Two-State Illusion – NYTimes.com

The Two-State solution is dead. Long live the Two-State solution. What is the alternatve:

True believers in the two-state solution see absolutely no hope elsewhere. With no alternative in mind, and unwilling or unable to rethink their basic assumptions, they are forced to defend a notion whose success they can no longer sincerely portray as plausible or even possible.

It’s like 1975 all over again, when the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco fell into a coma. The news media began a long death watch, announcing each night that Generalissimo Franco was still not dead. This desperate allegiance to the departed echoes in every speech, policy brief and op-ed about the two-state solution today.

via Two-State Illusion – NYTimes.com.

Advertisements
Tagged

5 thoughts on “Two-State Illusion – NYTimes.com

  1. heartleeharman says:

    This article/author presents a very interesting solution to a problem that doesn’t seem to have one right now. Everyone assumes that Palestine and Israel should have two independent states, the fighting has now concentrated on the border dispute. While this author claims that the only solution now is to create one combined state and then eventually work towards independence for the Palestinians, I am unsure of whether this is a realistic achievement. I can’t see a unified, effective, productive, and peaceful Israeli-Palestinian state in the foreseeable future. There has been too much violence and hatred on both sides to expect a peaceful transition into one state. Neither side seems likely to agree to this.

  2. This article makes a compelling case for the inadequacies of the “plan” for two states. At a time when there has been no movement or success at coming to an agreement between Israel and Palestine, and as the author says, is something that isn’t even considered probable any more, it is prime for innovative ideas. While the proposal for one united state isn’t an original thought, it is one that I think has been undervalued. There are very good reasons for this, but instead of only exploring one route to create a more peaceful region I think that the creation of one, carefully planned and organized state is a promising solution.
    I recognize that the author is also pretty idealistic. While fresh and new ideas are needed, and coalitions between subgroups of the Palestinians and Israelis is a nice thought, I don’t think that ultra-Orthodox Jews and Muslim nationalists working closely together to achieve their goals is a very realistic thought. But with either solution, it’s going to take time for each group to accept the others presence. Hopefully, with whatever solution is chosen, the stalemate that the situation currently stands in will be able to shift toward positive progression.

  3. madeleineary says:

    Having had the opportunity to live in Israel for a short amount of time was a real eye-opener on this issue. I concur that the 2 state solution is not viable if the government is not willing to resettle the thousands of Jews who live in the West bank. The west bank is essentially a collection of pockets, a village here and a village there, all interconnected through barely preserved routes through and around the encroaching walls. It is clear that the mindset of Israel is to slowly encroach on the Palestinian land through benign settlements and strategically built wall. This is an intelligent arrangement for the young and bottle-necked state, but it does suggest that the goal is not settlement with the Palestinians, but domination through sheer inertia. I think the only real solution, given the circumstances, is a single state. However, doing this without creating a form of second-class citizenship will be the real difficulty. It is a land fraught with impossibilities all built on top of each other.

  4. I admit that my initial instinct is that it was right to establish Israel for the Jews, because that’s what they’re promised, right? It makes it a little hard to let go of the thought of two separate states for the two fighting nations, but the article does point out some more real world reasons why it might not be a lasting solution. This did seem like an easy fix, as these things usually do to outsiders but as with many other examples, a simple changing of boarders leads to big problems. I wonder if the idea seems so great if it would just be improved on and tried again after a period of time if they were recombined. Sometimes different peoples can learn to live together within a country, but more often it leads to minorities with less rights and civil wars.

  5. natmyrrha says:

    In order to achieve a more reasonable solution for the two-State problem alternatives must be considered. As the author states, it might be time to assume mistakes and go for a different solution. The idea of negotiating according to each State’s key political interests is actually a lot more efficient than trying to fix inefficient results from decisions made in the past. In his words, “perhaps publicly acknowledging Israeli mistakes and responsibility for the suffering of Palestinians would enable the Arab side to accept less than what it imagines as full justice. And perhaps Israel’s potent but essentially unusable nuclear weapons arsenal could be sacrificed for a verified and strictly enforced W.M.D.-free zone in the Middle East.”

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: