Single State is reality - we now have to start dealing with that - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15151625
The two state solution is dead.

Whoever you blame for this, it is clear - a Palestinian state, even one hopelessly segmented between jewish-only settlements - is no longer forseeable.

That being so, its time we started understanding the conflict as well as the plight of the Palestinians, within this reality: that there will only ever be one state, consisting of Israelis and Palestinians.

Currently this state is undeniably an apartheid state - one population has citizenship and rights, the other population does not, and are relegated second class status. Hence an apartheid state.

The international community must treat this apartheid state exactly the same way they treated South Africa during their apartheid - by demanding that they end the racist and discriminatory policy of granting rights to one population of the country, but not the other.

The point being, that the policy of supporting a two-state solution is now effectively a copout - it not only ignores the facts on the ground, but more importantly, it serves as a convenient excuse to ignore the injustices of the apartheid situation: "that injustice will be sorted as soon as we get the two states up and running" - so no need to deal with it now.

Start understanding Palestinians as non-citizens of the Israeli state - and as such, a people with second class status. Start asking the Israelis - "if you have no intention of granting this population their own state, why aren't you giving them equal rights? Why aren't you granting them all citizenship?"
#15151697
wat0n wrote:Why is a Palestinian state no longer forseeable?


Quite simply because of the deliberate policies of Netanyahu to prevent this:

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/08/70998973 ... nian-state

This was from nearly two years ago, but I can only imagine the situation is even worse now.

He has made no secret that he opposes a Palestinian state. And the behaviour of the US and its regional allies in the last couple of years has merely legitimised and reinforced this position.
#15151702
GandalfTheGrey wrote:Quite simply because of the deliberate policies of Netanyahu to prevent this:

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/08/70998973 ... nian-state

This was from nearly two years ago, but I can only imagine the situation is even worse now.

He has made no secret that he opposes a Palestinian state. And the behaviour of the US and its regional allies in the last couple of years has merely legitimised and reinforced this position.


I checked the demographic statistics at the West Bank. From 2015 to 2018, the settler population went from some 380k to 430k... Which is actually not a radically different growth from the pace during Obama's admin (it's a bit over 3% a year).

Jerusalem was a bit of a bigger change, but even that was merely a recognition of the realities on the ground (which it seems Biden won't cease to recognize) just as the more recent peace deals with several Sunni countries are. All in all, things seem to be stable overall - at least for now. And it doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon, given the pandemic and the political deadlock in Israel.
#15151999
wat0n wrote:I checked the demographic statistics at the West Bank. From 2015 to 2018, the settler population went from some 380k to 430k... Which is actually not a radically different growth from the pace during Obama's admin (it's a bit over 3% a year).


Right, and 450k settlers are not going to just up and leave to make way for anything resembling a viable Palestinian state.

But we always knew that. We always knew that any possible state was only ever going to be discontiguous bantustans, and in reality a "state" in name only. Which makes me quite surprised that Netanyahu has given up the pretence of supporting even this. I've always thought it was quite a clever ruse by the Israelis to keep paying lip service to the two state idea - it plays so nicely into their agenda of creating facts on the ground. My history is a bit sketchy, but I understand that before Arafat and the PLO stamped their authority, the Palestinian movement wasn't really interested in having two states, but one bi-national state. And I know that commentators like Chomsky see the Arafat ascendancy and the Camp David Accords as a major blow to the Palestinian cause.

Yet now Netanyahu is effectively conceding that the Palestinians are Israel's responsibility, who are now by default second class non-citizens of the one state. Eventually I think this is going to bite him (or his successors) in the foot.
#15152016
GandalfTheGrey wrote:Right, and 450k settlers are not going to just up and leave to make way for anything resembling a viable Palestinian state.

But we always knew that. We always knew that any possible state was only ever going to be discontiguous bantustans, and in reality a "state" in name only. Which makes me quite surprised that Netanyahu has given up the pretence of supporting even this. I've always thought it was quite a clever ruse by the Israelis to keep paying lip service to the two state idea - it plays so nicely into their agenda of creating facts on the ground. My history is a bit sketchy, but I understand that before Arafat and the PLO stamped their authority, the Palestinian movement wasn't really interested in having two states, but one bi-national state. And I know that commentators like Chomsky see the Arafat ascendancy and the Camp David Accords as a major blow to the Palestinian cause.

Yet now Netanyahu is effectively conceding that the Palestinians are Israel's responsibility, who are now by default second class non-citizens of the one state. Eventually I think this is going to bite him (or his successors) in the foot.


Have the settlements expanded to other areas within the West Bank? If not, how is the situation any different from 5 or 10 years ago?
#15152025
wat0n wrote:Have the settlements expanded to other areas within the West Bank? If not, how is the situation any different from 5 or 10 years ago?


