Former Knesset Speaker Avraham (Avrum) Burg (photo: Yossi Gurvitz)
Former Knesset Speaker Abrum Burg has an op-ed in Haaretz in which he not only endorses the one-state solution, but calls the entire left to do the same. Burg has flirted with the idea in the past, but he was never so explicit:
So enough of the illusions. There are no longer two states between the Jordan River and the sea… we [the left] must consider how we can enter into the new Israeli discourse. It has intriguing potential. 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. In other words, there is a very reasonable chance that there will be only one state between the Jordan and the sea – neither ours nor theirs but a mutual one. It is likely to be a country with nationalist, racist and religious discrimination and one that is patently not democratic, like the one that exists today. But it could be something entirely different. An entity with a common basis for at least three players: an ideological right that is prepared to examine its feasibility; a left, part of which is starting to free itself of the illusions of “Jewish and democratic”; and a not inconsiderable part of the Palestinian intelligentsia.
The conceptual framework will be agreed upon – a democratic state that belongs to all of its citizens. The practicable substance could be fertile ground for arguments and creativity. This is an opportunity worth taking, despite our grand experience of missing every opportunity and accusing everyone else except ourselves.
The rest of the article is interesting as well; Burg writes against the habit of Jewish leftists to argue on behalf of the state and even the government abroad, thus helping the right carry out its policies undisturbed: “Let the right-wing MKs, the Katzes and the Elkins, travel around the world and show the beauty of their faces without the deceptive layer of makeup we provided.”
A year ago, asked by +972 whether it’s time to move from a two-state vision to a one-state model, Burg said:
In Israel, there is a real fear of confrontation with the armed messianic forces living among us. Anyway our government policies are drawn from the power of the settler vision. It seems that the only way to balance this is an alternative suggestion of one state between the Jordan and the sea. Secular, democratic, egalitarian and civilian.
It looks like recent developments and the expansionist policies of the current government have convinced Burg that it’s time to join the growing one state camp.
It’s interesting to note that the current Knesset Speaker, Reuven Rivlin (Likud), a rightwing hawk, also prefers a single state to two, arguing that “this land is not divisible.” Rivlin doesn’t support the “one person, one vote” model Burg is referring to, but mulls over what seems like a multi-national entity, possibly with two parliaments.
This is from an interview I did with Rivlin a year and a half ago:
“There is a conflict in the Middle East between two entities, and they’re both right, each in their own way. This is our only home, and therefore all kinds of solutions can be found. One could establish a system in one state in which Judea and Samaria are jointly held. The Jews would vote for a Jewish parliament and the Palestinians for an Arab parliament, and we would create a system in which life is shared. But these are things that will take time. Anyone who thinks that there are shortcuts is talking nonsense. As long as Islamic fundamentalism thinks that Jews are forbidden to settle in the Holy Land, we have a problem. It will not be resolved by an agreement, even if we obtain a promise from all the Arab states that it will be fine.
“So if people say to me: Decide − one state or division of the Land of Israel, I say that division is the bigger danger.
Who’s next in line?
December 25, 2011
2:36 am
Greg Pollock: “I am not claiming South Africa today a utopia; yet clearly all your objections applied during the transitional stage”
.
FIRST: Not a utopia? Of course not! But that’s not all. South Africa is not a finished story yet, it is heading the same way as Zimbabwe. And at the end of it, White South Africans will not end up being happy chappies.
.
SECOND: The bitterness between white South Africans and black South Africans was never as intense as the bitterness that has evolved between Arabs and Jews over the last 100 years.
.
THIRD: White South Africans were never oppressed by black South Africans so they did not have a memory invoking that fear. Jews on the other hand do have a memory of having been oppressed by Arabs that’s why they don’t particularly want to give history a second chance for it to happen again.
.
FOURTH: White South Africans could afford to take a risk because if things won’t work out for them, they will end up in places like Britain, the US, Australia and New Zealand where they and their children will become part of the dominant culture. But I ask you, who would take in 6 million Israeli Jews if things would not work out for them? Please don’t tell me that the same Anglo Saxon countries would because I won’t believe you. There are historical precedents, very recent ones, when Jews were looking for a sanctuary but no one took them in. That’s why 6 million Jews died in the holocaust.
