- Joined
- Jul 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,923
- Reaction score
- 1,738
- Location
- Staffs, England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
For all that, it is not so hard to see why this once forbidden notion now appeals to Israel's nationalist camp. The two-state solution may be conventional wisdom across the globe, endorsed by almost all democratic governments, but for settlers and their allies the very idea reeks of trauma: any division of the land is assumed to entail the dismantling of the towns and villages they call home. For the devout, this means leaving places they regard as part of the ancient biblical homeland. Some threaten armed resistance; rightwing soldiers warn they will refuse any order to evacuate settlements. But if there's a single state, all that trauma can be avoided. "It's preferable for the Palestinians to become citizens of the state than for us to divide the country," says Knesset speaker and Likud MK Reuben Rivlin. What's more, there would be no place for the current wall, or separation barrier, that some rightists believe disfigures and artificially divides what should be the sacred, and whole, Land of Israel.
The one-state solution was and still is the solution that is promoted by the radicals; from both the far-right and the far-left.
It also has the added advantage of being totally unworkable.
And is certain to generate a massive bloodbath, so it has that going for it too.
I think so also. Lebanon is an example. A Middle East nation perpetually fractured by religious factions.With the one state solution we'll be risking a bloody civil war like never seen before.
Yep. One needs to be very naive to think that this is where the conflict would end.
At least with the two states solution the Palestinians will have their own state and any further hostility from them will be hostility from a state, the much preferable kind of hostility.
With the one state solution we'll be risking a bloody civil war like never seen before.
Seams a fair enough deal to me, the settlers don't have to leave and the Palestinians don't have to settle for being crammed into the OT.
At least with the two states solution the Palestinians will have their own state and any further hostility from them will be hostility from a state, the much preferable kind of hostility.
Kinda seeing the same objections repeating themselves here.
1 It could result in a bloodbath
Assuming some kind of power-sharing system was put in place then I think it could be pulled off, this system has worked between Hutus and Tutsis in Burundi and they have a far worse history then Israelis and Palestinians (likewise we should remember that the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland is a former I.R.A commander). Its fair to say that this system would need some very secure policing but im sure external assistance could be given for this (i.e peacekeepers, policemen, intelligence etc.) as its in the global interest that this problem is addressed.
2 It goes against the ethos of Israel's establishment: Its this ethos that is the problem. The establishment of a Jewish state has come at the expense of the right of those living there for generations to continue to live there (I wont get into the whole "there are no Palestinians argument" so lets just call them Arabs) This is why the two state solution has not worked in the past, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza brought about little improvement in quality of life as the land was already agriculturally devastated due to overcrowding, this problem has a political root in that the majority of those living in Gaza are refugees or descendants of refugees. Simply cramming the Arabs into what left of their land is not a just solution and thus not sustainable. Hence why Arafat had to enforce Oslo by effectively creating a police state.
3 Religiosity: I would argue that religiosity is a symptom rather then a cause of the conflict, it was common to see cafe's serving alcohol in the Gaza strip untill the rise of Hamas towards the end of the first Intifadah, around this time you saw a sharp decline in quality of life due to a decline in the amount of jobs for Palestinians in Israel proper (Now that Jewish immigrants from the post-soviet world could do all the crappy jobs)and the obvious problems associated with the Israeli crackdown. It was at this time that the amount of mosques in the OT literally doubled in a few years (il get the exact stats if anyone wants) and Hamas went around attacking any establishment that served alcohol or was in any other way un-islamic. I think that the resolution of this conflict could resolve the extremism it creates, generally the more developed a place is the more educated people are and the more willing people are to endorse secularism/democracy. Lastly if we are to interpret Islam as a political system why hasnt Islamism enjoyed electoral support in places like Pakistan, Senegal or Mali?
Lastly is should be remembered that this solution offers alot to the Israeli's by saving them the trauma of using military action against their own people (which may be necessary in order to evacuate the settlements) something the Palestinians have already had to do twice.
With the current hostilities going on between the two parties a civil war is pretty much a bundled feature to the one-state solution, it'll just take us back to the 47 civil war only with way more casualties.
The Israelis have already had "the trauma of using military action against their own people" during the numerous evacuations of settlers from the West Bank, the Gaza Strip withdrawal and the Sinai withdrawal. I have no idea what are the Palestinian similar actions that you're referring to here, but Israel is already used to taking those kind of actions for the sake of peace.
