The two state solution evaluated in issue 16 of Democratiya

Issue 16 of Democratiya (latest edition but I’ve been slow off the blocks) is partly concerned with revisiting the two-state solution in the light of Gaza.

“First, we asked a range of writers whether the two-state solution was viable after the conflict in Gaza, and if so what they saw as the obstacles to its realisation. Michael Walzer argues that two states is in bad shape, but remains the only viable solution and can be advanced by a combination of ‘internal unilateralism’ on both sides, and greater support by the US and EU. John Strawson argues the time has come for the international community to consider compelling the two parties to reach a compromise. Ghada Karmi makes the case for the one-state solution as realistic not utopian, while Donna Robinson Divine calls for both sides to go beyond those constitutive narratives around which identities have hardened and which have blocked progress. Martin Shaw calls for 1948 to be revisited as well as 1967 and for the idealism of the one-state solution to inform the two-state solution, while Alex Stein argues none of the existing ‘solutions’ remain viable and what’s really needed is imagination and radical new ideas. Menchem Kellner and Fred Seigel and Sol Stern warn of the dangers of moving towards two states without a radical change of attitude towards Israel by the Palestinian leaderships, while Eric Lee surveys the trade unions reaction to the conflict in Gaza.”

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “The two state solution evaluated in issue 16 of Democratiya

  1. Mira Vogel Post author

    Put it this way, Shaw was not the reason I linked to the issue.

    Arbitrary starting point for his chronology – if you begin your history-telling with the Nuremberg Laws, or the Cossacks, the Jewishness of Israel doesn’t seem unacceptable at all.

    Neglects to address the situation of Jews who were chucked out of other countries in the Middle East. Not even a sentence on behalf of the same recompense, return and rights for them as he demands for Palestinians.

    His focus on injustices to Palestinians is nearly exclusive – he comments without much warmth on injustices committed to, or planned for, Israeli Jews – and this gives him an astygmatic vision of the future with much that is valid more that is omitted or out of focus.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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