SA wrote:
>
> Joseph Catron wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> 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, while one
> > Palestinian state would strike a decisive blow against them.
>
> That's commendable. If want to strike a blow against apartheid and
> exclusion, though, why not start closer to home, like a campaign to make
> America give back the land it stole from Mexico, or a single binational
> state here in North America? At least here in the USA there's no bloody
> state of war that you would be prolonging by your rejection of two
> separate states.
I just got back into town & I'm still two days behind on posts, so this thread has probably gone on toquite other points. But, still, I think I will respond here.
Joseeph, Michael, SA all three seem to me to be off in another world playing games. Either "solution" depends on stopping the present conquest by inches of the West Bank and the destruction of Gaza.
But neither that conquest nor the destruction of Gaza will be stopped without outside powers threatening to destroy Israel unless it desists. But outside powers will continue to tut tut. Israel will continue its current solution, which as SA notes (without realizing it) is the Solution followed in North America. The "native' peoples will die or become refugees elsewhere. The land will be cleared. There will be a one-state solution, namely, an Israel without Arabbs, who will be gone.
Facts on the Ground will prevail.
Carrol