The Two-State Solution Is Dead. Bloodbath Next?

By Thomas Neuberger. Originally published at DownWithTyranny!

Control of the region recently called Palestine from 2000 BCE to the present (source)

There are two possible futures for Israel and Palestine: one close to the vision of Isaiah — “nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” — and one reminiscent of the prophecy of the Sibyl of Virgil’s Aeneid: “wars, horrendous wars,” the Jordan “foaming with tides of blood.” It’s a simple choice. Let’s choose peace.

—Presidential candidate Mike Gravel (source)

The part of the Middle East formerly known as Palestine is lost as a two-state region. The Israelis are “systematically” driving toward a single regional state: the State of Israel. Below is a map showing Israel proper, the West Bank region, Palestinian population centers and the growing incursion of Israeli settlements which are “eating” the West Bank.

“A State Department map shows Palestinian population centers in the West Bank. Obama was surprised to see how ‘systematic’ the Israelis had been at cutting them off from one another.” (source, click to enlarge)

The outcome of this long process of territorial integration, barring any implementation of an alternative to the “two-state solution,” will be as Mike Gravel says, “horrendous war, the Jordan foaming with blood.” The monomaniacal drive by Israel’s leaders to recover the western part of their Iron Age kingdom has now made peace impossible, sansintervention.

If the two-state idea is dead, what alternatives are left? Just one. Below I list the main points of presidential candidate Mike Gravel’s proposal, offered as the only non-military, non-ethnic-cleansing way forward. Is this solution “practical”? No, it’s not, in the sense that the current leaders of the U.S., Israel and Palestine will not accept it.

But yes, it is practical, in the sense that a bloodbath in the region — and it will come to that — a bloodbath that will wash over all of the Middle East, is the only other alternative. If a war of this magnitude is itself “impractical” in the extreme, Gravel’s solution is imminently practical. I, like Gravel, see this as the only way out.

Here are Gravel’s main points, as offered in a recent Mondoweiss piece:

Move toward creating a secular, democratic binational state — “Most American diplomats will, in their more candid hours, admit that the two-state idea is long dead. Prudence dictates that America acknowledge that on the world stage and begin the search for other solutions. The most obvious and humane path forward is the creation of a secular, democratic, binational state with equal rights for all. That is the model the U.S. government, with its partners in the region, should work toward and publicly highlight as the ideal outcome.”

Gravel recognizes that the above proposal would disappoint everyonein the region. Yet it’s the only peaceful way forward: “Both visions serve an abstract nationalism rather than the actual needs of Israelis and Palestinians living in the area, and a state along the lines of the idealized United States model, one with no prized ethnicity or religious character, is the solution all those seeking a humanitarian alternative should support. There would be no need for the byzantine arrangements (land swaps, dual city ownership, etc.) upon which most attempts to resolve the conflict have hinged: it would simply be the decision—an admittedly difficult one—to live together, Muslim, Jew, and Christian, in a peaceful, democratic, egalitarian society.”

Force AIPAC and similar pro-Israel groups to register as foreign lobbies — “The first step should be mandating that AIPAC register as a foreign lobby under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). AIPAC manages to skirt American laws about foreign lobbying by claiming that it represents Americans who happen to support Israel. But the shockingly close ties between the governing Likud Party and AIPAC give a lie to this legal fiction; AIPAC will always stand closer to Israeli interests than American ones. Such an arrangement would prevent AIPAC from influencing American elections, and would require it to report all of its contacts with Congress, along with details of its spending, to the Department of Justice.”

The point about preventing influence in American elections is important — the present arrangement skirts very close to the line marked by our present panic over “foreign interference in our democracy,” if it doesn’t cross well over it. Without Israeli influence in the U.S. electoral process, a wider world of foreign policy and peace-making options is open to us.

Yes, I know this proposal is anathema in the current environment — witness the immediate and bipartisan vilification of Rep. Ilhan Omar — but Gravel merely says out loud what everyone in D.C. knows, but won’t repeat with a microphone nearby. Nevertheless, we in the “reality-based community” should acknowledge this fact.

