The Renewed Middle East Peace Process: The Tortured Charade

Warm Greetings Mark
I’m old fashioned I guess. Mostly I don’t even debate this question any more, but will do it out of respect for you.
It certainly looks as if events are overwhelming a two state solution. I recognize the possibility that it’s day is fast fading. Then why `cling’ to it?
1. Generally I have supported what is referred to the `international consensus’ which pivots around the two state solution. If it changes, I’ll change with it
2. You are right about the problems of getting rid of the settlers. But it might be more possible to get rid of settlers and settlementsthan transform Israel-Palesitne into one state
3. I am not sure that either people is as interested in one state – living together – as some people think. One staters rarely talk about the proiblems which building one state entail. There is a good chance that Israel-Palestine will morph into some kind of apartheid state.
4. My approach is to oppose the occupation which has been cruel and immoral. Will continue to do so. It is more or less the same position as chomsky’s, finkelstein,l zinn – the Jewish radicals/intellectuals with whom I agree and respect. I didn’t come to this understanding by reading them – although I do – but from my own experience. Part of this is, despite everything, respecting Israel’s right to exist as a nation (but not to expand). Ultimately I am convinced that its long term survival is based upon its ability to make peace with its neighbors – and to do that it must resolve the Palestinian issue – end the occupation of the 1967 territories and stop its opposition to the building of a viable Palestinian state. It is not doing a particularly good job at accomplishing this – if it doesn’t change, and it shows little tendency right now to do so, that will be its undoing.
5. There are tactical considerations as well. I’ll support anyone who is on motion on this issue, who shows a bit of courage, one state, two states whatever. There are alot of people in the US who are finally waking up to this issue. They are mostly two staters from what I can tell. I don’t want (and wont) get into big ideological debates with them to frustrate their energies. To the degree I can support their work, I will. As movements grow, they don’t do so according to `my logic’ – but according to the values of the social movements themselves. I don’t know if this makes sense or sounds like gobbledigook, but it is quite important to me.
On the one hand, Israel today, militarily is as strong as it’s ever been. But its military strength seems to go hand in hand with its status as an international pariah nation – which, outside of the US it has become. How long can its status last? I don’t know. My gut tells me it could be quite a while but then sometimes `things’ happen very quickly – to the surprise of the whole world, like the collapse of the USSR. How will all this play out? We don’t know.
As an American living in Colorado who happens to be Jewish, my main priority is to work to change US policy on this issue, to prevent the United States – in its support for Israel – for doing more damage in the world, to the Palestinians and to others. Ultimately I[‘ll leave it up to the Palestinians and Israelis what shape the political forms of ending occupation will take.
Finally, I have found, with rare exceptions, `one-staters’ rather factional here at home. It’s their way or the highway. Their coalitions are – or have been – narrow and don’t reach out to social forces that don’t agree with them but with whom they should work. I sometimes wonder if they are capable of working with people who don’t accept their vision, political framework. I’ve long tried to work with people with whom I disagree but on some level could find the common ground to push forward the movement. – the old united front approach.
Best,
Rob