Two-state solution

A group of eight heavyweights in US foreign policy wrote to Bush and Rice in October calling for a last-ditch effort to achieve a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine situation.

Immanuel Wallerstein considers their proposal in its historical context. It’s a gloomy picture, as he concludes.

Advertisements
Posted in Middle East, War
4 comments on “Two-state solution
  1. kimberella says:

    Indeed it is gloomy.

    Wallerstein is right to say that the potential for a two-state solution is almost gone. Such potential (never very strong) as ever existed for a democratic one-state solution is well and truly gone. The complete impasse that has been reached is a massive indictment on 7 years of Bush.

  2. Tony D says:

    I always preferred the one-state solution – where that state isn’t Zionist, Islamist, Papist or whatever – just a state for that particular patch of geography charged with running that particular patch of geography. Democracy for preference but it’s really up to them.

  3. silkworm says:

    Theocrats support the “two-state solution”, but theocracies, either Jewish or Islamic, will only lead to war. Long-term peace can only come from secularism. Secularism creates the possibility of a one-state solution.

    Secularism will never come from the Americans. The current American administration is a Christian theocratic regime, fronted in the Middle east by a Christian fundamentalist in Condoleezza Rice. Christian fundamentalists will never swerve in their support of the Jewish theocratic state of Israel.

  4. Tony D says:

    Oh, Condi ain’t too bad an XPist… she’s more what you would call a US exceptionalist, which carries very strong Protestant overtones true.

    “Christian fundamentalists will never swerve in their support of the Jewish theocratic state of Israel.”

    Not quite true either, I know plenty of XP fundies who dislike Zionism. In fact I know a lot of strict Jews who consider Zionism to be heretical doctrine. Something about God leading them back to Israel, not some political movement. Or something.

    The main reason religion should never be used in state policy formation is that policy should not be derived from superstition.

Comments are closed.

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
%d bloggers like this: