You bring up a good point about the "right to exist" which is an annoying and amorphous concept with no legal basis. Although I also find it subjective what "remotely viable" statehood means. From whose standpoint? To groups like Hamas or Kahanists, nothing is viable but a single state respectively. Bottom line is there is no good solution now that erases all the damage. No one debates that.
I will separate the issue of "remotely viable" and the issue of solutions.
On "remotely viable"
I admit that the idea of "remotely viable" is very problematic. Yet, on the other hand, for a state to excise, it has to be independent in some regards, let's call it "Factors of Independence"
I would say that a viable state has the following Factors of Independence (Please suggest if you think that any of these is redundant or perhaps something is missing):
- An entity with sufficient area
- Has Borders that can be protected
- Ability to maintain economic policy
- Being independent in terms of internal policy.
I would say that non of the above was on the table in 1948 and all of the other proposal for a "state".
- The 1948 "Partition Plan" was supposed to be an economic union with the Jewish state. So no economic independence.
- The 1948 "Partition Plan" was supposed to have open borders with Israel and the"International Zone" of Jerusalem.
- It had very complicated borders - look at the map yourself.
- The natural resources within the land cannot be really divided, especially water.
So, despite the fact that "remotely viable state" is a problematic concept, the lack of the factors renders the state to be nothing more than a bantustan or mere territory. Not everything that is called a "state" is actually a state. It has to be designed and have independence and sovereignty. Do you agree?
On Peace Solutions
My main point, is that such over-complicated "Peace Solutions" are not aimed at creating peace but fail at negotiations thus perpetuating the conflict and maintaining Zionist hegemony and a steppingstone for further zionist expansion.
The Palestinian argument from the beginning was AGAINST ANY SORT OF PARTITION, and this is because the Palestinians knew that any jewish state is a steppingstone for further zionist expansion and dispossession. Which is exactly what happened and happens to this day. The various "Peace Proposal" are just smoke screens for further dispossession of the Palestinians.
I agree that there is no "Good Solution", therefore i am lowering the bar to find a "Bearable Solution" or something that simple is not too brutal. This is how i arrived at a south africa style one-state solution. I am not saying that it is a good solution, but i do claim that given that fact that this land is a fucking madhouse of religious and nationalist degenerates, it is the best solution in reach.
I stress again that my bar for "solutions" is very low, and so is the quality of my solution.
Regardless of anything about Israel, I can never support the Palestine movement due to its supporters, whether they be "anti-zionist" marxists or avowed anti-semites such as Monk—people who talk big about their desires for mass murder, but are nothing more than basement-dwelling cowards who would get their throats slit upon taking any action.
I agree with it. It is hard for me to support the Palestinians precisely because of this.
