re: #180 SanFranciscoZionist

About operating a state in 2 or 3 pieces, I’m not sure why that’s a problem. The state of Michigan isn’t contiguous. For that matter, Alaska is not contiguous with the “lower 48” states.

Suppose Canada gives some territory to Mexico. Is Mexico then “entitled” to some kind of “corridor” through the continental United States, so Mexico can be “contiguous”? My point is that this is precisely the situation with Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians. (Maybe Syria can be included.)

I’m in favor of a land settlement, pretty much like Obama said (similar to the 1967 lines). I have my disagreements with both sides, frankly. But the issue of a CONTIGUOUS Palestinian state kind of sticks in my craw. It seems like they want to avoid as much contact with Israel as possible. I mean, I assume there will be an Israeli embassy in Palestine, and a Palestinian embassy in Israel. It’s not like Israel and Palestine will be hermetically sealed (whatever that means) off from each other.