Single State solution to Israeli Palestinian conflict

[nicky g]

Below is an Observer (Sunday sister paper of the Guardian) article the possibility of a single-state solution to the conflict. Not sure what I think abut it, and doubt it's very realistic (a lot of people on the Israeli right no doubt envisage a similar solution, but without any Palestinians still living there), but worth a read. I think Barak's worries at the bottom are telling. Any comments?


Gaza shifts to a new solution (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1041728,00.html)


Palestinians search for options as chances of two states recede, reports Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem

Sunday September 14, 2003
The Observer

He smiles and raises his two fingers in a sign of victory, gazing over the thousands of supporters that have flocked to his side to protect him.
Yasser Arafat last week escaped from the political margins thanks to the Israeli government's declaration to 'remove' him on Thursday.

International pressure may prevent Israel from carrying out its threat but its policies in the West Bank and Gaza, according to Palestinian and Israeli analysts, are slowly strangling any prospect of Arafat's dream, a viable Palestinian state, becoming a reality.

As the death toll mounts from the war between the Israeli government and Hamas, the bulldozers are busy, clearing more land for the separation fence, for new houses in the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and new roads to weld the settlements onto the state of Israel.

Ghassan Khatib, the Palestinian Minister of Labour, said that as each mile of the separation fence and each new settlement house was built, 'the viability of a two-state solution is less and less. A large number of Palestinians realise that a Palestinian state is no longer practical'.

Since 1988 the widely preferred solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, the two-state solution. In the past year, Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister, and Presi dent George W. Bush have also adopted this vision.

But growing numbers of Palestinians and Israelis are realising that a point may have been reached where it is impossible for Israel to disengage from the West Bank and Gaza and leave room and resources for a viable Palestinian state.

Khatib believes the only way forward for Palestinians is to accept Israel's control and demand equal rights, an idea that is gaining momentum among Palestinians.

'When I used to analyse opinion polls, it was clear that support for the one-state solution was a fast-growing trend although still a minority. Sooner or later things will need to move in that direction and the fault will lie with Israel's right-wing parties,' he said.

In a document sent to the United States last year, the PLO warned: 'If the international community continues to remain unwilling to rein in Israeli settlement construction and expansion, irreversible facts on the ground and the de facto apartheid system such facts create will force Palestinian policy-makers to re-evaluate the plausibility of a two-state solution.'

The road network which serves the Israeli West Bank settlements is integrated with the Israeli network as are telecommunications, electricity and water. In many areas it is not clear where the West Bank begins and Israel ends.

Israeli settlements have become so entrenched in the West Bank that according to Diana Buttu, a legal adviser to the PLO, the only direction for the Palestinians would be to call for equality in a single state for both Arabs and Israelis.

However, such a state would lose its already slim Jewish majority within a few years because of the high Arab birth rate and the low Jewish birth rate. Currently there are 5.4 million Jews and 4.93m Arabs on the territories controlled by Israel. According to projections, in 2020 there will be 6.69m Jews and 8.49m Arabs.

A former Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak, who is preparing for a return to politics, emphasised the danger in an article last week in the Israeli daily, Yedioth Ahronoth. He wrote that Sharon's failure to act decisively in creating a Palestinian state would 'endanger the whole Zionist enterprise'.

Furthermore, he could already discern a Palestinian position coming to the fore which demands not 'two states for two peoples', but one state from west of the Jordan River.

'However, (and so the Palestinians will demand) this should conform to the spirit of the twenty-first century, i.e. be democratic, secular, with "one citizen, one vote." This position is liable to gain support from large parts of the world, as long as no acceptable Israeli plan is on the table,' Barak wrote.

[Gamblor]

Of course Barak's worries are telling - the Zionist enterprise is what has prevented Jews from virtual extinction.

To you and most of the posters here, religion may not be an issue. But perhaps the reaon Jews have survived for millenia in the face of near-constant threats of destruction, is its connection to its past and its religion. Zionism is for Jews only, nobody can deny that. But it is a response to the millenia of persecution that, real or imagined, Israelis believe still exists today. So unfortunately, Israelis take Zionism very seriously and do not believe a non-Jewish state will be safe for them. Even a Jewish state isn't particularly safe. Imagine how they feel about an Arab AND Jewish state.

