veleth

Thanks for your perspective

The same Wikipedia article hints at both Zionist and Palestinian use of a similar phrase even before PLO adopted it, so I am not sure if we can just plainly state that the cited sentiment is the original one behind this phrase.

I have a honest question though - if one calls for a one state solution, would you say that it always entails destroying one or the other?

In my imagination, even if it’s quite naïve, if there ever was a peaceful one-state resolution to this mess, it would indeed require superseding the ethno-state of Israel, but I don’t think it would necessarily be a destruction per se - similarly when the Russian Empire was superseded by the USSR, one could say that the Empire was destroyed but to me it was more of a regime change and policy shift (of course forced by a brutal civil war, but still, I don’t think it was destruction in a way we’d normally imagine when hearing the word). The Russian state essentially persisted, just in a different form.

To be honest, without going too deep into SW lore, it is entirely reasonable for a given planet to have to import certain goods from elsewhere. Life did not originate on most of the SW planets - they were colonized (at least when humans are concerned). Now, in today’s globalized world trade sanctions can be a debilitating tool, so it’s reasonable to assume that in the SW galaxy the specialization has gone far enough that no single planet can sustain its needs when isolated.

The problem with Naboo specifically was food and exports - it did not grow enough food from what I can remember, and its valuable exports were halted by the Trade Federation. So, in my opinion, it sort of makes sense, especially if we compare it to cough fresher SW writing