Another question of clarification. By "settlers" do you mean the 700,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank? Or do you mean all 9 million Israelis, which is what Hamas and the left in the West calls "settlers"? I suspect the former.
I think a two state solution might have worked in 1948 if the Arabs had accepted that plan, or perhaps in 19…
Another question of clarification. By "settlers" do you mean the 700,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank? Or do you mean all 9 million Israelis, which is what Hamas and the left in the West calls "settlers"? I suspect the former.
I think a two state solution might have worked in 1948 if the Arabs had accepted that plan, or perhaps in 1967. At this point, I don't see how it could work - it looks to me as if there would be two sovereign states in easy artillery and rocket range of each others, in perpetual full scale war - until it was reduced to one state or zero. In the abstract, a two state solution (or three state variant) seems like (1) the most ideal outcome in the abstract, and (2) a now obsolete fantasy which would end disastrously. And both sides have lots of responsibility for getting into this dilemma.
Both figures could be considered "correct" depending on whether you think the settlers in East Jerusalem to be OK, or part of the same problem as the other 450K outside of East Jerusalem.
450 K in West Bank excluding East Jerusalem
220 K in East Jerusalem
-------
670 K total settlers in West Bank including East Jerusalem
I consider the larger figure to be more relevant to discussion of Israeli settlement on the West Bank. If you have reason to consider the East Jerusalem settlements distinctly less problematic and thus excludable, I will listen. Perhaps I am naive to use the total including East Jerusalem when discussing the settler problem.
Another question of clarification. By "settlers" do you mean the 700,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank? Or do you mean all 9 million Israelis, which is what Hamas and the left in the West calls "settlers"? I suspect the former.
I think a two state solution might have worked in 1948 if the Arabs had accepted that plan, or perhaps in 1967. At this point, I don't see how it could work - it looks to me as if there would be two sovereign states in easy artillery and rocket range of each others, in perpetual full scale war - until it was reduced to one state or zero. In the abstract, a two state solution (or three state variant) seems like (1) the most ideal outcome in the abstract, and (2) a now obsolete fantasy which would end disastrously. And both sides have lots of responsibility for getting into this dilemma.
I believe the WB settler population is 450,000 and that’s who I was talking about.
Both figures could be considered "correct" depending on whether you think the settlers in East Jerusalem to be OK, or part of the same problem as the other 450K outside of East Jerusalem.
450 K in West Bank excluding East Jerusalem
220 K in East Jerusalem
-------
670 K total settlers in West Bank including East Jerusalem
I consider the larger figure to be more relevant to discussion of Israeli settlement on the West Bank. If you have reason to consider the East Jerusalem settlements distinctly less problematic and thus excludable, I will listen. Perhaps I am naive to use the total including East Jerusalem when discussing the settler problem.
The 700K figure was just rounding.