jollyroger's picture

    Palestine-The One State Solution

    By jollyroger on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 1:21am |

    This is what ethnic cleansing looks like:

     

    An as-yet confidential report submitted by the European consuls in Jerusalem and Ramallah raises urgent concerns over the “forced expulsion” of Palestinians ...from Area C of the West Bank... the report mentions the fertile and strategic Jordan Valley (where the Palestinian population has declined from 250,000 to 50,000 since the start of the Occupation)...

    A necessary and urgent first step towards collapsing the otherwise permanent regime of oppression in Israel/Palestine is that we stop talking about a two-state solution. It’s dead and gone as a political option.

    As a long time supporter of the One State Solution, (failing a plebiscite approved partition), I can only watch with satisfaction as more and more observers come round.

    Bibi blanches.  (He fears that the Jews' balls are too small, their dicks too short, their testosterone mockingly low.  Or maybe they have pissed their women off by inflicting too much crazy so the eggs won't implant.Whatever.)

    Israel may wax nostalgic for the days (now current) when the only threat at the UN was a General Assembly move for unilateral recognition of a (second) Palestinian state.

    Here comes the real pain--the *reversal of the illegal partition of 1948.

    Meanwhile, apartheid is the name of the game.

     

    *Hasbaristas, chill.  No one gets driven into the sea (this time).  It's all about "the cousins".

     

    Comments

    if we do not soon achieve a genuinely independent Palestinian state, we will be forced to press instead for a single democratic state with equal rights and responsibilities for both Palestinians and Israelis.

    Mustafa Barghouthi, a doctor and member of the Palestinian Parliament, is secretary general of the Palestinian National Initiative, a political party.


    by jollyroger on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 12:19am

    We agree on many things, Jolly: the "peace process" was a sham from the start, and has for years been non-existent; Israeli policy is one of ethnic cleansing and apartheid; the expulsions, demolitions and confiscations constitute war crimes. And the way the deck is stacked, two-party negotiations, even if restarted, will never yield a just peace.

    Jeff Halper does a good job, in his first eight paragraphs, of outlining how the peace process has only made things worse. Halper is on the ground, he's a humanitarian and an activist, and it's clear he's a guy I'd happily have a beer with. But in his final 14 paragraphs, he demonstrates that politically he's an idiot:

    First, we must endeavor to hasten the collapse of the present situation and subsequently, when new paradigms of genuine justice emerge from the chaos, be primed to push forward an entirely different solution that is currently impossible or inconceivable, be that a single democratic state over the entire country, a bi-national state, a regional confederation or some other alternative yet to be formulated. The Palestinians themselves must create a genuine, inclusive agency of their own that, following the collapse, can effectively seize the moment. Formulating a clear program and strategy, they will then be equipped to lead their people to liberation and a just peace, with the support of activists and others the world over.

    "When new paradigms of genuine justice emerge from the chaos?" Fuck off, Jeff. Oooh, the Israelis won't accept our fundamental demand that we govern ourselves? Let's just change our goal to demanding that pie fall from the sky. And to achieve that, let's scrap the one imperfect instrument we have at our disposal and hope that something better magically emerges. Is Halper really putting his hopes on "some other alternative yet to be formulated?" Does he expect Palestinians to rally around that aspiration? Do you?

    Hey, a single democratic state in which Jews and Arabs live in peace and harmony works for me. The concept also worked for Theodor Herzl, father of Zionism, back in the 1890s. Unfortunately, that's not been the direction things have headed for the past 60-plus years -- and Israelis show little appetite for the concept now.

    You seem to be taking Bargouthi literally, that he thinks the single state is a practical possibility. I see it as a brilliant reductio ad absurdum: "We have the universal right to govern ourselves; if we cannot do it in a separate state (if our land is part of Israel) then we must exercise that right within Israel. And you don't really want that, because we're getting close to population parity." That threat is what brought Ulster Protestants to the power-sharing bargaining table.

    So yeah, the idea of a single state is an excellent bargaining chip, as you negotiate partition. But nobody should think, as you appear to do, that two communities with a deep history of grievance and hatred can be brought together more easily than a border can be drawn between them. 

    The "two-state solution" has supporters in both Israeli and Palestinian camps; the single state has none -- unless you count the settlers and the extremists who believe all of it should belong to the Arabs or all should belong to the Jews. I hope and believe they total less than a majority of either side.

     


    by acanuck on Tue, 02/28/2012 - 4:55am

    alas you are correct. of course we should give Halper credit that no one ever went broke plumping for the collapse of the current situation. that said the error of my analysis is made clear when I admit that what I hoped to do was to arm the secular middle and let them then bring under control the crazy religious yahwists of whatever sort. Unfortunately the secular middle is limited to you and me

    by jollyroger on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 12:08am

    I'm by instinct a radical, so I appreciate the impulse, when the status quo is totally broken, to sweep all the pieces off the board and restart from scratch. But statehood and borders, security and monetary arrangements, while necessary, have never been the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    It's the occupation. The absolute iniquity of one group of people ruling another against their will, and doing so for generation after generation. And that's why a Palestinian state is a pressing, immediate need. Once they rule their own lives and land, the Pals can think about mutually beneficial arrangements with all their neighbors, including Israel. But making an ultimate modus vivendi part of the initial bargaining is simply guaranteeing failure.

    The Palestinians lack any clout to even negotiate with Israel, and the U.S. has increasingly revealed itself as less than a good-faith mediator. It's long past time for the rest of the world to bring pressure to bear on Israel. Boycotts, disinvestment, trade embargos, whatever it takes; a change in policy will never arise on its own from within Israeli society.

    The Middle East is going to remain a deadly tinderbox until there is a just end to the occupation. Most western countries are still reluctant to acknowledge this, but it's a fact that is not going away. 


    by acanuck on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 4:12pm

    "less than a good faith mediator" is probably the understatement of the century . On the larger question how do we go from the present situation of fragmented palestinian "bantustans" to produce a contiguous state?

    by jollyroger on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 8:05pm

    It's Sold out!--

    http://www.onestateconference.org/


    by artappraiser on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 4:52pm

    evidently an idea whose time has come

    by jollyroger on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 7:20pm

    Like I said, it's an idea that occurred to Herzl in the 1890s. Not much market for it today.


    by acanuck on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 7:42pm

    Latest Comments