End military support for Israel — “Next, the U.S. should end military aid to Israel, citing the Israeli military’s complicity in crimes against the Palestinian people. It should call for a gradual demilitarization of Israel and Palestine, and should be clear with the Israeli government that the days of Israel-right-or-wrong are over. Future outrages by either side will receive an even-handed response without bias. Accordingly, it should demand that Israel bring itself into compliance with international law and end the harassment of dissidents…”

This proposal, actually two proposals in one, is highly controversial to say the least. Cries of “but Israel needs to be able to defend itself” will be loud enough to cause deafness. In response, I would add to Gravel’s call my own proposal that we end all military support in the region. Note that ending U.S. military aid does not mean immediate disarmament for any of these nations; far from it. Israel can do quite nicely without U.S. dollars swelling their military coffers — and besides, as the only nuclear-tipped army in the region, it still has the deciding advantage.

The region’s militarization, in fact, underscores the importance of the second part of his proposal, a “gradual demilitarization of Israel and Palestine.” Recall again the aforementioned atrocities and “crimes against the Palestinian people.” Those do have to stop or be made to stop. If they don’t, the region is on the road to ethnic cleansing, and that won’t end well for anyone, including the U.S. and Europe.

It’s a simple choice: demilitarize or keep on the current path. There’s no middle ground. Once the main goal is shifted to a peaceful secular state, the need for demilitarization between Israelis and Palestinians is inescapable.

• Finally, end U.S. attempts to stifle BDS, the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement — “the U.S. should refuse to take unconstitutional steps to stifle BDS. Whatever one’s personal thoughts on BDS, an individual or group’s decision not to associate with another group or country is a legitimate exercise of the freedoms of speech and association guaranteed by the Constitution, and using the power of the government to influence those decisions is wrong. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker should be ashamed of themselves for supporting federal laws to restrict BDS. (It is perhaps no coincidence that Booker and the president of AIPAC ‘text message back and forth like teenagers,’ by Booker’s own admission.)”

Bottom Line

If peace in the Palestinian region is the goal, and if you’re clear-headed about what it will take to get there, these are the most practical steps, and in fact the only ones, no matter how objectionable they will be to everyone involved in the conflict.

First, the goal must recognized realities on the ground. If a two-state solution is impossible, the only alternatives are an increasingly cleansed Greater Israel, with intifada after growing intifada revenging within its borders, or a peaceful secular state. One cannot have a religion-dominated Israel as the only state in the region and still have peace. One may as well want a bird that can fly to the moon.

Next, if the second alternative, a peaceful secular state, is to be achieved with U.S. leadership, the U.S. political process much be cleared of the protected intervention of the Israel lobby. If not, its paid politicians will win almost every battle, neutering every attempt at make peace, until peace itself is a dream of the past and war is the fact on the ground, the “foaming tide of blood” Gravel seeks to avoid.

Neither of the alternatives, a one-state region dominated by religion and cleansing, or a one-state region of diversity and tolerance, will be achieved without great pain. But I were the one choosing between them, a road that leads to a foaming tide of blood would be last on the list, if it even made the list at all.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

52 comments

  1. James

    Great post and Gravel’s suggestions make eminent sense (as usual), but we all know absolutely none of this will actually happen. The US and UK have created and nurtured a great horned beast in Israel and now we all get to live with the consequences. A blood bath it will most certainly be, and from what we’re hearing in the news lately, it will most likely be sooner rather than later.

    1. Synoia

      Don’t blame the UK. It walked out in 1948. The Balfour declaration supported giving a homeland somewhere, not a specific area.

