Also putting quotes around "indigenous" to imply there's no settler colonial relation
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.
