Forget the two-state solution, part 2
There are enormous hurdles to a one-state solution - even though it is probably the preferable solution, and unless Israel accepts the Saudi proposal or something better than it, the one-state solution is the most likely one going forward. Otherwise, a few points:
1. The principle of a two-state solution probably should not be thrown out just because the power players behind the negotiations are corrupt. That tells us that the US, and not the principle of two states, is the problem. If the US were to do a 180 tomorrow and apply pressure on Israel to relinquish its claims to pre-1967 Palestinian lands, the peace process and a two-state solution would get a massive jolt. The major hurdle to peace is - aside from the Israeli government of course - the people behind the Israeli government: the US and its allies, for whom Israel can do no wrong. The activism we need to see more of should be aimed in that direction as well.
2. For a while now, probably since the publication of Jimmy Carter's book, the American and Israeli spin-doctors have had time to counter the label "apartheid" by making such ridiculous but nevertheless accepted arguments as "Israel has a huge Israeli-Arab population". This conveniently ignores the fact that Jewish citizens are privileged in Israel, and those Israeli Arabs are a massive underclass by any measure, including through the recent banning of their political parties. The obvious comparison with apartheid exists now, but doesn't stick, so whose to say it will stick after a one-state solution?
3. We can't ignore the possibility that conditions of Palestinians could deteriorate even worse than they are after a one-state solution. Therefore supporters of a one-state solution outside Israel/Palestine could be running the risk of changing objectives just so we can have a much easier and more convenient civil and human rights argument to make (an "apartheid" argument versus a messy self-determination argument rooted in the minutiae of negotiations). FM is right, the apartheid argument would be easier to make, but the goal clearly is a lasting peace in the Middle East, not to make things more digestible for Westerners.
4. Zionism is entrenched and a highly privileged ideology that people just do not seem to conceptualize through the prism of apartheid no matter how much the state of Israel seems hell bent on pursuing apartheid-like policies. It's an ideology that people even on the left tacitly accept or at least view through the lens of self-determination rights. There's also the monumental task of convincing the Jewish citizens of Israel to relinquish their claims to an Israeli state in the area… and FM I think the issue does lie with Israel as well. It seems rather clear to me that convincing Israel to relinquish their claims to the West Bank, Gaza and possibly the Golan Heights and restoring those areas to pre-1967 borders, while difficult, would be far easier than convincing them to relinquish their claims to a Jewish state as we know it. A one-state solution could just end up being a Greater Israel where people in Shas, Likud, Beytenu and National Union parties can advocate policies such as paying or forcing Palestinians to emigrate to Jordan and Egypt.
5. Finally is the point that this all really depends on what Palestinians themselves want. It’s been stated already that Palestinian “official” or “elite” opinion is divided between groups like Hamas that want a one-state solution – of sorts – in the form of an Islamic state comprising all of what is now Israel and the occupied territories, and on the other hand two-state proponents such as Fatah, the DFLP, independents, third way-ists, and the voters and parties that line up behind people like Mustafa Barghouti, and Marwan Barghouti. Aside from your ei article, FM, which you have to admit doesn’t tell us a lot, there isn’t a lot of evidence that Palestinians want the kind of democratic, secular binational or non-national state you’re describing. Until they do, I respect their demands for a separate Palestinian state alongside Israel, and I still describe the treatment of Palestinians, no matter what the borders look like, as apartheid or even a form of genocide.
Sure it should. So long as it is not a product of Palestinian self-determination, it is a fiction and should be treated as such.
How does that argument counter the Apartheid argument? It has a large Palestinian popualtion, a majority including the occupied territories, and they are dispossessed, economically and politically without rights, and separated from those who do hold economic and political rights. That is the very definition of Apartheid.
Worse? How? Will they herd them into ghettos, starve them, brutalize them, and bomb them? Because that's what they do now. Lasting peace is only achievable with an end to colonialism and oppression. That isn't accomplished by appeasement to it.
So was Aparthied. It is gone. And as I recall, the exact same arguments used to by the supporters of Apartheid, who are the same supporters of Israeli apartheid (racists don't die they just back other racists) offer the same tired lies. Go back and read what they said about South Africa. The song hasn't changed a word.
The majority of Paestinians elected Hamas who you say support a single state solution. So they have spoken, haven't they?
But more than that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binational_solution
ETA: Just to add, if Palestinians were to say tomorrow that they want full political and economic rights as citizens in Israel, the Israeli government would be at the table earnestly negotiating a separate Palestinian state before Obomba could say "call AIPAC and find out what my position is?"
5. Finally is the point that this all really depends on what Palestinians themselves want. It’s been stated already that Palestinian “official” or “elite” opinion is divided between groups like Hamas that want a one-state solution – of sorts – in the form of an Islamic state comprising all of what is now Israel and the occupied territories, and on the other hand two-state proponents such as Fatah, the DFLP, independents, third way-ists, and the voters and parties that line up behind people like Mustafa Barghouti, and Marwan Barghouti. Aside from your ei article, FM, which you have to admit doesn’t tell us a lot, there isn’t a lot of evidence that Palestinians want the kind of democratic, secular binational or non-national state you’re describing. Until they do, I respect their demands for a separate Palestinian state alongside Israel, and I still describe the treatment of Palestinians, no matter what the borders look like, as apartheid or even a form of genocide.
At post #67 of the previous thread-chunk on this topic I referred to a recent opinion poll that indicated majority support among the Palestinians for a one-state solution.
What is required in getting Israeli Jews to accept a single-state solution is that they become the first people in history to voluntarily agree to the dissolution of their own country. I'm not sure how you'd achieve this.
What is also required is the achievement, by some means, of an absolute certainty that, once the single state was achieved, violent hostilities against the Jewish section of it would permanently cease and that(other than the arrogant and racist West Bank settlers)no Jews would be expected to leave. It would also be necessary to achieve an agreement that all hostilities against the Arab sectors of the population would also cease. I'd like to hear how you'd achieve this.
I'm not unalterably opposed to a single state, but I am opposed to the current assumption that, because of the abuses suffered by Palestinians, the Jewish population that now considers itself Israeli should simply be expected to give up all the protections the state currently offers them and put themselves in a position that would leave them, essentially, helpless.
Why should this population be expected to subject themselves to what appears to be, from the outside, utter powerlessness. Is it at all fair to say to this community "well, you just have to TRUST that things will work out"?
How do we get past this and achieve a clearly necessary reconciliation program and how can any guarantees be achieved that a single state would be impeccably secular and democratic, as it would have to be to be at all just and humane?
There's a huge degree of constitutional neutrality that would have to be achieved to make the one state solution work, and I don't see anyone pushing for that at the moment.
And there is a major difference between this situation and that of South Africa.
There was no violent retribution against whites in South Africa once majority rule was established because the objection that black South Africans had to the status quo was that that status quo oppressed them, not simply that white people lived in South Africa. Everyone always knew that no white South African would ever be oppressed if majority rule came.
