Talk:Zero-state solution/Definition

WHY on Earth would anyone call this a "zero state" solution? It still leaves Israel as a state. Sandy Harris 12:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because the Palestinians get no state out of it? I don't know, but the term does soom to be in use. The article on the Israel-Palestine Conflict explains more, as does the talkpage there. David Finn 13:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, you ask why a nonsensical name is used? As my grandfather would have said, you are talking about the Middle East.

Dave has a good first impression. Two state and one state both recognize a Palestinian identity; one-state integrates them into Israel while two state allows separate nations based on identity. Zero state denies there is any Palestinian identity.

It sounds as if we need a full article on zero state, certainly not just a lemma. I would suggest, though, putting the discussion under Talk: Israel-Palestine Conflict until and unless there's a specific zero state article.

Flow suggestions on Israel-Palestine are badly needed. I've started moving historical background to subarticles, as the present version doesn't let a reader get quickly to current issues. In the short term, though, I'm not sure how much work I will be doing on CZ. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)