.
I could go on and invoke other dissimilarities between Israel and South Africa but I won’t because I really dislike this analogy. It is totally inapt IMHO.
December 25, 2011
2:55 am
Cortez: “Another false assumption is that Jews and Arabs would continue to self-identify as Jews and Arabs in the same way they do now. Depending on how children are educated or how mixed the cultures become…or whatever becomes the more dominant culture…these strict ethno-religious divisions of the last 50 years could disappear as well as a national change from a history of of ethnic nationalism to civic nationalism. Again this doesn’t have to be a fairytale cause its happened in other places around the world”
.
Sorry Cortez, you might be a nice well meaning by stander but clearly you don’t have an iota of understanding of either Jewish or Arab/Islamic culture.
.
Cortez: ” But its worked before in Palestine”
.
No Cortez, that is just your assertion. It did not work for Jews in Palestine when they were under Muslim rule. Jews were an oppressed minority who were at best tolerated. There are newspaper reports by various European personalities who attested about the poor conditions that the Jews of Jerusalem suffered back in the 1850s BEFORE Herzl even published his modern Zionist manifesto. So there was no excuse for that oppression.
.
You see Cortez? The origins of this conflict between Arabs and Jews is much more complicated than the simple stories that you have been fed. And it is much more complex than just saying that the Jews are the only villains.
December 25, 2011
3:43 am
@Mitchell–thank you for sharing where your question comes from; your concern, or fear, that Arabic would be the predominant language and within two generations, your grandchildren and their generation would not be speaking Hebrew. This is, of course, the only country that is a Hebrew speaking country; I understand why this matters to you.
*
The models from other countries help a lot when we’re trying to build something new, and to argue for something new; when making an argument about the unknown, in the future, it helps to bring in evidence from the past. And there are certainly other countries with more than one national language.
*
However. This is not just any Land, as we all know. And for that reason, I simply cannot imagine a future where Jews on this land let Hebrew die, nor where Palestinians on this land let Arabic die (however less likely, given the region). Have faith, Mitchell, that the same passions that have gotten us into this mess can sustain us.
December 25, 2011
4:04 am
The thing that I find odd about the one-state advocates, is the wait.
Not for the formation of a state, but for the unwillingness to communicate closely with those that have a differing view.
The harshness of Zionism is partially unconditional, but really mostly conditional. Maybe I’m wrong and Zionism is only evil. I know too many kind, open, progressive Israelis to conclude that.
If Israelis know Palestinians without being yelled at by them, they will see them as people that are just people, rather than people that only yell at them.
Try social rather than political all the time. The politics is at most an external shell.
The idea of ‘you are going to steal my anger’ is a very thin basis for the construction of a new society.
If you want to prove that the new norm is reliable and not a threat, then do that by how you speak with Zionists, particularly liberal Zionists.
December 25, 2011
11:21 am
I admit my question was supposed to be cute – I didn’t want to bore people! – but it was meant seriously as well. Hence the provisos I added.
§
Given those provisos, what’s the difference between building a Jew-only settlement in the territories and building a Jew-only settlement within the Green Line, say in the Galilee? Both are done in a framework of Jewish political domination, both come at the expense of the native Palestinian population, etc.
§
The main difference I see is that the settlement in the territories supposedly brings us closer to a one-state solution. That’s according to many one-staters, including Avrum Burg, and even some two-staters. Agreed that it’s an unjust one-state solution, but it arguably brings us closer to a just one-state solution than would separation into two states.
December 25, 2011
11:23 am
To clarify the above, I meant “what’s the difference” given that one believes in a one-state solution where Jews and Arabs can settle anywhere they want to.
December 25, 2011
1:33 pm
Aaron: “a one-state solution where Jews and Arabs can settle anywhere they want to”
.
A nice concept. Unfortunately if it would ever come to be, the reality would end up quite differently. After this precious much sought after one state would turn into the 23rd Arab state, Jews would be allowed to live anywhere as long as it is not Palestine.
.
I am glad that vast the majority of Israelis are not as gullible as people on this site and they will never allow this situation to come about.