Can anyone honestly say this of the respective sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?
And is it truly reasonable to expect those who want Palestinian self-determination to simply go along with the call for a single state if there's to be no guarantee that that single state will be secular, democratic, and free of all discrimination? Obviously if it starts as a dictatorship it can never be anything but a dictatorship.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
Your concern for the poor helpless Israelis is truly touching.
And it was in fact exactly this kind of thinking (if it can be called that) that made the ruling white minority in apartheid South Africa so fearful of giving up their privilege and their political power. So it's not quite true that "everyone always knew" that the black majority would not attempt to oppress the white minority.
Israelis don't have to give up Israel in order to establish a single democratic secular state. They just have to share it with the Palestinians they stole it from - just as we settlers have to share Canada with the First Nations people we stole it from.
And is it truly reasonable to expect those who want Palestinian self-determination to simply go along with the call for a single state if there's to be no guarantee that that single state will be secular, democratic, and free of all discrimination? Obviously if it starts as a dictatorship it can never be anything but a dictatorship.
Thanks for that excellent post.
Isn't "secular, democratic and free of discrimination" what Hamas wants?
You can't classify EVERY Israeli as a knowing oppressor. Not every Israeli is personally responsible for the Occupation or an apologist for it.
You make it sound like I have a soft spot for the IDF or the settlers. I despise those fascists.
And, while it would be easy for all the Ashkenazim to move if the shit did hit the fan, the Mizrahi majority have nowhere else to go, unless you'd call for an official apology from the countries that expelled them(I assume you'd agree that their expulsion was just as unjust as the Nakba, since the Mizrahim were never Zionist before the expulsion and thus not responsible whatsoever for Plan Dalet) and an announcement that they were welcome to return to those countries and live as equals with everyone else.
My point is, to have this end in justice and equality, you need to have some sort of guarantees in place to prevent it turning into "OK, now WE'RE on top, so we're going to do unto you as you did unto us".
The ANC freely and willingly made such guarantees. Why can't Hamas?
If a single-state solution were workable now, with a gurantee that the Palestinian majority would not impose collective retribution on the former Israelis, that would be fine.
I'd really like to see a sharing of the land. Can you honestly say, at the moment, that it would actually be possible?
Why not set up the two states, with compensation for the victims, a major internationally-funded rebuilding program for Palestine, and a reconciliation program in both states, as a preparation for a single state?
Do you honestly think it could possibly be workable to set up a single state right now?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
And is it truly reasonable to expect those who want Palestinian self-determination to simply go along with the call for a single state if there's to be no guarantee that that single state will be secular, democratic, and free of all discrimination? Obviously if it starts as a dictatorship it can never be anything but a dictatorship.
Thanks for that excellent post.
Isn't "secular, democratic and free of discrimination" what Hamas wants?
Not "secular" as far as I know. They still want an officially Islamic state. This isn't something that ALL Palestinians want(Hamas' support was declining sharply before the Israeli government launched the slaugher campaign in Gaza).
I've heard there are different currents in Hamas. The thing to hope for would be for a genuinely socialist, democratic and secular current to emerge.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
In all likelihood, we are probably looking ultimately at a three state solution a la Pakistan, Bangladesh and India.
I've noticed that many of the same people who seem to oppose a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine and think that the Israelis and palestinians shoudl be forced into a single country - are the same people that seem to have a soft spot in their hearts for a two state solution in Canada (ie: that Quebec should become independent of Canada).
If Quebecers have the right to self-determination (which they do) and want to have their own francophone majority country - why can't people whose mother tongue is Hebrew in Israel also have their own country?
Sure it should. So long as it is not a product of Palestinian self-determination, it is a fiction and should be treated as such.
And what if it is a product Palestinian self-determination? Will you still support a one-state solution?
It doesn't. That was my point. Apartheid exists already, and the label doesn't stick in the minds of most. So why would it after a one-state solution?
"We'll stop oppressing you, if you guarantee not to oppress us - i.e. allow us to keep our privileges and the wealth we stole from you.
"Until you do, we will keep what we stole from you, and keep you separated from us, but totally dependent on us for your survival, while we enjoy our racist society from which you are excluded. We will oppress you economically, and we will invade you, terrorize you, and slaughter you if you dare to resist us or if you elect a government we don't approve of."
Yes, that's so much more reasonable than a one-state solution.
I've noticed that many of the same people who seem to oppose a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine and think that the Israelis and palestinians shoudl be forced into a single country - are the same people that seem to have a soft spot in their hearts for a two state solution in Canada (ie: that Quebec should become independent of Canada).
Why am I not surprised that you can't see any difference between the relationship between Quebec and the ROC and the relationship between the Occupied Territories and Israel?
A more appropriate analogy would be between the First Nations and the white settler society. Do you want the FN's to be herded into bantustans and forbidden to enter White Canada?
Not at all. I think that Israelis and Palestinians have a right to self-determination. But giving Palestinians a veto over Israelis self-determination is like saying that Quebec can only have sovereignty is a majority in the rest of canada also vote to be independent of Quebec.
Its pretty obvious that the vast majority of Israelis don't want to be in the same country as the Palestinians and I strongly suspect that to the extent that palestinians want "one state" it is based on a fantasy of it being an Islamic state where all religious and ethnic minorities have been expelled.
Everyone knows what has to happen in the Middle East. Israel has to withdraw its settelments from the West Bank and withdraw from the occupied territories, there have to be some land exchanges so that there is some sort of land bridge between Gaza and the West Bank while smoothing out some bumps in the boundaries in other areas. Old Jerusalem has to fall under some sort of multi-national control etc...
Its just a question of how many more lives have to be lost before both sides agree to what everyone knows the final treaty will have to consist of.
An interim two state solution, with Israel only keeping the pre-1967 lands, is not "letting Israelis keep their privileges". It's perfectly possible to craft a two state model, at least as an ultimate transition to a single state, that oppresses no one.
I am not a defender of any oppressor.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
Having said all that, I do recognize that I won't be deciding this.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
Does anyone also think that we need to forget about the two-state solution to India and merge India, Bangladesh and Pakistan into one country?
You really don't get the concept of an imperialist settler state, do you?
The Angry Arab has linked to an excellent series of brief articles on what the Gaza Ghetto massacre means to the future of Palestine:
London Review of Books contributors react to events in Gaza
The war on Gaza has killed the two-state solution by making it clear to Palestinians that the only acceptable Palestine would have fewer rights than the Bantustans created by apartheid South Africa. The alternative, clearly, is a single state for Jews and Palestinians with equal rights for all. Certainly it seems utopian at the moment with the two Palestinian parties in Israel – Balad and the United Arab List – both barred from contesting the February elections.