[Cyrus]

"Currently there are 5.4 million Jews and 4.93m Arabs on the territories controlled by Israel. According to projections, in 2020 there will be 6.69m Jews and 8.49m Arabs."

My personal fantasy is for the year 2020 to have 15 million semites of one, single, completely and inexorably mixed race. Something for the rest of the Middle East region to be able to aspire for. (Hell, the world itself.)

[Chris Alger]

This is exciting stuff. The two-state solution was always a crude and unfair compromise and any that Isreal and the U.S. will tolerate would amount to a bantustans. After Arafat agreed to hand it to Rabin on a platter, the Israeli right had nowhere to go except to redouble its efforts to crush Palestinian nationalism. It's on the verge of finally succeeding to the extent that killing off the PA equals success. But it might have only succeeded in destroying Isreal's ability to use a complaint, corrupt and repressive PA to keep the lid on the natives while Israel owns the choice parts of Palestine (and the roads, the water, immigration, the electromagnetic spectrum, the borders, etc.). Note how U.S. and some Israeli spokespeople were visibly upset upon realizing that Sharon had engineered Abbas's downfall. Perhaps let the rightests beg for a separate state as a price for ethnocracy and make the mainstream position a return to a unified Palestine (or Israel or Isrealistine or whatever).

[B-Man]

It's a great solution if you want to see the Jews repressed and eventually exterminated. No wonder Alger loves it.

This will never happen. Israel would have to be stupid to agree to this (and it might be dumb, but it is not stupid!).

[Chris Alger]

"the Zionist enterprise is what has prevented Jews from virtual extinction"

So if it hadn't been for Israel, Jews in the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, Latin America, Australia and elsewhere would have become extinct, presumably exterminated at the hands of their governments? And all of these countries were prevented by and only by Israel from replicating the holocaust?

The idea that only Israel prevents Jews from being massacred everywhere is is a prevalent fantasy among Zionist loons. History lesson: Jews in the U.S. were not threatened with "extinction," "virtual" or otherwise. There was no American holocaust, Nazi government, or death camps. Anti-Semitism reigned until after the war and still exists in discrete pockets (even discounting for the nonsense claims that Israel critics are anti-Semitic), but comparing these experiences to what Jews suffered under the Nazis is obscene.

Nor was there ever any threat to exterminate Jews in Palestine or Israel. With the exception of sporadic violence largely in response to Zionist political expansion and expropriation schemes, Jews and Palestinians lived peacefully side by side as they had for a millenia prior, until further marginalization of the Palestinians led to their revolt of 1936-39. After that revolt was brutally crushed by the British and Zionists, peace again reigned until November 1947, when the Palestinians lost half their country to what they understandably considered to be European colonists bent on excluding them from the homeland (as they eventually did). Even then, Arab leaders opposed to the Jewish state acknowledged the right of Jews to remain in Palestine, subject to British immigration rules. This has also been the continuous line of the Arab rejectionist camp since then: no Jewish state, but no holocaust either. All of this paranoia about "extermination" flows from nothing more than overheated rhetoric, actually rare among Arab officials, about driving their Israeli adversaries "into the sea." Yet no one claims that identical Zionist rhetoric about transfer and forcible relocation means that Israelis are bent on "exterminating" the Palestinians.

In fact, since WWII most Jewish deaths from violenct are connected with Zionism, not anti-Semitic victimization.

That the vast majority of the world's Jews (62%) prefer to live outside Israel is some measure of how much safer they think they'll be inside it. That current Jewish immigration to Israel is the lowest in more than a decade is some measure of how Sharon & Co. have addressed this perception.

[Chris Alger]

"In fact, since WWII most Jewish deaths from violence are connected with Zionism, not anti-Semitic victimization."

Thinking about Argentina, I may be wrong about this.

[Gamblor]

So if it hadn't been for Israel, Jews in the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, Latin America, Australia and elsewhere would have become extinct, presumably exterminated at the hands of their governments?

Once again, you make presumptions based nowhere in my argument.

