One State Solution

[Deep13]

Despite the heroic efforts of the new American Secretary of State John Kerry, the creation of two states for two peoples in Israel and Palestine is looking increasingly unlikely. The resignation of Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad was last week described as “another nail in the coffin of the two-state solution” by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. It might be the final nail. Moreover, Friedman is not alone. Writing from Pretoria, Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy put forward the suggestion that Palestinians follow the black South Africans in demanding “one person one vote.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/30/time-to-stop-demonizing-the-one-state-solution.html

Former Knesset Speaker Avrum Burg endorsed the one-state solution in an article in Haaretz in December 2011, and called the entire left to do the same. Burg has flirted with the idea in the past, but he was never so explicitly. He said "So enough of the illusions. There are no longer two states between the Jordan River and the sea. The next diplomatic formula that will replace the "two states for two peoples" will be a civilian formula. All the people between the Jordan and the sea have the same right to equality, justice and freedom...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nehad-ismail/the-twostatesolution-is-d_b_1295961.html

[JDPriestly]

1. That would do away with the United Nations mandate of post-World-War II.

Who would trust anything the UN did if it could just do away with a country like that, in the blink of an eye.

Ridiculous. Israel is a legitimate country. How many other countries were created by UN Mandate? Palestine. That's one. But there aren't many.

[Shaktimaan]

10. Um... no it wouldn't.

How many other countries were created by UN Mandate?

The UNGA Resolution, (not Mandate) was never enacted and thus, never became validated.

Who would trust anything the UN did if it could just do away with a country like that, in the blink of an eye.

The UN General Assembly Resolutions are merely suggestions. They have no legal power.

Israel is a legitimate country.

Of course. But not because the UN mandated it.

[cali]

2. you can no more force a one state solution than you can a two state solution

[delrem]

7. Many think that now that Netanyahu has been re-elected to stay the course

Many think that now that Netanyahu has been re-elected to stay the course a total consolidation of Israel over all of Judea and Samaria will in fact happen.

The new coalition looks to be quite a bit more right-wing on this issue than the old. More determined. My bullshit-ometer explodes whenever these jokers talk about "peace talks" required to implement a "two-state-solution (tm)"
What's the current demand? Is it that Israel should be allowed to continue building settlements and cleansing Area C, as a precondition of any discussions at all? As if International Law proscribing such transfers of population didn't matter, didn't factor into Israeli thinking.

[oberliner]

3. So patronizing for Israelis to tell Palestinians what they should want

Two thirds of Palestinians oppose a one-state solution.

Does that not count for anything?

[Scootaloo]

4. Know what else they oppose?

Having their homes and livelihoods bulldozed so a bunch of oleh from Brooklyn can have a cheap apartment.

Apparently that does count for nothing.

[delrem]

5. The occupation and siege don't count as "patronizing". nt

[oberliner]

9. Absolutely

The whole settlement enterprise is an abomination.

The Palestinian people deserve and independent state, living in peace and security alongside Israel.

Survey after survey indicates that is what the majority would like to see.

[Israeli]

13. you are correct ...

... and so is Scootaloo

[Scootaloo]

19. Wow. "Abomination"? But we can't call it "apartheid"?

Whatever you call it, it doesn't look like the Israeli government is going to stop it. Doesn't look like thousands of Israelis are going to stop "settling," either. And it doesn't look like the millions sticking in Israel proper are too worried about it, since they keep voting for the government that has this policy and keep welcoming the "settlers" among their midst. And all the "peacemakers" are telling the Palestinians that, well, this is just the way it'll have to be.

So, like I said... What the Palestinians want appears to count for nothing.

[oberliner]

24. People can and do

People can call anything whatever they want. Personally, I don't think it's the best analogy because of the racial connotations. President Carter makes a point of noting that issue when answering questions about the use of the term himself and has repeatedly said that the policies are not based on racism. I think it's a little weird to choose an Afrikaans terms when they are plenty of appropriate ways of describing the situation in English (such as "abomination&quot . But I understand that people want to sell books and generate hits to their websites.

[Crunchy Frog]

6. Do they oppose having equal rights

as the Israelis who live right alongside them?

The single state is becoming a reality already imposed on the Palestinians. That reality now being inevitable, I would bet that they would like to at least have the same rights and freedoms as the rest of Israel's inhabitants.

[Shaktimaan]

8. really?

Then why haven't very many Palestinians living in east Jerusalem eligible for Israeli citizenship gone ahead and applied?
Perhaps because they want their own state?

