My latest column for New Matilda is about Western acceptance of Israeli brutality in Palestine:
So, where to from here? When I wrote my book, My Israel Question in 2006, I argued reluctantly that a two-State solution in Palestine was probably the best option because a majority of Israelis and Palestinians appeared to support it. Now, in the updated edition of the book, I question my own prejudices and conclude that a bi-national State is both more ethical and likely.
The reasons are deceptively simple. There is little likelihood that Israel will give up its addiction to land acquisition in the West Bank anytime soon — indeed, Western policies are helping the Jewish State complete its colonial project. In a matter of years, Palestinians will outnumber Jews in both Israel and Palestine, making Jews a minority. This is an apartheid State by definition, as Israel will still rule over millions of Palestinians.
My New Matilda archive is here.
yeah, palestinians have justice and a higher birthrate on their side, how can they lose? poor zionists should have colonized long island instead.
What a cynical and simplistic reading of reality.
Hamas are a bunch of saints and part of the ‘mainstream’ whilst Fatah and Abbas are old and corrupt. Really - so you are suggesting that the Palestinians don’t accept a genuine two state solution given that Hamas advocates a unitary relgious state in Israel/Palestine. Come off it. The best hope for Israelis and Palestinians is to initiate serious discussion more or less where the negotiations in Taba in 2001 ended. Hamas have no interest in such an approach. It is correctly - a hard ask - given the facts on the ground established by settlements, bypass roads and the security fence etc. for a two state solution but it is the only solution. A one state solution is utterly unfeasible and if you read Uri Avnery’s critique of Pappe’s position you would see why.