Peace in our time in Israel (one state solution) and other Myths

The logic in this article is so one sided it almost flies around in ever decreasing circles and that it's prone to disappearing up its own fundamental rectum. Frankly the dilettante nature of this 'pro Israel/ USA ' is wantonly naive if not biased.

The whole article is focused on ISRAEL'S security and assorted paranoid fears..

What makes you think that the "Arabs" are thrilled or cool about the USA dominance in Israel or that a nutter strategic right minority in the new Israel could bomb Palestine/ Arab states ....oh wait it exists now?

And Israel has track record of giving a shit about international law ( when it comes to extra territorial adventures). 

Simply put NO COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST is safe from the paranoid nationalism of another...there are no absolute guarantees anywhere...

All meaningful negotiations are based on good faith...where's the good faith here?

 If I were a Palestinian/ Arab negotiator why would I accept the underlying biased assumptions, that status quo = albeit in a Bigger state is good?

The truth is that the USA has and will continue to be the spanner in the works...so long as it's hegemonic interests holds the Veto, no solution is really possible.

Just for interest what say both sides and the meddlesome and petulant mental Gorilla (USA) were to agree on a two state solution pre 67 borders and THEIR ONLY international protectorate for their international airport ... um, in between the two nations. i.e. paid for by both sides and staffed by UN troops.. and managed by a tripartite committee (Israel, Palestine and the UN, chaired/ controlled by UN) ? I'd ask where are the RISKS any different that anywhere else in the Middle East. 

 

["A one-state solution is only way forward for Israel and Palestine"] if you are a Jewish extremist or a settler. Is what is more honest.
What the “one staters” are suggesting has 4 MAJOR Flaws.
First, it rewards(encourages) those who have dispossessed the Palestinians in the West bank etc. Illegal is illegal. How are they going to unpick a litany of case law precedents fairly? Possession is 9/10s of the law …if you are Jewish.

Second. As the General's son said 'Arab ' neighbourhoods already have a dearth or absence of resources/ services how is this going to change in a greater Israel? Like the rump Zionists etc are going to accept 'their budget share facilities down graded (i.e. settlers lose currently enjoyed water levels for lessor amounts so the Palestinians can have more) to allow for the money to be spent where it's most needed on the Israeli Arab ghettoes or to provide the new population to the same currently enjoyed level of services/facilities etc
The devil is in the detail national budget.

Third. The Jews already have the Best property/land. By what mechanism, given Israel is already a receiver of USA ($ 2 billion p.a. Admitted to), are Palestinian refugees after 60 years of destitution going to be able to buy properties. Instant underclass.

In Australia the Conservatives resent Social Security and 6000 queue jumpers (sic) refugees and the 'hand outs' (sic) as it is . Imagine if suddenly 14 million( similar proportions) became citizens over night ?
By what fanciful notion do these people think Israelis are any LESS self interested, resistant to change/difference i.e. are more generous human-beings than Aussies. They sure don't have a history of such altruism/ generosity of spirit..... in short they are people. Not inherently good or bad just people.
Time for some reality. It must go two states if only to maintain any sense of fairness and to establish a rule of law in Israel with regards to ownership of land in the occupied/squatter settlements.

I don't accept that the Two state 'solution' (sic) (read reality ) is dead ...not until every last Arab and or Palestinian is dead.
All that will be achieved by the One state (sic) will be temporary, in historic terms, and the apartheid will be further institutionalised. The only ones who will be 'temporarily content' will be the extremist Zionists buoyed by this success they will still play the 'existential threat' (fear) card and will do so until they control all the land in described in the Torah … perhaps beyond. Of course the Arabs will oblige for their own fears making it a self fulfilling prophecy . Can anyone point to a nation once 'secure ' in their own boundaries didn't go for hegemonic empire 'by necessity to ensure resources' (aka greed)? e.g USA .

