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

Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

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.




M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

Sven wrote:
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.

Did you read the One-State Declaration I posted above at #80? Among its demands is this:

Quote:
• 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

Resolution 194 contains these words (Article 11):

Quote:
Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

Wikipedia sez:

Quote:
The United Nations General Assembly has passed a resolution every year since the passage of UNGAR 194 which reaffirms the consensus of world opinion in support of Article 11, that the Palestinian refugees be permitted to return to their 1948 homes, and those who choose not to return should be compensated for the financial losses they suffered. Aside from some rare family reunifications which have been completely discontinued, Israel has never permitted any of the refugees to return to their homes, nor has any compensation been paid to the refugees for their property which was confiscated by Israel.


Sven
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2005
Frustrated Mess wrote:

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!!!


Sven
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2005
M. Spector wrote:

Resolution 194 contains these words (Article 11):

Quote:
Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

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!!!


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

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.


Sven
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2005
M. Spector wrote:

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!!!


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

Quote:
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?

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.

 


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003
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.

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

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? 


al-Qa'bong
Offline
Joined: Feb 27 2003
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.

Hoodeet
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2008

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. 


Hoodeet
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2008

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.)


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

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?

Quote:
"The settlers, the attitude that I present here, this is the heart. This is the pulse. This is the past, present, and future of the Jewish state," Daniella Weiss told Simon.

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.

Source

skarredmunkey
Offline
Joined: Nov 24 2005

Stockholm wrote:
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.

I didn't. I blamed Israel for stealing huge swaths of territory as a present to itself for winning the 1948 war.

Quote:
If they had accepted that deal in 1947

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.

Quote:
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".

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.


al-Qa'bong
Offline
Joined: Feb 27 2003

Quote:
I was wondering why no one replied to this unbelievably simplistic and offensive statement...

It's Stockholm.  We're used to his offensive simplicity.  He's our token anti-Arab racist.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

This thread continues HERE.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 27 2008

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.."


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

M. Spector wrote:

This thread continues HERE.


Maysie
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2005

Closing.


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