At bloggingheads, Dimi Reider of +972 Magazine and I debate whether the direction forward for Israelis and Palestinians is a two-state arrangement or a single state. In the segment below, I argue that most of the diplomatic obstacles to two-state agreement would pose even greater problems for a single shared state. Dimi, naturally, doesn’t agree. You can also use the menu to watch the full conversation or other pieces of it.
1 thought on “Two States or One: A Debate”
Comments are closed.
It’s good to hear an intelligent discussion. But I note this is between two people who want there to be a solution and are willing to work through differences. If there is less than two willing parties you have nothing.
Also the settlements MUST STOP growing before there can be any talking.
Two states or one? For my part- it does not matter. Either way would work. I guess my utopian heart would like to see one state. My practical side thinks there needs to be a separation between the two- at least at first. That may or can or will grow together in time between Jordan and the sea.
You both agree that the UN move shows promise- or at least that it was at this moment the only way forward: to internationalize the issue more formally. I agree totally. Obama allowed himself to be hamstrung by politics at home which actually shows his weakness. Other Presidents have as well but none so much against their better judgements than Obama appears to have been. This, unfortunately, has been keeping pressure away from Israel when we had the means. It’s been very disappointing to have us betray not only Israel’s best interests in this manner, but out own interests and the interest of peace. Accordingly and also other American administrations have conveniently fallen back on the notion that no one can force an agreement upon the parties; in other words we can’t want it more than they do. I guess it’a a point of view.