Forget the two-state solution
Mon, 2008-05-12 18:26
#1
Frustrated Mess
Forget the two-state solution
Mon, 2008-05-12 18:26
#2
Frustrated Mess
quote:
Olmert himself warned recently, more Palestinians are shifting their struggle from one for an independent state to a South African-style struggle that demands equal rights for all citizens, irrespective of religion, in a single state. "That is, of course," he noted, "a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle -- and ultimately a much more powerful one."
[url=http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/suncommentary/la-op-makdisi11-2...
Tue, 2008-05-13 02:54
#3
If you could actually get such a state, it would of course be the best of all possible worlds. Could any decent person truly object?
Tue, 2008-05-13 05:53
#4
ceti
This one thing in which Gaddafi is not off his rocker (although his term, Israeltine, is an odd one). Edward Said also thought a unitary truly democratic state is the only viable option left. The true issue is the right of return for Palestinian refugees and the ongoing push for Jewish settlers. Demographics are the big issue here.
Tue, 2008-05-13 07:57
#5
I don't see one state as a viable solution. I have for years and continue to advocate a true 2 state solution.
Their are more issues than just right of return. I really don't know how the panacea dream of 1 state comes into being.
Tue, 2008-05-13 08:12
#6
Frustrated Mess
quote:
I don't see one state as a viable solution. I have for years and continue to advocate a true 2 state solution.
Its too late for that and it has always been a lie. End Apartheid Now! Oh, and read the article.
Tue, 2008-05-13 09:00
#7
I read the article. I still support a two state solution.
Tue, 2008-05-13 09:28
#8
Frustrated Mess
Then you support Israeli apartheid because that is only alternative to the single state being advocated by the article. The concept of a "two state" solution is a lie to be sold to gullible Westerners.
Argue with this (from the article):
quote:
A report published last summer by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs found that almost 40% of the West Bank is now taken up by Israeli infrastructure -- roads, settlements, military bases and so on -- largely off-limits to Palestinians. Israel has methodically broken the remainder of the territory into dozens of enclaves separated from each other and the outside world by zones that it alone controls (including, at last count, 612 checkpoints and roadblocks).Moreover, according to the report, the Jewish settler population in the occupied territories, already approaching half a million, not only continues to grow but is growing at a rate three times greater than the rate of Israel's population increase. If the current rate continues, the settler population will double to almost 1 million people in just 12 years. Many are heavily armed and ideologically driven, unlikely to walk away voluntarily from the land they have declared to be their God-given home.
These facts alone render the status of the peace process academic.
At no time since the negotiations began in the early 1990s has Israel significantly suspended the settlement process in the occupied Palestinian territories, in stark violation of international law. It preceded last November's Annapolis summit by announcing the fresh expropriation of Palestinian property in the West Bank; it followed the summit by announcing the expansion of its Har Homa settlement by an additional 307 housing units; and it has announced plans for hundreds more in other settlements since then.
The Israelis are not settling the occupied territories because they lack space in Israel itself. They are settling the land because of a long-standing belief that Jews are entitled to it simply by virtue of being Jewish. "The land of Israel belongs to the nation of Israel and only to the nation of Israel," declares Moledet, one of the parties in the National Union bloc, which has a significant presence in the Israeli parliament.
It's well past time we got beyond the juvenile constructs of a "two state" solution. If ever there was such a possibility, Israel suffocated it long ago. All that's left is equality or Apartheid. Israel has already chosen. Now we can choose to support the oppressed, or the inheritors of the wicked South African system of racist minority rule.
Tue, 2008-05-13 10:19
#9
To those who say that the only solution is a 1 state solution then I fear that a solution will never be found.
I have read the article, I have talked with many who want 1 or 2 states as a solution.
I do have one question to ask:
Which world leader is advocating a 1 state solution? I ask because to move from the accepted solution of 2 state to 1 will take a shift in world opinion.
Who is the world leader that will lead this charge?
I do not see anyone on the horizen who is advocating this at the government level.
Therefore until I see a viable alternative that nations around the globe discuss and advocate I will continue to fight for a true 2 state solution.
As a friend of mine said only last thursday as we looked for information about anti-Israel @ 60 events taking place on May 8 to counter the flag raising at Queen's Park adn the Ricoh event.
I wish the partition plan had just been accepted because Israel would be so much smaller today that it is and the Palestinian people would have a nation that is 60 years old instead of fighting for a dream to become reality.
