Down the road in Shiloh, David Rubin dismissed the idea of evacuating any settlements. "We're supposed to hand over our heartland? This is my country, where my roots are, where my history is, where my destiny is, where the Jewish people were born, exiled from and returned to. This community will never be destroyed. There will never be a deal with the Palestinians."
And I have trouble with her story's premise/sub-headline:
Israel's cranes reprove Barack Obama's failure to pursue two-state solution
Why does a Jewish population ipso facto negate a two-state solution?
I left a comment:
Can someone explain to me why the presence of Jews and their communities ipso facto and a priori negates a two-state solution? There are Arabs living in Israel, so why cannot Jews live in a future "Palestine" (or "Hammastan" or whatever gets elected or established)?
If the charge is that the Jews would not allow/permit or would interfere in such a political development, would not the expectation be that Arabs would do (and perhaps already are) the same and attempt to subvert the state of Israel? If true, than can I understand Ms. Sherwood's story to imply that if Jews are not to be allowed in Palestine, then Arabs cannot similarly be in Israel?
Is this logic ethical and moral? If not, why is it applied to only one side in the conflict?