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.