Tue, 2008-05-13 11:34
#10
Frustrated Mess
quote:
Which world leader is advocating a 1 state solution? I ask because to move from the accepted solution of 2 state to 1 will take a shift in world opinion.
Nonsense. It takes a shift in Palestinian aspirations. That is already occurring.
Palestinians are already recognizing the futility of Abbas and his macabre dance with the Israelis and the neo-cons in Washington. As the article pointed out, while Palestinians negotiate at the table begging for crumbs, Israel digests the land "changing the facts on the ground." Negotiations are the diversion while the West Bank is further divided into Bantus and Palestinians from each other.
As for international opinion, the shift in support toward the Palestinian cause accelerates as the issue becomes one of universal human rights and a struggle against the oppression of a race based, discriminatory state as opposed to a struggle for something abstract, without form, and already dead.
All that is required is for Palestinian leadership to recognize that the right of return, justice, and equality lies not in the broken promises of corrupt American regime and Israeli duplicity, but in the concept of one land with one government founded on the principles of justice, equality, and secularism.
And there are elements within the Palestinian diaspora and within the West Bank and Gaza coming to this recognition. Eventually, the Israeli left will also if it hasn't already.
Tue, 2008-05-13 11:50
#11
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[b]As for international opinion, the shift in support toward the Palestinian cause accelerates as the issue becomes one of universal human rights and a struggle against the oppression of a race based, discriminatory state as opposed to a struggle for something abstract, without form, and already dead.[/b]
Really in which capitals? I really want to agree with you. I want to see a valid light at the end of the tunnel.
But what you are proposing is not event talked about in any corridor of any government building.
Now while the opinions and desires of the diaspora and Palestinians is of huge importance nothing will happen good, bad or indifferent without the UN or some other international body agreeing.
To date no one and I mean no one is talking of a 1 state solution.
Therefore change is needed. Who is leading the charge? Lets take away the right wing nutty neo-cons, lets take away the pseudo right wing libs in canada and elsewhere.
Who is it that will light the flame?
Is it Spain? France? Germany? Japan? Russia? China? England? Norway? Sweeden? Denmark? the list goes on and on. Not one state that I am aware of is pushing a 1 state solution.
So where do we go from here to move the discussion from 2 to 1?
Tue, 2008-05-13 11:54
#12
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
[b]I don't see one state as a viable solution. I have for years and continue to advocate a true 2 state solution.Their are more issues than just right of return. I really don't know how the panacea dream of 1 state comes into being.[/b]
And these issues are what?
Tue, 2008-05-13 17:48
#13
I'm so happy to come across this thread; I've always hated the two state "solution" although I think johnpauljones does have a point:
It has always been a given in the mainstream media that the two state solution is to be taken for granted; kinda like 1984 where even the idea of a unitary state solution has been burned down the memory hole and even the word or concept erased from the dictionary.
I thought forever.
This thread, and a number of other references, sound like maybe we are beginning to move in the direction of a unitary state solution.
I never dreamed I'd hear this seriously discussed!
Thanks...
Tue, 2008-05-13 18:48
#14
Frustrated Mess
quote:
But what you are proposing is not event talked about in any corridor of any government building.Now while the opinions and desires of the diaspora and Palestinians is of huge importance nothing will happen good, bad or indifferent without the UN or some other international body agreeing.
There is no state or unitary power, within a corridor or otherwise, that will act to resolve the Palestinian problem. Every government on earth supports the so-called two state solution, so where is it? Within every corridor of power on the planet there is support for the two state solution so why is there not two states? Because it is all bullshit. It is a soother for dreamers while Israel completes the digestion of the land and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
The only political solution for Palestinians will flow from Palestinians, not from any government. The so-called civilized world has forsaken Palestine. They tut-tut while looking away as they are humiliated and butchered. If Palestinians know anything by now surely it must be that their salvation will not come from any government.
quote:
To date no one and I mean no one is talking of a 1 state solution.
Because Palestinians are not anyone?
The Palestinians held a conference on a single sate solution in Spain. More and more Palestinians are arriving at the conclusion, as they must, that the lie of a two state solution only serves the interests of the oppressors.
So Palestinians are speaking in louder and more numerous voices of a single state solution. And they are not no one. Neither are they alone.
quote:
The one-state solution for Palestine-Israel is "gaining ground," a senior UN diplomat has admitted in a leaked confidential report. Recently retired UN special envoy Alvaro de Soto wrote "that the combination of [Palestinian Authority] institutional decline and Israeli settlement expansion is creating a growing conviction among Palestinians and Israeli Arabs, as well as some Jews on the far left in Israel that the two State solutiuon's best days are behind it."
[url=http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7025.shtml]http://electronicinti...
quote:
Tue, 2008-05-13 18:55
#15
Thanks!
Wed, 2008-05-14 06:38
#16
Calling someone a "supporter of Israeli apartheid" for stating he supports a two state solution is morally equivalent to calling someone "anti-semitic" for supporting a one state solution. Neither should be permitted by the moderators.
[ 14 May 2008: Message edited by: Caissa ]
[ 14 May 2008: Message edited by: Caissa ]
Wed, 2008-05-14 07:07
#17
Frustrated Mess
quote:
Calling someone a "supporter of Israeli apartheid" for stating he supports a two state solution is morally equivalent to calling someone "anti-semitic" for supporting a one state solution. Neither should be permitted by the moderators.
Deliberately misrepresenting what someone said should not be allowed by the moderators.
There is, in Israel, a de facto single state. Israel does not call the West Bank and Gaza the "disputed territories" due to the lack of a better term.
If we acknowledge a single state, then the issue becomes one of equality and human rights - a struggle against a racist system of division - Apartheid.
If we adhere to the "two state" ruse, then we are advocating for the continuation and consolidation of an Apartheid system throughout the West Bank and Gaza and the continued social and military pressure on Palestinian populations to leave.
Those are the options.
Wed, 2008-05-14 07:10
#18
Caissa is right. Please do not call other babblers supporters of Apartheid, even if you really, really feel they are. Because I'm sure other babblers really, really feel that supporting a one-state solution or criticizing Israel or using the term "Israeli Apartheid" is The New Antisemitism(tm), but that doesn't mean they're allowed to accuse you of supporting anti-semitism.
See how that works? I know we all fall into this trap, me included.
Wed, 2008-05-14 07:14
#19
Cueball
Well the two state solution as proposed is actually not a state, but a jurisdiction. It would have no resource rights, no control over borders, no army, not right to inviolable air space etc, etc. In other words there is a very good case to be made for the idea that two states are actually one state with a semi-sutonomous Bhantustan filled with people without status in the superior state.
This sounds to me like...
Wed, 2008-05-14 08:01
#20
N.Beltov
Re Cueball's remark: That's the general main point of those who view the two-state solution as an impossible fiction. We have many decades of opportunity for the Israelis to help the establishment of a Palestinian state. What do we see?
We see efforts at various infant states strangled at birth. And we see a pattern of this over decades. So it is not only that the outline of such a state is flawed, in the way that Cueball has elaborated, but also, and perhaps more importantly, we have a history of stillborn or dead infant Palestinian states. At some point the objective observer has to conclude that the dominant Israeli state will never allow a viable Palestinian state to take root. We see: the construction of MORE settlements, and more kilometers of Apartheid walls, and more divide and rule efforts, and more imprisonment of elected Palestinian Parliamentarians, as Israel descends into more "exceptional" laws as it imprisons and tortures more of its victims.
If a two-state solution proposal is a means to compel the Israelis to negotiate then great. But if it is merely an evil means to delay and deny justice, as it mostly is right now, then the Palestinians, and those who actually view them as human beings capable of governing themselves, should simply support the most realistic long-term solution, stop talking to the Israelis entirely, and work on a massive civil rights movements and on making Israel and the occupied territories ungovernable. Bankrupt the fuckers. That's something that Israel's financier, the USA, understands very well.
Wed, 2008-05-14 09:01
#21
quote:
I don't see one state as a viable solution.
It is hard to envisage a system in which both peoples would have confidence that the state was willing to protect THEM.
I suppose Lebanon gives a window on the kind of situation which might then exist; an ongoing fight by two peoples to control the internal workings of the state.
I don't think Palestinians are likely to give up on the idea of a Palestinian state, nor will Israelis just give up their state.
So, it seems much easier to allow for two states, each of which protects "its" primary nationality, while excluding the other group from too much interference internally.
Wed, 2008-05-14 09:39
#22
Frustrated Mess
quote:
So, it seems much easier to allow for two states, each of which protects "its" primary nationality, while excluding the other group from too much interference internally.
