My books on the Israeli/Palestine conflict now amount for a considerable part of my bookshelf real estate.
A few weeks ago, I was having a discussion with a friend of mine around the pros and cons of the "one state" vs "two state" solutions to the conflict.
For those not familiar with the options, they are:
One State Solution: Israel and the West Bank become one country, with the same rights and laws applying to all the inhabitants. No distinction made based on ethnicity or religion.
Two States Solution: Israel continues as it exists today; the West Bank and Gaza become a sovereign state and the inhabitants of the West Bank are governed by its inhabitants. The Israeli military evacuates the occupied territories, and Israeli citizens living in the West Bank become Palestinian citizens or have an option to emigrate back.
My friend had good points against both solutions, the one state solution and the two state solutions. And I agree that both have problems, but the status quo of "one state and a colony" is way worse.
The One State and a Colony is the current configuration: Israel is an independent country and the West Bank is a colony under a military occupation.
This is a good Q&A with Chomsky on the prospects of a solution. This article lead to Noah Cohen's reply: Apologetics for Injustice in Palestine?. He advocates the one-state solution. Chomsky replied in Advocacy and Realism A reply to Noah Cohen.
The problems of the two state solution today are explored by Haim Bresheeth.
Posted on 13 Dec 2006