Israel in action in Gaza is not the victim people of history, nor even the ‘brave little Israel’ of 1948-67 mythology, a David defeating all its surrounding Goliaths. Israel is losing goodwill as rapidly as the US did under George W. Bush, and for similar reasons: nationalist blindness and the megalomania of military power. What is good for Israel and what is good for the Jews as a people are evidently linked, but, until there is a just answer to the Palestinian question, they are not and cannot be identical. And it is essential for Jews to say so.
And why shouldn't people whose skin color is white and speak english have their own country? Have you ever wondered why no one really respects your opinions?
Grudgingly, yes. But I don't think that is a likelihood.
That's your opinion. I think it has been very effective at bringing attention to Israel's human rights record and that is why more people are prepared to speak. What prevents greater condemnation is the abstract of a people seeking a nation rather a people denied basic human rights.
I have. What have I missed that is worse than herding them into ghettos, starving them, brutalizing them, and bombing them?
It does if you consider you yourself say Hamas supports a single state. What kind of a single state it is remains open to dispute.
I think that we should avoid simple analogies to South Africa (many babblers), Northern Ireland (those dorks unschooled in history and geography who think George Mitchell's "success" there can translate to Israel-Palestine), and now (Michelle) the First Nations in Canada.
I am not sure there is a precise correspondence between FN and Palestinians in that most Palestinians lived in small towns with agrarian roots and wealth in trading, and were connected through family and commerce to a wide network of highly developed societies that while Europeans were running around in furs and huddling in fear of the dark were developing complex math, advancing medicine and establishing complex civil and legal institutions. Sorry, but the parallel doesn't hold for me.
It would be much more effective to argue each csse separately rather than to try to draw arguments from one case to prove another.
In South Africa, youi have a horrendous situation because the white and black and coloured élites and multinatonals have continued to thrive and control the economy while the majority live in substandard housing, with crime and high unemployment, privatized services and limited access to proper health care. The post-apartheid government was hamstrung by the IMF and all its planned reforms were shelved.
AND South Africa has a fairly large territory.
Joining all the current Palestinian "cantons" from Gaza through to the Jordan River into a federation or a republic with Israel would be condemning all those communities to remain cut off from one another while putting both sides an exceedingly difficult situation, namely: either the Palestinians will be forced to remain as second-class economy with limited access to resources like farmland and water and markets, or, should there be international and domestic progressive pressure, a good number of Israelis will be forced to reduce their standard of living and give up perqs and privileged jobs to accommodate Palestinians, which will create an internal backlash equivalent perhaps to the nastiness that would be generated by forcing illegal settlements out of Palestinian lands under a 2-state solution.
The 2-state solution still needs guarantees of a corridor between Gaza and the rest of the new country.
I might be wrong on this, but I don't think I'm wrong to advise that we not waste time with analogies.
The issue is not to look for precise correlations between the dispossed peoples but to look at the process of dispossession.
In all cases we are looking at indigineous peoples who are forced off their land, with violence, by white settler societies. The dispossession is accompanied with a denial of basic human, civil, and econimic rights. More than that, if they resist, they are then dehumanized and cast as the aggressors while the aggressors portray themselves as the victims. In North America First Nations were depicted as 'savages' while savage massacres were sold as entertainment and "Indian fighting".
In Israel, landless Palestinians are "terrorists" while the militarized aggressors who have caged and starved them are in need of "security".
The analogies are there and they are very clear.
I would even go further and say that if we could get the US to stop giving millitary aid to Israel, the Israelis would no be able to maintain the occupation of the West Bank, and would be forced to withdraw tothe 1967 Green Line. This obviously does not mean the settlements would be immediately gone. It's likely the settlers would eventually follow, as the PA would be able to redirect the water from the settlements, creating conditions under which the settlers would likely not remain.
At that point the opportunity would open up for a civil rights movement within Israel, which could challenge the institutional racism of the zionist Israeli state. Such a movement is currently on hold. A hoped for outcome of such a movement would be full legal and political rights for Palestinian Israelis and other non-jewish Israelis living within the June 1967 borders of Israel. Such a movement would likely have it's own Martin Luther King, it's own Malcolm X, and it's own Nelson Mandela. Such a movement could lead to a signle, bi-national state, but that is something that has to be worked out between Israelis and Palestinians. It is no longer something that I believe we can mandate as a solution.
That said, a two-state solution where Israel remains as a exclusionary Jewish state, is only a partial solution.
Such a movement could lead to a signle, bi-national state, but that is something that has to be worked out between Israelis and Palestinians. It is no longer something that I believe we can mandate as a solution.
Isn't it ironic that the problem began when "we" mandated the establishment of the state of Israel, without letting the Israelis and Palestinians "work it out"? Yet somehow that's taken as a given starting point, and now the Palestinians have to figure out a way to deal with it.
Agreed. In fact, since 50% of Mandate Palestine in the 1947 Partition Plan was actually illegally acquired by the State of Israel in the 1948 War and sanctioned only by armistice agreements with the beligerent Arab states (not the Palestinian people), any two-state solution would eventually have to lead to a return of those lands to the new Palestinian state, or at least some portion of them. The 1947 Partition plan is still a good guide for how a corridor, or something close to it, could look. Otherwise, unless an actual corridor is established, and if a two state solution were to work, the Israeli constitution would (should) have to be modified to at least allow a de facto corridor between Gaza and the WB.
I'm not sure if you've missed it, and I'm not sure what's worse, but how about the forced or incentivized removal of Palestinians from Israel and the occupied territories altogether? In other words, genocide.
Also agreed on at least the need for a corridor and a return possibly to the 1947 partition lines.
And official apologies to and compensation all those dispossesed by Plan Dalet.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
The systemic herding of Palestinians into ghettos and the enforced deprivation of foods, medicinces, and the necessities of life, along with the systemic destruction of all infrastructure, civilian and economic, along with indiscriminate killings of civilians is genocide. It is underway already. And again, Western society is complicit.
What would Obama have had to say when the Nazis went into the Warsaw ghetto? "Our German friends have the right to defend themselves"?
From Norman Finkelstein:
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=2510
This is simplistic on so many levels it's hard to know where to start.
People whose mother tonque is French in Canada have their own country; it's called Canada. People whose mother tongue is French in France have their own country too, and yet Arabs are almost 10 % of the population, and they have the same citizenship rights as anyone else in France.
The Arab population of 1948 Israel is 20%, almost 50% in all Palestine, they didn't have to emigrate to get there, and they're treated as subhuman by the invading colonists.
Actually, almost nobody before 1948 had Hebrew as a "mother tongue". The language was no longer used in daily conversation by much of anyone, surviving mainly in the synagogue before it was revived by the Zionist movement. Before 1948, most Ashkenazim spoke, as primary languages, the language of their home country and/or Yiddish. The Sephardim spoke primarily Ladino, Italian or Spanish, and the Mizrahim spoke chiefly Magrhebi and Arabic.
