Comments on: One State/Two State/No State rules

By: Peter D

Peter D — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:11:15 +0000

There is a piece by Johann Hari on the importance of coeducation for prospects of peace in the Northern Ireland:

There is a policy that has been shown to erode these hatreds. They are called integrated schools – and the parents of Northern Ireland are calling for them. Today, only five per cent of children in Northern Ireland go to a mixed school. The other 95 per cent are segregated in sectarian enclaves where they project feverish fantasies on to the other side. Violence is an inevitable bedsore where two uncomprehending tribes rub past each other in a small space.
But that 5 per cent hold the key. A six-year study by Queen’s University, Belfast has looked at the long-term consequences of being schooled alongside The Enemy. They interviewed adults who attended these schools – and found that whatever their parents’ attitudes, they were “significantly more likely” to oppose sectarianism. They had “far” more friends across the divide, and they identified as “Northern Irish”, rather than British or Irish. Their politics were much more amenable to peace. Some 80 per cent of Protestants favour the union with Britain, but only 65 per cent of those at integrated schools do. Some 51 per cent of Catholics who went to a segregated school want unification with Ireland, but only 35 per cent of those from integrated schools do. The middle ground – for a devolved Northern Ireland with links to both countries – was both broader and happier.

I think it is fair to say that Northern Ireland, for all its problems, has not a tenth of those of Israel-Palestine. Whatever the final outcome, we’ll have Arabs and Jews living side by side. Israeli Arabs and maybe Jewish Palestinians (in a two state solution framework) or just Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel-Palestine (or whatever it will be called). Integrated schools are a must, I think.

By: Peter D

Peter D — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:47:50 +0000

Whatever. Evacuate most/all settlers or leave most/all settlers. The question comes down to: will Israel allow fair sharing of water and other resources? Will it allow free movement between Gaza and the West Bank? Will it allow Palestinians to have military? Without these and others the Palestinians “state” will be a Bantustan, totally dependent on Israel. Which will still be some sort of a one-state solution, I guess. Maybe the Palestinians will agree to that, at least in the short term, but I somehow doubt it.

By: Avram

Avram — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 22:09:24 +0000

“they why on earth should they put their lives in the hands of arabs who have been at war with jews for 60+ years…”

If only it was 60 years, we could blame this on Zionism and ‘shalom al Yisrael’ … Alas, this has been going on since the 600s (ie, issues between Arab and Jew) but people tend to ignore that (or just not be aware of it) … Two states is the only way to go, for the sake of both people’s future. A one state solution would just lead to some much much worse …

By: Rankin Mike

Rankin Mike — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:07:49 +0000

ok, so why didn’t olmert and barak evacuate the outposts as they promised? because they’re scared of the settler protests that will erupt at the sight of a soldier laying

if i was a settler, i wouldn’t want to live under PA rule. if they can’t put their trust in the israeli government, they why on earth should they put their lives in the hands of arabs who have been at war with jews for 60+ years…

By: Alex Stein

Alex Stein — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 06:09:25 +0000

Peter D – good point re. Benvenisti

By: Peter D

Peter D — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:45:58 +0000

Mike, you are right, you did say “one of”.
What I am trying to say, though, is that while the settlements have the aura of being one of the major obstacles for peace, they really are not. It is conceivable that a deal can be worked out that those settlers that refuse to evacuate will remain under the Palestinian authority with adequate protection provisions (and I would even claim that there is a moral justification for such move). Furthermore, the wall can be torn down more quickly than it was (is being?) built. The Kassams can be eliminated by mutual agreement as they were during the tahadiye (exceptions to the rule proving the rule.) Hamas will become a pragmatic force. Etc. Etc. I am describing the best case scenario, naturally.
What am afraid of is that for the Palestinian state to succeed an even greater “suspension of disbelief” is needed, beyond even the best case scenario described above. I don’t claim that, I am just voicing the possibility.

By: Peter D

Peter D — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:37:10 +0000

Mike, fair enough.
I tend to think, though, was that while settlements might have the aura of being one of the bigger obstacles, they really aren’t. It is quite conceivable that Israel and Palestinians would be able to achieve an agreement that leave those settlers that refuse to evacuate in Palestine with some guarantees of protection (I would even claim that there is a moral justification for such move.) The wall can be torn down faster that it was (is being) built. Kassams will be eliminated by the mutual agreement, as they were during the tahadiye (the exceptions to the rule proving the rule). Hamas will become a pragmatic force. Etc. Etc. I am describing the best case scenario, naturally.
What I am worried about is that for the Palestinians state to really succeed a further leap of optimism is needed, a best case scenario even less likely than the one I describe as a prerequisite to the establishment of this state. I am not claiming that, I am just voicing the possibility.

By: Rankin Mike

Rankin Mike — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:06:52 +0000

Hi Peter D,

“Mike, settlements are not the only obstacle to the two-state solution, I am afraid. It is a common misconception.”

I wrote: “one of the key arguments against 2-states.”

Add other variables if you like (hamas, the israeli right, kassams, the acrobatic route of the separation barrier etc etc) but they are certainly one of the biggies when it comes to stopping us achieving a more harmonious way of life in this part of the world…

By: Gert

Gert — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:01:19 +0000

Alex:

“[...] they also withdrew from South Lebanon; [...]“ Fair point, might as well include the Sinai as a token of Israeli goodwill as well though.

“If you think a one-state solution is feasible, then you have to acknowledge that a two-state solution is feasible.”

I do, I’m just not optimistic about it. You want to share the blame. I believe, looking at the totality of the “conflict”, Zionism’s intentions never were to share the land (with the exception perhaps of Zionist attitudes about a hundred years ago). It remains hard to argue with that, considering the sort of noises we hear from all kinds of Tel Aviv sources regarding further expansion. Hey, they’re not all that secretive about it anymore! Wasn’t the whole settler enterprise designed to create facts on the ground with ever greater irreversibility (referring actually to your piece)?

On the other hand it would appear that many settlers would indeed be prepared to evacuate, from my reading…

By: Alex Stein

Alex Stein — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:32:53 +0000

Gert – they also withdrew from South Lebanon; another place they had no business occupying in the first place, but that hardly alters the fact that once they had left, there were more constructive things to do than use the areas as places to fire rockets from. Secondly, the Israeli public has not always been so pessimistic vis-a-vis the prospects of reconciliation. While the public instinctively leans rightwards, there’s always been a clear connection between terror attacks and rightward shifts in opinion. Which is of course obvious to Hamas strategists; this is the scenario they’ve been looking for.

If you think a one-state solution is feasible, then you have to acknowledge that a two-state solution is feasible. Because that’s more practical than getting everyone to live together in one big happy state. At least in the short term.

I don’t know what the Palestinians should do (although I have been arguing for years that they should disband the PA and ask Israel to make a decision); that was the point of the agnosticism behind the peace.

More later; am tired.