Skip to main content

View Diary: Hamas: We Do Not Accept Two-State Solution (87 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "Two states" should never have been contemplated (6+ / 0-)

    The establishment of two states was a politically expedient move by the British in order to remove itself from its imperial obligations to remain until a proper settlement could be achieved to the mutual satisfaction of two irreconcilable groups.

    Exactly the same process happened in India around the same time with the division into India and Pakistan along religious lines. The model the British Foreign Office used was that employed in Ireland. There the allocation of most of the country to the Irish Free State while retaining Ulster to home the Protestant loyalists who would "never, never, never" leave the British crown led to the running sore of an imperfect solution. The ideal of giving independence to a united island was impossible because of threats of rebellion and terrorism from the likes of Carson.

    Actually the Irish Peace Settlement is now a fairly good model for the future of the land east of the sea and west of the Jordan. Accept both groups have ligitimate claims to both parts of the land but that in order to establish an indefinite short term peace there will be different political organisations in two parts.

    I have long thought that the rush to the imperial exit door post 1945 was a huge mistake and thoroughly irresponsible. Even at the costs of life and treasure, the country should have stayed to sort out a workable and agreed solution. The almost 70 years of conflict between the two factions in both I think support this argument. Would we now see two states on the Indian sub-continent with nuclear weapons who have had a series of wars and history of antipathy if Mountbatten had stood up to Jinnah and refused to establish a muslim state?  Would the British have created an artificial deadline to leave Palestine had they not been under pressure from the USA politically and the Jewish terrorist activities on the ground? If they had stayed and completed the negotiations - and knocked a few heads together on both sides to do so, could a workable division have been sorted out by 1950 and recurrent wars and suffering averted?

    "Who stood against President Obama in 2012?" - The trivia question nobody can answer.

    by Lib Dem FoP on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 09:24:01 PM PST

    •  Well - who knows? (3+ / 0-)

      When I was in India I asked the same question - most had no answer.

      The Gordian knot has been tied - it cannot be untied. The facts on the ground are now permanent - we have to work with the situation as it exists.

      Forcing people to live together carries with it great risks, especially when one or both populations within a state have powerful advocates and adversaries outside their borders. Just look at Cyprus if you want to see how trying it the other way turned out.

      "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

      by Shane Hensinger on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 10:58:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (132)
  • Community (62)
  • Elections (39)
  • 2016 (37)
  • Environment (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (35)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Culture (30)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Media (29)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Spam (24)
  • Congress (23)
  • Education (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Labor (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Texas (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site