The Medad Fraction Principle.
That in order to divide something, sometimes you need to enlarge it first.
The one that asserts that to enable an equitable solutuion to the conflict over the Jewish National Home in the Land of Israel, the territory involved is too small and the area which includes currently the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan must be involved.
There is not enough room between the sea and the river for both the Jews and a fictitious "Palestinian people".
See, even the Pals. admit (demand, actually) that a greater geographic is needed to solve the conflict:-
Contrary to the repeated statements by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to foreign leaders that the PA recognizes Israel, the PA internally in Arabic continues to deny Israel's existence and to present a world without Israel.
The PA transmits the message to its people that it does not recognize Israel's existence, describing all Israeli land, cities and regions as "Palestinian." Palestinian TV is one tool among many used by the PA to disseminate this message.
In three recent programs on PA TV, which is owned by the PA and operated under the auspices of Mahmoud Abbas's office, Palestinians were presented with a world without Israel, which is the most explicit non-recognition:
1. The Israeli city of Tiberias was said to be "in northern Palestine, close to the Palestinian-Jordanian-Syrian border."
- "Palestine" could not share a border with Syria unless Israel did not exist. Tiberias is in northern Israel and not "northern Palestine."
2. The coast of "Palestine" was said in an educational program to be 224 km. long, reaching Rosh Hanikra in northern Israel.
- The coast of "Palestine" could not be 224 km. long unless there were no Israel, since the coast of the Gaza Strip is only 40 km. long.
3. "Palestine is big - 27,000 sq. km.," said PA TV host.
- The area of "Palestine" could not be 27,000 sq. km. unless Israel were to disappear, since the West Bank and Gaza together are only about 6,000 sq. km.
Then again, there is this thinking:-
In recent years, faced with a stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process and Israel's continued creation of facts on the ground, many have started to question whether it is still possible to implement a viable two-state solution, which is the peace process's stated goal. A number of alternative ways forward in the conflict have therefore been suggested that go beyond the usual one-state solution. As part of an exercise of "thinking outside the box," JPS is running two essays that suggest unconventional frameworks for dealing with the conflict.
The first essay, by Swedish diplomat Mathias Mossberg, places the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the context of a discussion of the concept of sovereignty and its erosion and outlines the basic elements of a "parallel states" structure as a possible vision for the Israeli-Palestinian future. This scenario is currently being studied in the Swedish government-funded "Parallel States Project" at the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University. The project, launched in 2008, gathers Israeli and Palestinian academics and thinkers along with international experts to explore the implications of a parallel states structure involving two distinct states, Israel and Palestine, and distinct institutions sharing sovereignty over the entire area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. The project does not pretend to provide solutions or build a model, but to explore the issues and develop the questions that would arise from such a scenario. The project intends to present a first report at a conference in Lund in September 2010.