Jerome Slater writes:
John Mearsheimer is absolutely right that there is not a chance for a "one state solution." Despite the rhetoric, the Israelis, by nearly 100%, will never accept it; the Palestinians also won't accept it; and even if they both did, it would be a very bad idea that would have very little chance of succeeding.
Secondly, I wish I agreed with you that "our side" is winning, but I see practically no evidence for that. Yes, there is a greater range of discourse than a few years ago, but "we" are very much a small minority. Where are we winning? Certainly not in Israel, where there is not a chance that there will be an effective Israeli majority for a genuine two-state solution--even if a majority agreed with it, which they don't, the rightwing has an effective veto.
Are we winning in the US, just because we can get some dissent published, speak to meetings, etc? All of that is far outweighed by the dismal fact that the only difference between the two parties is which can outpander the other, or identify more closely with the Israeli and American Jewish rightwingers.
My response: Jerry, two or more years ago I heard Henry Siegman at the Nation say there was no possibility of a one-state solution for similar reasons to yours. I remember challenging him, that We didn't think blacks would be accepted as equals here, and societies change in ways we can't imagine. It seems to me that given the politics of Livni's situation you've got to agree with Siegman's answer, a year ago, in the LRB: basically impose a solution. Just yesterday an old friend and progressive Zionist said as much to me, Impose a solution. Martin Indyk even seemed to say as much recently.
Somehow I don't think it'll happen. AIPAC is agin it. And I wonder with the two-state solution failing and failing again, and extremists on both sides driving the "reasonable" people crazy, one state won't come to seem very reasonable indeed. Hey it's the age of Obama, anything's possible.
Mssrs. Slater and Weiss:
History has already passed you by (and the 100% of the Jewish State).
The early Zionists wished for a state from the sea to the Jordan River, and that's what they got: One State. All of this intellectualizing over whether there will (or will not be) a Palestinian State is bullshit in light of reality on the ground.
What you've got: a stinking corpse of a state that seeks to liquidate it's Arab minority population. Plain and simple, and the truthful world recognizes it for what it is.
Phil,
The US ("we") imposed a solution in Iraq.
So, does the question come down to which "we" does the imposing?
An external imposition fights upstream in a few respects:
1. It often doesn't know what is going on
2. It doesn't have the commitment to follow through to get there
3. It evokes a common enemy response towards the imposer
4. It depends on a gamut of conditions all controlled and conformed to internationally
The US does not have it now, or ever in some respects.
Richard Witty, making sense for once, says
"An external imposition fights upstream in a few respects"
I agree. So give Palestine back to the Palestinians and stop your peoples' external imposition.
PM
The point is to regard impatience as a bad motivator.
It generates a D level of governance.
The USA simply cannot afford the continued existence of the State of Israel.
In order to save the US and world economy, the US government must clawback $3 trillion from the State of Israel, Israel advocates, and the organized Jewish community.
We really don't have the time to waste arguing about 1 state versus 2 states, and since the Neocons acting as Jewish special interest group are responsible for dislocating at least 5 million non-Jews during the Bush administration, no one should have any problem with relocating the racist genocidal Zionist interloper population if necessary.
The clawback is completely justified because Zionist oligarchs, Friedmanite Neoliberal intelligentsia, and the State of Israel have criminally manipulated the US and world financial system for approximately 50 years while Jabotinskian Neocon intelligentsia bear the lion's share of the blame for the subprime meltdown.
The clawback would represent poetic justice because Judonia worked with the Nazis to loot German Geldjuden in order to solidify the Jewish settlement that has caused so much harm and chaos in the world over the last 70 years.
It is time for Zionists to pay the piper, and all the stratagems, manipulation and bribes of the Zionist intelligentsia and oligarchs simply cannot change the financial reality.
"An external imposition fights upstream in a few respects"
"The point is to regard impatience as a bad motivator."
Richard Witty is on fire!
It's true. An external solution would be a disaster for the simple reason that it's a foreign occupation. Also, certain things in history have their course.
A two state solution, with both states having a full measure of sovereignty, is an impossibility because of geography. Either neither state has territorial integrity and defensible borders, or one does and the other doesn't. That's always been true and Israeli infrastructure projects are making it more true every day.
The endgame of a two-state solution is nowhere. Trying to impose nowhere by force is doubly stupid.
A one-state solution is impossible because of popular opinion. Popular opinion is, over the long term, more mutable than geography.
It will be a while before we see a one-state solution, but that's the solution we will see.
There's a strategy that commenced hard since 1947-48, a carbon
copy of the Hebrew conquest of Caanae; the two key group players remain the same. Transfer by terror, beginning with Jericho.
"The clawback would represent poetic justice because Judonia worked with the Nazis to loot German Geldjuden in order to solidify the Jewish settlement that has caused so much harm and chaos in the world over the last 70 years." Mr. Martillo, please take your meds IMMEDIATELY after breakfast.
The two-state solution is the only viable one.
There are difficulties certainly, but the fantasy of a single-state is a recipe for vehement civil war, with the likely result of complete Palestinian removal.
The one state solution is the only viable one: as per French Algeria, as per South Africa. The solution to this difficulty – 'the Israelis, by nearly 100%, will never accept it' – is to end political support, as we eventually did for French Algeria and South Africa. Israel is entirely dependent on the US and Europe, in the same way.
Now I have some doubt. Most likely the thing is a sog love-child.
"Phil,
The US ("we") imposed a solution in Iraq.
Posted by: Richard Witty"
For over 40 years we have been imposing a daily solution on the Palestinians. Neat fact since most Americans have no never heard of the Nakba, for starters….