Practical solutions appear unavailable especially now, but recent events have revived well-intentioned calls for the “two-state solution.” In this scenario the West Bank and Gaza would be partitioned from Israel and granted sovereignty. Like most everyone, I have supported this in the past. I no longer think this is viable, even in the long run.
I share your assessment. The Israeli right, with its settlements, removed the basis of the TSS. What remains is the abyss or a largely secular state. The settlers could, of course, either return or become pro-Fateh. Take your pick on what is more likely and better.
Like you say, it already is a single state, but one in which 4 million Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens have zero representation. This may be a good time to raise your point, at least with regards to demographics, with Arab/Jewish ratio in Israel/Palestine almost evenly split. The high emotion politics is another matter.
I don’t see how your one-state solution is compatible with either Zionism or Palestinian sovereignty. So it feels like even more of a fantasy than a two-state solution since it asks so many to give up their core organizing principles.
It seems to me the de facto one-state-plus-bantustans status quo is probably as good as it gets for Zionist Israelis, who lord over a lot more than they would under any conceivable alternative. As in any real-life utopia, violence is less a problem to be solved than a well of pathos to be drunk from deeply, each horror renewing the motivation to cling to the good land one has so recently claimed.
This is reminiscent of how nineteenth-century Americans romanticized “Indian wars,” many of which began with anti-settler terrorism committed by indigenous people, and all of which ended well for the surviving settlers who were manifesting destiny. If the Indians actually wanted to live in peace, there was always an Indian Country or an Indian Territory or a reservation just over the horizon, just as contemporary Zionists remind us that there’s a whole big Arab world out there where Palestinians would undoubtedly feel more at home than in the one place on Earth assigned to the Jews by the Holy British Empire.
Needless to say, these purported escape hatches are, and were, dishonest mirages. But consider the alternative. When the United States finally admitted there was never going to be a permanent Indian Country and threw in the towel on indigenous separation, conditions for the indigenous got much worse. The American one-state solution was incompatible with being indigenous, and if it had allowed the Indians any real power, it also would have been incompatible with American manifest destiny. In recent decades, tribes that have bought up pieces of their former homelands, at market prices, have been barred by the courts from alienating these lands from U.S. sovereignty. Destiny is still manifesting.
You're right. It is not compatible with Zionism or Palestinian nationalism. Any solution implies relinquishing these core organizing principles. It's still possible that one solution is less unlikely than another, even if both appear to be far beyond the realm of possibility in the near future.
I don't buy your history of Indians in the U.S.A., but that's an argument for a different post.
I share your assessment. The Israeli right, with its settlements, removed the basis of the TSS. What remains is the abyss or a largely secular state. The settlers could, of course, either return or become pro-Fateh. Take your pick on what is more likely and better.
Like you say, it already is a single state, but one in which 4 million Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens have zero representation. This may be a good time to raise your point, at least with regards to demographics, with Arab/Jewish ratio in Israel/Palestine almost evenly split. The high emotion politics is another matter.
I don’t see how your one-state solution is compatible with either Zionism or Palestinian sovereignty. So it feels like even more of a fantasy than a two-state solution since it asks so many to give up their core organizing principles.
It seems to me the de facto one-state-plus-bantustans status quo is probably as good as it gets for Zionist Israelis, who lord over a lot more than they would under any conceivable alternative. As in any real-life utopia, violence is less a problem to be solved than a well of pathos to be drunk from deeply, each horror renewing the motivation to cling to the good land one has so recently claimed.
This is reminiscent of how nineteenth-century Americans romanticized “Indian wars,” many of which began with anti-settler terrorism committed by indigenous people, and all of which ended well for the surviving settlers who were manifesting destiny. If the Indians actually wanted to live in peace, there was always an Indian Country or an Indian Territory or a reservation just over the horizon, just as contemporary Zionists remind us that there’s a whole big Arab world out there where Palestinians would undoubtedly feel more at home than in the one place on Earth assigned to the Jews by the Holy British Empire.
Needless to say, these purported escape hatches are, and were, dishonest mirages. But consider the alternative. When the United States finally admitted there was never going to be a permanent Indian Country and threw in the towel on indigenous separation, conditions for the indigenous got much worse. The American one-state solution was incompatible with being indigenous, and if it had allowed the Indians any real power, it also would have been incompatible with American manifest destiny. In recent decades, tribes that have bought up pieces of their former homelands, at market prices, have been barred by the courts from alienating these lands from U.S. sovereignty. Destiny is still manifesting.
You're right. It is not compatible with Zionism or Palestinian nationalism. Any solution implies relinquishing these core organizing principles. It's still possible that one solution is less unlikely than another, even if both appear to be far beyond the realm of possibility in the near future.
I don't buy your history of Indians in the U.S.A., but that's an argument for a different post.
Jewish homeland
v
Jewish state
Who can countenance
The claim of a jewish state
Sympatric multi nation states
must be
Understood for what they are
The US is a sympatric multination state
The alternatives
i cleansing
or
subalternation / bantustaning
Two names one state solution
Palestine- israel
Israel - palistine
Rotating billing ever 5 months
Biblical.Jews and historic palestinians
both
right of return