I have followed Beinart’s commentary for some time and share many of his views. However, he sometimes speaks more with a tone of prophesy than analysis. Prophesy is not easy, especially concerning Israel and the Palestinians. Beinart’s certainty that a one-state solution would be a “disaster” is not that foreseeable. Maybe he’s right. But if the two-state option fails, the model for a one-state solution exists: Israel. It is already a bi-national state. Missing from the “Israel model” is a way of preserving the Jewish state’s identity as such despite an Arab voting majority that would emerge. I suspect the Arabs too would want a unified nation to be considered the “Arab homeland.” The solution is possibly a confederacy, with a bicameral knesset. The “House of Arabs”--would comprise full representation with a constitutionally defined role, and the “Senate of Jews” would be Jewish. It would elect the Prime minister. The House of Arabs and Jewish senate would elect other members of the administration. They could operate like the Electoral College in the USA. Palestinians who reject joining such a confederacy could have Jordanian citizenship, while retaining their West Bank residency. Whatever happens, I believe Beinart’s attempt to mind-read Obama visa vie his future Israel policy is totally without foundation.
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Erdogan: Turkey spent $10 billion on Syrian refugee crisis compared to UN's $455 million (Reuters)