Just listened to the audio version of the Mark Bergstrom article arguing that the answer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to abolish both states. While I agree with that, I know that argument would gain no ground with pro-Israeli types. One such person is a co-worker, who said matter-of-factly, “if the weapons are hidden beneath a school, they bomb the school.” I’m dying to refute him. And I know a strong answer would be that the U.S. shouldn’t be involved in either side. But could there be any pro-peace Israeli (without regard to U.S. involvement) policy, short of anarcho-capitalism?
If you are asking what the second-best option compared to a non-state option is, you are asking for a pretty steep drop in standards. That being said, a one-state solution, encompassing the entirety of Israel and the occupied territories, with full, equal and free voting rights for all residents and full and equal rights under the law would be better in many ways than the current apartheid. Of course, then it wouldn’t be a Jewish state anymore. What should Israelis do? Become Palestinian Jews, or leave. That will happen soon enough anyway. The current state of things is unsustainable.
Good answer. Of course that won’t fly with my co-worker. But then, I guess there isn’t much gentle to say about an inherently racist state.
What should Israelis do? Become Palestinian Jews, or leave. That will happen soon enough anyway. The current state of things is unsustainable.
Are you really sure that forced integration will help improve the situation? I can imagine that conflicts between Jewish settlers and former Palestinian landowners would lead to an endless mire of lawsuits and contradictory verdicts, eventually causing another “cold” civil war.
Personally, I’d say that lifting any existing embargos and, on the side of the Palestinians, abolishing any protectionist measures would greatly increase Palestinian wealth and thus dampen the negative spirits towards Israel to some extent.
I was discussing the Israeli-Palestinian issue with an individual that supports a two state solution the other day. He claimed that if both the Israeli state and the “Palestinian state” were abolished, it would lead to something similar to the Lebanese Civil War (which he claimed was the result of an ineffectual central government, or “statelessness”).
Any thoughts on how abolishing both states could work?
I think a civil war is a condition of battling states: not statelessness. I don’t think abolishing any given state will lead to a stateless society, unless there is a widespread acceptance of Lockean property principles and the non-aggression axiom.
Lebanese Civil War was a result of the quota system set up by the French when they left that was designed to give the power to Maronites who would act as their proxy and a springboard in a classical divide and rule setup. This worked initialy until the Sunnis became more politicaly awakened and demanded the system be revised, either by renegotiating or abolishing the quotas in eaither case they would be left better off because by now they outnumbered the Maronites due to their higher birth rates. This became all the more important when the communities become polarised due to matters concerning Israel. It was the heyday of pan-arab nationalism so the Sunnis were sympathetic, but Maronites which do not even necessarily consider themselves to be Arabic wanted to stay out and were loathe to take in Palestinian refugees as it would further affect the demographic picture that was already less in their favour by the year. The bottom of the barrel was knocked off when the Sunnis declared Maronites to be enjoying a privileged position as mini-colonisers as a result of former European colonialist superpowers and likened the situation to Israel`s rule of Palestinians. Sunnis rose up against the Maronite governement, but initialy in practice the war consisted of clasehes between Maronites and Palestinian refugees, the militant and radicalised Palestinian regugees (including Christian Palestinians) acting as a sort of armed wing of the Sunni movement in Lebanon.
Lebanese Civil war was not caused by ineffectual central government. Rather what cause the government to be ineffectual was also what caused the war.
Which is also why the “one state solution” in Israel-Palestine case is in practice silly. It would only lead to the sides battling to win control of that state and if one side saw they can not possibly wrestle control for themselves, they would turn seperatist and you would have what you have today.
From the standpoint that minimising violence in the immediate (rather than from the standpoint of justice) two state solution would be by far the best. The only obstacle to it is that Israel isnt interested in granting the whole of West Bank with Eastern Jerusalem to the Palestinian state, but seeks to, at the very least, annex the West Bank areas behind the "security barrier". Fox will tell you two state solution is not possible because Palestinians namely Hamas do not want to recognise Israels right to exist, but that is what you call a willfull delusion. Hamas does not recognise Israel`s right to exist because that is the only sane initial negotiating position. Israel does not recognise the right of Hamas to exist either so it makes precisely no sense for Hamas to grant this concession and get nothing in return.
Statelessnes as a solution sounds nice, but the article fails to mention theconflict is not only about states. It is also about property rights. Israel has consistently opposed the Palestinian “right of return” not only because of demographic considerations, but also because it would lead to property disputes. After all to a large extent Israelis live on private property of Palestinians which they forcefully drove from their homes.
I`d say it is a condition of factions battling for the control of a state. Of course plenty of civil wars were not really civil wars, but the one in Lebanon was.
I accept that’s the standard conception (and the one used by Rothbard and others). But I think it would useful to categorize such factions as mini-states without hegemony. Too often do statists argue that life without the state is necessarily violent chaos. I like to think of the defining characteristic of a state that distinguishes it from other violent actors is a pretense of legitimacy.
Here’s a post I wrote elsewhere in this same general topic:
Great Britain and the first Israeli’s STOLE the land of countless Palestinian families. This was done recently enough that the legitimate ownership of many parcels can still be ascertained. This land should be returned, and reparations paid by the guilty parties. If the Israeli people who have bombed or commissioned the bombing of countless Palestinians can’t or won’t pay enough reparation to their victims to ensure the Palestinians won’t continue to violently seek for more after the property having been returned, then they should leave.
This is an excellent post. Thanks Marko.
Beautiful and informative post Marko. Thanks.
You definitely seem to know your history.