It is functionally naive to suggest otherwise. Therefore the notion that a larger Israel will solve anything .
Neither will the Arabs simply say well that's that and not harbour resentment . Even the Jewish history should tell the Zionists and others that....How many years did they live in 'exile' ? human nature isn't a light switch!
Let me be clear about where I stand .To me the whole debate is a nonsense , it ignores the realities in that it has been couched by the extremist Jewish Zionists V the equally emotionally motivated Muslims. No one has seriously asked what is the problem that needed solving ...Answer ...a 'homeland' where Jews are such that they can't be deported ( THE holocaust sic)* .
What I'm disputing is the sloppy logic and the flawed (loaded)*methodology * that ignores the above Human Nature.

It seems to me that there is two options .
1. Israel gets its act together and puts the extremist back in their proportional box and acknowledge the reality that a Zionist Israel is treading water in a hostile sea in which case it WILL disappear by 'the sword' (in a 'spring', 'summer' what ever)
2. Or become an integrated part of the by then less hostile sea ...One state one in which no minority can be deported.
So where's the disagreement you ask ? The key is in the fine print. FIRST Israel has to get it's act together.... etc. There is a rapidly closing of opportunity to do this to avoid well internal war....( including Arab) Israeli V Zionist ….the settlers etc become too greater mass. My point here is that while the issue is manageable the two states declared, heading off a serious conflict that would involve the wider Arabs resulting in destruction of Zionist Israel and therefore failure of the original objective. A one state REVOLUTION now would simply compound the problem.
Practically, any such change within Israel would have to be EVOLUTIONARY. Declaring two states back to the 67 boarders would bring the electoral gerrymander giving the extremists (the controlling minority) into proportion of the total Israeli electorate. Both side would win.
I have no doubt that once Israel becomes truly Democratic and in time Israel will become the more stable Israelisine in which expulsion could be constitutionally impossible. The original objective would be therefore guaranteed NOW and in both the 2 state interim stage and ultimate inevitable and only long-term stable solution.

*[N.B. I'm not denying the mass extermination of Jews and OTHERS or the totally obscenity of it ..just the assumed proprietary (PR) ownership of the term and the virtual ignoring of the equally horrific extermination of others (e.g. including Gypsies.. Romany ). Question where is their 'homeland'?.. their problem? Why the difference? But that's another question.]

Capitalism, Libertarianism and other myths

I obviously agree with the ability to say to a boss or any authority figure 'no, it's not my choice' or even 'no it's not my need'... And yes, I sound a bit like a Buddhist on cranky pills.
To me the KEY issue is a little more fundamental to the continuation of life and the under pinning moral imperatives.
I look at it like freedom of speech we nominally have that right to express our views BUT it's the HOW we use/abuse that right that is determined by greater imperative(s)that is the important defining factor.

ergo we have the right to jump on a plane buy BS products for PERSONAL conditioned illusionary happiness. The question is SHOULD we do so with out regard to the truth and the reality of the larger imperatives (as per the previous paragraph)

One should never forget the most irrefutable fundamental truth of everything....In *closed* environment (societies and the EARTH) EVERYTHING effects EVERYTHING else.
I have given the examples of traffic flows along highways and through malls that when taken in CONTEXT of the WHOLE one minor action has cumulative effect leading to seemingly disproportionate consequences. I'd STRONGLY RECOMMEND everyone Read "Critical Mass... how one thing leads to another" by Philip Ball. This book clearly demonstrates this principal with everything from electrons to you name it.
The problem with commonly touted Chaos theory is the Massive Misinformational, over simplistic "butterfly effect".
Back to the prosaic one person buying an Iphone 5 because it's cheap or even free with a encouragement to spend more on The cell.
Firstly 'your' individual decision is insignificant even to Apple they want millions of insignificant individuals to decide for a myriad of JUSTIFICATIONS although the key motivator is the deliberately stimulated (Cromagnon/Neanderthal Emotion/instinct) want. The Emotional temporary pay off makes the decision ... polluted reason JUSTIFIES it.
Apple do this to make a profit... they have NO regard or interest in the 'externalities' read consequences. Argue what you what you will on the emotional level but the moral reality is that " can the world afford the CUMULATIVE effect of 80% of the world's resources (read ability to support the continuation human existence) by 20% of the population (i.e. the 'developed world/ western world)?
You pick the major philosophy/religion all have a similar thrust ....biblically speaking "yes YOU are your brother's keeper"... Yet again I also repeat It isn't that you indulge your emotions ...an inherent human trait, but HOW and by how MUCH.
There in lies the inherent flaw in the much admired Libertarianism and or Capitalism (not exclusively)as they are practised today they are predicated on Absolutes and were formulated BEFORE the science of everything relates/effects or leads to another. However both these philosophies tend to focus on the individual ignoring or treating the self (the individual) gratification as the sole purpose/objective of life relegating all other factors as 'externalities' and therefore irrelevant , having no effect on the 'self' . Which in a closed environment and under the first law of thermodynamics ...impossible if not wantonly inane.
I don't dispute the 'right' to anything merely caution about the dismissal of The MORAL DIMENSION what is now 'myopic focus' on the use (abuse) of that right in isolation of the indisputable cumulative effect.