[oberliner]

11. Yes, they do

The Palestinians (for the most part) would like to run their own state their own way - not some kind of Israel/Palestinian coalition.

Of course they want the occupation to end - but they don't want a bi-national state, they want a free and independent Palestine.

[Israeli]

14. yup

correct once again

[aranthus]

17. Of course they do.

Last edited Mon Jun 3, 2013, 02:05 PM - Edit history (1)

The open question is whether they will agree to a Jewish state in Israel in order to get an Arab state in Palestine.

[Israeli]

12. you see now shira how ...

... not all post-zionists think the same , you have Gideon Levy and Avrum Burg leaning towards a One State Solution and us at Gush Shalom still standing behind The Two State Solution :

ref : The Donkey of the Messiah
@ http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1368181918/

The occupation has already created a de facto One State – an evil state of oppression and brutality, in which half the population (or slightly less than half) deprives the other half of almost all rights – human rights, economic rights and political rights. The Jewish settlements proliferate, and every day brings new stories of woe.

I am an optimist, and I do hope that eventually Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Arabs will become sister nations, living side by side in harmony. But to come to that point, there must be a period of living peacefully in two adjoining states, hopefully with open borders.

THE PEOPLE who speak now of the “one-state solution” are idealists. But they do a lot of harm. And not only because they remove themselves and others from the struggle for the only solution that is realistic.

If we are going to live together in one state, it makes no sense to fight against the settlements. If Haifa and Ramallah will be in the same state, what is the difference between a settlement near Haifa and one near Ramallah? But the fight against the settlements is absolutely essential, it is the main battlefield in the struggle for peace.

Indeed, the one-state solution is the common aim of the extreme Zionist right and the extreme anti-Zionist left. And since the right is incomparably stronger, it is the left that is aiding the right, and not the other way round.

NO, THE two-state solution is not dead. It cannot die, because it is the only solution there is.

Despair may be convenient and tempting. But despair is no solution at all.

( aside : of course before I joined here post-zionists did not exist , right )

[oberliner]

16. You do think Progressive Zionists exist right?

Just curious.

[Israeli]

18. I might if you explain the term to me

its not an Israeli term oberliner
who and what are " Progressive Zionists " ??
I can give you many examples of well known Israeli post-zionists that you dont believe exist
give me some names of well known " Progressive Zionists "
if they are American I probably wont know who they are but I'm willing to learn
if you give me Israeli names ...that will help

[oberliner]

25. What a funny response

First, to clarify for a third time, I did not say that I don't believe Israeli post-Zionists exist. I linked to an article in Ha'aretz that posited that idea. And if you actually read the article (written by an Israeli writer living in Israel), you haven't actually addressed its contents.

Second, if you don't know who are what "Progressive Zionists" are then maybe you can Google it?

Seems strange that you are totally unfamiliar with the term, considering that you choose to frequent an American board with a liberal/progressive identity focused on American politics (primarily for supporters of Democrats) as a place to discuss Israeli/Palestinian issues.

In any case, maybe start with the Union of Progressive Zionists or Ameinu or Habonim Dror if you want to learn about these American Jewish organizations.

[Israeli]

29. You want me to address

Shlomo Avineri's article ?
I was under the impression that I had already done that oberliner

Would you describe Shlomo Avineri as a "Progressive Zionist" ????

You saying that I cannot discuss my own country with others who are from outside of it ??

In any case, maybe start with the Union of Progressive Zionists or Ameinu or Habonim Dror if you want to learn about these American Jewish organizations.

No thanks , I have enough problems dealing with American Zionists over here .

[oberliner]

30. No I don't

I want you to stop ascribing someone else's views to me.

You can discuss your own country with Americans - but when you ask for information about something and then say "no thanks" when provided with several different sources, that doesn't seem to indicate a desire to engage in discussion.

[Israeli]

31. no I dont what ??

that you would "describe Shlomo Avineri as a "Progressive Zionist" ????
0r
that " I want you to stop ascribing someone else's views to me " ???

I did not bring up post-zionists dont exist ... you did oberliner

You can discuss your own country with Americans - but when you ask for information about something and then say "no thanks" when provided with several different sources, that doesn't seem to indicate a desire to engage in discussion

gee thanks , what I asked for was this :

give me some names of well known " Progressive Zionists "
if they are American I probably wont know who they are but I'm willing to learn
if you give me Israeli names ...that will help

give me examples of Israeli " Progressive Zionists " ...that I can handle , that I understand ..
American Zionists are beyond my understanding ...none of you make any sense to me

[Deep13]

20. The one-state-solution is not despair.

It assumes a commonality among people and the viability of democracy.

