Tea Party congressman Joe Walsh proposes one-state solution

[Puppycow]

How so? Israel won't let it happen, as the Jews would soon be completely out of power, which contradicts the very reason for Israel's existence in the first place. And Israel has both the conventional and nuclear power to keep a one-state solution from happening, no matter the international pressure, if they so desire. Please provide a scenario where Israel accepts a one-state solution peacefully.

Well, the Jerusalem Post saw fit to publish Walsh's Op-Ed.

I don't know if that means they agree with it, but I have yet to see any reaction to this proposal from the right.

 

[a_unique_person]

How so? Israel won't let it happen, as the Jews would soon be completely out of power, which contradicts the very reason for Israel's existence in the first place. And Israel has both the conventional and nuclear power to keep a one-state solution from happening, no matter the international pressure, if they so desire. Please provide a scenario where Israel accepts a one-state solution peacefully.

I thought it was anti-semitic to point out there is no way the Palestinians can wipe out Israel, and that Israel would respond to any such attempt with Nukes.

 

[WildCat]

I thought it was anti-semitic to point out there is no way the Palestinians can wipe out Israel, and that Israel would respond to any such attempt with Nukes.

Israel is going to nuke Palestine?

 

[mortimer]

I thought it was anti-semitic to point out there is no way the Palestinians can wipe out Israel, and that Israel would respond to any such attempt with Nukes.

What?

 

[Eddie Dane]

One state solution? Think Lebanon but worse.

My thoughts exactly.

The idea from the OP is idiotic and disregards the rights of the Palestinians.
But usually, the one state solution is some equally stupid -but more naive- version where people who have been fighting each other tooth and nail for decades are just stuck in the same country.

Voilà: problem solved!

I think that the novelty of labelling this conflict a civil war, will quickly wear off.

 

[GreyArea]

So, in order to "preserve the nature of the Jewish state" they have to either curb Arab population growth (and tell me that's not a creepy-sounding euphemism) or give the Palestinians a state that will preserve a long-term Jewish majority within Israeli borders.

The problem with the former is that it's impossible without human rights abuses that the rest of the world would simply find unacceptable.

Actually, one can curb population growth without human rights abuses. When women have education, access to birth control, access to work outside the home, and husbands who allow all this, they tend to have fewer kids than women who lack these things. A population of economically secure Palestinian women would be a good thing.

But there are three problems with this, as far as those who want to maintain the status quo in terms of political power.

First, it will take time for new generations to grow up with enough confidence in this security to complete the demographic shift. In the meantime, the Palestinian Israeli population growth rate would still be higher than the Jewish Israeli population growth rate. And this would be even without any return of refugees and their descendents.

Second, how many Palestinian men will be willing to allow "their" women this degree of independence?

Third, who wants their enemies to be successful, even if it reduces their fertility rates and resentment?

 

[dropzone]

After redistricting he may be my next congressman.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

After redistricting he may be my next congressman.

She lost before, but I have such a crush on Tammy Duckworth. The machine noticed her potential as well from way back when she first ran (that is potentially both a good and bad thing). Here is what I've found on her Israeli policy from her J Street endorsement:

Duckworth's military background, particularly her experience training with the Israeli Defense Forces, has instilled in her a strong support for Israel and the belief that a two-state solution can best assure Israel's long-term security and character.

Linky.

 

[dropzone]

She lost before...

Around here a come from nowhere Democrat losing by only a couple percent is a virtual win, and now she has the name recognition, affection, respect, and the fact she's not Joe Walsh working in her favor. However, I'm concerned that local Republicans, for whom Walsh is an unknown, will just see the (R) after his name without looking into his policies.

 

[Mycroft]

Savvy in what sense?

Savvy in accomplishing some very specific goals at the expense of any other possibilities. Israeli settlements in the West Bank make it very difficult for any administration to give up territory the same way Sharron withdrew from the Gaza Strip. It's theoretically possible, but very expensive and prohibitive.