.
But here is something to ponder for those who are dreamy eyed about the one state solution because according to them, that would be the only formula which would allow both Arabs and Jews to live anywhere in Palestine. QUESTION: why couldn’t that be EQUALLY true in a two state solution where the two states are in peace with one another? Why wouldn’t both such states provide mutual rights for citizens of the other state to visit or even seek residency on a case by case basis?
December 25, 2011
1:57 pm
Bosko,
The reason I assumed you meant federated states is because of the current economic interdependency between Israel and the Territories. It would be tough to peel the two apart economically and to ensure a just division of resources. This would be very time-consuming in its own right. In this sense, the situation is much closer to one state than it is to two. The only real difference is that in a genuine federation, the Palestinians would actually have rights.
.
To be honest, the kind of anti-Semitism that you’re talking about is not something I’ve come across in person. It exists, but it’s rare. I’ve only found it online before (and it’s not as if I cherry-pick whom I talk to when I’m in Palestine). This is not to say that there aren’t dangerous attitudes on this side of the wall – there are. They are just different in nature from what people tend to suppose.
.
For example, you will find people who can’t see Israelis as individuals. They see a monolith (coloured olive green). Sometimes when I listen to these people talking about Israelis I feel as though they’re describing a monster or a machine, not human beings. (“They want to control us.” “They don’t know how to be human.”) These beliefs can serve as the foundation for some terrible things. One person told me that she supports suicide bombing and other attacks on civilians as a legitimate strategy because in her eyes there’s no such thing as an innocent Israeli. The existence of a conscript army guarantees that. Referring to the deaths of the Fogel children, she said, “They would have grown up to be settlers and soldiers.” This is how she defines Israelis. To her this is all they are.
.
Painful as I find that, I am not going to dismiss her as a fanatic who gets in the way of peace. She is a woman who is badly hurt, just as the guy who told me that Arab deaths don’t matter because ‘it’s not in the Arab mentality to love your relatives like we do’ is very afraid. I won’t judge either of them for having fear. I listen to both, and I hope that one day they will listen to each other. It’s not inevitable that people will always think this way. A quick glance at the page of personal stories on the Parents’ Circle website attests to that:
.
“I was convinced that whoever spoke Hebrew was an assassin. There was in me only blood, pain, and violence. One day, a very significant event occurred. One of my friends died in the Intifada. I returned home filled with hatred of the Jews, blood, and the war…”
.
This is excerpted from the story of Jalal Khudiari. I suggest you read the thing in full:
http://www.theparentscircle.org/Story.aspx?ID=143
.
People who hold violent views are first and foremost people, and it’s important to remember that. This understanding of people and their ability to heal is vital to idea of a just peace in one state, and sadly it is sometimes markedly absent from the two-state vision – another reason why I can’t support the latter any more.
.
The final scenario that you give sounds a bit like a miniature version of the European Union. I could move to Poland or Spain tomorrow if I wanted, as citizens of EU countries have the right to live wherever they want in the EU. That’s also an interesting possibility, and one I hadn’t thought about. But the issue of resource control and land division remains, and this is the most serious practical obstacle in the way of a just two state solution.
December 25, 2011
2:30 pm
Joined late to this discussion, and didn’t read every earlier comment, but SinJim, you’ve got my vote. If we will get in a generation or two to a point where we have Belgium’s bi-national problems, I think we scored it big time.
I do think the wat to get there is through a two state phase. Otherwise, I don’t see it happening. But I truly share the vision.
December 25, 2011
3:18 pm
Vicky: “The reason I assumed you meant federated states is because of the current economic interdependency between Israel and the Territories. It would be tough to peel the two apart economically and to ensure a just division of resources”
.
Where there is will, many things can be done. Just as a matter of interest, prior to 1967, Gaza was part of Egypt while the West Bank was part of Jordan. And in both cases, the economic interdependency was not with Israel.
.
I am not saying that should be THE solution but of course it could be A solution just as much there are other possible solutions. Of course without a will for a solution, there are no solutions.
.
One thing is for sure, as I said above, I hope the majority of Israelis are not going to be gullible enough to agree to a one state solution in our life time. Why? Because IMHO, such a grand EXPERIMENT is doomed to failure from the point of view of Jewish Israelis. What may or may not happen to our great great grandchildren, Arab and Jewish, is for them to decide. Of course if possible, we should strive to make their decision process easier by solving the current problems in small steps. Let’s create two secular democratic states in peace with one another. Let the two states trade and have commercial ties with one another. If such a vision could be realized in say a generation or two, who knows what else would be possible? On the other hand, if that vision cannot be realized, then rest assured that the MUCH HARDER one state solution can NOT be realized either. Certainly not from the point of view of Jews whou would end up squashed by that solution. Why do I say that, Vicky? Because nobody managed to dispel the fears that I raised in the very realistic scenario which showed how such a state could unravel (see earlier in this thread).
.
PS
Yes, I deliberately use the word “fears” because fear is a very useful Darwinian emotion gifted to us humans by nature. It has helped us us to survive as a species.
December 25, 2011
7:01 pm
“Sorry Cortez, you might be a nice well meaning by stander but clearly you don’t have an iota of understanding of either Jewish or Arab/Islamic culture.”
.
LOL…yes I clearly don’t understand Jewish or Arab/Islamic culture having been part of both. So I must have imagined being around Jewish Yemeni grandmothers who spoke Arabic and only a tiny bit of Hebrew and who made amazing kibbeh for everyone. The same kind of kibbeh that the Palestinian and Syrian Muslims made. I’ve must imagined the last 50 to 60 years of cultural and historical change and mixing in the South Levant. Your ignorance and/or latent racism is astounding Bosco.
.
“No Cortez, that is just your assertion. It did not work for Jews in Palestine when they were under Muslim rule. Jews were an oppressed minority who were at best tolerated. There are newspaper reports by various European personalities who attested about the poor conditions that the Jews of Jerusalem suffered back in the 1850s BEFORE Herzl even published his modern Zionist manifesto. So there was no excuse for that oppression.”
.
I’m not speaking from my own assertions…I am speaking from recorded non-ideological and non-myth-based history that you totally ignore. I’m speaking from a time where Jewish nationalism despite your constant effort to project a race-based conception of Judaism into the past. Where people had the same culture and language but were differentiated by religion. Of course there was a dominant religion but it doesn’t erase factual evidence of an example where people worked, lived, and mixed with each other despite maintaining different religious practices. Lessons can be drawn from this experience, i.e. like avoiding the creation of a state religion or nationalism based off one religion. Secular states do exist with mixed religious cultures. Albeit it might be harder in Israel/Palestine.
.
“You see Cortez? The origins of this conflict between Arabs and Jews is much more complicated than the simple stories that you have been fed. And it is much more complex than just saying that the Jews are the only villains.”
.
Who said the “Jews” were villain or the “only villain”? Maybe Zionists might be villains for ignoring the presence of Palestinian Christians and Muslims. I don’t think I’ve been fed stories but it seems like you have and you can’t let the go.
December 25, 2011
9:31 pm
Cortez: ” Your ignorance and/or latent racism is astounding Bosco”
.
LOL. When all else fails, bring out the “you are a racist card”. Well done Cortez. I’ll tell you what though, If people understand history differently than yourself and draw different conclusions from it, it does not mean that one is racist. It might just mean that you have a knack for cherry picking historical facts that suit you while ignoring other facts that put a dent in your beliefs.
.
Now feast your eyes on this Cortez …
.
“For example, there were numerous incidents of massacres and ethnic cleansing of Jews in North Africa,[8] especially in Morocco, Libya and Algeria where eventually Jews were forced to live in ghettos.[9] Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in the Middle Ages in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.[10] At certain times in Yemen, Morocco and Baghdad, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death.[11]”
.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Arab_world
.
And this is how their situation was described in Jerusalem in 1854:
.
“the sedentary population of Jerusalem numbers about 15,500 souls, of whom 4,000 are Mussulmans and 8,000 Jews. The Mussulmans, forming about a fourth part of the whole, and consisting of Turks, Arabs and Moors, are, of course, the masters in every respect, as they are in no way affected with the weakness of their Government at Constantinople. Nothing equals the misery and the sufferings of the Jews at Jerusalem, inhabiting the most filthy quarter of the town, called hareth-el-yahoud, the quarter of dirt,”
.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1854/03/28.htm
.
