Could There Be a One-State Solution? By Robert Mackey.

Could There Be a One-State Solution? By Robert Mackey. New York Times, January 12, 2009.

The One-State Solution. By Edward Said. New York Times Magazine, January 10, 1999. Also here.

The One-State Solution. By Virginia Tilley. London Review of Books, November 6, 2003. Also here.

Beyond tribalism. Interview with Tom Segev by Suzy Hansen. Salon, December 8, 2001.

The Past Is Not a Foreign Country: The Failure of Israel’s “New Historians” to Explain War and Peace. By Anita Shapira. The New Republic, November 29, 1999.

Eyeless in Zion: When Palestine First Exploded. By Anita Shapira. The New Republic, December 11, 2000. Review of Tom Segev, One Palestine Complete.

The war against the Jews. By Efraim Karsh. Israel Affairs, Vol. 18, No. 3 (July 2012).

One-state: solution or illusion for Palestine? By Abdallah Schleifer. Al Arabiya, September 25, 2013. Also here.

Two-State Solution or Illusion? An Analysis. By Lawrence Davidson. Intifada Palestine, September 21, 2013. Also here. Discussion of Beinart and Lustick. Rabidly far left and anti-Zionist Jew.

Davidson:

If Beinart’s hope for mutual understanding is naive, Lustick’s hope that more “blood” will lead to the “magic” of a positive outcome is not at all assured.

 

One might ask just how much disaster is necessary before the hard-line Zionists who have long controlled Israel will compromise their ideological commitment. Keep in mind that the Israeli political elites, right and left, have always been expansionist. Even Peter Beinart is not pushing for a return to the 1967 Green Line and an evacuation of illegal settlements, as far as I can tell. In the past, the Israeli elites have judged their terror and brutality to be justified. They will do so in the future as well. Some of them will interpret any increase in Jewish emigration (a process already ongoing) as a weeding out of weak elements. Militarily the Israelis can probably maintain superiority over their neighbors even in the face of reduced American aid, and as far as world opinion is concerned, most of them care little about it. If this assessment has any validity, the Israelis could go on ethnically cleansing for a very long time.

 

In my view, the only viable weapon against such vicious stubbornness is a worldwide comprehensive economic boycott on the South Africa model. However, even this may not be the last page in the drama. Such an economic boycott may prove strong enough to undermine the will of some Israeli ideologues, but not all of them. And then, unlike South Africa, you may need an intra-Israeli Jewish civil war to finally bring the curtain down on the tragedy of Zionism.


Are Israelis Now Appropriating the Nakba? By Susan Abulhawa. The Palestine Chronicle, May 14, 2013.

Abulhawa:

One can cite endless examples of Israeli appropriation of everything Palestinian – land and home, heritage and culture, hummus and couscous, narrative and history. Now, we see an example of appropriation even of our deepest collective wound. When and how did the Nakba become the purview of Israelis?

 

Israelis have no place inside our pain, the anguish of our society that they themselves created and perpetuate still. Why does AJ Stream think it’s appropriate, on this solemn remembrance day for Palestinians, to hold a discussion among Israelis about whether and how their country should acknowledge the savagery they perpetuated against the indigenous people of the land they now occupy? And why, most importantly, would any Palestinian lend legitimacy to such an offense?

 

The vexing and unforgivable part of this is that some of us facilitate this kind of imperialism.  Should we call it “emotional imperialism?” colonization of our pain? Palestinian organizations invite Israeli speakers to mark Nakba commemoration events. Why? Is there nothing sacred? Is there a shortage of Nakba survivors? Of Palestinian historians, activists, or intellectuals? Can we expect that the Nakba will now be colonized by Israeli voices? Is it simply that the Nakba commemoration only becomes real when Israelis say so, just as our history only became real when Israeli historians copied our books and published what we had said for decades?

 

The only contribution that Israelis should make to the Nakba discourse is an unqualified, unmitigated apology, followed by a conversation about restitution, repatriation, and compensation. That’s it! Inviting a public conversation with Israelis to discuss whether their country should recognize our humanity is offensive and hurtful as we gather to remember and grieve; and Palestinians and Palestinian supporters should not stand for it.