The Two State Solution has been dead for a long long time. Anyone attempting to claim otherwise is absolutely deluded
Right. It has been clear for half a century at least. "Peace talks", "negotiations", "summits", "resolutions" and so on, done to allegedly advance the idea of the Palestinian state, have always been part of a deception, of dragging and wasting time in order for Israel to build and establish 'facts on the ground'. The ultimate goal of zionist project is the creation of Greater Israel.
If I recall correctly Trump actually asked Bibi to pull back the western bank settlements, and he also pressured back the "greater jerusalem" bill (would have removed Palestinian presence), and Kushner has been negotiating with the Saudis to provide funding and startup capital for a Palestinian state
It's not a perfect solution but it's better to rip the bandaid off rather than being told sweet sounding lies to distract from being Holomdored over 30 years
The "liberal/leftist" zionists/Jews are NOT your friends
The Israeli "labour" party denounced Netanyahu Jerusalem capital retaliation as NOT HARSH ENOUGH
Many of the "liberal" Jewish groups (with a few exceptions) similarly will fuck you over if you're not careful unfortunately
Some people are just racist selfish pieces of shit and put on a very convincing mask
I'm a conservative myself and I sympathize with the ideals of Herzls Zionism (the open and honest kind, not the chuck Schumer kind) but I also sympathize with the plight of Palestinian people and wish for an actual solution (not just abuse of the issue for political gain)
No human being should have to suffer the bureaucratic "kiss of death" and be holomdored over 30 years
anyone attempting to claim otherwise is supporting occupation.
I got a chance to see Norman Finkelstein speak recently and he still believes the two states remains the basis for a solution. He points out that even on the edge of the political mainstream, Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, Bernie Sanders in the US, there isn’t support for it. Until that changes, two states remains the paradigm. I don’t have any objection to one state, I just think it has an even more uphill road than two states. Two states may be dead, but one state isn’t anymore alive.
FInkelstein is a good man
What liberal Zionists must understand is that that advocacy for a two-state solution without advocacy for serious pressure to hold Israel to account for the denial of Palestinian rights is merely advocacy for occupation in a different outfit.
I don't really understand (maybe because of my shit English), but what's the problem exactly with the two states solution? I'm pretty sure the Palestinian state won't be controlled by Israel (at Least that's what liberal Israelis believe). What rights would be denied?
Well, the two state-solution won't work because 1) Israel doesn't respect Palestines territorial integrity (constantly annexing land and building illegal settlements) and 2) basically controls Gaza by completely surrounding it militarily, controlling it's import and export (sustaining poverty in the strip) as well as repeated military aggresion.
Also the Palestinian state would have to be "de-militarized" meaning no army, no advanced weapons, no enhanced security. The Israeli IDF would remain in military bases throughout the State of Palestine in order to maintain and ensure "security". Palestine wouldn't control it's own borders. Settlement blocs would be annexed by Israel. No right of return. No reparations. No control over sea or airspace.........so the 2SS is an occupation without the label of "occupation".
So why can't we support a two state solution in which:
Israel and Israelis respect Palestinians and Palestines territorial integrity, and
Stop controlling Gaza but give it, and future Palestine in the West Bank, free reign on it's imports and exports.
And I guess Israel stopping military aggression falls under (1) and (2), really.
I do support a 2ss, and I definitely don't support the occupation...
Israel would never let Palestinians have true freedom to control their own destiny. Whether that means their own standing military, control of borders, etc.
I am in a relatively unique position from many on this subreddit in that I am a Jewish Israeli, so I have a lot more options and opportunity for political sway.
So I can't agree with statements like yours of "Israel would never let Palestinians have true freedom" because that's exactly what I want, intend to apply political pressure for, and I'm not alone in that.
On the other hand, I do understand the cynicism towards that and overall disbelief...
It's not cynical. It's a statement of fact said by your government representatives.
It will never happen. The majority of your population tacitly approves.
You're correct in saying in a statement of the current government representatives, but since there are open and free elections (for Israeli citizens) the government representatives can change on a dime.
Going from representatives (and the people that support them) that claim "there is no Palestine, was never a Palestine, and will never be a Palestine" to "true freedom for Palestinians" is an impossible gap to fill.
Israeli soldiers murder unarmed Palestinians like it's a game. They are truly seen as subhuman in their eyes.
I wish you the best and appreciate your dedication to doing what's right though.
Please listen to this conversation between Gideon Levy and Ian Masters. It accurately sums up the reality of Israeli politics.
Totally not true. There are government representatives that DO say that. They're just not sitting in the coalition. Yet.
I agree that that happens, and I think there needs to be a big culture change. That being said, there are also soldiers who don't do that. Just one soldier viewing murder as a game is WAY too many, but that's easier to change. Unfortunately it's not just one soldier, but it's also not all of them.
The soldiers are young (around 18-22 years of age) and at a malleable place in their lives. If they are taught (and the law is upheld such that) Palestinians are humans too and deserve that dignity, I am confident that that positive change will be systematic.
Don't get me wrong, there will continue to be problems and problematic soldiers, but if the army, takes these issues seriously and weeds them out of combat roles or the army in general, we will be better off for it.
Thanks =p But listen, I need partners from people on the other side of the fence ;p
I will listen to that in a bit.
You're correct in saying in a statement of the current government representatives
It's not only the position of the current government. The primary opposition, the Zionist Union, is also opposed to the specific terms that would be required for any 2 state resolution. Indeed, the ZU's forerunner, the Labor Party, was the party that started the massive settlement project to colonize East Jerusalem and the rest of the OPT.
Pretending that there is a significant counterweight to the current far-right government which would support a legitimate two state solution is belied by the actual history of Israel's actions. Instead, there is simply an opposition that wants the occupation to be less obviously brutal, not over. And while I am happy you are part of that slender sliver of the Israeli electorate that would actually support a sovereign Palestinian state, don't fool yourself into believing you are anything but an outlier.
The share of Israelis (outside of the minority communities) which support the actual elements that would make up any meaningful two state solution are tiny, like in the under 5% area. Representatives may "change on a dime", but the underlying positions of the major political parties does not.
Okay, but what about the settlements in the West Bank? Would the government give away these stronghold villages - would it resettle all the settlers? How about resources that the Israel taps from Palestinian land? Would Israel remove the extended wall outposts dividing large areas in the West Bank? Would Palestinians be allowed to use the exclusive highways that run through the entire West Bank? Would Israel free all the Palestinians in administrative detention? Would Palestinians be able to move to and from Gaza and the West Bank freely? Would you expel the Israeli Arabs once the Palestinian State is created? Would Israel allow the Palestinian State to defend their sovereignty? Would Israel allow the individuals that lived in '47 rightful compensation? Would Palestinians be allowed to vote for any candidate they want in a democratic manner, and not worry about him being assassinated, or worse - a puppet?
Agreeing with a 2ss is a contradiction if you think current day Israel should be the Jewish homeland, because it was Israel 2000+ years ago. It's blatantly admitting that you're settling for a smaller area - and definitely not for religious or righteous reasons. You need to claim sovereignty over Eretz Yisrael Hashlemah or none of it at all. Either the claim is for the entire land as the Jewish homeland or nothing at all.
To claim that Israel is founded upon King David's Empire, you'd need to displace the people of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi, Turkey, etc. (even if you were to go by the halachaic understanding, you'd need to evacuate Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and parts of Turkey). And if you can't find it in your heart to do that, how on earth could you agree to do it to Palestinians?
Offer Israeli settlers Palestinian citizenship
Let them live in a Middle Eastern country proper, like in the old biblical times
See how they'll leave back to Israel tomorrow.
If it were up to me, all the settlers would be resettled within Israeli borders. If both sides would be interested in land-swaps, that's something that can be discussed and agreed upon.
Regarding resources, I know in the Oslo accords that was a giant problem and will continue to be. Again, it's all up to negotiations. You're right in that if a we want a free and thriving Palestinian state, and assuming any future Israeli negotiating team wants that too, that will (god-willing) be taken into account. You know?
Regarding highways, if all the of West Bank became an independent state of Palestine, than the highways would obviously be nationalized to Palestine.
Regarding free movement between the West Bank and Gaza, again, if the Israeli negotiating team has Palestine's interest in mind (because a flourishing Palestine means a safe and flourishing Israel), then I think that freedom of movement is essential.
Would we expel Israeli Arabs? I think if we ever get a negotiating team that's gotten this far, their constituents (me, for example) would NOT want to expel Israeli Arabs.
I feel like there's a pattern. If both sides really want to succeed, I think it's possible. The current Israeli government simply doesn't want to succeed, so it won't.
Agreeing with a 2ss is a contradiction if you think current day Israel should be the Jewish homeland, because it was Israel 2000+ years ago.