In a rather infamous incident, the great Martin Buber, while attempting to give a lecture in Jerusalem was heckled and shouted down by a group of Zionist thugs(and I'm sorry, but these assholes actually deserved this description) because he wasn't speaking Hebrew, a language he wasn't yet fluent in.
Only recently has the Israeli government begun to encourage the revival of Yiddish. I'm not sure where it comes down on the use of Ladino or Maghrebi.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
"Balad and the United Arab List – both barred from contesting the February elections."
The Israeli supreme court ruled unanimously to let them both run - so they will both elect MKs.
"Agreed. In fact, since 50% of Mandate Palestine in the 1947 Partition Plan was actually illegally acquired by the State of Israel in the 1948 War and sanctioned only by armistice agreements with the beligerent Arab states (not the Palestinian people)"
You can't blame Israel for the fact that all the Arab countries rejected the UN partition and invaded the moment with British mandate ended vowing to "throw the Jews into the sea" and isntead they lost ground in the war. If they had accepted that deal in 1947 - there would be a Palestine today that would be far larger than in anyone's wildest dreams. But instead again and again and again and again, the Palestinians reject every single deal offered to them and the only result is that the next time around they are reduced to even less than they had before. Why don't they try something different for a change and trying saying "yes" instead of "no". There are something like 6 million Israelis now - thinking that they are suddenly going to evaporate is as absurd as thinking that everyone of European descent in Nother America is going to go back to Europe and that First Nations can turn the clock back to before Christopher Columbus or thinking that Celts can reclaim the British Isles from the Anglo-Saxons.
Ain't gonna happen.
"Actually, almost nobody before 1948 had Hebrew as a "mother tongue". "
Well they do now. If you want to go back to 1948, I can also remind you that back then, the word "Palestinian" was exclusively used to describe the Jewish inhabitants of the land between the Meditterranean and the Jordan River. The Arabs living in what is now Israel/Palestine considered themselves generic "Arabs" - they only started calling themselves palestinians in the late 50s.
But so what, TODAY Israelis speak Hebrew and Arabs in Israel/Palestine consider themsleves Palestinians and that is all that matters.
I've noticed that many of the same people who seem to oppose a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine and think that the Israelis and palestinians shoudl be forced into a single country - are the same people that seem to have a soft spot in their hearts for a two state solution in Canada (ie: that Quebec should become independent of Canada).
If Quebecers have the right to self-determination (which they do) and want to have their own francophone majority country - why can't people whose mother tongue is Hebrew in Israel also have their own country?
Israel is probably the only (bona fide) nation on earth which is (arguably) racially based. I say "arguably" because one would have to argue that those adhering to the Jewish faith are a particular race, which is odd given that Rod Carew, for example, is Jewish (for those who don't know who Rod Carew is: He's an African-American Hall of Fame baseball player who is also Jewish).
That all being said, Israel is called a "Jewish State" for a reason (i.e., the Jews have estalished a state in which Jews are in the majority and they have established mechanisms to ensure an ongoing Jewish majority). That is viewed by many to be "bad" and undemocratic (and perhaps it is). If a person isn't Jewish, it's not easy to become a citizen of Israel.
In contrast, if I wanted to become a citizen of China, I probably could to so relatively easily (without any regard to my race or religion). Likewise, if I wanted to become a German citizen or a Japanese citizen, I could probably do that relatively easily as well (again, without regard to my race or religion).
Now, what about First Nations? If a First Nation was a truly sovereign nation, could I become a citizen of such a nation without regard to my race or religion? As far as I know, I could not, for example, become a citizen of the Lakota Nation because of my racial ancestory (I don't possess the minimum "blood quantum" of Lakota blood).
So, why is it evil for Israel (or any country, for that matter) to be religiously or racially based) but not evil for a First Nation to be racially based?
Personally, I don't like the idea of a country or nation being based on a race (i.e., all, or most, members or citizens of the country or nation must be of a particular race or religion). It's the very thing that is distasteful to many about Israel. It's also why South Africa was so heavily criticized. It's also why Germany is sometimes criticized for being xenophobic regarding Muslim immigrants (the immigrants must be excluded to maintain the German race or culture). But, if those racial litmus tests are bad, why would a racially-based First Nations be okay?
By the way, the more I think about the "Jewish State" of Israel, the more I think a one-state solution is ultimately the only moral solution. It would certainly mean the death of the "Jewish State" of Israel but what business does any country have using a religious or racial litmus test for citizenship?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
That was from the prior thread (remind me again, why the fook are threads closed after 100 posts??). It's a relatively long transcript of a debate regarding the one-state versus two-state solutions but it's well worth the time reading it.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
As I understand it, threads get closed at about 100 posts or so because posts that are longer than that cause "sidescroll" when people try to bring them up on dialup internet connections.
Is that right, mods?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
I love the fact that threads close at 100 posts. I hate being on websites with 1000 post offerings. Its a tangled mess with no clear focus, and you have to go through page after page of backtracks to find out what precisely someone is talking about or responding too. Here, each new thread is clearly focussed aroung the OP, as opposed to being a rambling sprawl of nonsense.
It's nothing to do with sidescroll. It's a matter of how long it takes a thread to download and display in your browser when you are on dial-up.
The 100 posts rule is arbitrary, because some threads consist of very short posts (e.g. the YouTube Goodies threads) and others consist of longer ones. So one thread can have 50 posts and be five times as much of a download as another thread that has twice that number of posts.
The solution of course is to allow pagination of threads (which in fact the new babble software originally allowed for the first few days, until the moderators killed it). Pagination would allow dialup users to specify the number of posts they wanted to appear per page, so that they would only have to download the latest page instead of the whole thread; at the same time the whole problem of a single thread being chopped up into separate bleeding chunks and scattered to the winds would be avoided. But don't count on logic prevailing anytime soon.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand:
It is perfectly clear that Israel has no intention of allowing a Palestinian state to exist alongside it. It has buried the "two-state solution" under the rubble in Gaza.
Ultimately, the solution to the oppression of Palestinians must involve the creation of genuine equality - a state for everyone in the area regardless of their religion or race.
lol
Thanks for the clarification, Spector. I guess I was confused because as the threads got longer, people used to seem to go on more and more about sidescroll. I stand corrected.
__________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
"In contrast, if I wanted to become a citizen of China, I probably could to so relatively easily (without any regard to my race or religion). Likewise, if I wanted to become a German citizen or a Japanese citizen, I could probably do that relatively easily as well (again, without regard to my race or religion)."
