this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
37 points (100.0% liked)

U.S. News

2244 readers
31 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.


Guidelines for submissions:

For World News, see the News community.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] derbis@beehaw.org 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Are we to pretend things are not "highly volatile?"

[–] ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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 6 points 10 months 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.org 5 points 10 months 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.