It seems easier to whom? After sixty years without any progress, the Gaza Strip reduced to a concentration camp under siege and the West Bank broken, divided, and occupied by settlers, where is the ease? How does a viable Palestinian state arise out of that?
quote:
I suppose Lebanon gives a window on the kind of situation which might then exist; an ongoing fight by two peoples to control the internal workings of the state.
How would the Lebanese manage without the interference of other powers? Between Israel, the U.S., Iran, and Syria, where is there room for Lebanese reconciliation? It is not the Lebanese who are at war. It is the the US, her pit bull, and the 'axis of evil". The Lebanese are victims in a game of power beyond their control.
quote:
I don't think Palestinians are likely to give up on the idea of a Palestinian state, nor will Israelis just give up their state.
Neither gives up anything. Palestinians just become citizens and equal in their own country.
Wed, 2008-05-14 10:31
#23
N.Beltov
It's probably worthwhile to point out that Israeli proponents of a single democratic state, like Ilan Pappe for example, see the continuation of the present ethnic cleansing and advocacy of two states by his countrymen as part and parcel of a whole strategy in which as little land (none if possible) is conceded to the Palestinians, and as few Palestinians as possible (none, again, is preferred) are allowed to live on the slivers of land assigned to them.
Pappe points out that this strategy has been unchanged since the beginning of the ethnic cleansing in 1948, mistakenly called "the catastrophe" or [i]Al Nakba[/i] (see below), and that it is likely to continue until the goal of zero land for zero Palestinians, or as close to that as humanly possible, is achieved.
quote:
Ilan Pappe (Vancouver, 2008): The second term, and this is more to my Palestinian friends, I think they made a mistake which, I know where it comes from, but I think it was a great mistake to call the events of 1948 "Nabqa". A catastrophe. Catastrophe can be a natural catastrophe. There's no one to be blamed when there is a catastrophe. Everybody suffers from a catastrophe. The Palestinians for so many years were in love with this term and never understood the passivity that comes from this term.It was a beautiful term as far as the Israelis were concerned. In fact, many Israelis [i]on the right wing[/i] - I can show you Israeli historians [laughs] on the right wing - who adopted the term Nabqa. They [i]like[/i] it. They say:
"Yes! There was a catastrophe for the Palestinians. Terrible things. Really. [Cups his hand over his ear as if he is hard of hearing] Who caused it? Well, you know... global warming, maybe. I dunno."
Nobody's responsible for catastrophes! [b]This is the reason I decided, after many hesitations, to use the term "ethnic cleansing". Because ethnic cleansing is not a catastrophe. It's a human crime. In fact, it is defined as a crime against humanity. And where you have a crime you have criminals. And where you have a crime you have a way of solving the crime.[/b] And I think if we will use these terms more openly, and will train ourselves to use them more openly, we would be able to defeat all these accusations that are directed against those of us who support the Palestinian cause.
Wed, 2008-05-14 10:40
#24
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]It is hard to envisage a system in which both peoples would have confidence that the state was willing to protect THEM.[/b]
From what? Suicide bombing? Random rocket attacks? Road blocks? Pillaging youths dressed up as soldiers?
Wed, 2008-05-14 12:35
#25
quote:
Posted by N. Beltov: Pappe points out that this strategy has been unchanged since the beginning of the ethnic cleansing in 1948, mistakenly called "the catastrophe" or Al Nakba (see below), and that it is likely to continue until the goal of zero land for zero Palestinians, or as close to that as humanly possible, is achieved.
Well, if that's the goal, the Israelis have been doing a rather bad job of it.
According to this website, the Arab population in Israel proper has grown from 159,000 in 1949 to 1.4 million in 2006. The Arab population in the occupied territories has grown from less than a million to about 4 million in the same time period.
[url=http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/populationpalestine.html#graph6]... Population Statistics[/url]
Wed, 2008-05-14 13:33
#26
quote:
It is hard to envisage a system in which both peoples would have confidence that the state was willing to protect THEM.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From what? Suicide bombing? Random rocket attacks? Road blocks? Pillaging youths dressed up as soldiers?
I guess you do not understand that, in fact, Palestinians have a deep distrust of the Jewish state, and correspondingly, Israeli Jews would not trust a Palestinian state to protect them.