[aranthus]

21. In which case it is naive and foolhardy.

It assumes that the Jews and the Palestinians share a commonality of nationhood, that they do not actually share. Why not have the Germans and French share a state? They have a commonality. They are European. They don't share a state because they are different nations. In a democratic state, the French would choose to break off and have a French state and the Germans would do the same. Democracy leads to separate states for separate peoples.

[Deep13]

23. No, it assumes they have commonality of humanity.

Nations are an artificial construct and Israel is more artificial than most. It was created by the British after WW2 and is, therefore, the product of European colonialism. Now the Israelis are colonizing the half of Palestine they don't own.

Ultimately, commonality is the only hope for peace anywhere, so denigrating it as naive is despairing and cowardly. If you think two Semitic people with almost the same religion and who are arguing over who invented felafel can't share a state, then how did South Africa do it? Well, with a truth and reconciliation commission.

[aranthus]

26. Wrong about everything.

"Nations are an artificial construct" [font color=blue]I suppose this is true in the sense that they are created by human beings, but then so are language and civilization, and they matter. So does national identity. It represents the values, collected wisdom, and ways of doing things of a group of people. It is extremely naive and foolish to dismiss these important ideas as "artificial."[/font]

"and Israel is more artificial than most. It was created by the British after WW2 and is, therefore, the product of European colonialism." [font color=blue]Completely untrue. So false that it suggests that you get your understanding of history from ideological talking points rather than actual history. The British did not create Israel, nor, while we are at it, did the Americans or the UN. The Israelis did. People on the ground, some of whom had been living there for millenia. So not European colonization at all.[/font]

"Ultimately, commonality is the only hope for peace anywhere"[font color=blue]What do you mean by commonality and why is it the only hope for peace? Again this sounds more like sloganeering that argument.[/font] "so denigrating it as naive is despairing and cowardly." [font color=blue]Huh? This makes no sense. And if any of what you are saying had any truth in the real world, then Czechoslovakia would still exist, and so would Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union.[/font]

"If you think two Semitic people with almost the same religion and who are arguing over who invented felafel can't share a state, then how did South Africa do it?" [font color=blue]Leaving aside for the moment your apparent total ignorance of the peoples involved, it appears that you believe that the racial divide between Black and White in South Africa is somehow larger or more significant than the cultural divides between nations. Again this appears to be your ideology talking, because I know of no one outside the Left (that is further out than Liberal Democrats) who believe this nonsense. It's racist to think that blood means more than ideas. The reason that South Africans could settle their differences is that they had little but race between them, and race isn't significant in defining societies. Culture and ideas are. Now back to Israel. Yes, both Jews and Palestinians are Semitic peoples, which means that they speak similar languages. So do the French, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese, Brazilians, and Romanche, and they don't have a single state. And yes, Judaism and Islam are related religions, but anyone who understands anything about them knows that they aren't "almost the same." The differences matter.[/font]

[Deep13]

27. Jews =/= Israel.

Israel as a state is a modern creation regardless of how long Palestinian Jews have lived there. I remind you that for most of that time, they were a minority group. During the Roman/Byzantine period, Christians were in the majority. Then the Arab Muslims came. Then it was the Ottomans. Finally, after WWI, the Entente allowed immigration. After the the Nazi Holocaust, there seemed to be a moral imperative to create a Jewish homeland, as if the imperialists did not believe Jews could ever be at peace living with others. Fortunately, we have found that is not the case.

In any event, the presence of Jewish people does not make a nation and certainly not a nation-state. Those are social constructs, and those who sustain them imagine their claims to be grounded in antiquity. The nation-state is, of course, a completely modern institution. Seriously, have you not read Hobsbawm or Benedict Anderson?

[aranthus]

33. Israel is a Jewish state.

Israel as a state is a modern creation regardless of how long Palestinian Jews have lived there.

[font color=blue]So what? So are most of the states in Africa. So are India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. So what? By the way, "Palestine" is the conqueror's name for the area, not any name given to it by the indigenous people.[/font]

In any event, the presence of Jewish people does not make a nation and certainly not a nation-state.

[font color=blue]Of course Jews are a nation. That's like saying that the French aren't a nation. It's nonsense. The fact is that there was a Jewish national community living in the Palestine Mandate, and they created a state. That's the way it's done. That is what they had every right to do. There is no reason that they should have been forced to live as a minority in an Arab state.[/font]

Those are social constructs, and those who sustain them imagine their claims to be grounded in antiquity.

