I read the longer piece. Yes, sorry, you were clearly well ahead of that point. This strikes me as somewhere the Rawls approach could make a lot of intuitve sense in public discussion (and perhaps more so than in discussing constitutions, social equality, etc)

I feel the two-state model which is the current focus of peace efforts internationally and in the region is both fair, and much more likely to happen. I think it should follow that it should carry more weight in the philosophical discussion too on the premises you have put up, in part because I feel that lots of participants and observers have essentially gone through something of this thought process to get there.

I suspect the best counter-argument to me that it is that, despite that, it is not as fair/equitable as your solution: perhaps that people think that it is because they tend to consciously or unconsciously prioritise currently entrenched interests (eg Israel, broadly) over unmet interests (Palestine, broadly). That isn’t my own view of it. I suspect that the two states might be politically more attractive because both sides gain something more certain and concrete (their state) without the other side getting less, against the (perhaps more idealistic) argument that they ought to prefer a federated model as a more positive resolution.

And I agree with your last point – moral requirement to make concessions, which is related to that.

The deep philosophical questions pretty much always boil down to ‘who gets a veto?’; the practical political one is ‘when do they use it?’

Incompatible answers tend to lead to follow-on military questions being asked, and answered.

The Israeli demos seem to me to meet virtually every imaginable criterion for having a collective veto on the form of government it should be subject to. Denying a matching veto to the Palestinian people would be a very hard position to credibly argue for.

Wise 3rd-party interventions in issues where a national veto applies take the form of persuasion and suggestions, not enforcement.

I guess there are around 10M people in Israel-Palestine now? of which 7M are in Israel? And then there are refugees completely outside the area(s) and others outside the area with relatively new rights to go there if they wish.

The land was given away in effect by people who did not own it. Exclusively or indeed at all. That cannot and should not be undone nevertheless … but Israel needs to bear it in mind. Empathising with the other in this case, digging into own experience, would work wonders I feel.

I have always been a great believer in small steps – I suppose the first vital measure, in this case, would be a cease fire.

The more complex arrangements (envisaged by Dan Harkin) seem a remote possibility in the short term – but ultimately this type of mindset is a necessary precursor to reconciliation.

I think this applies now, but will it apply in the future? When we’ve got to the stage where we’ve been doing this for another 50 years, the people in real positions of power won’t have a specific personal frame of reference over why it’s being done. Hamas or something like it will no doubt still be there, calling for Israel to recede their borders and then some, but who’s to say the people of that time won’t be more open simply to the idea of actually agreeing some borders and stopping the severe situation they find themselves in day in day out?

I don’t think it’s unrealistic to say that it is reasonable to believe that the people of Israel and Palestine could, at some point, find themselves questioning why they’ve been fighting for (say) 100 years and why they can’t work something out. That doesn’t assume that it would be easy to work out, only that the chance of it doing so is there…and it is the kind of thinking in the original article that would greatly help facilitate that route if the occupants of Israel and Gaza started thinking that way.

The fact that Palestinian nationalism is historically recent doesn’t weaken such claims. In the grand scheme of things most movements for national self-determination are relatively recent. Also you misunderstand my use of “unitary state”. Part of my argument is that the idea of unitary states are recent historical inventions.

I’m a bit concerned that you see my article as anti-Israel. I feel uncomfortable with any label, but have generally seen myself as sympathetic to “pro-Israel” views.

Mixed sovereignty ? Tricky when your co negotiator wishes you and your race to be eliminated from the earth . To me this just sounds like bla bla bla .. Anti Israel. If you want to set up polarities there are many many more .

Personally I do not think there are any intellectual, or even philosophical solutions to this intractable dispute, especially given the long history of bad blood between the Israelis and Palestinians, complicated by the aspirations of other key players in the region (and further afield).

If we take one of the key obstacles to lasting settlement, the clash of religious ideologies, I fail to see how these fundamental, and non-negotiable principles can ever provide the kind of framework for peaceful discussions to take place.