On the other side, "protection of Palestinian identities" has basically created a permanent underclass of people in the Arab world who don't qualify for the same basic rights as everyone else, who are taught generation after generation that the only way they could is to somehow impossible defeat Israel. It guarantees the conflict can never end.

 

[Mycroft]

It's what Israelis call the "demographics problem." Arabs, both Israeli citizens and those in the OT, are out-breeding Israelis.

The term "demographic problem" sounds pretty benign until you think of places like Rwanda.

Yeah, one state's ok as long as Palestinians have "limited voting power." Obviously, granting full equality would be anti-Semitic and an endorsement of terrorism.

One drawback of democracy is how to guarantee protection for the minority if the majority feels it's in their best interest to endanger them. Given the history of violence between these peoples over the last 100 years, given the nature of the political parties that now control the Palestinian government and their politics, and given the anti-Jewish/Israeli propaganda Palestinians have lived under for these last decades...I think at the very least it shows an astonishing disregard for the very real concerns of the Jewish Israelis.

 

[MaGZ]

Well, the Jerusalem Post saw fit to publish Walsh's Op-Ed.

I don't know if that means they agree with it, but I have yet to see any reaction to this proposal from the right.

It is difficult to think of a Teapartier today not being anything other than a hardcore rightwing Zionist.

 

[Puppycow]

Savvy in accomplishing some very specific goals at the expense of any other possibilities. Israeli settlements in the West Bank make it very difficult for any administration to give up territory the same way Sharron withdrew from the Gaza Strip. It's theoretically possible, but very expensive and prohibitive.

On the other side, "protection of Palestinian identities" has basically created a permanent underclass of people in the Arab world who don't qualify for the same basic rights as everyone else, who are taught generation after generation that the only way they could is to somehow impossible defeat Israel. It guarantees the conflict can never end.

I see. Clever means to achieve regrettable goals. Savvy perhaps, but not wise.

 

[Puppycow]

Well, the Jerusalem Post saw fit to publish Walsh's Op-Ed.

I don't know if that means they agree with it, but I have yet to see any reaction to this proposal from the right.

It seems that the right is mostly ignoring this proposal. For example, this Op-Ed subsequently appeared in the JP without any acknowledgment of Walsh's proposal at all:

National freedom demands a two-state solution

And this one too:

Toward confederation

All the “one-state” solutions – whether bi-national or a federation – are non-starters because Israeli Jews rightly refuse to sacrifice their own interest in a grand gesture of philanthropy.

Majorities in Israeli and Palestinian public opinion would doubtless accept a simple two-state solution if leaders agreed on it. Israel’s current government, however, seems not really interested whatever lip-service it is given from time to time.
. . .
A minimal, complex and flexible Israeli-Palestinian confederation, here meaning a two-state solution within the confines of a larger confederation, is a promising alternative.

Two sovereign states wrapped in a semi-state, a less-than-a-state.

Confederation – political and economic – could provide what Israelis and Palestinians, and outside powers, want most: guaranteed mutual security of the two states, reliable peace in the region, diminished capacity for Islamist terrorist groups to use the conflict as a pretext, and economic and social progress.

What is a confederation, how does it differ from a one-state solution, and what would be its international legal basis?
. . .
What of a confederation? Normally a confederation means a constitution, weak but nonetheless more than a treaty. Sovereignty rests with the composing states.
. . .
If the situation on the ground goes sufficiently bad, a treaty can perfectly well be renounced (cf. current concerns about Egyptian repudiation of the peace treaty with Israel.) What would happen in practice as politics in the confederation? For example, there would be no common elections or governments.

Israeli and Palestinian parliaments might meet jointly once or twice a year for a few days, to get to know each other and create common culture more than to legislate. Existing Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation could be given formal legal status in the treaty. Once or twice yearly summit meetings of top national leaders could be mandated along with more frequent councils of ministers in a particular policy area, say agriculture (as in the EU).

In short, a treaty-based confederation sidesteps the entire zero-sum one-state two-state drama.

An interesting third option.