Blake Hounshell of Foreign Policy, Marc Lynch (Abu Aardvark) of the Middle East Channel and Yousef Munayyer of The Palestine Center (Avi Mayer chimes in at the end) had the following debate on Twitter earlier today which I found to be quite interesting
abuaardvark: Zombie peace process might just barely have been revived back in 2009 when Obama tried, but now it’s way too late. On a different track now
blakehounshell: @abuaardvark I still wonder though if there is value in having a fake peace process, for the sake of stability?
This was a very interesting progression that started with the utility of using dead peace negotiations to stall until Israel changed governments (thus acknowledging that Israel, not Palestine, is the side opposed to a peace deal) and ended with the possibilities of a one state solution to the conflict. Here you have three major American commentators basically saying that Israel is to blame for the lack of peace with Palestine. Even Hounshell, who ‘wonders’ if a farcical peace process is beneficial for stability, admits that the current Israeli government is completely incapable of making peace with its neighbors (or, as I argue here, is unable to pursue a foreign policy that is anything less than antagonistic).
Of course, the discussion over the viability of a one state solution is a long one that should be brought out of Twitter in into the mainstream discourse. Currently, there is no real discussion of one state possibilities by policy makers – perhaps the real price of the dead Oslo Accords was the commitment of all parties to a two state solution even as it has become evident that two states are no longer possible. Yet with the upcoming UN vote on a Palestinian state (not to mention a nearly universal rejection of one state ideas from the Israeli government) there is no reason to believe that there will be any serious discussion of a one state solution outside of the Twitterverse.
Photo from Anti Imperialista