If you are asking why is a Palestinian state less viable now than it was 10 years ago - you have basically answered your own question.

Most objective observers 10 years ago were saying a Palestinian state was unviable then. Hell, even 20 years ago they were saying the same thing. Settlement expansion since has increased more or less continuously during all those years until now. Even if they are in the same districts, it doesn't exactly make the same proposal more viable now does it? And it almost certainly makes it less viable. The west bank was tiny to start with, so its a bit of a farcical argument to say that expanding the existing areas occupied by settlements doesn't make a huge difference to the political and geographical reality of that tiny area. One of the settlements on the western side has, to my understanding, basically become a suburb of Tel-Aviv - thats the scales of distance we're talking about here. And its not just the land taken up by physical buildings - its of course the security boundaries, the Israeli-only roads that connect them, water access - etc etc.

A decent summary of today's situation and why ending the Israeli occupation and making way for a Palestinian state is basically impossible:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/two-state ... -conflict/
Last edited by GandalfTheGrey on 22 Jan 2021 02:11, edited 1 time in total.
#15152030
GandalfTheGrey wrote:If you are asking why is a Palestinian state less viable now than it was 10 years ago - you have basically answered your own question.

Most objective observers 10 years ago were saying a Palestinian state was unviable then. Hell, even 20 years ago they were saying the same thing. Settlement expansion since has increased more or less continuously during all those years until now. Even if they are in the same districts, it doesn't exactly make the same proposal more viable now does it? And it almost certainly makes it less viable. The west bank was tiny to start with, so its a bit of a farcical argument to say that expanding the existing areas occupied by settlements doesn't make a huge difference to the political and geographical reality of that tiny area. One of the settlements on the western side has, to my understanding, basically become a suburb of Tel-Aviv - thats the scales of distance we're talking about here. And its not just the land taken up by physical buildings - its of course the security boundaries, the Israeli-only roads that connect them, water access - etc etc.

A decent summary of today's situation and why ending the Israeli occupation and making way for a Palestinian state is basically impossible:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/two-state ... -conflict/


"Most objective observers" being whom? Chomsky? Please :roll:

The article you cited also shows why a one state solution isn't viable today either. And unlike the two state solution (for which settlements aren't even the main problem, really), it shows little prospect of being viable in the long run either.

As for a settlement being a suburb of Tel Aviv, in reality Israel is so small that you could even consider Jerusalem to be a big suburb of Tel Aviv. They are just at a 45 minute drive from each other.
#15152052
wat0n wrote:
The article you cited also shows why a one state solution isn't viable today either.


Why? Because it would require Israel granting human rights to ~2/5ths of their population?

But really, what the article concludes is that the only thing Israel can do is maintain the status quo. And I'm sorry to break it to you, but the status quo is a single state. Its already there. And if there really is to be no Palestinian state in the future, then the single state is all we have. So lets start dealing with the realities of that single state - which is second class status and serious denial of human rights for a huge chunk of its population. Is that acceptable? It shouldn't be. And who can change that?
#15152057
GandalfTheGrey wrote:Why? Because it would require Israel granting human rights to ~2/5ths of their population?


Because the supporters of a one state solution don't want a binational state, they want an irredentist one.

GandalfTheGrey wrote:But really, what the article concludes is that the only thing Israel can do is maintain the status quo.


That's not what the article says. It advocates for moving to gradually allow for the conditions for a withdrawal to emerge.

GandalfTheGrey wrote: And I'm sorry to break it to you, but the status quo is a single state. Its already there. And if there really is to be no Palestinian state in the future, then the single state is all we have. So lets start dealing with the realities of that single state - which is second class status and serious denial of human rights for a huge chunk of its population. Is that acceptable? It shouldn't be. And who can change that?


Nonsense. The Palestinians enjoy a degree of autonomy they would not enjoy in a single state.

I also find it hilarious that you adopt this liberal, egalitarian rhetoric while having a genocidal dictator in your avatar. Utter nonsense from beginning to the end.
#15152065
wat0n wrote:That's not what the article says. It advocates for moving to gradually allow for the conditions for a withdrawal to emerge.


And then what? Lets wait another 20 years, and who knows the entire WB will be one giant settlement.

The "conditions" are only getting worse. Horovitz is in complete fantasy land if he thinks Palestinian resentment and hostility will somehow magically ease - as the settlements and annexations continue unabated.



Nonsense. The Palestinians enjoy a degree of autonomy they would not enjoy in a single state.


Hooray, they can pretend they have their own government, own armed forces and even their own administrative laws. I bet that makes the occupation and continued annexation of their olive groves much more bearable.

