Israel exists to create a safe place for Jews. In a democratic one state solution jews would be in the minority in Israel so it would no longer be a safe haven for them, Israel would effectively no longer exist.
Israeli settlement has destroyed the viability of a two state solution. They have two choices left. Find a way to integrate Palestinians and Jews in a single democratic state or maintain a racist system of ethnic hierarchy where they violently oppress Palestinians. I for one don’t like ethno states regardless of which ethnicity the ethno state prefers.
I can’t see there being any way one state would work, any sane jew would leave as soon as it looked like they were losing control of the government, more likely they’d never allow it to come to that.
I’m interested in thoughts on the settlements making two states non-viable. I assumed removing some of the Jewish settlements would have to be a part of the two-state solution. Do you think it’s too late for that?
I hear you on the ethnostate issue, ideally Israel would have never been created and never have been needed, Jewish people could have lived safely in developed non-secular countries. But it was and it is, so we have to deal with the reality as it stands now.
I’m not in favor of forcible displacement in general. If people voluntarily bail as a result of losing their privileged position within an ethno state then I’d say that’s a much better situation than forcing anyone from their homes. Anyone who’s willing to stick around in a state where equality is the goal deserves a chance at peace and reconciliation. Although I’m sure a faction would stick around intending to use terrorism to regain their privilege. That’s typically what happens in these situations. Look at the KKK in it’s various incarnations
And this is what is meant by apartheid. It was never a land without a people for a people without a land. There were always people there. This “safety” is predicated upon ethnic cleansing, and Zionism is now inseparable from that. The implicit suggestion is that Jewish safety requires Palestinian oppression. That is not going to work in the long term. And it’s not worked so far.
In a democratic one state solution jews would be in the minority in Israel so it would no longer be a safe haven for them, Israel would effectively no longer exist.
Jews lived peacefully in Palestine alongside everyone else prior to 1948 for centuries.
Does any nation have the right to exist when its creation was based on ethnically cleansing those who lived there?
Also, the sheer amount of hatred between the two groups means that a one-state solution (even if it could be willed into existence without violence) would be, at best, highly volatile.
No. But that does not make a one-state solution feasible. Neither side would be willing to agree to it, and even if you could force it, the new state would violently implode the second you remove that external force.
Just as a possible counterpoint to this: Lebanon has been highly divided by sectarian conflicts, mainly between Christians and Muslims, but has managed to stay a cohesive state since its founding in the 40s.
Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t point to Lebanon as some beacon of stability or good governance. But despite decades of problems, including a long civil war, Lebanon’s government and civilian population still exist without a major external power forcing them to stay as a single cohesive state.
If they can do that, maybe a one-state solution for Palestine and Israel isn’t completely unworkable. If nothing else it sure seems like an improvement over the current situation.
There’s no longer a menu of options where we have the luxury of feasible or not feasible, preferable or not preferable. We are in a one-state reality now. All that’s left to decide is the degree of strife we’re willing to accept.
Israel exists to create a safe place for Jews. In a democratic one state solution jews would be in the minority in Israel so it would no longer be a safe haven for them, Israel would effectively no longer exist.
Israeli settlement has destroyed the viability of a two state solution. They have two choices left. Find a way to integrate Palestinians and Jews in a single democratic state or maintain a racist system of ethnic hierarchy where they violently oppress Palestinians. I for one don’t like ethno states regardless of which ethnicity the ethno state prefers.
I can’t see there being any way one state would work, any sane jew would leave as soon as it looked like they were losing control of the government, more likely they’d never allow it to come to that. I’m interested in thoughts on the settlements making two states non-viable. I assumed removing some of the Jewish settlements would have to be a part of the two-state solution. Do you think it’s too late for that?
I hear you on the ethnostate issue, ideally Israel would have never been created and never have been needed, Jewish people could have lived safely in developed non-secular countries. But it was and it is, so we have to deal with the reality as it stands now.
I’m not in favor of forcible displacement in general. If people voluntarily bail as a result of losing their privileged position within an ethno state then I’d say that’s a much better situation than forcing anyone from their homes. Anyone who’s willing to stick around in a state where equality is the goal deserves a chance at peace and reconciliation. Although I’m sure a faction would stick around intending to use terrorism to regain their privilege. That’s typically what happens in these situations. Look at the KKK in it’s various incarnations
And this is what is meant by apartheid. It was never a land without a people for a people without a land. There were always people there. This “safety” is predicated upon ethnic cleansing, and Zionism is now inseparable from that. The implicit suggestion is that Jewish safety requires Palestinian oppression. That is not going to work in the long term. And it’s not worked so far.
Jews lived peacefully in Palestine alongside everyone else prior to 1948 for centuries.
Does any nation have the right to exist when its creation was based on ethnically cleansing those who lived there?
Also, the sheer amount of hatred between the two groups means that a one-state solution (even if it could be willed into existence without violence) would be, at best, highly volatile.
Are we to pretend things are not “highly volatile?”
No. But that does not make a one-state solution feasible. Neither side would be willing to agree to it, and even if you could force it, the new state would violently implode the second you remove that external force.
Just as a possible counterpoint to this: Lebanon has been highly divided by sectarian conflicts, mainly between Christians and Muslims, but has managed to stay a cohesive state since its founding in the 40s.
Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t point to Lebanon as some beacon of stability or good governance. But despite decades of problems, including a long civil war, Lebanon’s government and civilian population still exist without a major external power forcing them to stay as a single cohesive state.
If they can do that, maybe a one-state solution for Palestine and Israel isn’t completely unworkable. If nothing else it sure seems like an improvement over the current situation.
There’s no longer a menu of options where we have the luxury of feasible or not feasible, preferable or not preferable. We are in a one-state reality now. All that’s left to decide is the degree of strife we’re willing to accept.