Sunday, December 20, 2009

Los Angeles Times publishes piece supporting one state

A well written piece by Jonathan Kuttab that I don't have much to add to.
For a while, it seemed that a two-state solution might actually be achievable and that a sovereign Palestinian state would be created in the West Bank and Gaza, allowing Jews and Palestinians at last to go their separate ways. But these days, that looks less and less likely.

With Israel in total control of the territory from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River and unwilling to relinquish a significant part of the land, it's time to consider the possibility that the current situation -- one state, in effect -- will continue. And although Jewish Israelis may control it now, birthrates suggest that, sooner or later, Jews will again be a minority in the territory.

What happens at that point is unclear, but unless continued military occupation and all-out apartheid is the desired path, now may be the time for Israelis to start putting in place the kinds of legal and constitutional safeguards that will protect all minorities, now and in the future, in a single democratic state of Israel-Palestine. This is both the right thing and the smart thing to do.
As one commenter to the article notes, one state in Palestine is no more difficult or less beneficial to its residents and region beyond than one state in South Africa was after the 1976 Soweto riots.

One state is not a majority view by any means in the United States. It is a minority view that seems to slowly be gaining increasing appeal. For most people in the US, support for Israel is kind of a default view. Not an acceptance of Zionism or any reasoning that there must be a Jewish state, but a going-along that comes from never being presented with an alternative.

No comments: