Saturday, April 14, 2007

One State Solution

RadicalMiddle's Mark Satin calls the one state the future of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Worth the read.

While I use the term 'solution' give its parlance, I'm always wary of the (un)intended consequences of the word relative to the Jewish people. As in the Final Solution. As in the Jews are still a problem. Of course in this discussion it is the warfare/enmity that is the problem not the people. But it is worth keeping that point in mind.

Important point that Satin notes. Some one-state proponents are virulently anti-Semitic. He (Satin) did not reference any of those. The ones he cites, talked to, are not in his view. [Quite a number are Jewish. And Arabs recall are Semitic peoples, but that is another discussion.]

(A) key quote:
Both Israel and Palestine, as currently conceived, look backward to the 19th century, when states focused on ethnic or religious traits were the norm or at least the ideal. As New York University historian Tony Judt has suggested, the one-state solution is right for the 21st century, “a world of individual rights, open frontiers, and international law” -- a world of self-chosen identities where cross-cultural interaction and learning is the ideal.
It reminds me of Barnett's floating the idea of expanding the number of states in the Union. The real issue for the future (in integral thinking) is rule of law, meaning-creation in fluid ethnic and religious mixes, and increased transparency of knowledge, opportunity, and borders.

I don't have any clue how strong this idea will get in the future. A two-state settlement might be the best of the worst possible. But I think two states would be an India-Pakistan for generations to come: border skirmishes, Palestine will want to get nukes, Kashmir-like regions in the disputed zones.

tags technorati :
tags technorati :
tags technorati :


Post a Comment

<< Home