But an alternative two-state solution requiring Israel's withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders might still not concede, for example, a Palestinian army – equipped and trained by Iran? – to guard the borders of the West Bank and Gaza. Would that count? And how likely do the campaigners for two real states think it that Israel and the US would grant that kind of sovereignty to a Palestine state?I'm going to leave it there because I think Mr Cook has demonstrated that the supporters of the two state solution mean one state and a bit. And guess whose bit the bit would be.
March 13, 2008
Here's Jonathan Cook in antiwar.com on the one state/two states debate. He outlines the argument against the one state solution by Uri Avnery and Michael Neumann. Uri Avnery being the leader of the one of the only zionist groups sincerely opposed to the occupation and Michael Neumann is an anti-zionist and yet he still supports the two state solution. And the reason for their rejection of the one state solution is that Israel won't allow anything less than Jewish supremacy and America won't force Israel to accept anything less.
Posted by levi9909 @ 11:02 pm