I know, Cortez, I am a racist for daring to present to you historical facts that are not palatable to you. You are a sad little man …
December 25, 2011
10:13 pm
@ Larry , I want equal rights in Nablus and Jaffa.And thats not gonna be an advantage thats my right as a Palestinian born to Palestinian parents who were born to Palestinian parents .
December 25, 2011
11:21 pm
@ Palestinian, do you want Arabs in Jaffa to be drafted into the army of the state, whether it remains Israel or becomes Israel/Palestine, alongside the Jews in Jaffa?
December 26, 2011
9:07 am
‘“For example, there were numerous incidents of massacres and ethnic cleansing of Jews in North Africa,[8] especially in Morocco, Libya and Algeria where eventually Jews were forced to live in ghettos.[9] Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in the Middle Ages in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.[10] At certain times in Yemen, Morocco and Baghdad, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death.[11]”
.
I didn’t cherry pick historical facts…considering that I said “Lessons can be drawn from this experience, i.e. like avoiding the creation of a state religion or nationalism based off one religion. Secular states do exist with mixed religious cultures. Albeit it might be harder in Israel/Palestine.”
.
And if you cared about Jews being converted to Islam maybe you would show some sympathy for Palestinians a majority of whom, are descended from Jews. But I doubt you do.
December 26, 2011
9:19 am
Why would Israelis volunteer to demote themselves into the current status of Lebanese Christians, Kurds, and Egyptian Copts? Those who scream, Jews out of Palestine are the grandchildren of those who screamed, Jews (Juden/zhyd) go to Palestine. Avram Burg has is more French than Israeli, but most Israelis dont feel the same way
December 26, 2011
12:37 pm
Cortez:
“And if you cared about Jews being converted to Islam maybe you would show some sympathy for Palestinians a majority of whom, are descended from Jews. But I doubt you do”
.
Let me put it this way. I wish all the best to the Palestinian people as long as “that best” does not mean “the worst” for the Jewish people. And if that makes me a racist, then so be it. But remember, that would make 99.99% of humanity racist and the remaining 0.01% either pretenders or fools.
.
PS
Some of the Palestinians may or may not be descendants of Jews although more than likely they are even though we don’t know the percentage. Either way, good luck to them. I have nothing against them or the other Palestinians. As long as they come to terms with our national aims and let us be.
.
In fact, I hope that in the goodness of time, Israelis and Palestinians can become friends. But right now that is just an impossible dream.
December 26, 2011
12:45 pm
“To create in the land of Palestine a State in which every citizen, christian, moslem and jewish, have equal rightas and obligations”.
This is quoted from the constitution of the Palestine Liberation Organization.
And considered an attempt to destroy the state of Israel, because it is intended to blong only to people of one religion.
When are jews in power discover that from being unfair to the other inhabitants of the Sacred Land is the source of all the problems we face today?
December 26, 2011
2:39 pm
The Arabs already have 22 states. The Palestinian Arabs have been offered a 23rd Arab state in PART OF Palestine but they are saying no to it because they say that Jews are not even entitled to ONE state. And the Jews are the ones who are being unfair? Go figure …
December 26, 2011
2:42 pm
Bosko,
The only way it will be possible for Israelis and Palestinians to be sincere friends would be if the settlement enterprise stopped its expansion, and renounced its exclusively Jewish character.
Its that important.
December 26, 2011
2:57 pm
“To create in the land of Palestine a State in which every citizen, christian, moslem and jewish, have equal rightas and obligations”.
This is quoted from the constitution of the Palestine Liberation Organization”
.
Great ideals. Now read my posts to Cortez and see how it worked out for Jews, historically, in practice, as minorities in Arab countries.
December 26, 2011
3:14 pm
Richard
The settlements are another topic. This thread is about the so called one state solution.
.
But seeing that you brought the settlements up, I’ll say this about it. There are “settlements” and there are “settlements” and there are many opinions about what should be done about them. My own is this …
.