Actually that is NOT true in the case of Japan or Germany (and many other countries). If you can prove that you are of German ancestry you can get German citizenship. There are people whose families have lived in Russia for hundreds of years but who are ethnically German who were able to move back to Germany in the 90s after the fall of the Iron Curtain simply based on their blood lines. Meanwhile, up until recently children or Turkish immigrants born in Germany had no right to ever get German citizenship. There are similar laws in Japan whereby third generation Japanese-Brazilians or Japanese-Peruvians can get Japanese citizenship pretty easily, while Korean immigrants to Japan have a very hard time getting citizenship no matter how long they live in Japan. What's actually relatively rare are countries like Canada which have totally racially blind citizenship policies.
Yes, and you bring up this non-story about Germany's racially exclusionary immigration laws, every time this topic comes up. And you are corrected on the facts each time it comes up. So my only conlusion is that you have been informed and you are willfully spreading disinformation and lies. about German immigration policy.
German Russians were not "able" to get citizenship simply based on their blood lines. It was possible for ethnic Germans who were ethnically cleansed out of Russia, and Czechoslovakia and Poland after the war to get citizenship based on their blood lines, because they were ethnic German refugees.
This policy was continued in a limited fashion for ethnic Germans who felt persecuted in the USSR moving to Germany, after the war, as refugees.
It's one thing to be a dunderhead. Its another thing to spread outright disinformation and lies about German immigration laws, when I have repeatedly sourced the actual facts to you on numerous occassions.
Stop being and asshole.
As for your idiotic referecen to Turkish 'Guests workers", you can see those laws were change. Howeve, Israel's have not and they still import thousands of basically "rightless" guest workers to clean their toilets for them.
Only recently has the Israeli government begun to encourage the revival of Yiddish.
Sorry for the thread drift - but is that true, Ken? If so, it's fascinating, as the early Zionists were very hostile to the language which they saw as the creature and symbol of Diaspora. Yiddish, by the way, is my mame loshen.
Reunification
With the fall of the Iron Curtain and the end of travel restrictions from the former Eastern Bloc countries, an additional three million ethnic Germans returned to Germany between 1988 and 2003. Almost 2.2 million of these arrived from the former territory of the Soviet Union, with Poland (575,000) and Romania (220,000) providing the remaining flows.
The number of these arrivals peaked at 400,000 in 1990. However, by the early 1990s, after the initial euphoria of the end of the Cold War and German reunification, the government had begun to take measures to moderate the returns. These included aid to ethnic German communities in countries of origin to improve their living standards and entice them to remain there. In addition, the government established a quota system. From 1993 to 1999 the quota was set at 225,000 people per year; this was subsequently reduced to 103,000. As a result, in 2000 and 2001, the immigration of ethnic Germans hovered at roughly 100,000 per year. In the following years, the number further declined and amounted to 91,000 in 2002. In 2003, the number was still much lower, when 73,000 immigrated to their ancestral homeland. Germany's Ministry of Interior estimates the number of remaining ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe and the territories of the former Soviet Union at around 1.5 million.
Germany: Immigration in Transition
Its simply a lie to say that Germany allows "ethnic Germans" to appear on its doorstep, and announce their ancestry and become citizens. In fact, there have been programs where they have been expelled, and strict limits put on this kind of immigration.
Not to mention the fact that the whole stipulation of tracing your ancestry through your male family was dropped in 1955.
"In absolute terms, the two movements must remain in perpetual war or a compromise must be reached. The compromise is one state for all, an "Isratine" that would allow the people in each party to feel that they live in all of the disputed land and they are not deprived of any one part of it."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22qaddafi.html?em&exprod=myyahoo
I grow weary of the word "Zionist" being used as a pejorative and Israel being referred to as an Apartheid state. It doesn't help move debate nor peace forward.
Of course, I condemened the recent Israeli military operation in the Gaza Strip.
As if the recent collective punishment campaign just occurred out of the blue. Its the logical reaction of an expansionist apartheid state. Only those still in denial seem to be surprised, I imagine they will be feigning such bewilderment when it happens again and again. That kind of purposeful ignorance is doing nothing to move either debate or peace forward.
I received a letter from my MP today setting out the Liberal's position on Israel and Gaza. This was in response to an email I sent a couple weeks ago in which I specifically communicated only concerns about the Israeli attacks.
Like you, I am concerned by the violence in Israel and the Gaza Strip and the fear and suffering on all sides. The Liberal Party of Canada unequivocally condemns the rocket attacks launched by Hamas against Israeli civilians and calls for an immediate end to these attacks. We affirm Israel's right to defend itself against such attacks, and also its right to exist in peace and security.
We call on all parties to end these hostilities, mindful that a durable ceasefire will be necessary to prevent continued civilian casualties and lasting damage to essential civilian infrastructure. The international community has a responsibility to ensure that the cost of conflict is not borne by the innocent and Canada must stand ready to assist and ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches those who need it.
In the midst of this crisis, we continue to stand for a peaceful resolution. The basis of this peace will be the mutual recognition by Israelis and Palestinians of two states, living side by side in peace and security, with a full resolution of the issue of refugees and settlements, as well as secure and internationally recognized borders and boundaries.
Please feel free to contact me on any future issue of concern.
Sincerely yours,
Frank Valeriote, M.P, Guelph
So, in context of this discussion, is there any reason here to think that Ignatieff's position is in any way preferable to Harper's?
No, Ignatieff and Harper have virtually no daylight between them when it comes to foreign policy but the NDP seems to be totally incapable of making it an issue.
I grow weary of the word "Zionist" being used as a pejorative and Israel being referred to as an Apartheid state.
Gee, maybe a nap would help.
I think M. Spector may be correct about the one-state solution in the sense that it is probably the most morally pure solution (it's democratically based and avoids the nasty concept of a racially-, or at least religiously-, based nation).
As a practical political matter, however, I'm not sure it's as achievable as a two-state solution. There is a lot of political pressure (in Europe, among many Palistinians, and within Israel itself, for example) for a two-state solution. As near as I can tell, there is very little support for a one-state solution (other than among a very, very few Israelis and among Hamas extremists). So, it seems like it would be difficult (to say the least) to get broad-based political support for a one-state solution.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I think it may ultimately come to a single state. All I was saying was that, in the short term, a two-state solution involving a great deal of compensation, proper education on the true history of the situation, and a real reconciliation program might be the best interim solution.
Saying "It has to be ONE state, and this has to happen NOW" is probably not workable. I'd be happy to be surprised about that, of course.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
If you think support for one state is limited to Hamas "extemists", you haven't been paying attention.
And again, if there has been so much pressure to create two states, why hasn't this happened yet? They've had over 40 years to get around to it.
While we're at it - why not a one state solution for the world and get rid of all national boundaries and make the whole world one country? The Republic of Earth!
If you think support for one state is limited to Hamas "extemists", you haven't been paying attention.
And again, if there has been so much pressure to create two states, why hasn't this happened yet? They've had over 40 years to get around to it.
60
Because the Israeli government, while pretending to have accepted a two-state solution in '94, has continually, whether Labor, Likud or "Kadima", done everything it could to prevent a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza from being established.
