Um, I am not sure how I feel about this. Why would Xi support a two-state solution? Isn’t it more justified to have a one-state solution and return all of the land to the Palestinians? Won’t a two-state solution eventually lead us back to another genocide? This feels off. I did not expect Xi to make such a statement.
It’s worth noting that it’s the only solution because the international community isn’t going to challenge the US and its colony. The so-believed lack of options is a product of neocolonial relations that are baked into the fabric of the society of states. China has chained itself to this structure for its own purposes and thus their position on Palestine is not holistic or robust beyond those purposes. The two state solution is not a sovereign solution, it is not a just solution, regardless of how “realistic” it is or who is supporting it. Borders are not the problem. The occupiers are.
Israel has nuclear weapons the UN couldn’t challenge them that much if they wanted to
Due to the expansionist racial supremacist nature of zionism the 2 state solution can only come after zionism is defeated.
In that world there is still an israeli population that have a different culture and governmental structure in mind than Palestine does. Are they to be punished for the sins of zionism? Do we support their being ethnically cleansed? Do those people not have a right to self determination? Is the grand plan to have the Israelis subjected to genocide?
A single state solution would breath new life into zionism in the form of an insurgency. It would destroy the Palestinian state.
You can’t “undo” settler colonialism. All you can do is listen to the displaced and support what they think is the best path forward.
Maybe 30-50 years of peace after the 2 state solution is implemented things can change to make a single state, if that is what both nations want but you cant just go from israeli zionist state to a single state solution over night. Demanding absolutist “justice” for that undermines the peace process. As a Marxist Leninist we understand that there are stages between where we are and where we would like to be. This is where we differ from Anachists, they demand an absolutist destruction of the state where as Marxist Leninists understand that “the state withers away” after a time of transition under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Exactly. But the problem is that zionism isn’t going to be addressed and if the Palestinian state is recognized it will likley not be properly supported, which will create neocolonial relations. Colonial relations develop this way routinely. So it must be asked, who is going to deal with zionism and when?
The two state solution per se isn’t the problem, nor is a plan for phases of decolonization. Rather it is the asymmetric power being tilted to the zionists largely because of decades of international and US support. The fallacy we risk in seeing this in stages is that we imagine an ideal transition despite history showing how quickly it can just develop into neocolonialism with all options exhausted. The occupiers will inevitably be back in control of Palestine with new justifications and the international community will support it yet again.
We can’t “undo” history, but we absolutely can and must undo settler-colonial relations and structures for a two state solution to even be tenable. But at that point, what really is the point of sticking to a two state solution? Other solutions may present themselves as these toxic relations are excised.
Ultimately, it not our decision what is done with those who occupy Palestinian land but it is worth noting that expelling settlers is no more a genocide than any other form of decolonization is(nt). Framing it this way only gives credibility to zionism and makes settlers out to have no agency or self awareness. If we can’t stomach the thought of erasing zionist structures like the state of Isreal and the settler-colonial structures that reproduce it, then we should exit the discussion altogether.