Zionism was a response to the rejection of Jews in those lands - Jews were simply not allowed in - "None is too many" was the quote of favour in Canada. I do not claim that these countries were attempting to replicate Holocaust, as you presume. I claim that they did not offer refuge.

The idea that only Israel prevents Jews from being massacred everywhere is is a prevalent fantasy among Zionist loons.

Israel does not even prevent this - it merely provides a refuge that nobody can take away. When the world goes to hell, blame the Jews (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=3891). Even in Germany, Jews were more assimilated than anywhere else - but no matter how assimilated or accepted they appear, I posted this before:
"Finally and long overdue, your people, oppressed and disgraced by hatred and maliciousness, have achieved justice: now you enjoy full citizen's rights, but you'll remain Jews nonetheless. -- "Franz Grillparzer (1791-1872), Austrian author.

If that doesn't say it all, then what does? A safe haven is 100% necessary - even if you are more tolerant than most.

Palestinian Arabs have safe haven anywhere and everywhere in the Middle East - until they assassinate another leader without the military power Israel has.

All of this paranoia about "extermination" flows from nothing more than overheated rhetoric, actually rare among Arab officials

I refer you to Middle East Media Research Institute (http://www.memri.org), which simply translates Arab media directly to english. This may concern an Israeli, but to you, these are obvious fabrications, correct?

Do you really believe that if every Arab nation were given the military might of Israel, there would be peace?

[ACPlayer]

.... and the complete abolition of all religions.

[B-Man]

.... and the complete abolition of all religions.

Gee, a liberal wants to impose HIS values and beliefs on others, there's a shocker!

[ACPlayer]

I was yearning to be free of religion not imposing values. Only someone who does not understand language would thing otherwise - or has a kneejerk reaction that all things that they dont agree with are "liberal" - a characteristic of a Fox junkie not a true conservative.

People who impose values are fundamentalists.

[Gamblor]

And what is wrong with Jewish national aspirations that makes them bomb-worthy?

By crushing Jewish national aspirations, wouldn't that imply that Palestinian national aspirations ought to be crushed?

On the other hand, what is so distinct and special about Palestinian Arabs that they deserve a separate state from all the other Arabs?

[ACPlayer]

OK. Here's more on liberalism -Extracted from the Columbia lectronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.

"liberalism, philosophy or movement that has as its aim the development of individual freedom. Because the concepts of liberty or freedom change in different historical periods the specific programs of liberalism also change. The final aim of liberalism, however, remains fixed, as does its characteristic belief not only in essential human goodness but also in human rationality. Liberalism assumes that people, having a rational intellect, have the ability to recognize problems and solve them and thus can achieve systematic improvement in the human condition. Often opposed to liberalism is the doctrine of conservatism, which, simply stated, supports the maintenance of the status quo. Liberalism, which seeks what it considers to be improvement or progress, necessarily desires to change the existing order."

So, yes, yearning for being free from all religions, which in the name of god, kill each other (yes, that includes YOUR religion - unless you are Buddhist, Atheist, or Agnostic), is the hall mark of a Liberal thinker trying for a better world.

Impostion of ideas on the other hand is left to the Army and Police the two principle tools used by the neo-conservatives to spread their views, as they have failed to convince anyone else with words.

So, once again, while yearning for a better world I may be guilty of, imposing my ideas on others I am not.

[B-Man]

Sounds like you are changing your tune. Let me quote you again:

and the complete abolition of all religions.

If all you want is to be free of religion, you can easily accomplish that without "the complete abolition of all religions." The fact that you worded it as you did shows that you want everyone else to be free from religion, too, an entirely different proposition.

Liberals are very often trying to impose their values on everyone else, I am shocked that this notion surprises you. Perhaps you never thought about it that way (or, more likely, never thought about it).

[B-Man]

Apparently you don't understand the distinction of YOU being from from religion and "the complete abolition of all religions. "

The textbook definition of liberalism which you gacve might support the former, but not the latter. Just as you have a right not to practice other religions, other people have a right to practice them. The fact that you want to stop EVERYONE from practicing religion is imposing your values on others.

The textbook definition of liberalism which you gave may not espouse imposing values/beliefs on others, but the actualy PRACTICE of liberals and democrats in the U.S. is something entirely different. That is what I was referring to.