Some settlements should be given up for the sake of peace while some other settlements should be kept because:
.
1. They rightfully belong to Jews for example the Jewish quarter of East Jerusalem and Gush Etzion.
.
2. Because it would be destructive for Israel to ethnically cleanse hundreds of thousands of it’s citizens from such settlements.
.
3. Because with good will, and if there is a genuine desire to settle the conflict and solve the problems, there are perfectly valid and fair alternatives to dismantlement. For example, land swaps.
.
The main problem that I see is that there is no real will amongst the Palestinian Arabs and their supporters to even examine such alternatives because they still think that they can win the zero sum game which is “elimination of the Zionist Entity”. This thread is indicative of those intentions. The so called one state solution is nothing but a different name to that 63 year old objective. And there are fools (and maybe scoundrels) amongst us who try to aid and abet that objective.
December 26, 2011
4:15 pm
If the Jews think they will not be treated well in a single state of Palestine, they can follow the example of Avram Burg and go home
December 26, 2011
4:43 pm
And the home of the Jews is …? Drumroll …… Tell us please Dannecker ……
December 26, 2011
7:52 pm
“The settlements are another topic. This thread is about the so called one state solution.”
The settlements are what creates the one-state “solution”.
Without the settlements as an Israeli state expansion enterprise, there would be a reconciliation already, and hopefully still could be.
December 26, 2011
8:44 pm
Richard
With respect to you and no offense intended, BS! Before 1967 there were no “settlements” yet there was constant terrorism and a war of atrition against Israel. And now? Just ask Palestinians who even posted on this thread, what do they want? If you bother to listen to them, you will hear them tell you clearly what they want. They want a full right of return and a single state solution involving Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Sure, they give soothing and reassuring statements that such a state would be secular democratic and all citizens would have equal rights. But just read this thread and understand why people like me are so sceptical about if. I don’t want to repeat myself …
December 27, 2011
1:23 pm
Palestinians, like all other communities, predominately hold conditional views on what they will accept and not.
They have more than, more than equal, basis for distrusting the other, Israelis.
The settlement enterprise was an intentional mirror of the settlement enterprise prior to 1948, the finger strategy to settle constellations of community to form up the Jewish community and to divide the Palestinian.
The significance of the settlement movement, is that it is not necessary for the prospect of the Jewish community/nation.
When it is necessary to be aggressive to be confident and safe, maybe it is justified.
When it is unnecessary (the design of the settlement enterprise was not for residence, but for intentional expansion of Israeli state territory), it is cruel or worse.
Sensitivity to others needs is a relevant value in an individual, a community, a state.
The only options are:
1. Reconcile – and do the things that make reconciliation possible
2. War
The settlement expansion effort is a war approach, a slow one, a “some will rob you with a fountain pen” one, but a war nevertheless.
Those here that have been hyper-critical of Israel, are speaking mostly conditionally. Only very few bear unconditional hatred of Israel, permanently and in every situation.
As, there are few (maybe more than a few) that bear unconditional hatred for Palestinians.
Most have conditional attitudes.
But, conditioned on sincere recognition, not token.
December 27, 2011
1:25 pm
Burg’s thesis rests on the devolution of the potential for a viable Palestinian state, by virtue of the intentional settlement project.
It IS the subject at hand, not a distraction.
December 27, 2011
2:34 pm
Richard:
“The settlement enterprise was an intentional mirror of the settlement enterprise prior to 1948″
.
OK before I move on, I need you to explain what you meant by that. Are you saying that the vote for the two state solution in 1947 by the UN and the subsequent declaration of the state of Israel in 1948, was an act of injustice? Or are you saying that the Jewish refugees who came to build a home for themselves in their ancestral homeland committed a crime by doing so? Or are you saying something else entirely? Please I need to know what you mean because depending on your answer, I will have to decide whether it is even worth continuing this discussion or are we just wasting each other’s time.
December 28, 2011
4:58 am
Richard
You made a statement. I asked you to clarify to me what did you mean by your statement. Are you just going to ignore my request??