I just disagree with that. Zionism is complicated, multi-faceted, and contradictory, as any large movement is. Haveing a Jewish homeland in many Jews version of Zionism does NOT need the entire biblical land of Israel. Honestly, only extreme extreme right-wingers currently hold that view.
That's a view that doesn't at all exists with people that the aforementioned constituents would want that could possibly support a reall two state solution with Palestine.
For context, I am a political activist for the Meretz party in Israel.
What do you mean, land swaps? That '47 Palestinians relinquish their right to return to their homes, and that Israel "giving back" West Bank settlements cancel each other out? You don't seem to understand, these rights are not given away en masse, they are based on each individual (esp. since they're stateless). Also, there really isn't a swap there, it's just Israel removing their illegal settlers. Still doesn't solve the issue of the people who were removed to the West Bank and Gaza (most of whom are refugees).
But, okay. Explain to me your version of Zionism? A land for Jews, governed by Jews, a Jewish state, and actively retains a Jewish majority - and a nationality system based on if one is of Jewish ethnicity/accepted by The Jewish Agency. Let's change those variables. A land for Christians, governed by Christians, a Christian state, and actively retains a Christian majority - and a nationality system based on if one is of Christian ethnicity/accepted by orthodox agencies. Sounds crazy. Now try "whites" or "muslims/Islam". Sounds ethnofacist.
If you're not Jewish, you aren't granted nationality, and therefore there is no true equality. You can be a citizen in Israel, but you can never have an Israeli Nationality.
Riddle me this, are non-Jew and Jews alike allowed to have an Israeli nationality - equal to that only granted to Israeli Jews pr. todays date, or is it meant to be only for Jews? Are you comfortable having people in your country being stateless as long as Jews have their security in knowing that they have more rights/power?
Because that's where Zionism (esp. leftist Zionism) falls apart, and you can't rectify it.
At least the right are open about their intentions to have Israel be an apartheid or ethnically cleanse Palestinians. I'll take Bezalel Smotrich and his ilk over Meretz any day.
I didn't say land-swap the settlements for Palestinian land. I said first and foremost, relocate the settlers into Israel. That land will become 100% Palestine.
But there's an addendum there. If, and only if, both sides decide to trade land, I see no reason why that is wrong or immoral (as long as Israeli land swaps don't kick Israeli citizens out of Israeli territory like Leiberman wants to do).
And you touched upon the right of return, which obviously is an extremely important topic. In previous negotiations, that was also something that was negotiated. Meaning Israel will allow X amount of Palestinians to come back per year for Y amount of years.
I understand how Palestinians wouldn't view that as perfect, but in negotiations there are always backs and forths and having to choose practical greys instead of blacks and whites.
If not, Israel will just say "no right of return", Palestine will say "full right of return" and then the status quo is retained...
Regarding you asking my version of Zionism, I think that's also on-point and a topic and definition that many people, mostly young liberals, are grappling with defining and coming to terms with. Personally, sometimes I feel extremely uncomfortable with the word and disavow it as a self-definition, but sometimes I try grappling with the nuance and contradictions of it. Does that make sense?
But lets say at my personal most extreme, I would view my future Israel as a state that is Jewish by culture but not by law. Meaning a lot of racist laws today can be repealed having to do with homes/housing, burial, army service, and others.
Culturally, I do think it's fine that Israel celebrates Jewish holidays. Just like in America, though, where Jews are free to take (and must be granted) vacation days for their holidays, obviously in Israel too Muslim and Christian holidays should be accepted and granted full freedom of religion.
And honestly, I do already see that in Israel. I know that Muslim students are allowed to re-take tests if the tests fall out during ramadan. I don't mean to be hasbara-ey, but it's a positive direction that can definitely be expounded upon.
Riddle me this, are non-Jew and Jews alike allowed to have an Israeli nationality - equal to that only granted to Israeli Jews pr. todays date, or is it meant to be only for Jews?
I obviously view them equal before the law...no doubt. And I don't think there should be any differences in rights/power.
I'll even say that I don't think a Jewish state has to have a Jewish majority...I'd be fine if, one day, the Jewish state of Israel has a Palestinian prime minister. I believe in democracy as well and if that's what the people want, that's what they should get.
I just don't think that having a Palestinian or an Arab as the PM of Israel is the inherent doom of the Jewish state, as many people state.
Again, these are just my thoughts.
