Robert Wright in the Times today suggests that a one-state solution, Palestinian and Jewish in an increasingly secular Israel, might evolve into a more just society with peaceful, persistent Palestinian protests from within against injustices:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/a-one-to-two-state-solution/?hp
A one-state solution, with evolution of Palestinian rights and secularism, was also advocated by Edward Said and Tony Judt.
Israel is already ostracized internationally. Doesn't seem to phase them, or extend to rejection of Palestinian outrages either. A further ostracism if they resist peaceful, non-violent Palestinian demonstrations, with a positive Israeli response, seems a faint hope to me. There are too many amongst the Palestinians, and in the larger Arab world, who benefit from violence, and the intractability of the problem. There are too many Israelis who benefit from a dehumanization of Arabs and a willful ignorance of their positions and their positions' origins. It's hard to see either group, too, allowing ongoing, persistent peaceful protests without resorting to violence.
Israel, with by far the largest economy and most competent military in the region, with the world's strongest military and intelligence power behind it, has the greater freedom of action, and, therefore, the greater, but by no means the only, responsibility for ending the conflict. Israelis shouting 'Ma'alot! Munich! Holocaust!' and Palestinians shouting 'Sabra/Shatila! Stern Irgun! Zionist imperialism! Apartheid! at Israelis are not going to solve the problem, and will continue, for another generation or two, to kill each others' children. I find that unacceptable.
No comments:
Post a Comment