As I’ve been saying from the beginning, you would find voting would concentrate around two blocks, drawn on religious lines because that is the main divisor.
Any election campaign would fuel that fight, and voting for smaller parties would be characterised as a negative to concentrate power, likely pushed through narratives of eradication. You’d end up with one major “Israeli” party and one “Palestinian” party, with the “Israeli” party wining because there are more of them.
If you’re going to compare to an apartied state - and I think that is valid - you also need to look at how South Africa transitioned, and how Mandela specifically was vital to that. He achieved a largely peaceful restructuring of the country, and one not often repeated elsewhere.
Think about it like this; almost permentently since 1947 the people in power of the region have been right wing, and stoked violent rhetoric against each other, and often calling for the destruction of the other. That dynamic doesn’t go away overnight, even if the walls are torn down.
I don’t think Israel has a similar problem right now? If this was how Israeli politics worked you’d see right wingers and left wingers concentrating into one party each, but that’s not happening. I don’t see how Palestinians would cause the left wing to abandon all their causes and run towards the right wing and their genocidal agenda when they’re the people advocating for Palestinian rights and a Palestinian state.
I can see your concerns, but this is a very unlikely worst case scenario. The two-state solution equivalent is “two states are created, but they hate each other and immediately go to war”.
As I’ve been saying from the beginning, you would find voting would concentrate around two blocks, drawn on religious lines because that is the main divisor.
Any election campaign would fuel that fight, and voting for smaller parties would be characterised as a negative to concentrate power, likely pushed through narratives of eradication. You’d end up with one major “Israeli” party and one “Palestinian” party, with the “Israeli” party wining because there are more of them.
If you’re going to compare to an apartied state - and I think that is valid - you also need to look at how South Africa transitioned, and how Mandela specifically was vital to that. He achieved a largely peaceful restructuring of the country, and one not often repeated elsewhere.
Think about it like this; almost permentently since 1947 the people in power of the region have been right wing, and stoked violent rhetoric against each other, and often calling for the destruction of the other. That dynamic doesn’t go away overnight, even if the walls are torn down.
I don’t think Israel has a similar problem right now? If this was how Israeli politics worked you’d see right wingers and left wingers concentrating into one party each, but that’s not happening. I don’t see how Palestinians would cause the left wing to abandon all their causes and run towards the right wing and their genocidal agenda when they’re the people advocating for Palestinian rights and a Palestinian state.
I can see your concerns, but this is a very unlikely worst case scenario. The two-state solution equivalent is “two states are created, but they hate each other and immediately go to war”.
Then you need to read more about how deeply divided nations operate politically, and how people vote tactically.