3 = 1 or Peter Kent's Middle East Non-Solution
Jason Cherniak has been talking about how Peter Kent, a likely Tory star candidate in the next election apparently endorsed a three-state solution to the whole Israel-Palestinian kerfluffle. Jason unpacks the utter lack of appeal that this would have here.
I want to go one step further, a three state solution would be a de facto continuation of a single state with some territories under occupation. What could keep two sovereign states from uniting? Even if they did not formally unite into one Palestinian state, then for all intents and purposes they could act as one. What would Kent block? Could the two states have free trade? A customs union? What about a common currency?
Moreover, who would enforce such things? I don't see the UN doing it. I don't see NATO doing it. Really, only Israel could stand in the way of a united Gaza and West Bank. In effect then, neither of Kent's two ministates would have independence of any real sort.
Picture: Peter Kent once thought he was Howard Beale
Labels: Israel, middle east, Palestine, Peter Kent
<< Home