However, I have no doubt that it could be empirically proven that each of these populations feel that way, hence the "two-state solution". The alternative would simply force one population to knuckle under.
Forgetting a two-state solution is, in practice, just taking one side or the other. It won't bring piece, but hey, what do you care, you live in Canada!
Wed, 2008-05-14 13:57
#27
Ultimately there will need to be some sort of power-sharing arrangement between Israelis and Palestinians.
Wed, 2008-05-14 14:02
#28
Cueball
It is going to happen sooner or later. Its just a matter of time now, and how much blood is shed in the cause of the hindbound.
Wed, 2008-05-14 14:37
#29
Frustrated Mess
quote:
Forgetting a two-state solution is, in practice, just taking one side or the other. It won't bring piece, but hey, what do you care, you live in Canada!
if that is your view, then certainly, like Harper and Bush, we must choose a side to support and another to defeat. Because there is no two states nor is there any reasonable expectation there ever will be.
Those who speak of a two-state solution are speaking, really, of the permanent oppression, dispossession, and denial of aspiration for the Palestinian people.
If you disagree with me, demonstrate for me a single positive indicator of any real possibility of a Palestinian state.
What has the recent negotiations delivered to the Palestinians? US arms for Abbas' paramilitaries to be used against Palestinian civilians and not a thing more.
Yet, the settlement building, the wall, and pass laws. the humiliations, the brutality, the killings, the siege, all remain in place and unchanged.
The two-state solution is a cruel joke.
The ANC has already invented the wheel that can free the Palestinians.
Wed, 2008-05-14 14:41
#30
Wasn't a single state the solution the PLO was pushing, at least in the time of Arafat?
Wouldn't that give us a secular state with the normal western separations between church and state?
Which leaves demographics. Which leads either to apartheid or...Ireland?
Wed, 2008-05-14 14:52
#31
Frustrated Mess
Or Canada.
And I do not believe Arafat was ever a promoter of a single state made up of Jews and Arabs with equal rights. But I could be wrong ...
Wed, 2008-05-14 14:57
#32
FM, while not opposed in principle to one state, NONE of the major actors who will have to negotiate a comprehensive peace favour this.
The Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority favour a two-state solution. Hamas and Islamic Jihad favour a single religiously-based Islamic state, while signalling that they might accept a two-state solution under certain circumstances.
If and when the majority (or a significant plurality) of Israelis and Palestinians support a single secular democratic state, I suspect the negotiating stances of their governments will change to reflect this.
Until then, two states (one with a Jewish majority and the other with a Arab majority) still seems like the best solution.
Wed, 2008-05-14 14:58
#33
Cueball
That is what is in the orginial PLO 1964 Charter. But the general vision was in keeping with all of the Arab proposal's dating from the time that partition was being actively talked about.
In fact, the two state solution only came into existance when Yasser Arfat took it upon himself to renounce a claim on the entire parcel of the "Palestine mandate" west of the Jordan, giving up 70%. It is questionable wether or not he had the authority to do this, and he more or less rammed it down the throat of the PNA.
Regardless, the Palestinian government is not putting forward any position on the "two state" solution, because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate with it, instead negotiating with Abbas. But you are right "offocially" Hamas and Islamic Jihad accept the Zionist model of government, but based in Islam.
[ 14 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Wed, 2008-05-14 15:05
#34
I think Michael Petrou's cover story from a recent issue of MacLean's is both on-topic and an interesting read: [url=http://www.macleans.ca/world/global/article.jsp?id=0&content=20080423_11...
Wed, 2008-05-14 15:08
#35
Frustrated Mess
John K, you are missing the point. Palestinians are now speaking of a single state solution. That the people are ahead of their, in the case of Hamas, elected representatives is not unusual.
I have already included this above which to speaks to the growing support:
quote:
The one-state solution for Palestine-Israel is "gaining ground," a senior UN diplomat has admitted in a leaked confidential report. Recently retired UN special envoy Alvaro de Soto wrote "that the combination of [Palestinian Authority] institutional decline and Israeli settlement expansion is creating a growing conviction among Palestinians and Israeli Arabs, as well as some Jews on the far left in Israel that the two State solutiuon's best days are behind it."[url=http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7025.shtml]http://electronicinti...
The other point that your missing, and let me make this very clear as many seem to have missed it: THERE IS NOT A TWO-STATE SOLUTION.