What's the matter with U.S. media it seems worse than other countries?

What is the matter with U.S. Media it seem to be worse than other countries ? In two senses it is.

The most important isn't at first as obvious to the US citizen until one stands off from being an American and look with a incisive mind at to what is different about American public (consumers of news [sic]).

To wit I've included the following piece.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/patrick-pexton-what-about-israels-nuclear-weapons/2012/08/31/390e486a-f389-11e1-a612-3cfc842a6d89_print.html

To someone from outside the US this is as I wrote on another site

[With all respect.., I would rate the piece as worthy of a high school 'journalism' (?) effort.

Who amongst us didn't know virtually everything written in the article and more? Then again he is writing for USA and it's citizenry not to mention under their paranoid military manufacturing complex and assorted Corporates' domination.

A trawl through the 'Guardian' archives goes a lot further actually discussing the nature of the nuke site, how the Israelis fooled the USA and the inspectors way back.....What this says about Israel's paranoia duplicity towards its friends I'm not entirely sure.

What is missing is the simple logic that the USA (probably Russia, France et al) has for years been able to monitor from space and via sophisticated seismic equipment can tell any underground or air testing of nukes anywhere in the world. Yet we're lead to believe by this article that the US et sec doesn't have very convincing evidence either way. What? A piss ant country with what 6 million people (same population of Iraq) like Israel which is the US's biggest recipient of aid, particularly military aid, hold off US dominance? I know the US myopic supply of weapons has a history akin to like a water buffalo with a bad attitude, (all bull and no long term smarts) …. But really...they (US) don't know ?

The only alternative is that if Israel has nukes they haven't tested them tested above ground since the 70's or underground since the late 80's … That I find very hard to believe.

The implicit relevant point is that American's are generally so jingoistic they are more often than not wilfully ignorant/ disinterested in anything that doesn't pertain to the US or them personally. The horrific implications of the Israel/ USA V the “Arab” (sic) (Iran is Persian...not Arab) world conflict is more obvious to the rest of the world but not the average American....they believe they'll be safe,they're not ! 911 AGW the rise of China (they are the U.S.A.'s primary bankers and it's in the process of losing it's $ dominance).

The U.S. Public seem to believe that they invented resistance to larger powers and the concepts in their Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The reality is they didn't! One wonder what they think will stop the hegemonic nations from doing exactly what the U.S. founding father's did at the first available option. What makes them believe that watching their dead coming home from a U.S. initiated war of perceived interest (corporate interests most likely), a war they were pressured into, is going to endear them to the U.S.their trade practices don't help either. The U.S public believe they are safe from human nature...again they're not!   

Once one accepts this limitation 'America’s exceptionalism' all the other disasters/ limitations are emotionally justifiable. Keep in mind unless we guard against it the sales maxim holds true “ emotion decides and logic simply justifies”. If one assumes one is superior to others then “people who don't conform to my conflated criteria keeping them in their place (subservience) becomes logical.” e.g.  I got rich by hard work (sick) therefore anyone less than me is deficient in some way and needs punishing or my patronising." i.e. I got rich so the fact that they aren't means they're lazy so force them to work ' (like there's an endless chance of jobs).... 