[font color=blue]All nations have a history. However, the true grounds of nationhood are founded in present reality.[/font]


The nation-state is, of course, a completely modern institution.

[font color=blue]How do you define modern? The United States goes back over two hundred years. England more than that. Ditto many European states. And even though China and Japan were kingdoms and empires for a long time, those states were still based on national lines. The point is that nations have existed for longer than the nation state. In fact the modern nation state is simply the latest expression of those national ideas. So what? Those ideas are real. They are important. If they weren't, then the Czechs and the Slovaks would still be living in one state. So would the Yugoslavs and the Soviets. You can expect Iraq to fragment soon for the same reasons.[/font]

[delrem]

34. I can't understand how anyone could say this:

"The reason that South Africans could settle their differences is that they had little but race between them, and race isn't significant in defining societies. Culture and ideas are."

That has to be the most ignorant thing I've read in my life.

[aranthus]

35. Of course you don't.

But tell me what nations today are defined by race? Most are defined by their ideas, values, customs, history, language.

[delrem]

36. You said a shitload more than that in your sentence!

To remind you (from what, a few hours ago?)
"The reason that South Africans could settle their differences is that they had little but race between them, and race isn't significant in defining societies. Culture and ideas are."

What has that sentence to do, in any way, with your question "tell me what nations today are defined by race?"

First, would you please explain in detail what "culture and ideas" were shared by Afrikaners and the indigenous peoples of the region. What "culture and ideas" did either of these share with east asians, Indians etc.?

Explain how this similarity of "culture and ideas", so much stronger than similarities of "race" and "religion", is contrasted with the irrevocable difference of "culture and ideas" between Israeli Jews and the indigenous population.

[aranthus]

37. True.

And it's possible that I overstated my position. I'm certainly willing to be corrected. So let's talk. What were the similarities between the Afrikaners and Blacks? Well the fact is that Blacks had in many ways become assimilated South Africans. they weren't trying to change the nature of the state; they were trying to become part of it. Now, as then, they spoke the ssame language in public (Usually English or else Afrikaans). They followed the same systems of law as White South Africans, and as far as I know they still do. The point is that not much changed in the general nature of the South African state once Blacks could vote. Forexample, tribal law did not suddenly become the basis of South African law. The national langaguages didn't change. The way that groups related to each other didn't change, other than Blacks had the right to be included. If you think that there are significant cultural diffeerence that I've missed, please let me know.

As to Israel/Palestine. First, the Jews are the indigenous people as much or more so than the Arabs. Second, the Arab refusal to recognize that is one of the huge diffferences between Israel and South Africa, where the Blacks weren't trying to get rid of the Whites. Third, so we are clear, religion goes on the opposite side of the balance than race. It's an ideological identification. The religious differences between Islam and Judaism are substantial. The national differences between Arab and Jew are substantial. That's a big reason why Israel and the surrounding Arab states are so different. There isn't an Arab/Muslim state that is anywhere near as tolerant of minority rights as Israel. There isn't an Arab/Muslim state that has anywhere near the respect for free speech and other fundamental tenets of liberal democracy. Most, if not all Arab states, have a significant basis in Islam, and Israel obviously has a basis in Judaism. They are different. So why should the Jews of Israel be forced to live as a minority in an Arab state?

[delrem]

38. I decline the invitation to "talk" on this topic. Thanks anyway.

[Israeli]

28. I agree that

It assumes a commonality among people and the viability of democracy.

but it does not stand a chance of working , not today
maybe 100 more years from now

your not understanding what Avnery is saying in that article , read it all

I am an optimist, and I do hope that eventually Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Arabs will become sister nations, living side by side in harmony. But to come to that point, there must be a period of living peacefully in two adjoining states, hopefully with open borders.

THE PEOPLE who speak now of the “one-state solution” are idealists. But they do a lot of harm. And not only because they remove themselves and others from the struggle for the only solution that is realistic.

The despair comes from the occupation and from any chance of peace for us and for the Palestinians that the occupation and the supporters of a Greater Israel represent .

[azurnoir]

15. unless Israel is willing to remove the settlements there is little else left

regardless of what the ideal solution should be

[aranthus]

22. I don't know that they would have to remove all the settlements.

The ones deep in the West Bank have to go, of course. But some of those near the Green line could stay as long as the Palestinians get a reasonably contiguous territory out of the deal.

[cali]

32. well they won't go. The Israeli government has NO intention of doing anything of the sort

In fact, they're taking steps to 'legalize' four more settlements- demonstrating once again that they are totally uninterested in anything remotely resembling peace.