Nit pick: There's no real reason why a state must be contiguous, as the quoted article claims. It certainly is more natural, but Pakistan existed for a decade or two as a non-contiguous state, before Bangladesh split off from it. Island nations are non-contiguous as well.

Having said that, the Palestinians have made very clear that they cannot be trusted to run a nation state peacefully. I'm all for the principle of self-determination, but not if the selves in question have determined to do everything in their power to kill others and destroy their country.

The moral justification for the Israeli occupation is exactly the same as that for the Allied occupations of Germany and Japan after WWII. If Germany had continued to launch terrorist assaults in Alsace and against occupation soldiers, and if Willy Brandt and other postwar leaders had regularly made speeches about driving hte impure non-Aryans into the ocean, then the Allies would have been justified in maitaining the occupation until the Germans grew up.

And you could argue the same about France too, couldn't you?

But if you look at the history of bifurcated states, one of two things happen:

Either one piece declares independence (Bangladesh from West Pakistan, in the '71 War), or else the two sides seek reunification (East Prussia and the rest of Germany, via the Danzig Corridor).

Indeed, it is scary to think that Israel would, pretty much, be playing the role of Poland and the Danzig Corridor in 1939.

That same parallel, of course, is why the argument that a Palestinian state would be "disarmed" is ludicrous. The autonomous PA is not supposed to have anything heavier than an M-16, yet we SEE loads of anti-tank missiles, mines, and machine guns. What in the WORLD makes people think that an autonomous state, whose security is guaranteed on its own, not by Israeli forces, would NOT have AT LEAST as much heavy infantry equipment? Indeed, the simple size issue alone would it a virtual certainty that they would also possess anti-aircraft missiles (Stinger/RBS-70/SA-16 shoulder-fired systems), heavy anti-tank missiles (Milan/TOW), and probably even armed helicopters (it doesn't take that much to take off rocket packs and mini-guns---or mount 'em on, either).

You think it's bad now? Hah! And if you really think that the Israelis will be allowed to go after the bad guys, well, just imagine what the Peace Now types would be saying about the need for negotiations THEN.

Interim steps, incremental steps, whatever you call them.... I'm beginning to think they cannot work. They seem only to offer more opportunity for disappointment and accusation from both sides when the agreements are not 100% complied with. It may be that only fast bold action can work, and since the Arabs are incapable of compromise that bold action may have to be war.... all out war where unconditional surrender finally forces the Arabs to accept defeat. Yes, today's violence has really brought out the anger.

United States?
Alaska?
Come again?

Alaska is an interesting example, for two reasons. One, it has a very small population (that is also treated like all the other folks in the US). And it is separated from the US by Canada, a nation whose differences from us (watch for the flaming!) are far outweighed by the similarities.

If Alaska had a larger population, or if Canada were significantly different from us (say, in the form of a Cuba, or an India), one wonders how well a separated Alaska would have fared.

'Course, under either of those circumstances, it probably would have been CANADA, and not the US, that purchased Alaska in the first place.

Uh guys?

Bifurcated states?

Has it slipped everybody's mind that the US is non-contiguous? I don't think Canada is particularly worried that we will try to sieze the "Alaska Corridor"..