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

109 replies [Last post]

Comments

M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

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!


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002
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?

Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

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


Sven
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2005

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!!!


al-Qa'bong
Offline
Joined: Feb 27 2003

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.

 

Quote:
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?

I suppose there are no rules against reducing arguments to absurdity on babble.

 


Sven
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2005
al-Qa'bong wrote:

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!!!


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003

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.Wink


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

"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%.


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003

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? 


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

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


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

Quote:
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?

If that was their aim philosophically, politically, and legislatively, yes.

Quote:
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.

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.

 

 


toddsschneider
Offline
Joined: Jun 24 2004
Ken Burch wrote:
... 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 ...

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.


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003

Can you not pursue your anti-franophone campaign on this thread?

Thanks, in advance.


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005
Frustrated Mess wrote:

Quote:

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


toddsschneider
Offline
Joined: Jun 24 2004

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.


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003

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. 


wwSwimming
Offline
Joined: May 1 2006

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


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

wwSwimming wrote:

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?


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

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


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

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


toddsschneider
Offline
Joined: Jun 24 2004

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.


al-Qa'bong
Offline
Joined: Feb 27 2003
Ken Burch wrote:

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.

Eretz Israel

Source

 

Quote:
On 04 September 2001 a demonstration was held in Jerusalem to support of the Idea of the State Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. It was organised by the movement Bead Artzein ("For the Homeland"), headed by rabbi and historian Avrom Shmulevic from Hebron. According to Shmulevic, "We shall have no peace as long as the whole territory of the Land of Israel will not return under Jewish control.... A stable peace will come only then, when Israel will return to itself all its historical lands, and will thus control both the Suez and the Ormudz channel.... We must remember that Iraqi oil fields too are located on the Jewish land."


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

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


Sven
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2005

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!!!


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

Why don't you tell us? It seems you know the answer.




Sven
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2005
Frustrated Mess wrote:

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!!!


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

Is that what you support? If so, state it.




Sven
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2005
Frustrated Mess wrote:

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!!!


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

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.




Sven
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2005
Frustrated Mess wrote:

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!!!


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