Let's get real there isn't because corporations et al want it that way it forces down wages (less overheads) making more profit. And when the current host country's population demand more wages the corps will simply move to a cheaper employee market. 

 Even America's famous military market dominance is being challenged...Other countries are competing and the corporations are selling weapons to increasingly dubious purchasers .....e.g. the mercenaries/weapons dealers who have No allegiances except to the $ . I.e. the biggest private army in the world is training Somali jihardists etc.

  

As for his finish about 'if he was a child of the Jewish Holocaust' ...relevance? Justification for what he knows ? (i.e. HE READS PAPERS OUTSIDE THE U.S. PERHAPS)...the existence of Israel's nukes.]

The final point can be gleaned from analysing the author's most banal comment about ' because it is hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be done' what a cop out! Tell the truth sir it isn't done because the powers to be (the military manufacturing complex, Commercial and Jewish commercial interests with whom they deal, don't want it done. They have already punished a media outlet of broadcasting an Israel “unfriendly” story by cancelling ads. There is little doubt in my mind of the US government (regardless of side) is a captive of these interests.

Sadly the party system (either side) encourages this.

what's with personality fetish in lieu of substance

I've been recently taken to task by yet another poster on a site. At the root of his criticism was the fact that I objected to a comment that was clearly racist. i.e. it was in the context of Obama's acquiescence to the powers that be in USPolitics ...he called Him an Uncle Tom.

This is based on Harriet Beecher Stowes book of the same name. It referred to a subservient 'nigger' (slave) who is willing to sacrifice his life etc for the white 'massa'.

In this , the only, real context... it introduce colour as a pejorative.

I would argue that one wouldn't refer to Bush or any other Prez as white uncle toms. Thus the term is demeaningly used,and as such my criticism was/is valid.

This obviously stung the poster in such a way he continued the attack later. But this time as a tit for tat attack on me personally.

Now here is the conundrum, One of his criticisms was that I'm verbose in my responses and using the site as an ego therapy. The first is valid (from his perspective), the second isn't.

Clearly the reader has made the non existent link between making a racist comment and him being racist.

Hence his response.

My problem is that see the difference between the two i. e. I don't believe that one swallow = spring . Put another way if I hit my thumb with a hammer and let out with an expletive, that doesn't mean that I am a simple minded foul mouthed individual prone to bad language in public or in print.

By that reasoning I don't believe the commenter is a burning cross or closet racist bigot. Merely that the terminology is offensive to me and that I consider it unacceptable, not to mention that coloured people reading would find it so too.

It is one thing to attack an action or words but not the personality of the person doing /making them. Especially given that I'm reasonably sure Obama is personally unknown to both of us.

I would further argue that such terms or personal attacks are unproductive in getting a discussed compromise or working conclusion. It is psychological fact that repetition forms opinions. One only needs to watch the news on politics or ads to hear/see the 'staying on message' and the incessant repartition.

The problem is that not enough people draw the line between personality and function.

i.e. Obama's fate will largely depend on the public's impression of him personally, their personal disappointments ( they over expectations about what he can functionally do), rather than the impressive list of positive things he has done... This is further emphasised by Romney's campaign being largely ' that he is not Obama'. The truth is if Romney is successful he will be beholden to simply a 'different'

group of Plutocrats.

The media in fact the whole Capitalist edifice is based and bolstered by the vagaries of Personalities/emotions not substance.

i.e. Gem stones ...diamonds in particular aren't all that rare rather the high prices/value is artificially kept high by restricting their availability by the DeBeer's cartel the consequences of which are diabolical.( blood diamonds)

Perhaps my most trenchant disgust is how the media focuses on the sensational or personalities rather than the un adorned facts . i.e. An US Senator visiting Israel went 'skinny dipping' and that is a scandal? Why? Because the media has said so again and again and Again. People have had natural tendencies deftly hyper sensitised to whereby such trivial actions has bearing on public opinion on his ability to do his job.

