Watching behaviour can be confusing when you’re expecting the participants to be planning for the long-term. For example the Israelis: despite seventy years of siege status, they alone in the Middle-East – with wealth and strength from their modern economy, western democracy and rule-of-law – have power over their future. The best thing they could do is live in peace. The only way of doing that is by solving their problems with the Palestinians. There’s four options on where they go from here, they don’t all lead to solution.
- Is the Two-State solution envisaged in the Oslo Accords. Not automatic peace, but both sides feeling some control over their destiny is a good start.
Then there are One-State options. These seem to be the implicit aim of Bibi-the-Survivor, politician extraordinaire, who’s done well courting the nativist immigrants since the Soviet Union’s demise
- Is One-State-1, the equal option. A single state of all Israel and the conquered lands, making Israelis and Palestinians equal citizens. That would be interesting, Jews would become a minority in the Jewish Homeland. Would they enjoy being always second place in an Arab-run parliament?
- Is One-State-2, on Jewish terms. After the pain suffered over the eras it seems fair the Jewish people should have a homeland and control. But to make a larger number of people citizens and regain control you need to curtail their rights. One-State on those terms would have to be Apartheid.
- Is maintain the current friction and discontent. Long-term stuff is so complicated, and politics is a short-term game.
Interesting that what might become the third intifada (was) kicked off when Bibi was about to be deposed after 12 years in office.