The 2 State Solution

More thoughts on the Israeli/Hamas debacle.

It is often said that the Palestinians and Jews (they weren't yet Israelis) had been offered a 2 state solution in 1937. The Jews accepted and the Palestinians refused, losing the chance of settling the problem. Opprobrium has been heaped on the Palestinians ever since. After all, why would they turn down such a brilliant solution?

However, Imagine a bunch of Frenchmen from Normandy had been busy migrating to England (or whatever country you belong to) for several decades, in ever increasing numbers, claiming suzerainty over England because it once belonged to Normandy a thousand years ago (you could use the Welsh as an example too, with a history going back even further in terms of ownership).

There are tensions between the native English and the interloper Norman French. The international community steps in and proposes a 2 state solution - the west of England is for the English and the east is for the Norman French (as an aside, it wasn't actually like that in 1066 and the Norman French decided to take the bloody lot in one, fell swoop).

I cannot, for the life of me, imagine that the English would accept such a 2 state solution and would tell the luminaries within the international community to piss off and do one, and rightly so. The EDL would probably see an unprecedented increase in membership too. So why the hell should the Palestinians have accepted exactly the same solution?

I can't help seeing an analogy between Israel and Palestine on the one hand, and the behaviour of the American government toward Native Americans in the 1700s and 1800s. Migrants from all over Europe descended on North America, appropriating ancient tribal lands and fomenting wars with the various native tribes. These tribes, due to the technological superiority of the European settlers, kept losing, were eventually soundly defeated and then herded into reservations. However, even the reservation lands were gradually eroded as more land was needed for settlers. The analogy is startlingly similar.

According to historical records and media reports, since its founding, the United States has systematically deprived native Americans of their rights to life and basic political, economic, and cultural rights through killings, displacements, and forced assimilation, in an attempt to physically and culturally eradicate this group. Even today, Native Americans still face a serious existential crisis.

Russia has annexed land belonging to Ukraine and they are fighting a war. Do we support Russia's annexation? 

What Israel has been engaged in, whether willingly or not, is indubitably the precise definition of colonialism - the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

However, as I have said before, we are where we are. The only route is forwards and going over past transgressions does no-one any good. They must, however, be accepted if progress is to be made. There is currently too much grief on both sides of the conflict to extend compassion to the other side.

Is a 2 State Solution the only viable alternative? Well, from a pragmatic perspective, yes. The only other alternative is a 1 State Solution with that state being Israel occupying the whole area which, however, would promulgate continued warfare for decades, if not centuries, until the entire Palestinian population were to be eliminated.

I heard an Israeli commentator say that Netanyahu, in reference to his catastrophic intelligence and security failure, stored Israel's iron swords in seawater. It didn't help the situation back in March when the far right, ultra-nationalist, Israeli Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, called for a Palestinian village to be 'erased'.

Hamas seeks to undermine Zionism in its totality - for Hamas, the mere fact of Israel's existence is the occupation. However, Israel isn't going away, so it's not a politically valid view and is an unreachable, idealistic perspective. 

Hamas' strategy is to portray Israel to other actors in the Middle East as ethically indistinguishable from them in terms the number of forthcoming deaths in Gaza, despite the vast difference in visceral reaction to close quarters, physical violence by Hamas on the one hand and the mere pressing of a button from Israeli territory that rains down death from afar (or cutting off essentials to civilians) on the other hand. The former is seen as unacceptable, while we tolerate the latter with greater ease due to its impersonal nature.

Israel's conduct in Gaza and the West Bank in the past has been recognised by various international organisations as entailing gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity - Israel is not blameless, especially under its current government. What Israel proposes to do in Gaza is enormously counterproductive and ensures it falls into Hamas' trap, which may alter the view of other actors in the Middle East with which Israel has been building bridges. Hamas will actively engage in false flag attacks on its own people, who they don't give a jot for, and blame them on Israel.

If Israel wants to assume the moral high ground and not lose international support, despite its record on human rights in Gaza, it must act with massive restraint in the face of insuperable provocation. That is unlikely with the current, belligerent government which is consumed by a desire for revenge. It's an age old ploy to stay in power.

Even if you believe the Palestinian people should suffer collective punishment for the actions of Hamas, then you have to take into account the fact Gaza has one of the youngest populations on earth and that fact could stimulate a massive recruitment drive which will plague Israel and Europe for decades to come. Hamas will want to take advantage of that.

Terrorist: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. 

Fools nail their colours to a specific mast when, due to the existential nature of the war, ethics and morals necessarily go out of the window and both sides have engaged in the very definition of terrorism. It's merely a question of the distance from which the terrorism takes place. 

The conflict is increasingly becoming mired in theatrical and performative revenge.

I saw a Twitter (X) post last week that summed up the situation: "It is not Islamophobic to detest Hamas for the murder of Israelis. It is not anti-Semitic to detest Netanyahu’s Govt for its treatment of Palestinians. It is Islamophobic or anti-Semitic to attack Muslims or Jews for the actions of Hamas or Netanyahu’s Govt."