When in truth it has absolutely none.

Essentially I'm rebelling over the over simplification , the personality V competence to lead a country which leads me to How do I communicate with others if all they want is over simplified, glorified, sanctimonious gossip and personalised attacks in lieu of reasoned in context analysis of topics perhaps to arrive at a solution?

Refugees and illegals are they our fault

The biggest problem I have with arguments on what to do with refugees isn't based on idealism or ideology but rather pragmatics.

The fundamental flaw with the ' humane argument ' is that it assumes that people are just waiting to learn the truth about the appalling state of refugees to change their minds. That simply isn't true.

If the people really wanted to change the system they would.

There is no logical/ objective doubt that political systems are corrupted by irrationality , greed, self interest , power externalities and the totally artificial (naive ) belief that Political parties can "represent" a democratic/ or mass choice. The choices presented are 'closed'. A bit like mandating a choice between everyone getting flogging by whip or a cane for Minor breaches of laws/ by laws etc.

Arguments can be made for either option but what isn't up for choice are other alternatives. All choices are marketed between and by extremes.

e.g. in Australia's case Open slather or pacific solution ( unlimited refugees and we are talking about millions or so few it makes no appreciable difference to the refugee problem). There are comparable simplistic choices in almost every other country too.

I would dispute emphatically that the anti refugee is solely from the non suburban voters rather while the non suburban voters may have a disproportionate number of xenophobes/ right wingers, one shouldn't assume that the suburban or left leaning voters are really any different. One only needs to look at the fact that non suburban voters are a minority of districts/ electorates and therefore representatives.

Simply put, we the everyday voter support (by our inaction, practical indifference) the limited or simplicity of choice, 2 sides infer.

In reality open slather is not possible with the current human propensity for tribal identity and self interest. i.e. it is unlikely to be accepted before a fundamental change in Homo sapiens generally.

The real question then come down to achieving a LESS INhumane solution. Most social change happens slowly and the evolutionary change to our hard-wired (genetic) “human nature” is far, far slower.

I would suggest that such change would need to have a far stronger personal pay-off to engender it.

The first issue is to prevent ( in Australia)the boats and the associated loss of life and the merchants of death (the people smugglers).

In that perspective the question should be as the report suggests a suite of solutions.

Ask yourselves if you were a refugee in Indonesia your choices were paying out the very last of your money for a trip to a remote island with the probability of eventually getting status in Australia. OR spending the money only to be returned to a refugee camp in Asia with virtually NO chance at migrating to Aust . Wouldn't you see the futility in the latter?

Let's be clear the Malaysian 'solution' (sic)was fatally flawed because the Malaysian don't want them either and naturally want a net reduction. This of course acknowledges the appalling conditions that meet the refugees in the camps.

And there is the second half of the suite of actions.

Of course the best option is reduce the push factors in the refugees' country of origin.

And there we in the West run into our own misdeeds in our want (as opposed needs ) for these countries' resources... but that is another topic.

Therefore, this highlights my stance that the "debate" (sic) as it is being run are so ideological and superficial as to be nearly preaching to the converted a minority of voters regardless of how well presented.

The Games and other spin, hypocrisies, myths and  injustices ....

I'm vehemently against  nationalism generally but definitely  that which is deliberated commercial generated for the sole point of power and profit. ... I tend towards the comment by Samuel Johnson  "patriotism (nationalism) is the last refuge of a scoundrel".
 

I would argue that the whole thing is so commercially corrupted and based on so many false assumptions   as to be meaningless on nationalistic , good will,and or honest fair competition... nor are the medals objectively any more indicative than of prolonged effort
rather than the absolute best... Drugs/ corruption inevitably factor in commercially exploited sport.

