> On 6/8/06, Marvin Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:
>> The relationship of forces in the long Israel-Palestine conflict has
>> evolved
>> in such a way that it is now Israel which is effectively pursuing a
>> single-state strategy while the Palestinians have had to fall back on a
>> two-state solution - including Hamas which has also de facto had come to
>> terms with Israel's existence.
>
> "[P]ursuing a single-state strategy" is an understatement. That there
> exists -- has existed -- a single Jewish state from the river to the
> sea is already a fact, the fact denied by nearly all concerned,
> including Palestinians.
=========================
Yes, that's stating it more baldly. There is presently only one state in the
old mandatory Palestine. I think most Palestinians do recognize that,
however, and have been trying to change it. It wasn't always the case; the
present situation was the result of the '67 war and occupation, and for a
time after that, culiminating in the Oslo accords, the Israelis were more
prepared to accept a trunctated and dependent Palestinian client "state" in
exchange for stability and legitimacy. I don't think they've ever ruled
this out, and the pressure they're putting on Hamas is aimed at crushing the
last vestiges of Palestinian resistance and ensuring that their surrender
terms are broadly accepted within Palestinian society. That's the
significance, it seems to me, of their stubborn insistence that Hamas first
abase itself and formally recognize Israel's right to exist as a prelude to
any negotiations. But the outcome of the war in Iraq, the nuclear standoff
in Iran, and the future course of US domestic politics, will also have a
large say in how the conflict continues to evolve.