Increasingly, the one-state binational solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict is becoming seen as the only solution that has any long-term viability.
After sixty years of conflict peoples of both sides are beginning to see the logic of living together in peace and harmony – just as they did for hundreds of years before Zionists from Europe moved in and stole the lands from the Palestinians with the help of a racist (anti-Arab) and guilt-ridden victor-dominated United Nations.
While the concept is not exactly new, the idea of a binational one-state solution has taken on increasing vigour of late due mainly to the inability of the extremists to otherwise resolve the conflict. Since it has always been left to the extremists to attempt a resolution via the use of a two-state solution and ignoring the idea of a one-state binational solution, it is has now been left to the moderates among both Israelis and Palestinians to put forward such a suggestion.
The problem at the moment with such a solution is that it is seen as a ‘radical left-wing’ solution. The reason for that is that all the other suggested solutions have only ever been put up by the right-wing of either side and so any solution that does not conform with elements of previous suggestions are seen as ‘radical left-wing’. The reality, however, is that, far from being a ‘radical left-wing’ idea, it actually conforms perfectly with the modern concept of a nation-state that is a secular, democratic, multi-cultural player in a world where secular, democratic, multi-cultural nation-states are held up as the ideal in a modern global community. It is exactly what the US and its allies claim they went to war in Iraq for. The very picture painted by the neoconservatives of what they wanted a post-Saddam Iraq to look like is the same one that is now being put forward by the one-state solution advocates yet is being criticised for being ‘radical left-wing’.
Last weekend a conference on the one-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was held in London. The conference attracted some 300 delegates both Israeli and Palestinian as well as other non-Israeli and non-Palestinian supporters from around world of the binational one-state solution. The two day conference was attended by the leading Israeli and Palestinian advocates, most of whom are academics, who discussed a whole gamut of ideas that ranged from creating a state that was all-inclusive and included the return of the Palestinian refugees to discussing the idea of an Israeli-Palestinian confederation.
Apart from the importance of the conference itself, it has also succeeded in getting the idea of a binational one-state solution into the mainstream media, albeit slightly negatively in Ha’aretz. Nonetheless, the idea has at least generated some debate and heated discussion which, in turn, produces awareness, if the 300 plus comments to the Ha’aretz article is anything to go by.
Since the binational one-state solution has now been brought to the attention of the mainstream media at a time when further talks on a two-state solution are imminent in Annapolis, talks which both sides admit are doomed to failure before they even start, the idea of a binational one-state solution is already being talked of as the only alternative solution with the right-wing ‘Jerusalem Post’ suggesting that this may be the call from around the rest of the world in the likely event of failure of further two-state solution negotiations.
From where the Israelis and the Palestinians are at the moment, the idea of a binational one-state solution seems very far away. However, it is also beginning to look like the two-state solution, having been talked about for decades without any meaningful resolve whatsoever, is looking even further away – especially if the forthcoming talks in Annapolis once again demonstrate the utter futility of discussing a viable two-state solution.
AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.
1 comment:
The first act of statehood is to acquire the monopoly on violence. Thats just how things work. That means getting rid of the militias by any means necessary so that the only law that runs is that of the state.
For a one state solution it would have to be Israel using combined units of the IDF and Fatah militias clearing out the other militias.
This would instantly be seen as an occupation by the Zionist aggressors and their puppets.
We know this because any military attempt at stabilisation has been so called.
Then you have the complications of not including Hamas and they're not exactly going to be happy contributors to the "secular, democratic, multi-cultural" ethos.
But this is largely academic. Until there is a single legitimate voice of palestinians you can't do a deal because one or other militia WILL attempt to derail it. Since any Palestinian military action would probably result in Fatahs defeat since they are disorganised and weak the "partner for peace" would be the Taliban-like Hamas and you cannot seriously propose Israel drops the border for that lot.
Then you have to face the slightly inconvenient fact that a single state would demographically mean the end of a Jewish state and it would become yet another muslim country run by a bunch of dysfunctional and corrupt thugs.
It is only because Israel IS run by a jewish secular government that it has any hallmarks of civility at all. Do you really think Israel would survive as a functional secular state with the PLO at the helm?
You cant trust them to run a tombola never mind a country.
One only has to read jewish history to know that jews as a minority in majority arab nations don't tend to fare all that well.
Calling for a united Israel is akin with calling for its destruction. It's a theory punted by useful idiots who clearly haven't thought it through.
If you want to know why the barriers won't come down, ask why they went up. 100 years of arab terrorism and anti-jewish pogroms.
Post a Comment