I find it impossible to define my identity as the place where I live. Much less by someone else's sporting prowess and even less again by in a Government enforced  2 week marketing fest for those with the deepest pockets, MULTI NATIONAL corporations.( which national interest do they support? )

This sponsorship (sic) although "necessary" (?) has removed the Games from the
Provence of  competitor V competitor and made  a mockery of the stated national aims of encouraging participation in healthy activities.
However, it  makes the  case of “who spends the most to hone the skills of the genetically gifted  wins. That means we as tax payers  and the less well off make the sacrifices.
Further to this it entrenches  the commercial impetus to support specific sports  and the odd photogenic person for extraordinary wealth. In turn reducing the achievement of the others to that of minor supporting acts.....tissues, used one and discarded. Proof?  Ask the average punter who won gold in lessor sports last 'games' and you'll get a blank, they're not in ads.  Did the achievement from the lessor sport athletes take less dedication? Training?
The most distressing is the bias in all of this against the poorer nations, gender and the disabled.... What message is government money supporting here?

Remember too the fact that an oft mentioned lie becomes urban 'fact' (mythology) which influences people's emotional response  and judgement....priorities (prejudices and stereotyping). e.g we don't hear of competitors from Togo, Surinam or Burkina Faso, How many punters can  find them on a map ? How many can name ten countries of the 100 or so that don't compete in the games? Logic dictates that in these 100 or so countries there simply must be a bunch of even more genetically talented athletes. who's game enough to then state categorically there's not? or that there isn't a world beater among them?

Let's also mention the sport based migrations ? If you're a photogenic blond athlete or just a great athlete  then come on in but if you're Asian and say a teacher well or a bus driver, fisher person or 'just' a mum good luck and don't die while you wait.

What also ignored is that the lessor countries that do compete are becoming more and more excluded because of the costs involved. Then there is the  exclusion of  these third world struggling business benefiting from their much needed government's expenditure.
It is utter nonsense to assert that the games actually show the best, that excludes those who simply can't afford to such high training or to compete.

Frankly is has become an entertainment spectacular  and as such only serves to make  the emotionally nationalistic proud, however it fails any sensible objective test as a social objective of society, and should be user pays like all other discretionary entertainment.

MSM (corporations) whose primary client base is other corporations it doesn't surprise me that they want more money to be put into the training etc. That is apart from conflict/sensation sells if they can't have 'gold' to celebrate then ' someone' is at fault.

It should surprise no one that their answer is more money or force more children to play (exploitable)sport.

The need for all of the above is moot. There are far more people who exercise without  exploitable competitions than those who do .  We as a population are simply being conditioned   into over  consuming of food, indulgent comfort, ease of use  etc to the point of self destruction and obesity. I fail to see how this should be a government defined  ( tax paid) objective....
Another factor often over looked in the 'blame game' and fairness is that the inefficiency of all the paid bureaucrats and even higher paid executives in favoured sports .
 

By all commercial terms these Executives are paid to improve the outcome of their sport and if they don't they should share the fate of say unsuccessful football executives and coaches. Certainly not behind the scene conniving for extended terms of employment and reducing costs by commercial means of   'performance only bonuses' knowing full well all
they achieve is to punish/discourage the triers. As it is the actual athletes fund the greater part of their costs ( save the very very few).
Are you prepared to put your family into debt  so that “MULTI National corporations can make  fortunes and your family  get none of it? Not even reimbursement for expenses out laid much less for the effort/sacrifices?”. And if you're in a lessor sport........?

I have long pointed out that which was shown last night on ABC's "Gruen Sweat" http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/24934 there is a far better uses of national funds than These GAMES.
e.g. They showed that the money on one Athlete who came 7th  could have paid for life saving equipment to save many .  Are we to assume that the public is willing to sacrifice lives, literacy et al for the chance to make gold?  I for one object !