There just isn't. Talking about it like there is doesn't make it so. However, there is only one state of Israel exercising military and political control over a large number of Palestinians without civil nor legal rights. So doesn't it make sense to work with the reality rather than the fantasy?
Wed, 2008-05-14 16:53
#36
Acceptance of the two state solution is ignoring that this "accomodation" was gained by "negotiating" with an oppressed and subject people literally with a gun to their heads.
Where's the dignity or solution in this?
quote:
Forgetting a two-state solution is, in practice, just taking one side or the other. It won't bring piece, but hey, what do you care, you live in Canada!
I think that everyone participating in this discussion cares very deeply about finding a solution.
I'm troubled by the notion that there ought to be some sort of neutrality or equality between those who call the two state solution "Isreali apartheid" and those who term a unitary state solution "The New Anti-Semitism".
This makes no sense to me because the State of Israel is located on what use to be called Palestine; outsiders carved it up and gave away land to desperate jewish refugees after World War two. So, in effect, the Palestinians are paying the price for the persecution of the jews by fascist europe.
If I have the narative correct; that the west displaced the Palestinians to make room for the State of Israel, then that was a racist and injust policy; the Israeli flag has a star of David emblazoned on it. The knesset has a mennorah in front of it...
Now, as someone who use to be a huge supporter of the state of Israel (and still maintains a deep and loving respect for the jewish people), I wouldn't necessarily throw the term "Israeli apartheid" around willy nilly, but frankly, when push comes to shove, the term is deeply correct and justified and gives new insight to what is happening.
In my view, there is nothing wrong in using the term "Israeli apartheid" in referring to the two state solution and the facts on the ground bear this out.
Someone said that this term is "historically" inaccurate. True, but my understanding is that the term "concentration camp" was first used in reference to the British policy against the Boars of South Africa, but nobody would have a problem with using that term today in reference to the Nazis against the jews.
By not using the term or treating it as equally offensive as cries of "The New Anti-Semitism" we demonstrate a lack of solidarity with leftist groups organizing around this issue who use this term daily.
Picking sides is exactly what the left ought to be doing in this case. That does not mean that I'm anti-semitic (we all know that the Palestinians are a semitic people, right?)
Yes, it is jarring - just like when I realized for the first time that the colonization of North America is founded on genocide. Or when I visited Israel and realized all I had previously deeply believed in was all wrong.
Using the term "genocide" as it relates to our treatment of the natives has helped me to come to terms with the reality on the ground where I live. The term "Israeli apartheid" has given me a deeper understanding of what is unfolding in Palestine.
Wed, 2008-05-14 22:19
#37
"This makes no sense to me because the State of Israel is located on what use to be called Palestine; outsiders carved it up and gave away land to desperate jewish refugees after World War two. So, in effect, the Palestinians are paying the price for the persecution of the jews by fascist europe."
It had nothing to do with European fascism. The plan for a Zionist state predates WWII by about 40 years:
"We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back."
Theodor Herzl, 1895
It's rather sinister to consider that a small interest group could exert so much hidden power behind the public political spectrum. It's certainly naive to consider the Holocaust as the cause for the destruction of Palestine.
[url=http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story643.h...
[ 14 May 2008: Message edited by: viigan ]
Thu, 2008-05-15 03:30
#38
It's difficult to conceive of a time when there was an independent state of Palestine. Indeed, the territory commonly referred to Palestine has almost always been part of a larger empire. Prior to the British Mandate, the area was part of the Ottoman Empire.
If my memory serves me correctly, UNSCOP considered three options: partition, unitary state and a federated state. The Committee recommened the first while a minority report recommending the last was filed. The General Assembly accepted the partition proposal.
Israel needs to change its attitude and behaviour in order for a two state solution to be implemented. Given the very uneven power relationships a modern UNSCOP might be helpful. I think a two state solution would eventually become a three state solution a la India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
I suppose those suggesting a unitary state would want such a state to be a modern secular one. Israel is struggling with attempting to develop a Constitution which is held back by the disproportionate influence the rabbinate hold. One cannot even get a secular marriage in Israel and divorce rights for women are quite sexist.
I see the likelihood of a two state solution being greater than a unitary state solution.
Thu, 2008-05-15 04:00
#39
Frustrated Mess
quote:
I see the likelihood of a two state solution being greater than a unitary state solution.
