Forget the two-state solution, part 2

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hoodeet

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

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 M. Spector's picture

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.

[url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/23/60minutes/main4749723_page3.sh...

skarredmunkey

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

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 M. Spector's picture
NDPP

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 M. Spector's picture
Maysie Maysie's picture

Closing.

Pages

Topic locked