigenous".
Yes, they have these differences- but you make it seem as if there are absolutely no similarities between these two people at all. This is also false.
But it didn't- a people presupposed to form one type of government instead formed another- how come it's possible with the Jews but not with the Palestinians?
1) I never said there are no similarities. It is sad, because in many ways jews/muslims have been closer historically than jews/christians. However, the current differences that exist are definitely large enough to cause serious conflicts. These types of differences have caused ethnic and religious conflicts in other areas and there is no reason to assume they won't do the same here.
2) I think if you look at Israel as a state, you can see that what it's accomplished it quite extraordinary. They don't have the resources of other middle eastern countries, yet they have managed to build a modern/successful country. I don't believe that "any other group" in that place could have and would have done the same thing. I think it's great that the Palestinians are turning toward democracy. Hopefully that change will produce fruitfull results. However, that doesn't make them qualified to take over the Jewish state.
Furthermore, you indirectly support a very contentious issue in Israel: the question of forced majority. By arguing that Palestinians truly do outnumber Jews in Israel and the OT, it supports an argument which is often made by those who do not support Israel- namely, that Israel is a forced majority, one that utilizes the capabilities of the state to maintain a forced Jewish majority. This is antithetical to the concepts of democracy itself.
The people in the OT are not israeli citizens. When a final peace agreement is reached, they will become Palestinian citizens. Arab Israelis that are israeli citizens can vote and have elected members of parliament. They actually did quite well in the recent election.
On top of all of this, it still doesn't address population demographics- if Palestinians in Israel continue to grow at this rate, they WILL outnumber the Jewish population. What happens then? Do you kick them out? When they vote to change policies, to you stop the democratic process?
That is a separate issue entirely and it is another challenge facing israel. However, there are possible solutions in dealing with it. If you want to discuss this issue, you could consider starting a new thread. The demographic problem israel will face in 50 years is not exactly relevant to the current crisis.
I am not arguing that this will all be sunshine and happiness- far from it. But two states will only foster the hatred and indifference both sides have for one another. And the Palestinians will NEVER forget 1948. They won't, whether they have their excuse for a nation-state or not. 2 states won't end terrorism in Israel or Israeli control of the lives of all Palestinians. It won't.
The goal here is not just to end terrorism. The goal is to end terrorism and set up a system where both parties are satisfied. Like I said before, if the US didn't want to be attacked by terrorists we could all convert to Islam and bring our troops home. We oppose the terrorists because we want to maintain our way of life, our freedoms, our religions. Your one state solution is only effective because it does that. Sure, make Hamas the government and there will be no need for them to use suicide bombers.
A two state solution does not need to breed friendship. I don't think practical people believe the israelis and palestinians will be friends anytime soon. What is important is that both sides stop fighting, and that both sides move on.
Now, we have gone over "1948" many times. Some Palestinians were told to leave. Many fled because they feared war. Many fled because arab leaders told them to. They don't need to forget this, they just need to stop blowing themselves up in israel.