A two-state solution is impossible from a practical standpoint. This video, while being pro-israel, conveys the reason well. Israel, The Occupied Territories, and the Gaza Strip, even when combined, are small. You can drive from the Golan Heights to the Red Sea in about twelve hours (Probably even less). Even without politics interfering, Israel can't return to the '67 borders, because doing so would give their neighbors the military ability and vantage point to shoot down anything and everywhere (from planes, to buildings, to anything that moves), due to the small distances. Furthermore the West Bank is a hilly/mountainous region, unlike the coast which is near sea level and low. They'd be unable to defend themselves and unable to retaliate.
Even if somehow their safety was assured (which it isn't), there's also the matter of land. There's about 3.2 million people living in the West Bank in total (palestinians included). Israel's total population is somewhere around eight million. Relocating even a million people is nigh-impossible - and you also need to build homes for them and recompense them.
In addition, for the past decades the West Bank has been a place for company warehouses and factories to be built - cheap land, and the government has been openly encouraging it in order to make the west bank a cornerstone of Israel. And they've succeeded - if Israel surrenders the west bank, they're also losing a lot of what resided on that territory.
In short, Israel exiting the West Bank isn't like shooting itself in the foot; it's akin to beheading itself. In the face of economical disaster, failure for the military to protect its citizens in any reasonable manner, and the logistic nightmare of relocating at a minimum hundreds of thousands of people, not to mention the capital of the state being right next to the border, Israel literally has no interest in surrendering the West Bank. To the government, the cons of such an act would far outweigh the pros.
EDIT: Not sure why I was downvoted. OP asked why a two-state solution is unlikely, and I responded. The two-state solution requires cooperation on both sides to be accomplished, and Israel has no incentive to do so when the results of such an action would be terrible for its future.
This was such a great article! Spot on and I love how he called out liberal zionism
Slowly, you guys see what I've been saying for years :)
What do you think of this article?
Truth and reconciliation? Not supporting a post WW2 state deliberately engineered by ethnic cleansing? Human rights? Equal rights. How hard is it to understand?
It is not hard to understand at all and I wholeheartedly agree with the above, but the practicality of implementing this makes it a pipe dream
The Israelis can go back to Europe
Jewish Palestinians can stay
That’s a very, uhmmm, realistic alternative
That's the point, there is no legitimate peaceful solution.
A free Palestine is basically a pipe dream at this point and we have only Israel, the US and UK to blame for letting it get this far
The issue is that we don’t live in a world where you can just say no to what you don’t like, you have to say what you want and how you will achieve it. As many obstacles as exist to a two state solution, they are infinitely less than the obstacles to a single state with equal rights for Palestinians. ‘BDS’ isn’t an answer. Nobody seriously believes that Israel is on the verge of changing its entire national ideology because of a minor boycott movement.
As many obstacles as exist to a two state solution, they are infinitely less than the obstacles to a single state with equal rights for Palestinians
Obstacles is a matter of perspective. The reality is that political sentiments and ideologies aside, settlements provide an intractable problem to two states in virtue of placing 'facts on the ground'. This was first noted by US analysts in 1968 and well understood in the early 1980s by Israeli politicians such as Meron Benvenisti. That's_the point_of_settlements, and something that spans the political divide in Israel and Palestine: settlements are understood to be permanent.
Once you remove the option for two states, you're left with one state or no state.
Israelis, including Rabin, who only ever proposed an autonomous Palestinian state in which the Israeli army would have free access, have long subscribed to the no-state or less than a state principle. So the not-two state solution, whether one thinks of it as a solution or not, has a long history.
The only question is whether a one state solution is externally sustainable and the length of time Israelis get to drive the bus - which determines the length of the no-state/less than a state 'solution.'
Nobody seriously believes that Israel is on the verge of changing its entire national ideology because of a minor boycott movement.
I'm old enough to remember when people said the exact same thing about the South African apartheid era boycott movement, which used to be a marginalised movement on the far left. Within a decade from 1981-1991 it was mainstream doctrine.
That's the thing about geopolitics: it has a habit of biting you in the ass. It also doesn't give a fuck about what Palestinians think now and there is no necessary reason why it need give a fuck about what Israelis think in the future.
What are the obstacles to equal rights -- aside from Israelis not wanting Palestinians to have equal rights.
You named the big one. Propose a way to get past it.