Unfortunately watching a scrap from the sidelines is not the same as being caught up in the middle of it – after being pummeled for 15 rounds perhaps the combatants eventually suffer a certain type of brain injury ?

You’re right in that I do argue that even using Rawls we would not necessarily think that a two-state solution would resolve the problem – because the real-world distribution of people across Israel-Palestine doesn’t neatly fit the boundaries of two unitary states. I feel that the interests and claims of more individuals would be better satisfied by community-federal model. If, theoretically, all “moral agents” were to rank their preferences under “impartial conditions”, I reckon they’d go for: (1) binationalism, (2) two-state-plus-compensation and then the other options.

Lastly, I also stand by my claim that under a Rawlsian-style thought experiment, Israel would still be morally required to make concessions regardless of Palestinian actions.

Thanks. I think the intention of the article is a very good one. It is an interesting read and a good discussion. I would share this goal – “What solution would be acceptable? It would need to meet the varied and conflicting autonomy claims as equally as possible” as a good starting point for those who want to be constructive.

But I am personally sceptical about the political conclusion you go on to develop from that. The philosophical and the political settlement in a case like this one – the reconciling of competing claims as fairly as possible – ought to be similar, and I think any philosophical account which sets them at odds would be suspect on that basis.

There is another useful idea in contemporary political philosophy which I think helps with Israel/Palestine – John Rawls’ “Original Position” in the Theory of Justice.

Very briefly, this would be to ask how we would choose the rules of our society if we were in possession of all of the facts – except behind a “veil of ignorance” who we would ourselves be in the society. (As others will know, there are lots of detailed debates/disputes about this device. But it is at least a very interesting metaphor and thought experiment).

In conflict resolution situations, it seems to me the original position device is a useful way to also ask ‘what can we accept that others would accept too’ – ie what are the terms of a political settlement, if this can not be settled non-politically (by force).

This seems to me particularly useful way to think about the politics of the Middle East, where there is an urgent need to develop a sense that the ‘other’ side has interests too. If I was in possession of all of the facts about the history, politics, current disputes, and in the knowledge that I had to plump for an outcome before finding out whether I would then be an Israeli, a Palestinian, among the neighbours, a settler, etc

I think Dan’s argument would then be that such a thought experiment would lead to the same conclusion he has here. However, it seems to me that the type of two-state solution which is the focus of most peace efforts would make a great deal of sense. (There are some interests and claims which can not be reconciled: eg those of intransigent settlers – while others would need to be compensated – ie, some proportion of refugees, re right to return, but I think the consensus reflects the fact that this is a politically feasible and just settlement).

As for Hamas not willing to accept any form of HRC, that is a possibility. But by concentrating on Hamas you are disregarding the fact that they are only one of numerous Palestinian political groups. They also have their equals on the other side of the equation, namely Shas and other ultra-orthodox Israeli parties who do not necessarily adhere to a secular interpretation of human rights. Therefore this issue is shared on both sides.

I think what is important to grasp though is that within a peaceful paradigm in which there is no appeal for these ideologies from a “resistance” point of view it might just be possible for these groups to be sidelined by their respective audience.

Random numbers, jcompletely wrong, churned out just like that, and the people absorb, take on board and public opinion is moulded. Unless it’s a blatant typo, it shows how British tabloids can lie shamelessly about anything.

Read more about it here: http://mymarilyn.blogspot.com/2009/01/lies-on-sunday.html

On point two I’ll go to your blog.

cjcjc – I’m not sure what you mean by either of your points. With regards to your second point, perhaps you mean there are some steps missing in my reasoning? The article is quite cut down from the original post I made on my blog, so perhaps that would answer your objection.

And I struggle to see what is especially “philosophical” about your approach?

Israel must make concessions regardless of Palestinian actions

Finally, some common sense on the issue!! Thanks for writing a great piece.

There is no point my pretending that what I write here will make any difference.

Seconded.