diff --git a/_posts/2016-12-21-israel-palestine-solution.markdown b/_posts/2016-12-21-israel-palestine-solution.markdown
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..853153f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/_posts/2016-12-21-israel-palestine-solution.markdown
@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
+---
+layout: post
+title:  "A potential solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict"
+date:   2016-12-21 16:00:00 +0200
+categories: politics
+---
+
+The Israel-Palestine conflict is almost as old as the end of World War Two.
+And there doesn't seem to be an end to the conflict. With the war in Syria
+on the border it certainly doesn't become easier to solve. I won't be able
+to definitively explain the reasons on why this conflict is still looming
+or how it came to be. Instead I will focus on how to move on from here
+and what has to be changed or acknowledged and from whom to achieve progress.
+
+## Double Standards
+
+The first aspect is the demystification of Israel. In order to solve this conflict
+it is necessary to view Israel as a regular state with regular state interests
+and different parties with different interests. If you view it as God's country
+or the country of the Jews than you won't be able to solve the conflict, because
+then you can't properly criticize Israel. I will now explain what I mean with
+that. It's called double standard.
+
+Take any disliked dictatorship. For this example we use South Africa during the
+Apartheid, because it fits quite well. If this dictatorship now occupies land
+which belongs to another country and starts colonizing it (settling people in
+the land), you would be quick to criticize it for this behaviour. Especially
+if the people in the occupied area are treated worse than the citizens of the
+occupying country. Now take the same behaviour but this time it's not a dictatorship
+but a liberal democracy doing it. Would you criticize them in the same way?
+You might say Yes no but you won't. The reason is that you value a liberal
+democracy with a ground positive value while the dictatorship has a ground
+negative value before considering anything else. Therefore - in plain English -
+a democracy has to behave more illegaly and/or has to be fucked up more, before
+you will criticize it in the same way. That's because you fear damaging the concept
+of a liberal democracy itself by criticizing a liberal democratic country for this
+behaviour.
+You probably know where this is going but imagine the democracy is Israel. All
+of a sudden it becomes even more difficult for you to criticize it in the same
+way you would criticize a dictatorship. That's because Israel is not only a liberal
+democracy but also the Jewish state. Therefore you fear that by criticizing Israel
+you criticize the concept of a Jewish state and are therefore antisemitic.
+
+Of course this is not scientific and you can have another opinion than I do on
+this matter but I think it is somewhat logical. The consequence is that many
+people in especially Germany struggle with criticizing
+Israel for such observable behaviour. In Germany another layer is added and that
+is the historic responsibility towards Israel which adds another hurdle for criticizing
+Israel.
+
+This imbalance regarding the criticism of certain behaviour by states can be
+especially observed by conservatives in Europe and the US. For them it is incomprehensible
+how you could criticize for example the US and any criticism is assumed to be
+a criticism of democracy. Similar patterns relate to free trade agreements
+between the US and EU. Criticism of those is assumed to be a criticism of
+free trade as a whole instead of the specifics in the agreement.
+
+Weirdly this balance is completely inverted when it comes to the left political
+spectrum. There it is predominantly Israel and the US taking the criticism while
+more authoritarian countries like Russia and Iran are almost not criticized.
+Doesn't that disprove my theory? No, it's just the other side. 
+
+Democracies and additional features like being a Jewish state or the sole democracy
+in the Near East still have a positive ground value. But instead of allowing more
+missteps and illegal behaviour, less is allowed, because these features are
+viewed as role model features. This means a democracy is held to a higher
+standard than a dictatorship - based upon expectation. You expect militant and
+somewhat illegal behaviour from dictatorships. This makes their actions not right
+but it is less scandalous than a democracy doing these actions.
+The virtues of Israel and the US are therefore their downfall. By being model states
+for democracy, they are under increased scrutiny, because the chances of correcting
+such illegal behaviour are higher in a democracy than in a dictatorship. Therefore
+it seems to be more efficient to criticize a democracy compared to a dictatorship.
