babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Forget the two-state solution, part 2

skarredmunkey
Offline
Joined: Nov 24 2005

continued from here...

 

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.


Comments

Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

Quote:
1. The principle of a two-state solution probably should not be thrown out just because the power players behind the negotiations are corrupt. 

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.

Quote:
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".

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.

 

Quote:
 3. We can't ignore the possibility that conditions of Palestinians could deteriorate even worse than they are after a one-state solution.

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
5. Finally is the point that this all really depends on what Palestinians themselves want.

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:

Quote:
However, in February 2007 NEC found that around 70% of Palestinian respondents backed the idea when given a straight choice of either supporting or opposing "a one-state solution in historic Palestine where Muslims, Christians and Jews have equal rights and responsibilities".[5]

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?" 

 


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005
skarredmunkey wrote:

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. 


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

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


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

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.


saga
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2006
Ken Burch wrote:

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?

 

 

 


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

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


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005
saga wrote:
Ken Burch wrote:

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


Caissa
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2006
In all likelihood, we are probably looking ultimately  at a three state solution a la Pakistan, Bangladesh and India.

Stockholm
Online
Joined: Sep 29 2002

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?


skarredmunkey
Offline
Joined: Nov 24 2005
Frustrated Mess wrote:

Quote:
1. The principle of a two-state solution probably should not be thrown out just because the power players behind the negotiations are corrupt. 

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?

Quote:
How does that argument counter the Apartheid argument?...

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?

Quote:
Quote:
 3. We can't ignore the possibility that conditions of Palestinians could deteriorate even worse than they are after a one-state solution.
Worse? How?
You should do a search for what some in Likud, Shas, Neytenu and the National Union parties have in store for the Palestinians once they get their desired "Greater Israel".

Quote:
Quote:
5. Finally is the point that this all really depends on what Palestinians themselves want.
The majority of Paestinians elected Hamas who you say support a single state solution. So they have spoken, haven't they?
The election of Hamas doesn't prove anything related to the point you're trying to make. In fact, given that Hamas does not want the same kind of one-state solution wanted by you, me, Tony Judt and the LA Times article you originally quoted, you're actually hindering your own argument. The NEC poll and the Angus Reid poll cited by M. Spector, however does help your argument. Thank you for that.


skarredmunkey
Offline
Joined: Nov 24 2005

Caissa wrote:
In all likelihood, we are probably looking ultimately  at a three state solution a la Pakistan, Bangladesh and India.
I hope not, although its a distinct possibility! That old fascist John Bolton wanted a variant of a "three state solution", where Gaza becomes a part of Egypt and the West Bank goes to Jordan. Which should be enough proof to everyone that most people who label themselves "pro-Israel" are really just anti-Palestinian.


Stockholm wrote:
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?
They can, and should have their own country. But if having their own country means denying sovereignty and human rights to the Palestinians who have just as much right to self-determination as Israeli Jews, then there's a problem that just doesn't exist in the Quebec context isn't there?

Ken Burch wrote:
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.
LOL! Learn your Canadian history, sir! They would not be the first and they would not be the last to do such a thing. And it wouldn't be the "dissolution" of their country either. Zionism and bi-nationalism are completely compatible. A Jewish state does not have to mean an exclusively Jewish state.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

"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.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005
Stockholm wrote:

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?


Stockholm
Online
Joined: Sep 29 2002

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.


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

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


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

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


Stockholm
Online
Joined: Sep 29 2002
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?

M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

You really don't get the concept of an imperialist settler state, do you?


al-Qa'bong
Offline
Joined: Feb 27 2003

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

 

Tariq Ali wrote:

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.

 

Eric Hobsbawm wrote:

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.


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

Quote:
why can't people whose mother tongue is Hebrew in Israel also have their own country?

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?

Quote:
And what if it is a product Palestinian self-determination? Will you still support a one-state solution?

Grudgingly, yes. But I don't think that is a likelihood.

Quote:
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?

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.

Quote:
You should do a search for what some in Likud, Shas, Neytenu and the National Union parties have in store for the Palestinians once they get their desired "Greater Israel".

I have. What have I missed that is worse than  herding them into ghettos, starving them, brutalizing them, and bombing them? 

Quote:
The election of Hamas doesn't prove anything related to the point you're trying to make.

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.

 

 

 


Hoodeet
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2008

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.


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

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.  

 

 


Left Turn
Offline
Joined: Mar 28 2005

skarredmunkey wrote:
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.

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.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005
Left Turn wrote:

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. 


skarredmunkey
Offline
Joined: Nov 24 2005

Quote:
The 2-state solution still needs guarantees of a corridor between Gaza and the rest of the new country.

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.

Quote:
What have I missed that is worse than herding them into ghettos, starving them, brutalizing them, and bombing them?


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.


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

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


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

Quote:
 In other words, genocide.

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

 

 


al-Qa'bong
Offline
Joined: Feb 27 2003

Quote:
why can't people whose mother tongue is Hebrew in Israel also have their own country?

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.


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

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


Stockholm
Online
Joined: Sep 29 2002

"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.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments