Without too much deliberation, I commented so:
Comments, in no order:
a) "to base Jewish life in the Land of Israel on systematic coercion and permanent oppression." 1. so it is the Land of Israel, not necessarily the State of. That's a plus; 2. the only reason for that "coercion"/"oppression" (while not arguing it and I disagree) is the Arab refusal to recognize any Jewish geo-political expression anywhere, in any border configuration or administrative form. 3. self-destruction is not in our vocabulary.
b) "the post-1967 period did open up the spectacularly hopeful prospect of successful partition." Maybe. The Allon Plan, the Government's 19 June 1967 decision, Dayan's functional plan, Begin's autonomy - all rejected, refused, O the Tragedy of "Palestine".
c) "Is statist Zionism the only framework for satisfying Jewish national and cultural ambitions?" of course. that's really pretending you don't understand the Arabs. You do, though. So...
d) "if Germans and Jews could be close allies within two generations following the Holocaust, and if my own side of the Jewish world has no problem referring to itself as “Ashkenazi” (i.e. German), then why think a changing mix of challenges and opportunities cannot lead Jews from Arab countries to acknowledge their heritage in a parallel fashion." You're kidding Ian, yes? You are comparing the fundamental separatist elements of shared history, religion, customs, culture, text-core language, etc. as if parallel to what is required of Jess & Arabs? Wow.
e) "My point is that it is not the settlements, per se, that are the problem, but the political constellation of power and purpose that produced them, that grows them, and that will protect them. What I am arguing is that the entrenchment of the forces in Israel that have destroyed every effort to achieve two states is so deep, and so firmly rooted in ideological, cultural, and American institutional political realities, that much bigger forces will be necessary to transform them than operate within the normal course of Israeli or United Nations politics." Finally, agreement.
He adds there:
The most important message in my article was not that two states are absolutely impossible—indeed I did not say that and do not believe it. Rather, my argument is that paths to political decisions in Israel and the United States that could result in that outcome via negotiations are so implausible that the negotiations themselves end up protecting and deepening oppressive conditions
The odds were always against the two-state solution’s success, whether because of the crippling hold that a blinkered Israel lobby has on American foreign policy in the region, the Islamicization of politics in the Arab world, or a cultural transformation of the Israeli political landscape driven by decades of siege, Holocaustmania, and triumphalism.
And if Arab politics were always Islamicized but we didn't know, or want to acknowledge, that and if that has the most great affect on any possible resolution of the 'conflict'?
... if catastrophic scales of destruction can be avoided, ways to do so will not be found by those blinded by faith in an appealingly familiar but no-longer-available path. Why? Because as long as Israelis (and Palestinians) do not feel — immediately and concretely—that their very existence is threatened by the absence of a way to live together, they will not question the assumptions that need to be questioned.
That's a nice suggestion - threaten Israel's existence. Brilliant.
"Right now, for example, there is no one-state solution. But there is a one-state outcome. Between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea there is one and only one real state—Israel. It has shown repeatedly that it can and will send its military forces into any corner of that territory whenever it deems it necessary. The Palestinian Authority’s nominal administration over some domains and Hamas’s position in Gaza notwithstanding, virtually nothing goes into or out of this entire area that the State of Israel does not authorize"
Accept for terror attacks, suicide bombers, missiles and rockets, right, Ian?