      1. ewmayer

        “The Balfour declaration supported giving a homeland somewhere, not a specific area.” — Uh, no (bolds mine):

        His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

        Wikipedia continues:

        The opening words of the declaration represented the first public expression of support for Zionism by a major political power. The term “national home” had no precedent in international law, and was intentionally vague as to whether a Jewish state was contemplated. The intended boundaries of Palestine were not specified, and the British government later confirmed that the words “in Palestine” meant that the Jewish national home was not intended to cover all of Palestine. The second half of the declaration was added to satisfy opponents of the policy, who had claimed that it would otherwise prejudice the position of the local population of Palestine and encourage antisemitism worldwide by “stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands”. The declaration called for safeguarding the civil and religious rights for the Palestinian Arabs, who composed the vast majority of the local population, and also the rights and political status of the Jewish communities in other countries outside of Palestine. The British government acknowledged in 1939 that the local population’s views should have been taken into account, and recognised in 2017 that the declaration should have called for protection of the Palestinian Arabs’ political rights.

        The declaration had many long-lasting consequences. It greatly increased popular support for Zionism within Jewish communities worldwide, and became a core component of the British Mandate for Palestine, the founding document of Mandatory Palestine, which later became Israel and the Palestinian territories. As a result, it is considered a principal cause of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, often described as the world’s most intractable conflict.

        The one aspect omitted in the Wikipedia article re. the Weizmann/Rothschild push to get the UK government to support Weizmann’s Zionist dream is Weizmann’s leveraging his development of a key manufacturing process in the making of cordite (“smokeless powder”), which was hugely important to the UK during WW1. The Wikipedia article on Weizmann does note:

        “The importance of Weizmann’s work gave him favour in the eyes of the British Government, this allowed Weizmann to have access to senior Cabinet members and utilise this time to represent Zionist aspirations.”

  2. Alex

    The one-state solution is not bad in itself (and neither is the two-state solution), the devil is in the details. The issue with the the proposed solution is that no one can guarantee that even if the purported single state starts as democratic and secular it will stay this way. In fact all the neighbouring Arab Muslim-majority states are neither democratic nor secular. And Yazidis and Syrian and Iraqi Christians are good examples what happens with minorities in such states, so bloodbath is likelier to follow from the implementation this proposal than from the status quo, as bad as it is.

    Also that’s a fine example of usual double standards. In the same region there is North Cyprus whose Greek population was expelled less than 50 ago and still cannot return, with mainland Turkish setters moving in. A bit further to the north, and about 10 years ago ethnic Georgians were cleansed from South Ossetia. But you’d be hard pressed to find a single line about these places and many others like them.

    1. AEL

      Lebanon is a regional example where the government is secular and democratic (for a sufficiently loose definition of both secular and democratic).

      1. flora

        Beirut was once (40 years ago) called the ‘Paris of the Mediterranean’ for good reason.

    2. Darius

      The US doesn’t provide South Ossetia with billions of dollars of arms and other assistance every year. US leaders don’t make a bipartisan show of falling all over themselves to pledge fealty to South Ossetia. They don’t hold South Ossetia above reproach and hail its vicious and corrupt leader as the new Moses or Elijah.

    3. Joe Well

      Your comment about Yazidis, Christians and other minorities in US-UK-occupied countries only serves to show that US-UK occupations are evil and destroy societies. Those minorities had lived for millennia in those countries until the English-speaking barbarians arrived.

      The one country in the Middle East today with strong and stable minority communities is Iran, precisely because it has never been invaded by the US and the UK.

      Ask Native Americans what they think about what happens to ethnic minorities in US-dominated regions.

    4. Oregoncharles

      The United States does not finance the ethnic cleansing in N. Cyprus, nor does S. Ossetia interfere in US elections. Nor is either of those countries likely to start a widespread bloodbath – though there have been wars in both places. They are not the cockpit of the world.

      And your own special pleading is shamefully obvious: Israel’s politics have become steadily less democratic, to the point of declaring their minorities to be second-class citizens; and Israel’s rabid behavior toward the natives of the area essentially guarantees that an attempt at an egalitarian single state will be…let’s say extremely hazardous. In fact, there was a democratic election in occupied Palestine a number of years ago; but Hamas won, so Israel cancelled the election after the fact and imprisoned some of the elected officials. That’s what instigated the present state of extreme hostilities.