Perish the thought they could have actual citizen rights under an actual democracy! Nah, of course they would prefer to pretend they have "autonomy" under an occupation.

I also find it hilarious that you adopt this liberal, egalitarian rhetoric while having a genocidal dictator in your avatar. Utter nonsense from beginning to the end.


I can't see it, images must be blocked from my network. Is it Saddam? I think I put that there about 15 years ago. I put it down to an anti-American thing, but to be honest I really can't remember.
#15152067
GandalfTheGrey wrote:And then what? Lets wait another 20 years, and who knows the entire WB will be one giant settlement.

The "conditions" are only getting worse. Horovitz is in complete fantasy land if he thinks Palestinian resentment and hostility will somehow magically ease - as the settlements and annexations continue unabated.


The "conditions" I think are more related to security and (yes) making withdrawals and land swaps easier.

Actually it is exactly resentment and hostility which makes it hard for a binational state to emerge. And before you try to bring South Africa as a counterexample, in reality the Apartheid-era tensions are still present and there are populist parties that use them as means to accede to power up to this day.

GandalfTheGrey wrote:Hooray, they can pretend they have their own government, own armed forces and even their own administrative laws. I bet that makes the occupation and continued annexation of their olive groves much more bearable.

Perish the thought they could have actual citizen rights under an actual democracy! Nah, of course they would prefer to pretend they have "autonomy" under an occupation.


You can't deny though that in practice it would reduce the autonomy for both populations to manage their affairs, even in the unlikely case of a binational single state (it's more reasonable to expect it to take an irredentist form).

Moreover, polls have shown that a plurality prefers a two-state solution and that a binational state is not really doing better than an irredentist one since forever. This is the latest one I could find:

https://www.pcpsr.org/sites/default/fil ... 202020.pdf

GandalfTheGrey wrote:I can't see it, images must be blocked from my network. Is it Saddam? I think I put that there about 15 years ago. I put it down to an anti-American thing, but to be honest I really can't remember.


Yep, it was Saddam.
#15152081
wat0n wrote:
Actually it is exactly resentment and hostility which makes it hard for a binational state to emerge.


exactly my point. And I have no idea how Horovitz in his article imagines how this will somehow magically ease to an extent that Israel will think its safe enough for them to withdraw.

And before you try to bring South Africa as a counterexample, in reality the Apartheid-era tensions are still present and there are populist parties that use them as means to accede to power up to this day.


I don't think anyone could argue with a straight face that the blacks are not better off now as a result of apartheid being abolished. Nor could they argue that the country as a whole is not better off.



Moreover, polls have shown that a plurality prefers a two-state solution and that a binational state is not really doing better than an irredentist one since forever. This is the latest one I could find:

https://www.pcpsr.org/sites/default/fil ... 202020.pdf


I'm not really surprised, because that is the propaganda the Palestinians are fed. And when the only proposed solution to their plight is this, then its natural that they would yearn for it.

Surely though the point is that whether they want a state or not - its not going to happen. At least not in most of their lifetimes. So the question should be re-framed to fit what they want *NOW* and what is possible *NOW*. And frankly its basically a choice between second class status and occupation and equal rights and citizenship. I can guess at what they would choose between these two.
#15152083
GandalfTheGrey wrote:exactly my point. And I have no idea how Horovitz in his article imagines how this will somehow magically ease to an extent that Israel will think its safe enough for them to withdraw.


What makes you think that it will magically make way for a peaceful coexistence in a single state?

GandalfTheGrey wrote:I don't think anyone could argue with a straight face that the blacks are not better off now as a result of apartheid being abolished. Nor could they argue that the country as a whole is not better off.


And yet, that doesn't mean the tensions have disappeared. They have resurfaced if you follow South African politics a bit.

GandalfTheGrey wrote:I'm not really surprised, because that is the propaganda the Palestinians are fed. And when the only proposed solution to their plight is this, then its natural that they would yearn for it.

Surely though the point is that whether they want a state or not - its not going to happen. At least not in most of their lifetimes. So the question should be re-framed to fit what they want *NOW* and what is possible *NOW*. And frankly its basically a choice between second class status and occupation and equal rights and citizenship. I can guess at what they would choose between these two.


And yet you can't have a binational state without enough support among those that will live in it either. Maybe as time goes, public opinion - itself rather capricious - may change. But so far, it has not and I find that rather interesting given its capriciousness.
Atheism is Evil

So. according to your fucked up ideology, I need […]

Regardless of due process him continuing in his jo[…]

Everything I needed to know about life, I learned[…]

A lot of evidence has been presented by myself an[…]