3

Liberal political blogger Matt Yglesias tweeted this:

What’s the best thing to read on the plan for how to disarm Hamas and other armed factions in the context of creating a secular binational state?

This refers to a proposal popular among some leftwingers to have a one-state solution, where a single secular binational state encompasses all the land in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. See e.g. Yavne: A Jewish Case for Equality in Israel-Palestine and Teshuvah: A Jewish Case for Palestinian Refugee Return by former liberal Zionist Peter Beinart. This is in contrast to more common proposals for a two-state solution, where the state of Israel remains largely unchanged whereas a state of Palestine encompasses Gaza and the West Bank.

Now Matt Yglesias may have meant his question sarcastically, as a dig against one-staters for not having thought out their policy proposals. But regardless, have any one-staters written about what the plan would be to disarm Hamas and other armed factions in the context of creating a secular binational state?

Improve this question
10
  • 3
    What proposal are you referring to?
    – Joe W
    Commented Oct 30, 2023 at 15:17
  • 1
    @JoeW I don’t mean like a specific proposal document, I just mean that there is a segment of left-wingers who support a secular binational one-state solution. Peter Beinart, who used to be a long-standing liberal Zionist, is a prominent example: jewishcurrents.org/… jewishcurrents.org/…
    – Keshav Srinivasan
    Commented Oct 30, 2023 at 15:20
  • 1
    "This refers to a proposal popular among some leftwingers to have a one-state solution," you state that the quote refers to a proposal that is popular among some on the left and are now stating that it doesn't? I am more confused about what you are asking.
    – Joe W
    Commented Oct 30, 2023 at 15:22
  • 2
    And that is what I am asking about, a simple statement doesn't provide any details about what the proposal is or what you think it is meaning people will have a hard time providing an answer to your question. Providing links in a comment isn't helpful as comments can be deleted at any time.
    – Joe W
    Commented Oct 30, 2023 at 15:28
  • 2
    I do not understand the question. Usually either disarming Hamas or allowing him as an armed entity within the one state would be part of the negotiation that would lead to that hypothetical one-state. So it would depend on what advantages/securities Hamas would get from that negotiation that would be acceptable to the other parties. In other words, details to be resolved as part of the process.
    – SJuan76
    Commented Oct 31, 2023 at 0:01

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6

I think this is based on a cart before the horse fallacy.

There is no way there would be a one state solution with Hamas in its current form:

  • Hamas would have had to be largely defanged first, leaving dealing with it as an internal affair a la IRA-vs-UK or ETA-vs-Spain.

or

  • Hamas would have had to be part of the negotiation of the one state solution. I.e. it would not be the same Hamas that carried out Oct 7th atrocities and denies Israel any right to exist.

Hamas in its current, powerful and influential configuration, de facto rulers of either Gaza or West Bank and denier of Israel's right to exist will block attainment of a one state solution in the first place.

Not unlike, one might note, its role in torpedoing two-state negotiations around 2005, during the Second Intifada.

Improve this answer
7
  • 1
    Unless Hamas [in its present form] somehow overran the entire territory of Israel, in which case their one-state solution will probably contain nearly zero Jews. But that's Hamas' pipe dream.
    – 264 champagne bottles on ice
    Commented Oct 31, 2023 at 1:25
  • 1
    And though I won't put as part of my answer, this also means that people really need to be very careful about accepting the survival of Hamas' influence past this round of Israeli intervention in Gaza - Palestinians will keep on suffering as long as its current leaders (or similar successors) are in charge. Note least because it will make it very hard for Western countries to pressure Israel during future negotiations.
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented Oct 31, 2023 at 1:37
  • 2
    @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica there are some interesting exit poll results in the wiki article for 2006 PLC elections - the one Hamas (technically) won. Taken at face value - the majority of the voters thought that Hamas' policy towards Israel is wrong, but they voted for them anyway, because the internal problems under the prior government became just that bad, and Hamas was seen as the only viable alternative.
    – Danila Smirnov
    Commented Oct 31, 2023 at 4:37
  • 2
    @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica, "people really need to be very careful about accepting the survival of Hamas' influence past this round of Israeli intervention in Gaza". Let's be honest. What I hear you endorsing here is 20-30,000 innocent Palestinians lives. A near 20-1 kill ratio which is what Israel typically enjoys when they feel the need to make a point. Maybe they'll kill 100,000 or 500,000 Gazans the vast majority won't be Hamas. All it will do is inspire the next Generation of militants. We've been down this road before. Hell we've lived on this road for 70 years.
    – user47010
    Commented Oct 31, 2023 at 12:14
  • 2
    @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica, Agreed, My point isn't that either side doesn't have the right to act. My point is violence on either side over 70 years has settled nothing. Extraordinary violence over 70 years. The numbers given weren't projected casualty numbers, they were meant to highlight the uselessness of such a response. If a military solution to these troubles existed these troubles would have been over long ago. It's not there. If peace is the desired outcome we have to try something else.
    – user47010
    Commented Oct 31, 2023 at 16:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .