Talk:Three-state solution

Official Response?
Can anyone find anything near an official statement from either Jordan or Egypt regarding these suggestions? Or at the very less from politicians, academics, whatever from either? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.180.3 (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an old peace proposal that has recurred recently. It seemed wrong for Wikipedia to have articles on the Two state solution and the One state solution but not on this widely discussed option. That said, the article needs a lot of work. I may not have much time for the next few days, I do hope that others will add material.Historicist (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Color-coded Map Problem
On the map, is the "Green" the light green color and Emerald the darker green? If so, perhaps "Green" should be changed to "Light Green" for clarification.69.3.223.122 (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hamas Coup?
There is no such thing as Hamas coup. Hamas took control of Gaza by the will of its people, through democratic elections that the US and Israel wanted. This should be clarified in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.237.207.245 (talk) 11:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's indeed the case. It might be a crappy government for everyone involved, but they were still elected. They didn't seize power in a coup d'etat. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 06:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's actually not that simple. Hamas won the Palestinian Authority elections and was supposed to assume power in both Gaza and the West Bank. Fatah was strongly pressured by the US and Israel to question the results of the elections and keep Hamas out. Fatah refused to give up power and Hamas launched a takeover. Fatah won in the West Bank and Hamas won in Gaza. It is is accurate to say, "Hamas was elected" but inaccurate to deny that a coup occurred and that bloody fighting accompanied the Gaza takeover. In order to be strictly accurate and properly balanced, language should reflect both the election and the coup. Omission of the election and the circumstances of the coup presents an inaccurate picture that fails to show the political skullduggery on the part of the US, Israelis, and Fatah. Omission of the facts of the coup itself and only reference the elections ignores the fact that Hamas did take over Gaza by violent uprising against Fatah forces and killed or expelled a lot of political opponents, thus greatly radicalizing the region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.151.90 (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Proponents?
the proponents section of this article includes persons who would seem to be opponents. should there be separate sections, or perhaps an alternative title for the section? It escapes me what the appropriate title would be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.234.242 (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Jordan over 50% Palestinian?
This seems highly dubious at best, there's nothing to indicate such on the 'Jordan' page, it says a bit more than 1m of it's 5m population are palestinian refugees. The source itself seems to be quite badly written and doesn't cite its own sources, according to it's wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arutz_Sheva it identifies as Religious Zionist, which may compromise it's neutrality. Either way, would it still be called 'Mainstream Media'? - 86.42.248.251 (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it was definitely true from 1949-1967. Not sure about after 1967... AnonMoos (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2014
Please replace the template call

at the start of the article with

which should ensure the relevant part of the template is shown when the article appears.

Thank you,

213.246.85.251 (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, thanks!  Little Mountain  5  01:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Not technically a three state solution, so I don't know if this should be added
Egypt announced that they would be willing to send troops to a future Palestinian state to help stabilize it. Knightmare72589 (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

How is this different to the zero-state solution?
This seems very similar to the zero-state solution. How do they differ? If they're judged to be too similar, I suggest it might be a good idea to merge the 2 pages. I've also said a similar message on the zero-state solution talk page. Ezza1995 (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I would assume that they're basically synonyms, but somebody coined the "Zero-state" term because he thought that the wording "Three-state" might give some people the idea that an independent Gaza Strip and independent West Bank (separate from each other) were being proposed... AnonMoos (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Unreferenced conjecture
I've removed the following for the reason given above. No source is given, and the paragraph, presented as fact, invokes tendentious concepts like an Israeli "apartheid plot" and unsupported assertions such as the alleged Israeli policy to create a "Bantustan". Even the initial statement is incorrect: PM Netanyahu said that he did not expect to see a Palestinian state on his watch, which most would agree to be a realistic appraisal.

The para appears to be the opinion of a commentator, possibly the Gerald Levin referenced, but if this consists of his words (which I suspect it may) it should be enclosed in quotes and introduced with "Gerald Levin claims that...". However IMO it's extremist opinion backed by no particular authority, and should be left out. Chrismorey (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

[para.removed] In the 2015 Israel election, the Likud party rejected the 2 state plan and won. A Bantustan would have been created in Gaza and the West Bank, similar to Bantustans in South Africa under apartheid, writes Gerald Levin. Thus, the 2 state apartheid plot has now evolved into the 3 State solution: 1) Egypt mandates Gaza, 2) Jordan administers some West Bank communities and 3) Israel is no longer the primary negotiator. [ends]

Gaza and Hamas
It is stated that Gaza came under Hamas control as the result of a coup perpetrated by Hamas (See in particular 'Alternative use of the phrase').

That is incorrect. There was a general election in the West Bank and Gaza, which Hamas won. Fatah rejected that result, and launched a coup attempt. Vicious fighting ensued in both the West Bank and Gaza; Fatah's coup succeeded in the West Bank, but failed in Gaza. Fatah officials were then removed from office in Gaza; that is not a coup, that is simply the purge that naturally follows a failed coup attempt. Thus Hamas is the legitimate, democratically-elected government in Gaza. Fatah is the internationally-recognized authority in the West Bank, and was the negotiating partner for the Oslo talks, so de-facto is 'legitimate'.

The article Battle of Gaza propagates the same misunderstanding. Hamas did not 'take over' Gaza.

Hamas is considered by some important countries to be a 'terrorist organisation', and is perhaps reviled partly because of its origins in the Muslim Brotherhood. But that is not sufficient reason to mess with historical facts. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

this article bneeds updating?
has the common meaning of 3 state solution changed? is now "Jewish state in Israel, a Palestinian state in Gaza, and a binational state in the West Bank." https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/three-state-solution-benjamin-kerstein-peace-israel-palestine ? Asto77 (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)