I have seen many people talking about a two-state solution, and that Israel needs to allow a two-state solution. In this case, there is a claim in the article that Israel has denied a two-state solution.
What would you say if I told you a two state solution has already been achieved?
History,
After WWI the British took control of the area, called Syria at that time, that we know as Israel and Jordan. In 1921 the British started a push for a Jewish state, but also at the same time they created what is called the Transjordan Emirate. They understood then that a two-state solution would need to be achieved to create the Jewish state. They split the area into two regions, one called Palestine and the other, Transjordan. British territory known as Palestine was fully administered by the British, and Transjordan was given partial control under Abdullah. This all came from the Mandate of Palestine in early 1921. The mandate even calls on the British to administer the territory of Palestine as a home to the Jewish people. The mandate also recognized Transjordan as the rightful home of Arabs. Thus, creating a two-state solution all the way back to 1921. Transjordan became Jordan, English Palestine became Israel, and the mandate gives the reasons for each to exist in the first place. Jordan is rightfully the home of the Palestinian Arabs, or who we call Palestinians today.
Jordan is made up of 70% Palestinian, and during the 6 days war in 1967, the people of Jerusalem were given a choice after the Israeli army took Jerusalem. The choice was citizenship in Israel or Jordan. Most picked Jordan.
The solution for all of this fighting has already been agreed to.
So, the question persists, why are we arguing for a two-state solution when the solution already exists and has been agreed to by all parties?
