On Fri, 28 May 2010, Joseph Catron wrote:
> In case you hadn't noticed, there's something of a global movement
> afoot. Granted, its political reorientation towards a one-state solution
> has been a slow one (due in no small part to the influence of old-guard
> types like Chomsky and Finkelstein), but it is certainly occurring.
Your argument against the two state solution is that it's highly unlikely to happen. BION, that's always been the clinching argument against the one-state solution. In fact, many if not most people who support the two state solution -- including Chomsky and and Finkelstein -- would prefer the one state solution in theory, and the only reason they don't support it is because it seems like a pipedream. Nobody even agrees on what a one state solution would look like, never mind how to get there. In comparison the two state solution has the advantage of seeming pretty concrete. Everyone who's not bargaining has a pretty clear idea of what it's supposed to look like and what getting there would involve.
You seem to think the one state solution is not only more probable than the two state solution, but that this is so glaringly obvious that you regard everyone who supports the two state solution as somewhere between stupid and perfidious. So share: what is your one state solution and what is the path by which we get there?
Michael