This is like a religious belief. There [i]is[/i] a unitary state. It is not a likelihood. It is fact. The two states exist in the same realm as Santa Claus and the tooth fairy and you enjoy the same likelihood as a visit on Christmas day or with the loss of a tooth.
Thu, 2008-05-15 04:48
#40
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[b]The two states exist in the same realm as Santa Claus and the tooth fairy and you enjoy the same likelihood as a visit on Christmas day or with the loss of a tooth.[/b]
Or FM you could be wrong.
many here have spent a considerable amount of time to show that my thoughts are wrong. To show that the only solution is this panacea of a 1 state solution.
Very simply the opposite might just be true. None of us know 100% what the final result will be. None of us know 100% what agreement will be reached/found/agreed upon to settle what is now a 60 year dispute.
But the possibility does exist that the answer is not 1 state but 2.
For all of the reasons that are said as to why I and others who believe in a 2 state solution are wrong the converse also exists.
How do I know? Well since the "world" talks more of a 2 state than a 1 state solution. And since I am still waiting for world leders of any way shape or form to endorse a 1 state solution.
We both could be wrong. Maybe the solution will be a 1, 2 or even a 3 state solution.
maybe their is no solution.
Of one thing I am certain. No one on babble is in the inner circle of any negotiating team [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]
Thu, 2008-05-15 05:21
#41
Boom Boom
George Bush was talking to the Knesset an hour ago, and guaranteed Israel of the USA's unconditional and continuing support, as its No. 1 ally and friend in the world. In the first twenty minutes of his speech, Bush never once mentioned Palestine. Then, he took a shot at Obama by saying anyone who sits down to talk to Hamas or Iran is guilty of appeasement (kind of ironic, as Bush's defense secretary said just yesterday someone will have to sit down and talk to Iran - heard that on CNN just a minute ago). I wonder if the Democrats will have a different policy with Israel compared to the Bushniks?
Thu, 2008-05-15 05:33
#42
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[b]I wonder if the Democrats will have a different policy with Israel compared to the Bushniks?[/b]
The short answer is no. Their is no difference between Dems and Repubs when it comes to Israel.
Thu, 2008-05-15 05:41
#43
FM wrote: The two states exist in the same realm as Santa Claus and the tooth fairy and you enjoy the same likelihood as a visit on Christmas day or with the loss of a tooth.
Excellent analysis FM.
Thu, 2008-05-15 06:21
#44
N.Beltov
The "two states" in their current status could be compared to the Canadian government versus a number of Indian Reserves in Canada [b][i]at the time of Indian Agents, pass laws, and the like in this country.[/i][/b] Say, around 1948. Now isn't that a coincidence?
Mind you, the Canadian government hasn't bombed an Indian Reserve in a while, whereas Israel not only bombs, but carries out targeted assassinations, arrests elected leaders (like Canada), cuts power to the water supply, supports armed conflict among the Palestinians via local quislings, constructs Jewish-only roads, carries out a zillion daily humiliations, some of which lead to the death of their victims, rips families apart, and continues with the ethnic cleansing.
It's like Canada 60 years ago, only worse. Those are the "two states" that "supporters" of Israel are selling. Except that Israel, unlike Canada, is being supplied billions in military hardware and "aid" every year by the USA, and others, to ensure that it keeps a firm grip around the throat of its victim.
Two states: a fake democracy and a state of terror. What could be more reasonable?
Thu, 2008-05-15 06:33
#45
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[b]Then, he took a shot at Obama by saying anyone who sits down to talk to Hamas or Iran is guilty of appeasement (kind of ironic, as Bush's defense secretary said just yesterday someone will have to sit down and talk to Iran - heard that on CNN just a minute ago). I wonder if the Democrats will have a different policy with Israel compared to the Bushniks?[/b]
Did he specifically say Iran?
Here's one quote from Bush:
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President said to the country's legislative body, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Based on this, I figured it was more of a shot at Jimmy Carter.
Thu, 2008-05-15 07:00
#46
N.Beltov
quote:
Jeff Halper of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions: It turns out, however, that we have mechanisms for both delaying forever a political solution and avoiding the predicament of apartheid. It is enough that we maintain a de facto apartheid since, for the vast majority of Israeli Jews, it is enough to merely assert a two-state solution, to profess to support it as a general idea, in order to [be] considered peace-minded.
