On Sat, 29 May 2010, Joseph Catron wrote:
>> Your argument against the two state solution is that it's highly
>> unlikely to happen.
>
> Actually, I haven't yet offered my argument against it, which is that it
> would further institutionalize racism, apartheid, and exclusion
You mean like the division of Czechoslovakia did? Or like the division of Belgium would?
There is nothing inherent in separation that makes it bad if the overwhelming majority on both sides want it.
> while one Palestinian state would strike a decisive blow against them.
Not necessarily. There is nothing stopping a single state from being an extremely unjust and discriminatory state. There are lots of those in the world -- most of them, probably. In fact the first link you sent (an extremely confused article) touts several articles that say that's what we've got right now in Israel at least as far as the Israelis are concerned: an extremely unjust and brutal one state solution. (The author seems to think the fact Israelis are talking like this in public is a sign of progress, which is beyond daft.) A two state solution might very easily be better than this.
> Any strategic advantages for the one-state solution are merely added bonuses
> - always welcome, but hardly necessary.
Strategic advantages? I'm talking mere possibility. Give me scenario that's possible to imagine happening. Nobody else has -- that's the main barrier against it. Nobody I know denies it would be better if it were possible. People simply deny that it is possible, because no one can imagine a doable way of getting there. Never mind an obvious way.
The second two links you gave, to the FT and NPR, were both by people who, despairing of the present prospects of a two state solution (quite understandably, they've never been worse) end their articles by saying perhaps it is time to start thinking about a one state solution. That's as far as they get: perhaps it is time to start thinking. That's as far as anyone's gotten. It's considered by the people saying it a radical step, the kind that will make people start, because it means going back to square one and into uncharted territory that might not turn out to be any more promising.
This list being a place to think, I'm all up for suggestions. If you've got a concrete proposal of any sort, let's hear it.
But if you don't -- and don't feel bad if you don't, no one else does -- stop acting incredulous that most people who support peace in the middle east support the real imperfact solution rather than the imaginary lovely one. Especially since the current situation for the Palestinians is so awful.
Again: I'm not against entertaining this line of thought. Maybe it is true that the two state solution has exhausted itself and has rendered itself impossible. Maybe there is a one state solution that is now easier to imagine as well as more attractive. Maybe forces still in their infancy are altering in a direction that will utterly change the balances of power and possibility.
But none of that's happened yet. Right now, the one state solution is still just a beautiful dream with zero details. A supporter of it, like yourself, has the responsibility of convincing people it's more than just an impossible dream, that there's a concrete plan. To act like that's already happened, and that anyone who doesn't get it is an idiot or a dupe...well, you seem to be assuming what you have to prove, or not grasping what you have to prove.
>> 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.
>
> When have I said anything remotely resembling that?
You said:
> 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.
If you think Chomsky and Finkelstein -- two of the world's most dedicated activists in the cause of Palestinian justice -- are holding the movement back from what is obviously the better alternative by their adherence to a bad idea, then clearly they are a force for bad, either unintentionally or intentionally. I don't see how I can read that any other way. Do you?
You seem to be saying the movement will certainly reach this conclusion. In fact it would have reached it sooner if not for people like them. How can this be if it's not obviously a better solution? And since virtually everyone has always granted that in theory it would be nicer, you must mean it's more doable.
Either that or you haven't ever seriously considered the doability question.
Sometimes you sound like someone saying the solution to immigration discrimination is simply to abolish borders. I can't deny that sounds beautiful and by comparison everything else falls short. But it's also so far from this world that it's got little to do with politics. If someone wants to convince me it does -- and I'd love for that to be true, because it is such a beautiful idea -- the first thing they'll have to give is a novel account how it might practically work, and how we might practically convince or compel people to adopt it.
Michael