• ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Also, the sheer amount of hatred between the two groups means that a one-state solution (even if it could be willed into existence without violence) would be, at best, highly volatile.

      • ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No. But that does not make a one-state solution feasible. Neither side would be willing to agree to it, and even if you could force it, the new state would violently implode the second you remove that external force.

        • Arkham@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just as a possible counterpoint to this: Lebanon has been highly divided by sectarian conflicts, mainly between Christians and Muslims, but has managed to stay a cohesive state since its founding in the 40s.

          Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t point to Lebanon as some beacon of stability or good governance. But despite decades of problems, including a long civil war, Lebanon’s government and civilian population still exist without a major external power forcing them to stay as a single cohesive state.

          If they can do that, maybe a one-state solution for Palestine and Israel isn’t completely unworkable. If nothing else it sure seems like an improvement over the current situation.

        • derbis@beehaw.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s no longer a menu of options where we have the luxury of feasible or not feasible, preferable or not preferable. We are in a one-state reality now. All that’s left to decide is the degree of strife we’re willing to accept.