Today Nick Kristof has a column in the Times titled “Is Israel Its Own Worst Enemy?” which lays out the current impasse in Israeli/Palestinian negotiations (including Obama’s “humiliation” at the UN). He ends:
So where do we go from here? If a peace deal is not forthcoming soon, and if Israel continues its occupation, then Israel should give the vote in Israeli elections to all Palestinians in the areas it controls. If Jews in the West Bank can vote, then Palestinians there should be able to as well.
That’s what democracy means: people have the right to vote on the government that controls their lives. Some of my Israeli friends will think I’m unfair and harsh, applying double standards by focusing on Israeli shortcomings while paying less attention to those of other countries in the region. Fair enough: I plead guilty. I apply higher standards to a close American ally like Israel that is a huge recipient of American aid.
It’s difficult to imagine Israeli’s living with Palestinians in peace as one cohesive state. The racism would still exist and public violence would continue, with a police force doing nothing. Israel would have it’s new clandestine KKK, and it would be ‘Jim Crow times’, as many like to say.
Kristof could avoid using the final phrase, ‘friends don’t let friends drive drunk’ if he wants his article to be taken seriously. It’s completely inappropriate to use a corny punchline when trying to convince his readers about Israel’s continued settlements.
I spotted the same excerpt, though I think the double standards discussion is silly. But before that, it is, as Adam says, the common sense argument for one state. However, I would like to ask Kristof when he feels his solution of giving Palestinians the vote should be triggered. “If a peace deal is not forthcoming soon” — we’re 20 years into the “peace process”, and “if Israel continues its occupation” — that’s been 44+ years. Exactly when does Kristof lose patience and say “that’s it, time’s up.” Those who have been subject to the occupation, and the false, even ridiculous attempts at a peace process, arrived at that point long ago.
That’s not the only thing missing from Kristof’s analysis. He also does not deal with the infeasibility of removal of hundreds of thousands of settlers, many of them hard-core “over my dead body” lunatics that would be necessary to make the 2ss a reality.
Kristof is dipping his toes in the water, and knows enough not to explicitly state that this solution spells the end of the “Jewish State” as we know it.
But enough with the criticism, which is petty in comparison to what Kristof does say. As Adam implies by posting this article, it is a very important step. A NYTimes columnist is actually broaching the subject of a one-state solution, and citing for support an uncontroversial notion — “That’s what democracy means: people have the right to vote on the government that controls their lives.” This reasoning, which should provoke a “Duh!” response in a rational world, is revolutionary among “respectable” establishment-type journalists.
Kristof’s post is a great endorsement for genuine two-state negotiations.
The implication of a single state is self-talk on your part Adam.
I assume you saw the discussion between Gershom Gorenburg and Dimi Reider on 972?
http://972mag.com/bloggingheads-dimi-reider-vs-gershom-gorenberg-1-state-or-2/24642/
David Samel has the right issue: TIME. Palestinians are like prisoners, no charges, no trial, just prison, and not allowed to vote (or otherwise be effective citizens of the country they live in) WHILE STILL IN PRISON.
TIME IS RUNNING. Anyone can do 1 day in prison, but 44 years (or 64 years) is too much.
USA has refused to free the prisoners and demands that they negotiate with the prison officials who evidently believe their livelihood will be lost when the prison doors are opened.
He is acknowledging that the Israeli “They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity” narrative is loosing ground. Many seem to do lately.