[Chris Alger]

Which Jewish "national aspirations" are you talking about? The ones where they torture the Palestinians into leaving or the ones for a peaceful homeland?

"On the other hand, what is so distinct and special about Palestinian Arabs that they deserve a separate state from all the other Arabs?"

Nothing more distinct or special than political rights on the land where one's community has thrived for hundreds of years and not have your land and property expropriated at gunpoint or you children gunned down in the street by foreign invaders. In other words, the thing accorded to most other nations as a matter of right.

[Chris Alger]

"Once again, you make presumptions based nowhere in my argument."

I haven't made any presumption, "based nowhere" or otherwise. You said "Jews" would have been "virtually extinct" but for Israel, which by definition means that Jews in those countries were threated with virtual extinction. Now you're watering it down to a complaint about immigration quotas.

Next time, make up your mind about what you're trying to say before you post. I'm not wasting time reading further.

[ACPlayer]

I dont want to stop you from doing anything.

I do think that you should consider the harm that religion does to the world, the number of people who die in the name of religion, the fanaticism it promotes around the world, and consider if it is good for the planet.

So, I dont mind your considering the issues, I dont want to impose my will on you. I guess that is the difference between you and me, if you say something I consider it and think about it; if I say something you think I am imposing on you. I dont consider your thoughts to be an imposition on me, occaisonally I learn some new insight.

Other than that, I did not understand your first paragraph, the english needs some work or your last paragraph which was extremely obtuse.

[B-Man]

There is a distinction between you being free from religion, and the complete abolition of all religion. The former is easily accomplished without impinging on the rights of others; the latter is not.

I do think that you should consider the harm that religion does to the world, the number of people who die in the name of religion, the fanaticism it promotes around the world, and consider if it is good for the planet.

Who are you, or I, or anyone else to make that kind of determination? Sure people do crazy things in the name of religion, people also kill for money and power. People also do good deeds in the name of religion. Whether religion has an overall positive or negative effect on the world is irrelevant; my point is that just because YOU think it is negative, that doesn't mean everyone should be forced to be free from religion (which would be the effect of "the complete abolition of religion") just because you made a determination that it is bad.

As for the last paragraph, let me try explaining it to you in a more simple way that is easier to grasp: the textbook definition of liberalism you provided does NOT comport with the values/actions/beliefs of most democrats (the more liberal major party in the U.S.) in the United States.

[ACPlayer]

I'll try again and keep it simple - my statement of a idea or concept is not an imposition on you - for example you dont have to listen! Just as your statement of belief is not an impostion on me. We can listen to beliefs without being paranoid, really it IS possible. Its called a dialogue.

How does the concept of Liberalism as espoused in the text book not comport to the values/actions/beliefs of the "liberal" party in the US? You may well be right, but you offered a pretty sweeping statement, not backed up by any arguments at this point.

[B-Man]

I'll try again and keep it simple - my statement of a idea or concept is not an imposition on you - for example you dont have to listen! Just as your statement of belief is not an impostion on me. We can listen to beliefs without being paranoid, really it IS possible. Its called a dialogue.

Agreed that exchanging beliefs is not an imposition. However, the effect of your belief would impose your beliefs on others. I have no problem with you discussing in theory whether all religions should be abolished; I would have a major problem if all religions were banned by the authorities in power. That is what I was railing against, the fact that your belief, if implemented, would force your values on others, NOT the mere fact of you writing it on paper (or in cyberspace) or just discussing it.

How does the concept of Liberalism as espoused in the text book not comport to the values/actions/beliefs of the "liberal" party in the US? You may well be right, but you offered a pretty sweeping statement, not backed up by any arguments at this point.

OK, I'll humor you, here's one example: the Martha Burke/Augusta controvery at the Masters. Burke organized protests at the Masters because she thought the existence of a male-only club was immoral (of course, female-only organizations such as the Girl Scouts, sororities, Wellesley College, health clubs, and hundreds of other organizations accross the country are fine, but male-only organizations are inherently bad). Basically, she was saying the the Members of that club (a private club!) had no right to associate with other members solely of their choosing, but had to choose their membership based on HER values ("men-only clubs = bad"). She even admitted that it was legal for the club to exist with just male members, but said it was "immoral" for it to exist as a male-only private institution.

