One Palestine is not a recipe for a stable state imo. You can deport the settlers back to their countries of origin, at least the European ones, but that still leaves a sizable contingent, something like two million IIRC people/descendents of people who migrated/were forced out of the neighbouring Arab states.
You have the Palestinian Arabs in Israel, a great number of whom have, at least to some degree, been complicit in the oppression of those in Gaza and the west bank. On top of that, they are considerably more materially wealthy and educated. Wealth redistribution could fix this, but would create resentment. Not doing so would create resentment on the other side.
You have a rift between the secular and non-secular populations, significant differences in beliefs and politics between the west bank and Gaza, you have secular socialists and zealous theocrats, all militarised (by necessity and justly, but militarised nonetheless).
A two state or three state solution is not just, but even with Israel destroyed, could a one-palestine survive even briefly?
Very misguided. No one, especially not the Palestinian organizations, are arguing for the deporting of settlers back to European countries. When ask about what will happen to the Jews, they all answer the same. Either they leave on their own accord, or they live under a secular, democratic Palestinian state from the river to the sea where both the Jewish and Arab population live as equals. Palestinian Arabs in Israel are second-class citizens and are themselves extremely oppressed. Therefore they cannot be "complicit" in the oppression of Palestinians as they are a part of those who are being oppressed. Hamas, the biggest religious resistance movement in Palestine, argues and fights for a secular Palestinian state under the authority of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), who themselves fight for a secular Palestine. A one-state solution for Palestine would be absolutely stable. A two-state solution, however, will never be stable due to the dynamics of the Zionist settler-colonialist project and it's ambitions, the full extermination of the Palestinian population.
It is also true that there is a rift between the more socialist elements of the Palestinian resistance and the religious elements of the Palestinian resistance, but they are all in a United Front against the Zionist regime. Of course both elements might disagree where to take the Palestinian state, specifically in regards to socialism, but they both agree on a secular, democratic Palestinian state.
I also don't understand what the your alternative is? Palestine is unstable as fuck under two states. so what are you proposing?
You seem to be trying to play devil's advocate, without providing an alternative and ultimately adding nothing to the conversation.
I really hate people who speculate and criticize without offering any actual implementable plans. This is a very arm chair liberal thing to do. ''Both sides bad''
or they live under a secular, democratic Palestinian state from the river to the sea where both the Jewish and Arab population live as equals.
I don't see the people who voted in and fully supported:
the Zionist settler-colonialist project and it's ambitions, the full extermination of the Palestinian population.
Participating in a secular democratic Palestinian state in good faith. I also don't see the religious and nationalist zealots that make up the current government and its core supporters agreeing to leave.
but they are all in a United Front against the Zionist regime.
United fronts don't tend to outlive the enemy they are united against.
I also don't understand what the your alternative is? Palestine is unstable as fuck under two states. so what are you proposing?
I don't see how a single state including all of these groups, under a secular democratic government can come into existence.
The sort of societal change necessary would require tactics similar to revolutionary China or Russia, full wealth redistribution, some form of widespread re-education and some form of vanguardist government to oversee the transition. The majority of people in Palestine would not support those measures, and neither would the surrounding powers.
I really hate people who speculate and criticize without offering any actual implementable plans.
My lack of ability to think of a solution to the problem does not stop me from seeing the issues with the ones that are proposed. (Or rather skipped past in most cases.) We all, I would hope, want to see an equal, democratic and secular Palestine from the river to the sea, but how does that happen?
One Palestine is not a recipe for a stable state imo. You can deport the settlers back to their countries of origin, at least the European ones, but that still leaves a sizable contingent, something like two million IIRC people/descendents of people who migrated/were forced out of the neighbouring Arab states.
You have the Palestinian Arabs in Israel, a great number of whom have, at least to some degree, been complicit in the oppression of those in Gaza and the west bank. On top of that, they are considerably more materially wealthy and educated. Wealth redistribution could fix this, but would create resentment. Not doing so would create resentment on the other side.
You have a rift between the secular and non-secular populations, significant differences in beliefs and politics between the west bank and Gaza, you have secular socialists and zealous theocrats, all militarised (by necessity and justly, but militarised nonetheless).
A two state or three state solution is not just, but even with Israel destroyed, could a one-palestine survive even briefly?
Very misguided. No one, especially not the Palestinian organizations, are arguing for the deporting of settlers back to European countries. When ask about what will happen to the Jews, they all answer the same. Either they leave on their own accord, or they live under a secular, democratic Palestinian state from the river to the sea where both the Jewish and Arab population live as equals. Palestinian Arabs in Israel are second-class citizens and are themselves extremely oppressed. Therefore they cannot be "complicit" in the oppression of Palestinians as they are a part of those who are being oppressed. Hamas, the biggest religious resistance movement in Palestine, argues and fights for a secular Palestinian state under the authority of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), who themselves fight for a secular Palestine. A one-state solution for Palestine would be absolutely stable. A two-state solution, however, will never be stable due to the dynamics of the Zionist settler-colonialist project and it's ambitions, the full extermination of the Palestinian population.
It is also true that there is a rift between the more socialist elements of the Palestinian resistance and the religious elements of the Palestinian resistance, but they are all in a United Front against the Zionist regime. Of course both elements might disagree where to take the Palestinian state, specifically in regards to socialism, but they both agree on a secular, democratic Palestinian state.
I also don't understand what the your alternative is? Palestine is unstable as fuck under two states. so what are you proposing?
You seem to be trying to play devil's advocate, without providing an alternative and ultimately adding nothing to the conversation.
I really hate people who speculate and criticize without offering any actual implementable plans. This is a very arm chair liberal thing to do. ''Both sides bad''
I don't see the people who voted in and fully supported:
Participating in a secular democratic Palestinian state in good faith. I also don't see the religious and nationalist zealots that make up the current government and its core supporters agreeing to leave.
United fronts don't tend to outlive the enemy they are united against.
I don't see how a single state including all of these groups, under a secular democratic government can come into existence.
The sort of societal change necessary would require tactics similar to revolutionary China or Russia, full wealth redistribution, some form of widespread re-education and some form of vanguardist government to oversee the transition. The majority of people in Palestine would not support those measures, and neither would the surrounding powers.
My lack of ability to think of a solution to the problem does not stop me from seeing the issues with the ones that are proposed. (Or rather skipped past in most cases.) We all, I would hope, want to see an equal, democratic and secular Palestine from the river to the sea, but how does that happen?
And mass deportation is probably a war crime so pretty big no go.