Hence the [i]idea[/i] of two states is, for many Israelis, a means for [i]avoiding[/i] peace.
quote:
Halper: After sixty years, however, several fundamental developments have materialized which were not anticipated by the Zionist movement nor Israel's found[ers], but which must be squarely acknowledged and addressed. [b]First, the vast majority of Jews did not and will not come to Israel.[/b] Israeli Jews represent, if emigrants are factored in, less than a third of the world Jewish community. Only 1% of American Jews ever came, and most of them are religious, even ultra-orthodox Jews, or the elderly, who live there only part-time. The reservoir of potential Jewish immigrants has been exhausted. [b]Second, some 30% of Israel's population -- almost 50% if we include the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories who, it seems, will stay permanently under Israeli rule -- are not Jews.[/b] This is the Demographic Bomb, made even more threatening to a "Jewish state" by the fact that the Palestinians are a people whose national rights can no longer be denied. Israel/Palestine is a b-national country which somehow must either be partitioned or shared. And [b]finally,[/b] the greatest irony of all, [b]it is Israel, by its own hand, through its massive settlement project, that has foreclosed partition and created a thoroughly bi-national entity which can only lead to a one state or apartheid. [/b]
One state or Apartheid. Take your pick. But we already know what happened to the other Apartheid state.
[url=http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/halper140508.html]Rethinking Israel after Sixty Years[/url]
[ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Thu, 2008-05-15 07:27
#47
N.Beltov
Here's a link to a music video about Al-quds (Jerusalem) and some powerful imagery showing what it's like to live in an occupied city:
[url=http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4x45o_alquds-jerusalem-par-fairouz_mus... - Jerusalem par Fairouz[/url]
Two states: children with slingshots versus Merkava tanks.
[ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Thu, 2008-05-15 10:35
#48
"Pass laws" are laws which require an individual to reside in a reserve, and to obtain permission to work outside of the reserve.
Canada has never had "pass laws." It has always been legally possible for native people to reside anywhere in Canada, and work there, too.
The Jay Treaty in the 1790's also established the right of native peoples to live and work both within Canada or within the United States.
Many other treaties confirm these, and other principles of movement.
A place which actually did have "pass laws" was the USSR, which did not allow people to move from their collective farms, or work in cities, without express permission.
Thu, 2008-05-15 10:51
#49
The one state solution is a dream in technicolour.
Such a solution is possible only when two sides are prepared for it.
Is Israel prepared for it. No, because it wants a Jewish State.
Are the Palestinians prepared for it?
No, because as a poll showed on the West Bank, the Palestinians want the West Bank "judenrein" (meaning empty of Jews)(although one fifth of the Israeli population is made up of Arab -Palestinian Israelis.
Historically the Jews , like the Christians, in Muslim lands have been regarded as second class citizens. Are Muslims prepared to see Jews as first class citizens?
The Lebanon is an excellent example of how groups with a history of hostility tear each other apart,
though they've lived together for centuries.
Egypt's Christian Copts , who have lived with their Muslim neighbours for millenia, are Egypt's second class citizens though they are regarded as the nation's Pharonic "first nations" people. There are many thousands of Copt exiles living around the world , claiming they were not able to live in their homeland, arising from discrimination.
And you want to force Israelis and Palestinians to live together? Until the majority of Israelis and Palestinians agree to join in one nation, it remains an abstract idea for the future but nothing based on sound footing for the present.
While you're at it, why not suggest that Canada join the U.S. to make up one happy country. Wouldn't that end irritants between the two countries?
Wake up!
Thu, 2008-05-15 11:13
#50
Frustrated Mess
quote:
I am still waiting for world leders of any way shape or form to endorse a 1 state solution.
Wait no longer ...
quote:
Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence, founded on the "natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate." What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David — a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael.-- George Bush in one of the most racist, hate filled, and extremist religious speeches in modern memory.
If the Palestinians don't understand their position vis-a-vis the US and Israel after that speech, they never will, although I predict Abbas will remain a quisling.
Oh, a link for anyone who can stomach the white supremacist garbage: [url=http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gHfbEvHEtbbkQsJG_M1W8BWz1S6AD90M6OD80...
[ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
Thu, 2008-05-15 12:57
#51
FM I may be wrong but didn't BenGurion announce the formation after the partition vote of the UN?
Therefore the UN created the State of Israel with their partition plan. Or am I wrong?