      Look to the spike in your own eye before you talk about the hair in someone else’s (Biblical paraphrase, in case you missed it.)

      Incidentally, thank you for representing hasbara here, and at least pretending to be rational. We appreciate it. I’m serious; gives us something to bounce off of.

  3. Darius

    Thank you for using the words ethnic cleansing, which is well under way. What else can you call taking Palestinian land and building Israeli settlements on it? In some cases, the only work Palestinians can get is building the settlements that are displacing them. A grotesque atrocity. This is what has unquestioned bipartisan support among the political class in the US. A country led by Netanyahu, one of the absolute worst people on the world stage today, should not be the one nation that is above reproach. In fact, quite the reverse. He has made their bed. The only way forward now is one non-ethnic democratic state.

    1. sharonsj

      People who talk about Palestinian ethnic cleansing do not know what they are talking about. Since 1948 Israelis haven’t systematically gotten rid of Palestinians; in fact the Palestinian population in the area has only grown larger. However, since 1948 every Middle Eastern country has systematically ethnically cleansed itself of Jews. For example, there were about 60,000 Jews in Egypt until Nasser forced them out after taking their property. Now there are estimated to be 15 people left. In Iraq, there were 150,000 in Bagdad until Saddam Hussein forced them out and confiscated their property. Now there are none. The only country that has any sizeable Jewish population is Iran; there are about 9000 Jews there, but there used to be 90,000.

      You also don’t talk about the Palestinian aim, which is the destruction of Israel and the expulsion of almost all Jews. I think the Hamas charter allows only those Jews to remain whose ancestors lived in the area before 1917; no such conditions exist for Palestinians. Personally I’m all for Israel taking over the West Bank. P.S. The town of Hebron in the West Bank is the oldest Jewish community in the world, dating back to Biblical times. Its Jewish population has always been small, around 700 people, but apparently not small enough for the Arabs. They twice massacred the Jews of Hebron in the 1920s, long before Israel existed. In the 1948 war, Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem and expelled all the Jews; nobody objected very much. If Muslims take control of the area, history shows they absolutely will turn it into an ethnic non-democratic state.

        1. Olga

          I was going to be more polite… the comment reveals someone who lives in some dreamland, far, far away from reality.

      1. Darius

        Ok. You’re right. Palestinians should be ethnically cleansed. Throw them out of their houses so Israel can build luxury condos on them. If we stop talking about the Palestinians, they don’t exist. Right? I mean there was a Twilight Zone episode like that.

        1. finlandstation

          The entire narrative about “ethnic cleansing” is so insane. Facts! Try some on for once. More arabs have been killed by other arabs in just the last few months (or less) than by israelis in total (beginning in 1947 up thru the present).

  4. divadab

    North Americans owe their privileged position to a massive taking from and replacement of the native population. What moral standing do we have to criticise Israel, which is doing exactly the same thing?

    It’s terrible and sad but tribal war is the story of humanity.

    I do object to being lied to 24-7 but the reality is that most people do not want to confront the brutal truth of it.

    1. Joe Well

      Sorry, my head exploded. It is beyond absurd to suggest the US government or society is standing aside, shaking its finger.

      The US government is helping to pay the bill and provide the weapons and more importantly, the international diplomatic and military cover to Israel to commit these crimes. And many Americans have donated to prop up the most reactionary elements of Israeli politics.

    2. ambrit

      I hate to agree with you but I must. The present Israeli State has demonstrated the ‘effectiveness’ of a campaign of controlled violence. The above suggestion, though sane and rational is not feasible there now. The well has been poisoned. The only effective counter measure to Israeli State violence is Palestinian State violence. To get to that point, someone has to supply the ‘sinews of war’ to the Palestinians. One regional power is doing so, Iran. Hence, the Israeli fixation on dominating Iran. Iran is the only state level actor doing something ‘effective’ on behalf of the Palestinians.
      I suggest that this is not going to ‘end up’ in a bloodbath, but that the bloodbath has already started.