Binyamin Neyanyahu, who still has at least an even chance of becoming prime minister after the Feb. 9th election, has actually revived Begin's discredited "autonomy" idea, and honestly seems to think he can occupy, bomb and humiliate Palestinians into accepting it.
Those outside that government who have supported a two-state solution cannot be assumed to be supporting the Israeli government's intransigence._________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
If you think support for one state is limited to Hamas "extemists", you haven't been paying attention.
And again, if there has been so much pressure to create two states, why hasn't this happened yet? They've had over 40 years to get around to it.
60
Hey, I was being generous.
Bibi has already said he'll never allow a "terrorist state" to border Israel.
If you think support for one state is limited to Hamas "extemists", you haven't been paying attention.
And again, if there has been so much pressure to create two states, why hasn't this happened yet? They've had over 40 years to get around to it.
60
Hey, I was being generous.
Just reminding everyone that the "two state solution" is partition under another name. Under Oslo, Yasser Arafat effectively surrendered the Palestinian claim to 70% of historic Palestine. More territory, not less than Israel was mandated to have in 1948, giving the Zionists everything they said they wanted, and more than they had any legal claim too.
"That said, a two-state solution where Israel remains as a exclusionary Jewish state, is only a partial solution."
Isreal would never be an exclusively Jewish state since in any scenario, at least 20% of the population of Israel will be made up of Arabs, who vote in Israeli elections and have more rights than they do in just about any Arab country (almost all of which are brutal dictatorships). You can be sure that in contrast Palestine in any two-state solution will be 100% Arab and that there will never be a single solitary Jewish Israeli living there.
What consitutes a "legal claim" is whatever the various parties agree to. If the peace plan of 2000 had succeeded - that would ipso-facto have become the "legal claim". Whether you like it or not "facts on the ground" are facts on the ground. The Jewish population of Israel is now over 6 million and totally dominates the post-1948 boundaries. You might as well try to claim that all of the UK should be given back to Celts and that Anglo-Saxons should go back to where they came from in what is now Germany.
You can't force people who clearly hate each other to live together any more than you can abolish divorce and demand that a couple stay together who keep beating each other up - it just won't happen. We have already seen in places like Bosnia or Kosovo where people with far less history of violence and conflict than Israelis and Palestinians proved that they could not live in the same country and so those countries were divided along ethnic lines.
This is one of the difficulties of many "morally correct" solutions.
Presumably, the "morally correct" solution in Canada is for the ownership of all land (and other property) now existing within "Canada" to revert back to the FNs. But, I don't see a lot of eagerness among the English, the French, and all subsequent settlers in "Canada" to do so.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Yeah, why should Palestinians be allowed to live on Israeli territory, just because it's "morally correct"?
After all, the Jews and the Arabs "hate each other", so it's wrong to have them living in the same country - unless, of course, the Jews are the overwhelming majority and are firmly in control, while the Arabs enjoy second-class status.
The rhetoric of apartheid lives on!
Do you consider everyone who supports sovereignty for Quebec to support "apartheid" since they want a country where francophones are the majority and can dominate every other group?
Well, other than the historic way Quebec FN's have been treated(and that was as much the responsibility of the anglos from Ottawa as it was of any francophones)no non-francophone group was ever treated by francophones in the way the Israeli government has treated Palestinians under the Occupation and the Siege.
It's not like anybody deprived Westmount of potable water or stole any anglophone fruit orchards.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
My point in raising the Canada-FN question is that "moral purity" may be great in theory but it's not necessarily always the preferable objective because of very real practical barriers.
I think the "morally pure" position in North America is for the settlers/colonists to give all land and other property back to the FNs, from whom it was taken (and not that long ago). But, where's the righteous indignation among Canadian progressives that that is not happening? Instead, many are demanding the implementation of an equally "morally pure" solution half-way around the world while ignoring a similar issue right here.
Now, I think there is a strong moral argument supporting the one-state solution. But, getting Israel and its many powerful supporters around the world to accept it is about as likely as all land and other property now in "Canada" being returned to the FNs.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Sven and Stockpile-it-on aren't arguing here so much as creating diversions.
Nobody is going into First Nations land, bulldozing homes and bombing women and children. If anyone even tried that where I live, they'd be bombing their non-First Nations neighbours as well.
I suppose there are no rules against reducing arguments to absurdity on babble.
Nobody is going into First Nations land, bulldozing homes and bombing women and children. If anyone even tried that where I live, they'd be bombing their non-First Nations neighbours as well.
Well, of course there's no need for bulldozing and bombing. The land's already been stolen, no?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I like the way that people always like to trot out Canada's FN's people everytime they want to support some fascist friends of theirs elsewhere in the world.
Of course if the Israelis do it, we can do it too, this is the real meassage.
"Nobody is going into First Nations land, bulldozing homes and bombing women and children."
We don't have to after giving them blankets that were full of smallpox and committing massacres that reduced the First Nations population of Canada by an estimated 90%.
They have already reduced the Arab population of the area we call Israel today, by and estimated 60 % in only 60 years. It took hundreds of years to wipe out the indiginous peoples of North America.
Give your friends a break, they only just started.
Creating conditions of starvation, and detroying the basis of diesease prevention by blowing up hospitals, cutting off basic medical supplies and destroying the water supply of large populations of people, were simply beyond the means of our ancestors. So was trapping people in tightly packed open air urban prisons, where they could be "spot massacred" from a safe distance using heavy artillery and aircraft delivered 500 lb bombs. That is why it took so long back then.
Diseased blankets, sabers and muskets just don't cut it today Stockholm.
Think of how far we have advanced. Back in the olden days white people had to actually take risks in order to massacre brown people. Now you can practically do it from the comfort of your living room. Sharon actually got to watch the assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, and whoever was nearby, on closed circuit TV from Jerusalem. Even got to give the final order!
What a thrill, eh?
Funny thing I learned the other day, Stockybaba. Did you know that the phrase "Land without a people" was the name of a program originally instituted in Eastern Poland to boot out the Poles and replace them with Germans under Willehelm II, in 1915?
A surprisingly sympathetic report on the Palestinians in the West Bank from CBS's "60 Minutes" that demolishes the "two-state" solution.
Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi:
"While my heart still wants to believe that the two-state solution is possible, my brain keeps telling me the opposite because of ...the building of settlements...."
Transcript of the video
If that was their aim philosophically, politically, and legislatively, yes.
If you weren't an insincere boor, this might be a valuable observation. But you are, so it isn't. But for the record, if you recognize the injustice committed against First Nations then you must also recognize the injustice being committed by Israel against Palestinians ... unless, of course, you are an insincere boor.
It's not like anybody deprived Westmount of potable water or stole any anglophone fruit orchards ...
While we're on the topic, don't you love how all of anglo Quebec can be reduced to Westmount and the Eastern Townships? In other words, to the bucolic and the over-privileged, logic notwithstanding?