Hand the whole thing to commercial enterprise and let them run it in within the laws of freedom of speech    and (heaven forbid) a fairer playing field not demand idiotically preferential laws to protect 'their' assets ( this is clearly  selected Corporate welfare.).
Capitalism is based on exploitation and inequality of rewards  …..one only needs to look at Australia's Nobel prize winners … name three?  Let alone the the CSIRO scientists who invented Wi Fi  that is in use in all mobiles today  …..name one? Yet the same complaining sports fan is inclined to defund or ignore the CSIRO  learned observations. Where was their ticker tape parade? (surely their effort 'beats' that of an entertainer/athlete certainly in actual tangible worth).  To be fair Corporation sell the emotion not the facts or proportion See BP's ad (for the Games) on "Gruen Sweat". They emphasise alternative energy ( an extremely minor part of their business I suggest  for exploitable PR tokenism) and not a mention of anything the bulk of their  less (un)  spinable Business. Where's the greater public good in this hypercritical spin that justified government money and laws to protect it?

In short I contend the games  as they are, are  discriminatory run to  benefit  selected corporate interests and as such are the rightful Provence of  discretionary  spending therefore totally that of the commercial world.  Not  a diversionary Circuses and Bread 

(even they were privately run and funded) by Governments whose only interest alignment  is to gain popular (emotional) support rather than anything  more difficult i.e. constructive.

Two state solution is dead? Long live the 1 state Solution !

I don't accept that the Two state 'solution' (sic) (read reality ) is dead ...not until every last Arab and or Palestinian is dead.
All that will be achieved by the One state (sic) will be temporary, in historic terms, and the apartheid will be further institutionalised. The only ones who will be 'temporarily content' will be the extremist Zionists buoyed by this success they will still play the 'existential threat' (fear) card and will do so until they control all the land in described in the Torah … perhaps beyond. Of course the Arabs will oblige for their own fears making it a self fulfilling prophecy . Can anyone point to a nation once 'secure ' in their own boundaries didn't go for hegemonic empire 'by necessity to ensure resources' (aka greed)? e.g USA .

It is functionally naive to suggest otherwise. Therefore the notion that a larger Israel will solve anything .
Neither will the Arabs simply say well that's that and not harbour resentment . Even the Jewish history should tell the Zionists and others that....How many years did they live in 'exile' ? human nature isn't a light switch!
Let me be clear about where I stand .To me the whole debate is a nonsense , it ignores the realities in that it has been couched by the extremist Jewish Zionists V the equally emotionally motivated Muslims. No one has seriously asked what is the problem that needed solving ...Answer ...a 'homeland' where Jews are such that they can't be deported ( THE holocaust sic)* .
What I'm disputing is the sloppy logic and the flawed (loaded)*methodology * that ignores the above Human Nature.

It seems to me that there is two options .
1. Israel gets its act together and puts the extremist back in their proportional box and acknowledge the reality that a Zionist Israel is treading water in a hostile sea in which case it WILL disappear by 'the sword' (in a 'spring', 'summer' what ever)
2. Or become an integrated part of the by then less hostile sea ...One state one in which no minority can be deported.

So where's the disagreement you ask ? The key is in the fine print. FIRST Israel has to get it's act together.... etc. There is a rapidly closing of opportunity to do this to avoid well internal war....( including Arab) Israeli V Zionist ….the settlers etc become too greater mass. My point here is that while the issue is manageable the two states declared, heading off a serious conflict that would involve the wider Arabs resulting in destruction of Zionist Israel and therefore failure of the original objective. A one state REVOLUTION now would simply compound the problem.

Practically, any such change within Israel would have to be EVOLUTIONARY. Declaring two states back to the 67 boarders would bring the electoral gerrymander giving the extremists (the controlling minority) into proportion of the total Israeli electorate. Both side would win.
I have no doubt that once Israel becomes truly Democratic and in time Israel will become the more stable Israelistine in which expulsion could be constitutionally impossible. The original objective would be therefore guaranteed NOW and in both the 2 state interim stage and ultimate inevitable and only long-term stable solution.

*[N.B. I'm not denying the mass extermination of Jews and OTHERS or the totally obscenity of it ..just the assumed proprietary (PR) ownership of the term and the virtual ignoring of the equally horrific extermination of others (e.g. including Gypsies.. Romany ). Question where is their 'homeland'?.. their problem? Why the difference? But that's another question.]