Reply #1: Let's think about WHY people think this would mean the end of Israel [View All]

[LeftishBrit]

Might it be because groups such as Hamas have shown, in words and in actions, a willingness to kill Jews, and indeed Palestinians who don't agree with them? Might it be because many Arab states don't allow *any* Jews to visit, let alone live, in them - and even when they did, treated them as second- or third-class citizens? (As most of them indeed treat Palestinian residents.) Might it be because Hamas supports an Islamic theocracy that would place Jews, Christians and secular people under Sharia law?

I am not a supporter of the status quo. I believe that the Occupation is both unjust, and, in the long term, unworkable. I strongly support a two-state solution with a fully independent Palestinian state. Hell, I might even support a one-state solution of Jews and Arabs living happily together - *if I thought it was a possibility in the short or medium term*. Unfortunately, it isn't. Not soon. Maybe in the very long-term.

People who support this 'solution' (who do not include most Israelis or most Palestinians) tend IMO to fall into two groups. One is people who are strongly anti-Israel and/or pro-Islamic rule, and, while not necessarily wanting the Jews to be killed or even expelled, would be happy to see them made subservient to Arab/ Islamic law. The other group are left/liberal anti-nationalists, who take a view not too dissimilar to that of the American diplomat who is said to have remarked in 1948: "The Jews and Arabs should settle their differences like good Christians". This second group think that "The Jews and Arabs should settle their differences like good anti-nationalist secular humanists". As a pretty good anti-nationalist secular humanist myself, I admit to some sympathy for the view(!), but I am aware that in the real world, many Jews and most Arabs do *not* subscribe to secular humanism; and even fewer in either group subscribe to left-wing anti-nationalism. 'Pie in the sky' must sometimes give way to common-sense. A one-state solution under present circumstances would lead to a bloodbath killing both Jews and Arabs, and to permanent inferior status, if not something much worse, for the Jews.

And as regards the Northern Ireland agreement: that was really about making a two-state solution (the two states being the UK and Ireland) fairer and more acceptable to all than it had previously been. The equivalent of a one-state solution would have been to cede Northern Ireland completely to the Republic of Ireland (which might have been the fairest solution in historical terms, but would probably have resulted in a bloodbath). Or indeed to have a joint state combining the UK and the Republic of Ireland into one entity - not something that anyone, British or Irish, would seriously propose.

As regards:

'assuming that Palestinians, unlike humans everywhere, are willing to forfeit their long-term rights to freedom, equality and self-determination in return for some transient alleviation of their most immediate suffering.'

Unlike humans everywhere? Most humans everywhere have in fact been prepared to sacrifice quite a lot in terms of 'long-term rights' to alleviate or prevent 'immediate suffering'.

I also suspect that Palestinians, 'like humans everywhere' - and certainly like Israelis - are pretty divided among themselves as to what they want.