It is genocidal when either side uses it, since it implies that the other side does not exist. It is a catchy phrase though, which is why both sides use it.
One state solution isnt viable. We cant even get one state in Cyprus, where there is less bad blood, basically 0% chance of anyone killing anyone and no “religious prophecies” about who owns the place.
Belgium is without a government 50% of the time. Yugoslavia is no longer a thing.
One state solutions are hard to work even at the best of times. How do you balance the power? Just through democratic votes? Then the majority can easily suppress the minority. If you give the minority extra benefits(ie veto), then why would the majority even agree to be part of that and give away their power?
I’m not saying that a one state solution is not incredibly difficult but it still make more sense to me. What is a fair separation of land between Israel and Palestine when Israel didn’t exists before 1948, is Palestine being demilitarized fair and wouldn’t an Palestinian army be an extra security for Israel and Palestine to prevent the rise of extremist groups? All two state solutions failed so why would it work this time?
Well I’ll tell ya one thing, there’s not going to be a two state solution now. Gaza has zero capacity to govern itself. Only possibility is some other state stepping in. Israel has the best claim as irredentists. And nobody else wants to.
Depends how it’s used. I’ve seen both israeli and palestinian activists say “from the river to the sea we demand equality” further referencing a one state solution
It doesn’t imply that, no. The ONLY people claiming that it implies the other side doesn’t exist are bad-faith actors, and people ignorant of the fact that they got their info from bad faith actors, period. No one on the Palestinian side is saying they want to eradicate the other side, only individuals on the Israeli side have said so thus far, and they say it regularly.
It is genocidal when either side uses it, since it implies that the other side does not exist. It is a catchy phrase though, which is why both sides use it.
It could also reference to the one state solution
One state solution isnt viable. We cant even get one state in Cyprus, where there is less bad blood, basically 0% chance of anyone killing anyone and no “religious prophecies” about who owns the place.
Belgium is without a government 50% of the time. Yugoslavia is no longer a thing.
One state solutions are hard to work even at the best of times. How do you balance the power? Just through democratic votes? Then the majority can easily suppress the minority. If you give the minority extra benefits(ie veto), then why would the majority even agree to be part of that and give away their power?
I’m not saying that a one state solution is not incredibly difficult but it still make more sense to me. What is a fair separation of land between Israel and Palestine when Israel didn’t exists before 1948, is Palestine being demilitarized fair and wouldn’t an Palestinian army be an extra security for Israel and Palestine to prevent the rise of extremist groups? All two state solutions failed so why would it work this time?
Wait…what? How does THAT work?
Well I’ll tell ya one thing, there’s not going to be a two state solution now. Gaza has zero capacity to govern itself. Only possibility is some other state stepping in. Israel has the best claim as irredentists. And nobody else wants to.
Depends how it’s used. I’ve seen both israeli and palestinian activists say “from the river to the sea we demand equality” further referencing a one state solution
It doesn’t imply that, no. The ONLY people claiming that it implies the other side doesn’t exist are bad-faith actors, and people ignorant of the fact that they got their info from bad faith actors, period. No one on the Palestinian side is saying they want to eradicate the other side, only individuals on the Israeli side have said so thus far, and they say it regularly.