      1. Skeptical

        So you support Iranian terrorism? Iran being the country that is propping up Assad in Syria, makes an industry of taking US hostages, attacks oil tankers in the Gulf, and is developing nuclear bombs.

        1. Yves Smith Post author

          Come on. You are trying to sell the notion that the US is a good actor in the Middle East?

          The US has been an aggressor against Iran since we overthrew Mossadegh in 1953. Even though Assad is authoritarian, he looks a hell of a lot better than many of our allies, starting with the Saudis. Before we tried our recent round of nation-breaking in Syria, it had one of the highest standards of living and highest standards of educational attainment in the Middle East. That’s why Merkel was so willing to accept large numbers of Syrian refugees. She thought they would make more significant economic contributions to the German economy than, say, Turkish taxis drivers (yes she overlooked the non-trivial problem of learning German, becoming culturally assimilated, and what to do with them until they got matched with employers…).

    3. Norm

      There is not a nation in the world that does not have ethnic cleansing blood on its hands. Some are undoubtedly more blood stained than others, but mostly it’s a question of how recent and well publicized any set of horrors happens to be that determines which of them are brought to our attention.

      That being said, humanity should have choices better than tolerating ethnic cleansing just because all of our hands are dirty. Even Israel whose crimes are out there for everyone with any shred of objectivity to see could still choose to make amends by devoting itself to making life better for all the people living under its yoke.

      1. divadab

        It seems to me that Israel considers the Palestinians to be inferiors to be eliminated, blood enemies. As do the Turks consider the Armenians and Pontic Greeks (already eliminated), and the Kurds (in process of elimination). As do the Chinese consider the Uighers and the Tibetans.

        Sorry but your suggestion that any of the eliminators do something nice for their targets is a fantasy.

        1. Norm

          Apology accepted. But my point wasn’t to dwell on the likelihood of any good impulses springing forth from the guilty – although such things have been known to happen. Race relations in the US still are lousy, but they have been worse.

          Rather, I’m pointing out that even though we’re all guilty of something, that doesn’t prevent any of us from trying to do better, or excuse any of us for not trying.

          1. Darius

            So you’re saying, what the hell. Why shouldn’t America pay for ethnic cleansing and lie for Israel? I say, if we’re going to facilitate ethnic cleansing we should be open about. No big deal. Everyone does it. Might makes might. Or something. Human misery can be fun for the inflictor, and profitable!

  5. Thuto

    After slaying its own apartheid dragon, my country of SA is bucking the international trend and has downgraded its Israeli diplomatic mission to that of a liaison representative office only (with the ambassador having officially been recalled), which is the first step towards a full boycott. We fully expect the Trump threat-generator machine to kick into high gear in response to this, but our painful history has taught us that the arduous path towards defeating a monster like apartheid is paved with courageous, seemingly inconsequential actions like this. That this has caused consternation amongst the local Jewish lobby is par for the course, but the government is resolute and determined forge ahead with this. What has become extremely concerning is the regularity with which every criticism of Israel, no matter how legitimate, is labelled antisemitic, and the moral outrage accompanying some of the atrocities associated with the state is thusly quelled using political correctness and the silencing of dissent.

    The “Israel has the right to defend itself” rhetorical smokescreen (notwithstanding its legitimate right to do so apart from the invoking of this “right” as cover for committing state sanctioned atrocities) and the brandishing of antisemitism sound eerily similar to how the apartheid government used “the right to defend the republic against treasonous terrorists” to keep the oppressed black masses huddled and docile, until the system collapsed under the weight of internal and external pressure. With big brother USA shielding Israel, the Israel-Palestinian situation is orders of magnitude above SA in intractability.

    1. Darius

      The Palestinians have the absolute right under international law to defend themselves also.

      1. Plenue

        Pretty sure they’re the only ones in this scenario who do. Colonizers, which is what the Israelis are, have no moral or legal standing to whine, much less inflict violence.

