The last 30 years of Israeli state policy after the Oslo accords has resulted in facts on the ground (Israeli phrasing, not mine) to the tune of 700k Israeli settlers in the West Bank.
Which is wrong.
As the various calls for two states invariably ignore the Israeli facts on the ground, and do not propose any realistic vision for undoing them, at this stage they are merely promoting the creation of a Bantustan within the existing apartheid framework.
Anyone who actually agrees with the two state solution agrees that the borders go back to 1967, and everyone on both sides will have a right to return.
In other words, the israeli facts on the ground have killed off the possibility of a two state solution, where Palestine would be an actual state. This means there are only two options:
A) a continuation of the apartheid regime of the present, potentially with a Palestinian collaborationist Banstustan, and with various degrees of Israeli perpetrated genocide and ethnic cleansing thrown in during the inevitable flare-ups of violence.
B) a plurinational post-apartheid democratic state with equal rights for all nationalities and religions from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.
The chance for a Palestinian state is not gone, and Israel is not alone in making that harder. Even if you ignore Israelis and Palestinians, plenty of other groups don’t want peace and sabotage it when it is close.
Neither one of your solutions is viable, and it isn’t that black and white.
I guess the third option is for Israel to self-ethnically cleanse the settlers from the West Bank, but that sounds even more outlandish than the supposedly idealistic option B.
This is not helpful or useful in this conversation.
There used to be an phrase that Israel can be “large, Jewish, democratic, but can only pick 2”. Over the last 30 years since Oslo, successive Israeli governments, more or less dominated by the Israeli Right, and basically by Netanyahu, has forced the choice of “Large”. So now the Israelis have to pick between Zionism and Democracy.
It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself:
On the one hand you are saying that “who actually agrees with the two state solution agrees that the borders go back to 1967”.
On the other hand you are saying that the removal of the settlers from the West Bank is “not helpful or useful”.
I am very confused what you are proposing here. 1967 borders with the settlers in the Palestinian side of the border? Or did you flinch at the term “ethnic cleansing”, assuming wrongly that I meant “killing people”? When I wrote “Israel to self-ethnically cleanse the settlers” I meant to say that in this scenario, Israel would forcibly remove its own citizens from the colonies in the West Bank. A forcible removal of 700k jews from an area can be reasonably described as a form of ethnic cleansing. That’s all I meant.
So, to get around the words with mean connotations, I am not at all clear what scenario you are propagating. In your imaginary Two State Solution, what happens to the Israeli settlers?
Do they get forcibly removed to Israel? Because if you believe that any Israeli government could do that to 700k voters, I have some magic seeds to sell you.
Do they become Palestinian citizens, disarm and become subject to Palestinian law and subject to the legal monopoly of state violence by the army and police of Palestine? Because if you believe that is politically feasible, I have a whole warehouse of unicorn feathers to sell you.
On the other hand, a post-apartheid democracy would indeed have the political structures to slowly undo the damage, e.g., by mandating integration policies, establishing reparation schemes, etc.
The chance for a Palestinian state is not gone, and Israel is not alone in making that harder. Even if you ignore Israelis and Palestinians, plenty of other groups don’t want peace and sabotage it when it is close. Neither one of your solutions is viable, and it isn’t that black and white.
You are not explaining or giving any kind of argument why
(a) you think that “my” solutions are not viable
(b) the two state solution is viable.
You are just asserting that, without any rationale. My post above contains a specific reasoning. Where is my reasoning wrong? What is your reasoning?
At least you can admit it isn’t all Israelis.
What do you mean “at least”? If you want to start throwing spurious accusations of antisemitism, do it now and get it over with. I have no interest in bad faith discourse.
I made my points and you are choosing to not respond to them or understand them. Try asking good faith questions, and stop trying for bad faith tactics.
I only responded to the things that either I disagree with or genuinely don’t understand. For anything else, sure, thumbs up, what else is there to say?
Edit: in the meantime, you left my questions unanswered. What part of my reasoning is questionable? And what is your reasoning that the 2SS is attainable?
Which is wrong.
Anyone who actually agrees with the two state solution agrees that the borders go back to 1967, and everyone on both sides will have a right to return.
The chance for a Palestinian state is not gone, and Israel is not alone in making that harder. Even if you ignore Israelis and Palestinians, plenty of other groups don’t want peace and sabotage it when it is close.
Neither one of your solutions is viable, and it isn’t that black and white.
This is not helpful or useful in this conversation.
At least you can admit it isn’t all Israelis.
It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself:
I am very confused what you are proposing here. 1967 borders with the settlers in the Palestinian side of the border? Or did you flinch at the term “ethnic cleansing”, assuming wrongly that I meant “killing people”? When I wrote “Israel to self-ethnically cleanse the settlers” I meant to say that in this scenario, Israel would forcibly remove its own citizens from the colonies in the West Bank. A forcible removal of 700k jews from an area can be reasonably described as a form of ethnic cleansing. That’s all I meant.
So, to get around the words with mean connotations, I am not at all clear what scenario you are propagating. In your imaginary Two State Solution, what happens to the Israeli settlers?
On the other hand, a post-apartheid democracy would indeed have the political structures to slowly undo the damage, e.g., by mandating integration policies, establishing reparation schemes, etc.
You are not explaining or giving any kind of argument why (a) you think that “my” solutions are not viable (b) the two state solution is viable.
You are just asserting that, without any rationale. My post above contains a specific reasoning. Where is my reasoning wrong? What is your reasoning?
What do you mean “at least”? If you want to start throwing spurious accusations of antisemitism, do it now and get it over with. I have no interest in bad faith discourse.
I made my points and you are choosing to not respond to them or understand them. Try asking good faith questions, and stop trying for bad faith tactics.
I only responded to the things that either I disagree with or genuinely don’t understand. For anything else, sure, thumbs up, what else is there to say?
Edit: in the meantime, you left my questions unanswered. What part of my reasoning is questionable? And what is your reasoning that the 2SS is attainable?