+
+These two main reasons for double standards should make it easier to understand
+why there are so many problems even talking about the conflict. When people
+belonging to different sides of the aisle talk with each other about the conflict
+and Israel is criticized, they interpret the criticism differently which leads to
+misunderstandings and accusations.
+
+It is important to note that so far the occupied people are not part of these
+two sides. Because for them it doesn't make a difference why they are oppressed
+or who does it. They suffer regardless.
+
+Therefore it is necessary to eliminate the double standard before trying to solve
+the conflict. This means all parties participating in talks about the conflict
+must agree to only judge the actions, which are verifiable, and not other 
+non-materialistic features like being a democracy.
+
+## Ground support for Anti-Israel hate
+
+This brings us to another important point. The Palestinians are not angels.
+There is real hate towards Israel which in huge parts is truly antisemitic and
+doesn't want to stop until Israel is destroyed. But this is not godgiven and nobody
+is born with this hate. So how did it develop and why does it continue to build?
+
+This question is truly hard to answer comprehensively. Therefore I will focus on
+a few points which can serve as an example. I my opinion the best way to try
+an explanation is to take a newborn in the Palestinian territories and to follow
+this person all the way to adulthood. Because to solve this hate it is key to
+understand how innocent newborn babies can become terrorists or at least Israel
+haters.
+
+A key factor for this is obviously some level of indoctrination and propaganda.
+But propaganda can only work if it is based upon some base level of unhappiness.
+If the social situation in the territories would be fine, the propaganda against
+Israel would be very powerless. Why go protest against those who give you bread
+and a good life?
+
+But more importantly than propaganda are real experiences. Children who lose their
+relatives by military attacks from Israel, whatever the reason of those, will have a
+negative view of Israel. Palestinians who observe unfair treatment by Israel
+regarding criminal justice, water supply or other things will have a negative
+view of Israel. Palestinians who don't have enough to eat will lay blame on Israel.
+This is without propaganda. The propaganda can now use this ground negative
+view and turn it into hate by providing simple answers on why those things happen.
+
+Israel has no real chance to win in any of this, because as the defacto controllers
+of the area, they will be held responsible for what happens regardless of behaviour
+from the Palestinian authorities. Israel is routinely facing criticism for the
+blockade of Gaza but they always claim that they don't block food from entering
+the area. If that is so why do people hunger there?
+
+The answer are the Palestinian authorities. They are radicals and have an interest
+in keeping the Palestinians unhappy about Israel. Whenever they can fuel the
+negative views of Israel - for example by unfairly distributing the food supplies
+and laying the blame on Israel - they will do it. On the other side the right
+wing Israelis also have an interest in unhappy Palestinians. A bad social situation
+and regular military crackdowns fuel the anti-Israel hate which then can be used
+as a reason to increase the settlement and military spending. Those two groups
+surely don't really cooperate but their interests align for different reasons.
+
+## Leaving the cycle
+
+This leads to a cycle of violence, settlement, illegal behaviour and even more
+violence. The only way to exit this cycle is by criticizing the illegal actions
+of Israel very openly and forcefully demand an end to more settlement, while also
+criticizing the radicals on the Palestinian side. The moderate and left on both
+sides must unite, stop the cycle in Israel by elections and then start mandatory
+peace talks.
+
+The solution however won't be a two state solution. This is not feasible. It would
+just leave the radicals on either side in power. Instead a unitary state which
+is binational should be realized. In such a state there should be no second class
+citizens and the constitution should consist of unchangable principles like
+democracy, equal rights and fair representation. That way a solution could be
+found to prevent a discrimination of then-minority Jews by then-majority Muslims
+and vice versa. Only by embracing diversity it will be possible to solve this
+conflict.
+
+The state should be designed as a federation with large autonomy to the different
+areas to allow multiple cultures to exist in parallel. That way gay people
+in Tel Aviv, orthodox Jews in Jerusalem and very conservative Muslims in Bethlehem
+could live peacefully together. Due to the importance of religion for discrimination 
+in that area, all major religions should be represented in an equal way to not 
+give any religion the advantage over another.
+