Does that comport with your idea of individual rights (such as freedom of association)?

[ACPlayer]

OK, so I am allowed to make my sweeping statements without getting you all upset about my changing the world.

Now help me understand your second point. Are you upset that someone or organization changed their viewpoint based on some activist (i did not know she was part of the democratic party establishment but that is not my point) or are you upset because someone changed something that you dont agree with. This is an important distinction, if you are all for change when you agree with it but against all change that you disagree with, that is one point of view.

I would say that activists on both sides can try to change what ever they want to try to change. Sometimes they will succeed sometimes they will not. So, if the Bob Jones wants to keep out somebody then that is fine, if some broad is able to change the Masters then that too is acceptable.

What is not acceptable, to me, is not having the right to try and influence the society.

If one goes back in time to the original intent and stick to that - the only people allowed to vote would be the land owning men of this country. Over time, activists of various ilks have brought about changes that have made this country what it is - now any moron of the streets can vote, so we have moved from an elitist democracy to a populist one. I for one would say that is good, others may say NO and try to change that and in my opinion they have the right, and in fact they have an obligation, to try and do so. Without that society would not be free.

[B-Man]

I am not attacking freedom of speech, I am against the content of what she is saying. I fully support her right to engage in a peaceful protest in public, so long as it doesn't interfere with the golf club or its members; I just disagree with her message.

Don't mix the right to express an idea with the idea itself. I'm not against the expression of ideas, but I certainly disagree with many ideas.

In the example I mentioned, Martha Burke and her supporters were trying to persuade people, under threat (boycotts, etc.), to give up their freedom of association. I think that is wrong. She has every right to say whatever she wants, but I don't have to agree with it.

Her message does not comport with the definition of liberalism you provided (her right to speak is fine, it's the content of what she is saying which doesn't comport with the definition of liberal ideas).

[ACPlayer]

So, maybe she is conservative! I dont know her and dont know what she stands for. If she can take on and change the Masters and the Masters decides to change as opposed to having a literal gun pointed at them, then that is freedom and democracy at work.

Similarly, if tomorrow the judge in the south with the 10 commandments can cause a change in society so be it.

You too, are welcome to try and make changes you want to and if you can then more power to you.

I still dont understand what is wrong with that.

The fact that you disagree with her is neither here nor there. I for one dont care what the Masters does or does not do. I do want the right to make changes in society preserved and encouraged.

[ACPlayer]

Actually, on reflection, not only what she is doing consistent with the textbook liberal definition but is also consistent with a vibrant and evolving society responding to the needs of the people.

I would further submit to you, that if you agree with the second part where the text define conservativism, then conservatives have it wrong. Maintaining the status quo as an end is stultifying and dull. Do you think that maintaining status quo in society is a good thing?

[B-Man]

You might try reading my post again, as you don't seem to get it.

So, maybe she is conservative!

You know damn well she is not a conservative. Now you are just throwing whatever you can against the wall to see what sticks.

If she can take on and change the Masters and the Masters decides to change as opposed to having a literal gun pointed at them, then that is freedom and democracy at work.

Really, is that so? The pressure she attempted to put on them--economic--is probably a lot stronger than a literal gun would have been. You are taking a very short-sighted view of this.

What if I get a group of people/organizations together to exert economic pressure on the Girl Scouts and Wellesley College to force them to admit men--would you support this? Should these private organizations be forced to change their policies because I don't them admitting only women?

There is nothing wrong with trying to presuade someone that your ideas are right.

There is something wrong with impinging on the freedom of association of others. In this particular case, it is wrong to exert economic and other pressures on the members of a private club to force them to change their membership policies just because you don't like them. It goes against many of the values this country was built on. It's also hypocritical; her position is that female-only clubs are moral, make-only clubs are immoral.

Please stop trying to make this a free speech debate; we have little or no disagreement on free speech. We seem to have a major disagreement on freedom of association, however (you don't seem to think it is a right at all).

[ACPlayer]

Actually I have no idea if she is conservative or not.

So, what do you want, to shut her up so cant say what she wants to and do what she wants to?