Maybe the reason it hasn't been considered is because it doesn't represent a fair and reasonable solution to all parties?

If it was an acceptable solution, a win-win for all, then wouldn't it have been offered as a solution and agreed to by all parties a long time ago?

Is it not then better described as a solution for some parties, but not others?

Well put A.C. Singer keeps singing the same old song in an echo chamber where he hears himself extoling his garbage in garbage out views.

Things have changed since first the PLO rejected a two-state solution. And now would seem to advocate just that. All the prevents a workable two state solution is folk like the (broken record rhetoric) Author and his endlessly advanced risible rubbish.

That he disagrees with the rest of the civilized world and the UN should come as no surprise. As agreement would limit if not completely
curtail Israel's expansion plans to fully restore "biblical borders" (God gave this land to me) Israel.

And if the price is torrents of innocent blood, a price he and his ilk seem willing to pay.
Alan B.

Why not check out an essay introducing a new truth-telling film titled Tantura Exposes the Lie At the Heart of Israel's Foundation.

#Alan B

The UN two-state solution has always been a loser since the UN dreamt up the idea in 1947 and the Arabs rejected it. Attempts to resurrect it over the next 75 years have gone nowhere. How much longer do you suggest this farce be pursued?

A new proposal - the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine - has hit the international scene in 2022 - and Guterres and Wennesland try to bury it at the UN. One can reasonably conclude they cannot be interested in ending a conflict which has raged unresolved for the last 100 years or they would at least discuss it - even dismiss it if they could justify why.

Their actions and statements indicate that stopping the growing number of Jews and Arabs killed and maimed in this conflict are of little concern and take second place to retaining a failed 75 years old solution - instead of examining this latest proposal that could end the conflict.

You apparently do too.

The UN are losers continuing to back the wrong horse and flogging it to death. Surely it is time the old horse was put down.

What do you find so objectionable in the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution? You have never once given your reasons.

King Abdullah of Jordan, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas and Mahmoud Abbas of the PLO seem to have no objections because they have not said one word in rejection of the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine plan for the last six months.

Tell us your objections.

Alan B: Why don't you concentrate on the content of my articles and not on me?

First a correction:

"The 1947 UN solution creating one Jewish State and one Arab state between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea (UN two-State solution) was aimed at ending the Arab-Jewish conflict in Western Palestine which had then been raging for the previous 50 years."

Not 50 - that conflict started in the Hebron massacre of 1929 and became fully spread only in 1936, thus that conflict then only lasted 11-18 years. The 1929 attack came as a complete surprise while Jews were in fact holidaying in Hebron, hiring Arab homes there to escape August's heat and humidity in Tel Aviv in favour of Hebron which is dry and 1,025 meters high. Does anyone holidays in a hostile enemy territory?

In any case, the above statement proves again that the author hates Israel and supports the Arab side, as he unashamedly calls the land of Israel "Palestine".

The author then complains to Alan B.:

"Their actions and statements indicate that stopping the growing number of Jews and Arabs killed and maimed in this conflict are of little concern"

Well, should the Saudi scheme which the author prefers be accepted, ALL Israeli Jews as well as ALL current Jordanian citizens will be killed and maimed! That does not seem to concert the author.

And BTW, the number of Jews and Arabs killed and maimed is not growing - the number of Jewish casualties is actually decreasing and the pattern of Arab casualties is unclear: http://www.statista.com/chart/16516/israeli-palestinian-casualties-by-in-gaza-and-the-west-bank/

---

Dear Critic,

«Is it not then better described as a solution for some parties, but not others?»

Precisely! Good for the so-called "Palestinians" and disastrous for Israel and Jordan, the countries who are supposed to "absorb" that hostile population.

#Yuyutsu

The conflict in my view began with the First Zionist Conference in Basle in 1897 when Theodore Herzl proclaimed:“At Basel, I founded the Jewish State. If I said this aloud today, I would be greeted by universal laughter. In five years, perhaps, and certainly in fifty years, everyone will perceive it.” —Theodor Herzl, Diary Entry, September 1, 1897.

There were deaths and loss of lives before 1929. The Nebi Musa riots in 1920 an example. Funny those riots escaped your memory.

Maybe some people might want to go back to March 29, 1886 when Arab peasants from the village of Yahudiya attacked the new Jewish colony of Petah Tikva (founded in 1878) and injured five Jews. One of them, Rachel Halevy, died several days later.

Then you make this outrageous claim:
"Well, should the Saudi scheme which the author prefers be accepted, ALL Israeli Jews as well as ALL current Jordanian citizens will be killed and maimed! That does not seem to concert the author."

How can a solution that is translated into a peace agreement possibly result in ALL the citizens of the states involved being killed and maimed?

You finish up with this doozy:
"And BTW, the number of Jews and Arabs killed and maimed is not growing"

Really? - every Jew or Arab killed or maimed whilst this conflict remains unresolved adds to the total of those killed or maimed. That is what I was taught at school.

You are clearly out of your depth - one might say a complete ignoramus -and a Jew-hater to boot as I have pointed out on many occasions.

Why don't you comment on the Saudi Solution and what you find objectionable in its provisions? Here is an opportunity to redeem yourself and make a real contribution to this debate.