Comments on: Settler MK Uri Ariel calls for one state

By: Jazzy

Jazzy — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 21:29:31 +0000

DIRECTROB: Before you place all your eggs in the ECHR basket, maybe actually take a look on admissible cases that deal with say, Kurds in Turkey. Sorry but I think you’ve been saying ‘human rights’ and ‘international law’ so much that you’ve lost track of, or never knew, the content of those things.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 22:52:59 +0000

The issue will be, not to put a gloss on this, but to be prepared to show it up and fight whatever it throws up. Which is much what people are doing in the present, confusing and complicated hybrid situation. The power relationship will hardly change, nor the strategic goal of Zionism to have its cake and eat it. But the shape of the struggle could change dramatically. With the fig-leaf of the border, and the “peace process” gone, it will be possible to unite the opposition across the whole land and end some of the fragmentation of the Palestinians. The road-block of two states talk will finally be removed. The demands will change to much more hard-hitting and universal ones of equal franchise and equal law, civil rights, basic freedoms, and that will be much more appealing, especially abroad.

As for the loyalty oath, that’s simple: no equality, no loyalty.

It isn’t a case of allying with the annexers or jumping into bed with them, but of being prepared to adopt new tactics and new demands which have not been possible yet, and of gathering new allies especially among young Israelis, who proved last summer that as long as Palestinian issues are seen as being “abroad” they can be sidelined.

Annexation will be a paradigm shift and game-changer. It will not be up to us whether it happens or not, so there’s really no point in arguing about it. Those committed to freedom and equality need to re-arm and prepare for a new situation.

By: directrob

directrob — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 22:09:19 +0000

Aristeides, I was already afraid that I missed something… I did get that for justice and the rule of law to have a chance the IDF needs to reform and the high court needs to be neutralized.

By: aristeides

aristeides — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 18:36:05 +0000

Directrob – “force the IDF”? How? If there’s one thing we see today, it’s the sheer impossibility of forcing an armed and recalcitrant regime to do anything it doesn’t want to. We can destroy, but forcing is harder.

.
If we could force the IDF to enlist Arabs, we could force the settlers out of the WB.

By: aristeides

aristeides — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 18:33:04 +0000

Aaron – my use of “Judaization” was different, but your argument is sound. Of course the law would also have to forbid refusal to sell to Arabs anywhere in Israel. That would fuel another profound change, as the Palestinians who sold would have to move somewhere else.

By: directrob

directrob — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 18:09:36 +0000

The European court of human rights can give binding rulings. Not much more is needed than giving Israeli and refugees the right to bring their cases to the ECHR and to force the IDF and Police to proportionally enlist “”Arabs”" for all ranks and functions. The ECHR will quickly repair all laws in conflict with human rights and international law.

By: Aaron the Fascist Troll

Aaron the Fascist Troll — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 17:12:30 +0000

Aristeides, by “Judaization,” I meant Jews moving into an area and thereby changing its character. That happens all the time, usually without any land theft and without forcibly driving out previous residents. Look at how certain parts of New York City were Judaized a century ago. Manhattan and other areas were Judaized legally and legitimately.
*
The same would happen to many parts of Judea and Samaria if Jews were allowed to live anywhere they legitimately purchased property and if owners were allowed to sell to Jews. And if the kind of civil rights laws that +972 likes were enforced, the kind that would forbid Arab property owners from discriminating against Jewish buyers, then Judaization would go all that much more intensely. Think about it: it would be illegal for an Arab in Hebron to discriminate against a Jew who wanted to buy his property. The Judaization of Judea and Samaria would not be pleasant, any more than it was in Manhattan, but in a single, civil rights-respecting state, any effective resistance to it would be illegal.

By: aristeides

aristeides — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:56:01 +0000

The kicker is “egalitarian.” And not “involving the theft of private property, driving out existing residents, etc.” Because that’s what Judaization is all about. Not the right of Jews to live in the “Land of Israel” but the right of Jews to drive out the Palestinians and take their land. It’s all about living in a house you don’t have to pay for because you took it from someone else. Only a freier pays for a house.

By: Aaron the Fascist Troll

Aaron the Fascist Troll — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 06:41:47 +0000

For once I agree with Richard Witty. A single state, whether the right’s version or the left’s, means the Judaization of Judea and Samaria.
*
I half-seriously suggested the thesis of this article in a comment to one of the author’s other posts on the subject. I asked, “Since Jews, like Arabs, will have the right to live anywhere they desire [in the egalitarian single state] west of the Jordan River, what’s wrong with laying down those foundations now, provided it doesn’t involve the theft of private property, driving out existing residents, etc.?” One of the commenters rightly criticized me for being too cute by half.
*
Of course, I didn’t seriously endorse that idea. Noam asks now, “If we look past the labels of left and right, what represents a more democratic and just approach – the statement above [by Ariel] or the language of separation?” Answer: the language of separation. Without a doubt.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 00:53:38 +0000

The alternative to the Jewish and/or commercial dominance prospect, if a single state is still desired, is the path of persuasion.

If a significant minority of both communities prefer an integrated single state, and a significant super-majority consent to it, then that is chosen and the social weight of election and commerce will support a new cultural entity, a new Zion.