December 28, 2011
5:45 am
Bosko, I think Richard is just ashamed to admit he is in check mate….
December 28, 2011
1:58 pm
Cortez
You mean SOME Jews prefer it.
.
Mitch
I think Richard strikes me as someone who tries to be fair but IS he fair? If you ask me, then my answer is that I disagree with him on some, maybe many things. Maybe I am right, maybe he is right. Either way it is frustrating that he starts a conversation and then just drops it in the middle.
.
I must admit though that depending on his answer, I am also quite prepared to walk away from the conversation if his answer reveals an unassailable chasm between our views.
December 28, 2011
2:24 pm
Oh and Cortez, I take it you haven’t heard about the final solution in another context? Let me refresh your mind: Not that long ago, an attempt was made to implement the final solution to “the Jewish question” in some of the very countries that Herr Dannecker suggested is “the home of the Jews”.
December 29, 2011
5:19 am
“OK before I move on, I need you to explain what you meant by that. Are you saying that the vote for the two state solution in 1947 by the UN and the subsequent declaration of the state of Israel in 1948, was an act of injustice? ”
I am stating that the settlement enterprise movement that Sharon instituted in the late 70′s and early 80′s was based on the same geographic strategy of the original Zionist settlement strategy.
That was to establish “fingers” of groups of settlements that could comprise a micro-economy and jointly defend, AND incrementally purchase adjacent land, to the qualitative point that the region became primarily Jewish rather than primarily Arab, or indeterminate.
It was an intentional effort to take over sovereignty of sections of the land, legally.
The difference between the pre-1948 settlement effort (yishuv), then 1948-67 settlement effort, and then the post 67 effort, was qualitative.
The establishment of a Jewish state, “enough Israel” necessitated a strategy that advantaged Jewish settlements over Arab. It mirrored the intentional hippie strategy that I was part of in 1973, to help hippies buy interconnected communes in a section outside of Eugene, OR, to the extent that we had an economy, a society, and support networks. Zionist. Legal.
From 1948-67, the settlement effort seemed justified, filling the land with new immigrants, though Arabs that had been dispossessed did have legal claims to much of the land that Israelis populated.
It still could be justified by the need for “enough”, following WW2 and Post-WW2, and the mass forced emigration of Jews from Arab lands (some mix of voluntary and forced).
From 67 onward, the settlement project is NOT one of pursuing “enough” land, but of pursuing a policy designed to drive Palestinians out from what might be “enough” land for them, in the area of their residence, their ancestral (recent and distant) connection/home.
I’m yelled at at left-leaning blogs for my opinions that Zionism is justified, the period from 48-67 for example, even as I declare that with “enough Israel”, the claims for land from 1948 are likely reconcilable now.
Nothing is reconcilable if Israel continues to annex. NOTHING.
It is a war-making effort, even when conducted slowly.
December 29, 2011
9:48 pm
Richard
OK, like I said on other threads, I too would advocate compromise on the more remote outlying more isolated settlements, like Hebron, for the sake of peace. But not for places like the Jewish quarter of East Jerusalem and Gush Etzion. Firstly because Jews have the right to be there but even more importantly because giving those places up would affect hundreds of thousands of Jews who already live there and that would mean civil war amongst Israelis. I would want to avoid that at all cost even if it means continued war with the Palestinian Arabs.
.
Having said that, the above points are moot because even if Israel WOULD give up the settlements, there is the “small matter” of the right of return. You have now seen some Palestinian posters on this site who all insist that the right of return is sacrosanct to them. And I have no reason to believe that they represent the minority of Palestinians. Have you, Richard?
.
So we are back to square one. Convince me, Richard , that the Palestinian Arabs have changed their mind. That they gave up on their 100 year old idea of stopping the existence of the Jewish state.
February 27, 2012
4:01 am
One state also requires the full support of the Arab States combined, camp david style accords, joint development funds for under developed West Bank and Gaza (of which the funds are not handed to corrupt PA but to independent multi-national committee) and full membership in the Arab League,
Call it Canaan, Phoenicia, or even Semitatia… prosperous, federal, multi ethnic and free from foreign play state that lays ground for tolerance and proves religious zealots wrong for once,