The rhetoric of apartheid, indeed.
Can you not pursue your anti-franophone campaign on this thread?
Thanks, in advance.
If you weren't an insincere boor, this might be a valuable observation.
_________________________________
What is he was a SINCERE boor?
________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
I'm not anti-francophone, I'm anti-sovereigntist. Like the Zionists, they tend to conflate the two positions so that an attack on one identity is proof of hostility to the other.
It's the rhetoric of ethnocentrism.
It's the rhetoric of off-topic, and irrelevant. You are talking about a matter that is pretty much a civil dispute, debated and adjudicated within the processes of law, and its interpretation, wherein for example, all persons are enfranchised and may vote, and otherwise have "civil rights."
The situation in Palestine is one where one population is denying enfranchisement of another through the use of direct military force and removing their civil rights.
Israel's collaborators in Apartheid, the American pseudo-Christian community, is deeply dedicated to the one-state solution. The one-state solution is part of the "Jesus is coming back" theology of American Christians.
I think we can take some clues from prominent Christian ministers, and they are quite in consensus, only a one-state solution is acceptable. This is what tens of millions of American pseudo-Christians have preached to them on a very regular basis.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://LASIK-Flap.com ~ Health Warning about LASIK Eye Surgery
Israel's collaborators in Apartheid, the American pseudo-Christian community, is deeply dedicated to the one-state solution. The one-state solution is part of the "Jesus is coming back" theology of American Christians.
I think we can take some clues from prominent Christian ministers, and they are quite in consensus, only a one-state solution is acceptable. This is what tens of millions of American pseudo-Christians have preached to them on a very regular basis.
Is that supposed to be an argument for a two-state solution? What kind of one-state solution do you imagine the Zionist Christofascists have in mind? Does it have anything in common with the Palestinian demand for a single democratic secular state with one-man-one-vote, or is it more like a single apartheid state?
Their demand(the Pseudo-Christians that is)is for Eretz Yisroel, with Israel extending to the Jordan and beyond, and the reconstruction of the Temple, and(and this is their favorite part)getting to force all the Jews to move to Israel and then choose between conversion or death.
Their demand is the polar opposite of yours. But since they have a culture of death and you have a culture of life, Spector, this is to be expected.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
The One-state Declaration
For decades, efforts to bring about a two-state solution in historic Palestine have failed to provide justice and peace for the Palestinian and Israeli Jewish peoples, or to offer a genuine process leading towards them.
The two-state solution ignores the physical and political realities on the ground, and presumes a false parity in power and moral claims between a colonized and occupied people on the one hand and a colonizing state and military occupier on the other. It is predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora. Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return.
The two-state solution entrenches and formalizes a policy of unequal separation on a land that has become ever more integrated territorially and economically. All the international efforts to implement a two-state solution cannot conceal the fact that a Palestinian state is not viable, and that Palestinian and Israeli Jewish independence in separate states cannot resolve fundamental injustices, the acknowledgment and redress of which are at the core of any just solution.
In light of these stark realities, we affirm our commitment to a democratic solution that will offer a just, and thus enduring, peace in a single state based on the following principles:
• The historic land of Palestine belongs to all who live in it and to those who were expelled or exiled from it since 1948, regardless of religion, ethnicity, national origin or current citizenship status;
• Any system of government must be founded on the principle of equality in civil, political, social and cultural rights for all citizens. Power must be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all people in the diversity of their identities;
• There must be just redress for the devastating effects of decades of Zionist colonization in the pre- and post-state period, including the abrogation of all laws, and ending all policies, practices and systems of military and civil control that oppress and discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, religion or national origin;
• The recognition of the diverse character of the society, encompassing distinct religious, linguistic and cultural traditions, and national experiences;
• The creation of a non-sectarian state that does not privilege the rights of one ethnic or religious group over another and that respects the separation of state from all organized religion;
• The implementation of the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees in accordance with UN Resolution 194 is a fundamental requirement for justice, and a benchmark of the respect for equality;
• The creation of a transparent and nondiscriminatory immigration policy;
• The recognition of the historic connections between the diverse communities inside the new, democratic state and their respective fellow communities outside;
• In articulating the specific contours of such a solution, those who have been historically excluded from decision-making -- especially the Palestinian Diaspora and its refugees, and Palestinians inside Israel -- must play a central role;
• The establishment of legal and institutional frameworks for justice and reconciliation.
The struggle for justice and liberation must be accompanied by a clear, compelling and moral vision of the destination - a solution in which all people who share a belief in equality can see a future for themselves and others. We call for the widest possible discussion, research and action to advance a unitary, democratic solution and bring it to fruition.
Madrid and London, 2007
Signed:
Ali Abunimah
Naseer Aruri
Omar Barghouti
Oren Ben-Dor
George Bisharat
Haim Bresheeth
Jonathan Cook
Ghazi Falah
Leila Farsakh
Islah Jad
Joseph Massad
Ilan Pappe
Carlos Prieto del Campo
Nadim Rouhana
The London One State Group
You're right that it's off-topic in that the Quebec question is not one of international news. But it is highly relevant to the two-state solution debate.
The question of Quebec's "right to self-determination" was referred to a panel of distinguished international law experts. They concluded that since francophone Quebecers have their civil rights under the rule of law, and since Quebec is not under occupation, they are not disenfranchised to that extent. No to colonialism, and no to secession.
One federated state should cover the territory.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
Their demand(the Pseudo-Christians that is)is for Eretz Yisroel, with Israel extending to the Jordan and beyond, and the reconstruction of the Temple, and(and this is their favorite part)getting to force all the Jews to move to Israel and then choose between conversion or death.
Source
And let me clarify here that what the pseudo-Christians want isn't actually what most ISRAELIS really want.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
Why should the Zionist colonists have any right to remain in the geography now occupied by Israel? Why shouldn't the Palestinians who were kicked out of their homes not be given all of the land back?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Why don't you tell us? It seems you know the answer.
Why don't you tell us? It seems you know the answer.
Actually, I don't. But, in thinking about a one-state solution, I think it's a natural question to ask: If the objective is to provide justics to the Palestinians from whom all of their land was taken, wouldn't justice mean giving them back all of their land?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Is that what you support? If so, state it.
Is that what you support? If so, state it.
Frankly, I'm giving the one-state solution serious thought. But, if the objective of a one-state solution is to provide justice for the Palestinians, then the logical end-point would be to give the Palestians all of their land back, no? Yet, no one (that I've read) has suggested that. So, what I'm wondering is: For those advocating a one-state solution, on what grounds can they justify only giving back to the Palestians a portion of what was taken from them?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Why don't you justify it? How about this, if I stole your wallet with $1,500 cash inside it (you were on your way to buy a new big screen LCD TV because you wanted your cable news more in your face), how much should I get to keep for my trouble or to properly reflect the facts, as they are, on the ground?
