Professor Saree Makdisi continues peddling a one-state solution:
The only question now is how much longer this negation can go on, and how long it will be before a state premised on it is superseded by its opposite, an affirmative, genuinely democratic, secular and multi-cultural state, the only kind that can offer Jewish Israelis and Muslim and Christian Palestinians alike a future free of discrimination, occupation, fear and violence.
The picture Makdisi paints is too good to be true.
Last year, I offered Five Arguments Against The One-State Solution. The sixth reason occured to me now. (Some of the links are updated.)
1. There's no shame in the concept of a Jewish state for the Jewish people.
2. The one-state solution negates Palestinian national aspirations just as it negates Jewish national aspirations.
3. Jews and Arabs don't share the language, history, religion, culture, or values required to make a bi-national effort work. Case in point: without an iron-fisted ruler, Yugoslavia disintegrated along ethnic lines and "Balkanization" became part of the world's lexicon.
4. Among themselves, the Arabs have no history of successful multi-ethnic states. Lebanon is spiraling into civil war. Sectarian violence continue in Iraq (don't rule out a partition). And Christian Arabs are fleeing the Mideast in droves. What's to inspire Israeli confidence?
5. The South African model doesn't apply. Among the many differences between the two regions, Benny Pogrund points out that South Africa's blacks and whites had a cohesive leadership who could sell power-sharing to their constituencies, as well as economic interdependence. This is not the case with Israelis and Palestinians.
6. How can Israel possibly negotiate a one-state solution with West Bank Palestinians as if Hamastan -- which the PA may now designate as a "rebel region" -- doesn't exist?