    2. Synoia

      Thuto, are you familiar with the local description of the Johannesburg suburb of Houghton?

      It is very English in its humor and pointedness.

        1. Synoia

          I can email it. Send me an email: dh at synoia dot com. Please put “Thuto” in the subject line.

    1. Oregoncharles

      What is unsustainable will eventually end – unfortunately, probably not in a good way.

      When this topic comes up, I always think of Marge Piercy’s SF novel “” He, She and It”, which won the 1993 Arthur C. Clarke Award” (Wikipedia). Israel is part of the background; the main subjects are AI and the rise of corporate power (I recommend it to NC readers – old now, but on topic). The background is that the Middle East is a a smoking, radioactive, biological warfare-riddled ruin. Also the source of the story’s ultimate deus ex machina. Piercy is Jewish, so there’s some passion in the depiction. That outcome seems to be creeping ever closer. I rather hope our hasbara representatives will read it; perhaps it will make them think.

  6. JBird4049

    Has anyone here notice that a primary driver for the current Israeli regime is greed? The water, farming land, and the few mineral resources of the West Bank as well as some of the fishing and much of the natural gas under the Mediterranean are legally Palestinian. A growing amount of the water and farming rights are being appropriated by the Israelis and the Gaza Strip is unable to access the fishing and natural gas that is legally theirs.

    Furthermore, like with the current American political regime, the Israeli regime and especially its current government is very corrupt. For example, IIRC the single company that is allowed to ship in the very overpriced gas and other items into Gaza is run by friends and family of Benjamin Netanyahu. So instead of the Palestinians using the massive natural gas fields that they own, and have signed contracts with European companies to extract to power their state and sell, they have to used the overpriced Israeli fuel from the Prime Minister’s friend’s company.

    In addition to corruption, there is the religious element although I think that some of that is merely a smokescreen. As in, I am not doing this to make money and gain power, I am doing this for God! The very conservative and perhaps heretical American Christian Dominionists and (some) of the American and Israeli Ultra Orthodox and some Conservatives, are like the Saudi supported Wahabbists being intertwined with their respective governments, and yes businesses, of the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

    So to map this out, the government of Israel is governed by a corrupt Prime Minster with his allies and family not only getting power and money from stealing from Israel proper, they are also stealing from the Palestians; by giving support to some of the religious organizations they gain votes and influence; this also keeps them in a position not to be investigated and imprisoned. The Israelis work with the American Dominionists, who want the Israelis to succeed for theological reasons, to support American politicians and organizations friendly to them, or at least open to a quid pro quo, which in turns influences American policy to support not only Israel, but specifically…. certain elements in Israel.

    This pattern also happens between the Americans and the Saudis, and to a lesser extent between the Saudis and the Israelis. So Vice President Mike Pence, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Prince Mohammad bin Salman are all connected. And just what is Vice President Pence, the power behind the throne, doing nowadays?

    Keep in mind that non of this is monolithic in nature. Many, many, many religious conservatives as well as different sects of the three religions are not happy with the power seeking, corruption, and brutality of the three governments and the their religious supporters; this is also true within the governments, societies, and even law enforcement but again they are overwhelmed by the sheer money, power, and frankly illegal tactics of the current ruling regimes.

    I would also say that until at least one of these countries reforms its government as well as its society the Palestinians are doomed, but the same can be said of Israel, for that area has a long, long memory, and Israel will not always be top dog. Reform will not be easy as prison in the United States and Israel are likely. I do not want to think of what might happen in Saudi Arabia.

      1. JBird4049

        Not quite as that is too narrow. Plenty of capitalists are not trying to get rich via genocide although l will agree to getting rid of it, but greed, or rank avarice and malice are the true culprits here.

  7. Skip in DC

    An excellent post! And timely, as Israel’s minions beat the drum for conflict with Iran.

    I noticed a recent article in Haaretz, “In Israel, With Netanyahu at Her Side, Miriam Adelson Places Her Bet for 2024 – if Not Sooner” That bet is Nikki Haley, which explains her acting as a threatening thug on behalf of the extremist leadership of Israel while serving as US Ambassador to the United Nations.

    For those wanting to dive deep into the realities of the long, systematic oppression and dehumanization of Palestinians, and into the Israeli lobby’s manipulation of American politicians and of media, there is an annual conference antidote to the yearly Spring genuflection to AIPAC. For audio, video and transcripts, search for “THE ISRAEL LOBBY & AMERICAN POLICY CONFERENCE 2019”. For past conferences, hit “Conference Series”. It offers a wealth of perspective that the mainstream lacks.

    Fracturing Israel’s political power is very much in America’s best interests.

  8. K Lee

    Here’s a great site with many interesting articles.

    The Struggle For Our Future

    “Netanyahu’s problem is that the post-World War II international laws and treaties seeking to prevent aggressive nationalism, racism, and the oppression of minorities now stand in the way of Israeli ambitions. So, oddly, the only way Israel can realize its Zionist ambitions while also being seen as a “normal” country—one that is in tune with the international community— is by changing international norms.

    That is, Israel now seeks to undermine the progressive international environment that was, in good part, designed to protect the remnants of European Jews. And it would seem, many of those who voted for Netanyahu knew exactly what sort of society they were endorsing.

    It would seem that we are in a decisive struggle that will determine the shape of our future. Will it be reactionary or progressive in nature? Organized conservatism has evolved into a reactionary force throughout much of the West, and the hard-fought-for, progressive aspects of our world are in serious danger.

    The fate of Donald Trump, the U.S.’s ersatz Mussolini, in the 2020 election might be a pivotal moment in this struggle. In the meantime the struggle seems over in Israel—the reactionaries have won.”

    1. Synoia

      We all were taught then the Holocast was never to be repeated; not used as an example.

  9. Tim

    I dunno. Look what has happened to nations with dual nationalities under one sovereignty. You can just end up with civil war and genocide, then back to square one. I’m not saying the current situation is any better, I’m just not thinking this alternate scenario would end up any better.

    1. Synoia

      The Checks and Slovaks seem to have divorced amicably.
      The Basques and Spanish also seem to have reached an accord.
      The English and Scots joined amicability, up to Brexit.

      I’d say this:

      Look what can happen to nations with dual nationalities under one sovereignty….The problem with trying to fashion an Iron Clad Rule are the pesky exceptions.

      I’d assert that troubles between two nation in one land are exacerbated, brought to a boiling point, by one National Leader playing the Nationalist card. Explosions require a fuse.

      1. JBird4049

        Race, religion, class, and so on are all handles for those seeking power, but those handles are often blocked in a healthy society; when a society becomes unhelpful then they are available, just as race is in America and ethnicity or religion is in Israel or Iraq.

    2. RMO

      “I dunno. Look what has happened to nations with dual nationalities under one sovereignty.”

      Yeah, I just took a trip to Montreal from Vancouver for a family function and it was hell. I had to wear a flak jacket and a helmet and have an M1 Carbine ready to go to protect myself from those blood thirsty Quebecois. It’s bad here on the west coast too – every time I take BC Ferries to Vancouver Island I’m in grave danger of Haida pirates. And of course the Syrian refugees in my town have put us all under the yoke of sharia law./s

      I’m not optimistic about the Palestine/Israel situation – the recent Israeli governments all seem to regard the Palestinians as enemies to be exterminated or driven far, far away, and I don’t see the rest of the world doing anything at all to stop them if that is the course they choose to take in the future.

      1. Synoia

        I’d call the Traffic along that huge construction project through the Middle of Montreal weapons in a war zone.

  10. flora

    The Great Game has been going for over 200 years. Israel and Palistinians are the latest pawns. The US, using only a hammer and never a carrot in the areas’ small states, has foolishly created an opening for a new player – China. imo. I expect K.S.A will move its alliance to which ever power offers it the best “deal”.

Comments are closed.