If Israel doesn’t relinquish security control, Palestinians cannot establish a state. The alternative, then, would be a single state in which Palestinians are second class citizens, under occupation and without democratic rights. “That sentence, quite simply, spells the end to the notion of Netanyahu consenting to the establishment of a Palestinian state,” summed up Times of Israel editor David Horovitz, whom Ha’aretz described as a Netanyahu supporter. And so unsurprisingly, in response to this latest effort to uphold international law – this response from Israel lawmaker Yuli Edelstein: “I don’t think it is a great idea to create a Palestinian state that we may have to attack a year from now because it will be an unlimited source of terrorism the way the Gaza Strip is.” And here lies the problem with the two-state solution – it is a smokescreen, and undesirable even if it were possible. So long as Israel remains wedded to the Zionist notion of a Jewish state, it will have to maintain its occupation of the Palestinians, in order to a) avoid the demographic realities that would undermine the racial character of the state, and b) avoid the democratic realities that would undermine the racial character of the state. Israel, and its allies, will therefore continue to block any progress towards a solution that threatens that reality. Secondly, there is a matter of principle here too. When we were calling for the end of Apartheid South Africa, we did not suggest separation, giving the white establishment control of the territory they’d ethnically cleansed and colonized while granting black South Africans sovereignty over the bantustans and townships. Why would we do so here?
Posted on: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 01:56:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015