I know it’s been repeated enough times that Arafat “sparked” the intifada, there have been numerous books that debunked this. Arafat was simply too weak enough to curdle it and then decided to approve it when he saw that he was incapable of doing so.

I also can attest that Oslo was not “the height of Palestinian prosperity”. They may have gained international legitimacy in the eyes of the world but that did not equate to “prosperity” for those living in the occupied territories. The workers from Gaza were replaced and it was “dedeveloped” to paraphrase Sara Roy. The West Bank saw an increase in settlement activity and the autonomy proved less than the paper it was signed on.

I don’t doubt that the momentum of a one-state solution is gathering steam. I cannot speak for every Palestinian who supports such a solution and why they do it: some may do it because their current situation is untenable, others may do it because they’ve been told that this is the only way to get themselves out of this mess. I have read that some use it to “scare” Israel into withdrawing from the West Bank. Some could do it out of sheer hatred of Israel, others could do it because they really feel that this land should be shared. But let’s make the distinction between support from the intellectual outside of the territories and those who live there: I remember reading that the prospect of which solution to support (one-state or two) is the LAST thing on the Palestinians’ mind in Ramallah. It wasn’t even on the discussion table until the very end. As much as the rest of the world would like to sympathise and suggest what is best for the Palestininans to do, it is those in the territories that matter most and what they advocate and a great deal of them would still like a state of their own.

PS The name of my blog, while offensive, understandibly to those on this site, was more or less chosen because Guthrie’s famous message address was taken. It’s a great power that you have to bridge those two together.

On his blog, Joshua has written a long defense of “9/11 truther” Lesley Hughes. He seems to think - if that rather inelegant crib from Woody Guthrie is anything to go by - that Zionists are fascists. And yet, here he is telling us that a hike in Palestinian living standards will result in their giving up on politics.

Is it me who’s confused, or is it Joshua?

What evidence do you have that most Palestinians are against an Islamic state? It is also often said that were Israel not intervening in the West Bank it too would fall to Hamas.

You say that both Israel and the Arab states are creations of the European powers. Agreed. And what a disaster nationalism it has proved to be in the Middle East. It was the late professor Elie Kedourie who said that the end of empire tended to bring not national liberation but misgovernment, frequently followed by lawlessness and oppression.

Among Palestinains recently there has been a discernible shift towards support for the one-state solution. Palestinians are happy to abandon their national aspirations if it means the Zionists are forced to abandon theirs.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/160030

You then say that the Palestinians are not actually bothered about fighting for a state of their own as long as they have food on the table. This is a restatement of the old liberal myth that if people are doing well economically, they are less likely to resort to violence. And yet at the height of Palestinian prosperity Arafat started the 2nd intifada.

Lyn also forgets to mention how these Arab states came into being: they were split it from the former Ottoman Empire after their demise on the end of WW1. In fact, Israel also is a creation of European powers thanks to the British Mandate and the UN Partition Plan of 1947.

Frankly, the retooling of who gets which area is somewhat mute as of this time. It’s this type of pandering that has led to another impasse here: fighting over more land and who gets to settle where. One thing is true though: most couldn’t give two hoots about “Palestine” or “Israel”; they just want jobs, a house, an education, free from oppression. Although we do forget it, some sections did believe that Israel’s occupation back in ‘67 was a good thing because it removed the occupations of Jordan and Egypt. There were indications that things were improving with Palestinian labour in Israel all the way into the 80s. Things weren’t perfect but I know many do prefer that instead of where they are now. The occupation is still to be undone but when the aggrieved get food on their table to feed their family, their grievances wane. Provide them with the proper amount to live then they simply would just see who runs the country as somewhat irrelevant (typical of Western society). There would still be plenty of talk about politics but none that could spark an imbroglio at every moment.

Another point is that very few Arab states reflect the self-determination of the people who live in them. The only thing they have in common is that they all speak the same Arabic language.