The Morning Star is usually a decent publication but this is a massive miss. I don't know who anything about the author of this particular article but i hope they don't reflect the views of the newspaper as a whole.

Setting aside the weirdness of putting indigenous in quotation marks, we need to address the fundamental problem with the 1947 partition plan which is that it was purely an imposition of the imperialist powers in which the actual population living there had no say. Any borders drawn by an outside power for post-colonial states are fundamentally illegitimate. It denies the Palestinians self-determination in order to erect a Anglo-European colonial bridgehead in West Asia. That's the first and most glaring problem.

The second is that you can see just by looking at a map how little sense this partition makes. Let's pretend for a second that a Zionist "state of Israel" wasn't a fundamentally genocidal settler-colonial project that could never be satisfied with the 1947 borders. A Palestinian state with these borders will never and would never have been viable, chopped up into separate pieces which do not connect to each other. And they knew this when they drew up this map because they did not chop up the "Israeli state" in the same way - they made it territorially contiguous! Also, what possible justification could there be for giving the Negev desert to the "Israeli state"? In no universe do they have any claim on that region either demographic or historical. It is and was Bedouin territory. The only reason they were given it in the partition is to allow the imperialist powers (of which the "state of Israel" was always conceived as a proxy) access to a Red Sea port while denying one to the Palestinian state.

You don't even need to be a Marxist to see all of this, you just need to use a little common sense. Morning Star really dropped the ball on this one. If you want to advocate for a partition then at least do so in sensible borders that take into account sea access, resource distribution (in particular access to fresh water sources) and military defensibility. Those of us who advocate for full decolonization will still vehemently disagree but at least you won't look like an idiot who has no understanding of what it takes to make a state viable in the real world.

honestly if a 2 state solution means no more Palestinians being murdered i support it too, tho i cant even imagine how that would work, i dont see israel stopping as long as they exists.

isn't hamas asking for 1960s borders?

no israel only palestine would be justice but if palestinians themselves don't think it's a viable demand

There’s a lot wrong with this partition plan. Chief among them, the Negeb has always been Arab, even back in the 9th century BCE which Zionists like to base their land claims on.

Zionists are not done expanding. If they ever succeed in ethnically cleansing Gaza they will just move on to the next land they want to conquer.

China supports two-state solution

Class Interests of a labor Aristocracy

Couldn't they get into serious legal trouble by supporting full decolonisation? I'm not sure about the laws in Britland but I've heard that there's been some harsh escalation of persecution for "supporting terrorists" whatever that means.

The vast majority of communist parties internationally support the two state solution as laid out in - I believe it's - the 1967 U.N resolution on the issue that had unanimously agreement by the security council

The Soviet Union supported it. The PRC supported it. The PLO supported it.

It is the Marxist-Leninist line to fight for a two-state solution. If you are a member of a party, it is a part of democratic centralism to uphold your party line even if you disagree with it until you can bring it up for discussion at your party congress when it holds elections.

I think the issue is people seem to conflate "The Two State Solution" (TM) as proposed in the 1993 accords or whatever which majorly sucked for the Palestinians, and a two-state solution, i.e. a fair agreement for Palestinians.