1986 – about 40 years after the beginning of Apartheid – South Africa’s most important trading partners (the USA, the EC, and Japan) imposed economic sanctions. During the course of the 1985 debt crisis, the time seemed to have arrived to finally force the Apartheid regime to its knees by economic sanctions.
1991 - Apartheid ends.
Shrug... Maybe the same way the United States got past its obstacles to equal rights -- massive non-violent and violent protests by the oppressed population, dozens of murders of civil rights leaders by those opposed to equal rights, and, ultimately, the growing embarrassment of those privileged members of society that they were being seen across the country and the World as bigots, hypocrites and, frankly, the next version of the Nazis.
However, the current Israeli government recognizes that self-reflection by the Israeli populace about its own behavior and the impact it has on those under their country's control is a weak point... so they constantly portray "the other" as a mortal threat, and the people of Israel at constant risk of genocide. In other words, they use fear and hate to get Israelis to ignore what they are actually doing, and justify it to themselves as necessary.
Step one: End Israelis' false perception of themselves as perpetual victims.
Step two: Enshrine equal rights in the law.
Neither of those is an easy step, but there are only two steps.
I named one, yes.
You said there were many "infinitely" more obstacles to a 1SS than a 2SS, so what were those "more" obstacles?
Israeli public opinion is nearly universally opposed to any state that could have a Palestinian majority now or in the future.
the geographic seperation between Palestinian and Israeli population masses prevents things like the civil rights movement from happening the same way, you cant have a 'march on washington' of palestinians.
the Palestinian public opinion is very much against living alongside Israelis.
international public opinion is also universally opposed to a single state. Every country in the world other than iran supports a two state solution. Iran supports a solution where the Palestinians decide the future of the Israelis and the Israelis are denied a right to decide their fate. Nobody supports a single state.
Nobody supports a single state.
There is already a single state, just one where rights are differentiated between at least three different levels of 'citizenship' (full Israeli citizenship, permanent residency without citizenship, and the subjects of belligerent military occupation) with the "right" to move upward on that scale determined, primarily, by ethnicity.
Moreover, there is support for a single state on both the Israeli right and even relative centrists (Moshe Arens, Reuven Rivlin, Tzipi Hotovely, Caroline Glick, Martin Sherman, and Uri Ariel, among others) and in the Palestinian leadership, either as a primary goal, or more often, as the only viable solution left (for example, Ahmed Qurei in 2004 and Saeb Erekat in 2009 both publicly stated that it remained the only viable soultion, due to ongoing settlement activity by Israel).
As Michael Tarazi said,
Support for one state is hardly a radical idea; it is simply the recognition of the uncomfortable reality that Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories already function as a single state. They share the same aquifers, the same highway network, the same electricity grid and the same international borders... The one-state solution... neither destroys the Jewish character of the Holy Land nor negates the Jewish historical and religious attachment (although it would destroy the superior status of Jews in that state). Rather, it affirms that the Holy Land has an equal Christian and Muslim character. For those who believe in equality, this is a good thing.
Indeed, while Hamas has stated that it would accept a two state solution (with caveats for approval by referendum) Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian groups support a single state. Indeed, only Fatah has consistently pursued a two-state solution for the last 25 years or so, and it's failure to make any meaningful progress (along with its corruption and participation in the enforcement of the occupation on its own people) has greatly eroded public support for the party.
Then there is the current Israeli government, led by the longest serving Israeli PM, who has repeatedly, publicly stated that there will be no sovereign Palestinian state if he can prevent it, meaning no two-state solution, just the status quo.
Ultimately, I would prefer a two-state solution, but that is only going to happen if Israel makes the necessary concessions, i.e., makes an offer better than the one Olmert made in 2008. The current Israeli government, as noted above, seems unlikely to make any such offer, or accept an offer made by the PA that would meet the requirements for a viable, sovereign Palestinian state.
With the perceived 'best option' effectively off the table, the only choices are giving up or working towards the second best option -- equal rights regardless of religion or ethnicity.
You know, things that the United States and the rest of the "Western World" is bound to support unless they are racist hypocrites.
you cant have a 'march on washington' of palestinians
There has been one each of the last three Fridays, the Great March of Return, it's just that Israel has no qualms about shooting the marchers to preserve Israel as an expressly ethno-supremacist state.
The idea is barely starting to spread.
There is only one obstacle to a one-state solution, a lack of political will and the world's hypocrisy on tolerating Jewish supremacists, but maligning white supremacists.