The two state solutions remains the only viable solution if only due to the fact that both sides are still interested in having their own state and practicing their right to self-determination. The ethos of Israel's establishment is absolutely not the problem here, there would be no problem at all were the Palestinians to create their own state alongside the Jewish state.
Basically the one-state solution is a bit of a loony solution since it requires the Israeli people to dismantle their state after 62 years of prosperity for the sake of the creation of a united state with a people they share mutual hostility with. There is absolutely no valid reason for the Israeli people to even want such an outcome let alone take it on themselves to reach it.
That's why the one-state solution remains a surreal solution promoted only by the extremists factors in the conflict from both the far-left and the far-right, neither are capable of understanding that their goal is impractical at the least.
This isn't Europe. It's the Middle East.
We've seen the brutal sectarian civil wars in Lebanon. There will be another shortly.
Thanks, but no thanks.
The brutal sectarian civil war in Northern Ireland passed you by then.
I was refering the the repression by the PA of dissident factions after the Oslo agreement and the Fatah-Hamas conflict a few years ago. Anyhow although I would reinterate that power-sharing has worked in places far more violent and irrational then the Middle East, I think you make some very convincing points here. My only question is (assuming the status quo is not something you want to continue) how to sell the two state system when a significant portion of those on both sides will not accpet it as it stands now. The settlers wont accept being moved (and a significant proportion of Israeli society wont accept moving them if they dont belive it will get them anywhere) and the Palestinians wont accept any solution that doesnt adequatly adress the injustices done to them. I guess what this boils down to is whether the one state solution is any more impractical then a solution that has already proved to have been unsuccesful.
And the fact that power sharing has worked reasonably well in places that make both Northern Ireland and the Middle East look like Switziland
Simply cramming the Arabs into what left of their land is not a just solution and thus not sustainable.
Last time I looked Arab land amounted to something around 14 million square kilometers. Jewish land amounts to a mere 28 thousand square kilometers.
I'm not sure about British schools, but here in the states we learn enough math to understand the implications at a quite early age -- those of us who were paying any attention, anyway.
299 US and French peace-keeping soldiers were killed in one day during he bloody Lebanese civil war. Northern Ireland? Please. When were battle tanks and artillery ever used in Northern Ireland? Europeans have no idea how brutal the Middle East is. They wanted no part in ending the bloodletting in European Bosnia. Yet they think it's a reasonable idea to compress two peoples together who have been fighting each other for well over 60 years. Idiotic and inexplicable.You mean it would look like Swiss cheese. We all remember the Yugoslavia project, now add to that the fanatics and the zealots, and the Middle Eastern diplomacy of "suicide bomb first negotiate later" and you get hell upon hell in the middle of hell.
Fine maybe we can agree to call them Palestinian Arabs (being of course, Arabs, who lived in Palestine).
This argument always made no sense to me anyhow, it sounded alot like saying that we can kick thousands of people out of Austria as Europeans already have the rest of Europe. Regardless of what you call these people they are prevented from living were they have done for generations purely on the basis of their ethnicity.
299 US and French peace-keeping soldiers were killed in one day during he bloody Lebanese civil war. Northern Ireland? Please. When were battle tanks and artillery ever used in Northern Ireland? Europeans have no idea how brutal the Middle East is. They wanted no part in ending the bloodletting in European Bosnia. Yet they think it's a reasonable idea to compress two peoples together who have been fighting each other for well over 60 years. Idiotic and inexplicable.
That all depends on one's agenda. The need to distinguish these Arabs from other Arabs only arose in recent times, and the reason for such has to do with framing the conflict. If one understands the conflict as between Jews and Arabs, then the population transfers of 700,000 Arabs from Jewish land and 900,000 Jews from Arab lands is placed in proper context. If one is only advocating against Jews, the 900,000 Jews forced from Arab lands is rationalized as unimportant because of the creation of this distinction.
The nature of the 900,000 Jews who were forced from Arab lands has been pointed out to you time after time, but you CHOOSE to make no sense of it because of your agenda. Until you learn to balance your equation here, all you are indulging in is selective propaganda in pursuit of the interests of those who wish to destroy Israel.
The Israeli right has a new vision
Seams a fair enough deal to me, the settlers don't have to leave and the Palestinians don't have to settle for being crammed into the OT.
But if there's a single state, all that trauma can be avoided. "It's preferable for the Palestinians to become citizens of the state than for us to divide the country," says Knesset speaker and Likud MK Reuben Rivlin.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?