The governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran appeared to blame Israel for its escalating conflict with Hamas on Saturday. The Palestinian militant group launched a mass attack on Israeli forces …
My preferred solution is not novel or genius, it is the international consensus: A two state settlement on the international border (green line) with mutually agreed upon land swaps. This is the solution with consistant and overwhelming international support, just look at the UN votes on the subject over the past 5 decades.
Unfortunately due to their overwhelming military superiority, Israel will not agree to this in the short term. This military superiority is a gift from the world superpower: having a client state in the middle east is very valuable to US economic interests. This is why you often see votes in the UN with a result of something like 161-2 (Israel + US vs. the rest of the world).
So I believe the larger question is how to stop the United States military industrial complex. And I’m sorry but I don’t have a solution for that. Just like we are willing to fight Russia to the last Ukranian life, we are willing to turn a blind eye to Palestinian death as long as Israel keeps spending billions a year on helicopters, tankers, naval guns, and so much more.
I think the point they were trying to make is that this solution is great in theory, but due to the reasons you have pointed out does not actually work in practice. What happens in practice is everything that has led us to this point. They were not intentionally calling for genocide IMO, but misguidedly floating the idea of a less protracted end to the conflict.
I think there was a failure to demonstrate that lack of protraction and I think glossing over the allies dropping two atomic bombs on Japan and killing half a million people speaks to the weakness in justifying it with that comparison.
That’s not to say there’s no substance to it at all, but this isn’t the right case for it.
I encourage you and everyone else to read this 1999 article from Palestinian activist Edward Said about why a one state solution is the only viable path to peace.
My preferred solution is not novel or genius, it is the international consensus: A two state settlement on the international border (green line) with mutually agreed upon land swaps. This is the solution with consistant and overwhelming international support, just look at the UN votes on the subject over the past 5 decades.
Unfortunately due to their overwhelming military superiority, Israel will not agree to this in the short term. This military superiority is a gift from the world superpower: having a client state in the middle east is very valuable to US economic interests. This is why you often see votes in the UN with a result of something like 161-2 (Israel + US vs. the rest of the world).
So I believe the larger question is how to stop the United States military industrial complex. And I’m sorry but I don’t have a solution for that. Just like we are willing to fight Russia to the last Ukranian life, we are willing to turn a blind eye to Palestinian death as long as Israel keeps spending billions a year on helicopters, tankers, naval guns, and so much more.
I think the point they were trying to make is that this solution is great in theory, but due to the reasons you have pointed out does not actually work in practice. What happens in practice is everything that has led us to this point. They were not intentionally calling for genocide IMO, but misguidedly floating the idea of a less protracted end to the conflict.
I think there was a failure to demonstrate that lack of protraction and I think glossing over the allies dropping two atomic bombs on Japan and killing half a million people speaks to the weakness in justifying it with that comparison.
That’s not to say there’s no substance to it at all, but this isn’t the right case for it.
I encourage you and everyone else to read this 1999 article from Palestinian activist Edward Said about why a one state solution is the only viable path to peace.