Now you go ahead and justify why I should have to give any of it back to you as now it is mine.
Why don't you justify it?
Well, that's kinda what I'm driving at. I'm not sure that I could justify it. Conicidently, your example is exactly what I was thinking of as an analogy.
So, do you take the position that the Palestinians should be given back all of their land and those who now possess that land should be dispossessed of it? That would be a logical stand to take if the objective is justic for the Palestinians...it's just that I have not seen anyone come out and state that, including you.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Is that your position? My position is that Israelis and Palestinians of goodwill should reach an understanding and agreement through a negotiation between equals. That is the only position I have. We can do the same with your wallet.
Did you read the One-State Declaration I posted above at #80? Among its demands is this:
Resolution 194 contains these words (Article 11):
Wikipedia sez:
My position is that Israelis and Palestinians of goodwill should reach an understanding and agreement through a negotiation between equals. That is the only position I have.
Really?
To return to your analogy: If I stole $1,500 from your wallet, you would advocate that we should, as people of goodwill, "negotiate" for how much I have to give back to you?
It seems to me that if your objective is justice, then requiring a victim to "negotiate" with the victim's oppressor to get only part of what was originally taken from the victim does not seem to satisfy that objective.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Resolution 194 contains these words (Article 11):
Okay. That's pretty clear. If all Palestinians wished to "return to their homes", then all of the current possessors of the land would be dispossessed. And, applying the "stolen wallet" rule of justice, that would seem to be a just solution.
So, where does "negotiation" between a victim and the oppressor come into play?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Negotiation comes into play in all sorts of situations that are "cut and dried" on paper. For example, under criminal law an accused person is either guilty or not guilty. Yet plea bargains are negotiated all the time.
In the case of resolution 194, the question of financial compensation could certainly be the subject of negotiation.
In the case of resolution 194, the question of financial compensation could certainly be the subject of negotiation.
Although negotiation would not be part of the resolution if all refugees elected to return to their land.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
No, I would say you are a thief and call a cop. In the real world simple analogies don't work. You live on stolen land. What steps have you taken to return it to or compensate its owners?
The difficulty presented by colonization is that the current holders of the land may not have stolen it but acquired it quite innocently. Nevertheless, it was still stolen and the former owners, through negotiation, are certainly entitled to be compensated if not able to return to the former family home.
What is negotiable is the value of the reciprocal damages caused by the missing money. In this case, in most cases, the individuals are not directly responsible for the loses but several organizations, and the Israeli state.
Although negotiation would not be part of the resolution if all refugees elected to return to their land.
What if they return to their land and find that a nuclear power plant has been built on it? Or their farmland has been paved over? There would be many issues of compensation to be resolved through negotiation.
Imagine if the United States agreed to a "right of return" for its Native peoples. Do you imagine there would be no issues to negotiate?
In many cases, Palestinian villages were razed and parks were created over the former dwellings. The point of this was to erase all traces of the original inhabitants, and reinforce the myth of "...a land without people." Nobody would be dispossessed if Palestinians were allowed to return to these areas.
I think the money analogy is a little too simple or trivial in the larger scheme of things. The only valid analogy, I think, is that a disaster (e.g., local riots) forces you from your home, your neighbour takes over and gives your house to his recently arrive cousins from Brooklyn, and the government plants armed guards at the edge of town to prevent you from coming back once the riots have subsided. Add to that scenario a very large plot of land with fruit trees, vegetables and farm animals, near your house, which is also occupied by your former neighbours, who sell it to some more newcomers, who proceed to build a gated community on it.
I think pro-Zionist Westerners REALLY need to be hit over the head with analogies that are closer to home.
Sorry - continuing here. The point I wanted to make in the last post is that the losses of Palestinian families are losses of land, home, community, history, and memory, and there is NO WAY the lost wallet analogy should be bandied around - it's offensive.
Although I agree that it's not possible or humane to uproot every Jew who is currently living on expropriated land and return the property to the descendants of the original residents, a much more realistic and respectful compensation must be agreed upon, not imposed.
But what of the thousands upon thousands of settlers who keep on building and moving into West Bank lands, in defiance of international law and with the full support of Israel's military and legal machinery? Who is going to dislodge them?
Will civil war be inevitable?
They cannot be left inside a Palestinian state, if in fact a 2-state solution is found. Nor, for that matter,can they be allowed to stay put if a federated single state is devised. In either case they could serve as handy casus belli for the right-wing Zionists and in the final analysis as pawns against the Arabs. This they probably know, which is why they are armed and dangerous and ultimately want control of the state.
(Forgive the length of this.)
But what of the thousands upon thousands of settlers who keep on building and moving into West Bank lands, in defiance of international law and with the full support of Israel's military and legal machinery? Who is going to dislodge them?
Will civil war be inevitable?
She says that she and the settlers are immovable. "We will stay here forever."
But one very important Israeli says she intends to move them out. She's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, a candidate to become prime minister in elections next month. She's also Israel's chief negotiator with the Palestinians, and she told 60 Minutes peace is unthinkable with the settlers where they are.
"Can you really imagine evacuating the tens of thousands of settlers who say they will not leave?" Simon asked.
"It's not going to be easy. But this is the only solution," she replied.
"But you know that there are settlers who say, 'We will fight. We will not leave. We will fight,'" Simon asked.
"So this is the responsibility of the government and police to stop them. As simple as that. Israel is a state of law and order," Livni said.
I didn't. I blamed Israel for stealing huge swaths of territory as a present to itself for winning the 1948 war.
Who are "they"? Did anyone ask the Palestinians through some democratic mechanism what their national goals were in the 1940s, or was everyone just assuming that the Arab League would tell us what Palestinians want?
Apparently you think its not okay for the Arabs to reject the 1947 partition plan, but it was perfectly acceptable for Israelis to reject it.
Can you explain for everyone here why you think it's okay for A to steal land from B if C, D and E attack A? Thanks.
I was wondering why no one replied to this unbelievably simplistic and offensive statement, the notion that the Palestinian people should be extremely grateful for a few crumbs in the form of a negotiated settlement from their benevolent Israeli masters even if the end goal is not what they want. Apparently, it appears that the problem with the Palestinians is only that they disagree with you, Stockholm, on what their future state should look like.
It's Stockholm. We're used to his offensive simplicity. He's our token anti-Arab racist.
This thread continues HERE.
Time To Break Free from Partition Straight Jacket
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=15445
"However, there is an alternative to despair--breaking free from the partition straight jacket and runaround and demanding democracy and equal rights for all in the unitary state which, de facto, has already existed for the past 42 years. If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is ever to be solved, peace-seekers must dare to speak openly and honestly of the "Zionism problem"--and thus to draw the moral, ethical and practical conclusions which follow.."
This thread continues HERE.
Closing.