Comments on: The one-state reality vs. the two-state idea

By: Gabby

Gabby — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 07:20:47 +0000

What do you propose a viable solution for the status of Jerusalem?

By: Jo Levy

Jo Levy — Mon, 21 May 2012 04:37:25 +0000

Tell me what right Jewish citizens of Israel have that Israeli Arabs don’t have, just one. Of course, you wont be able, because they have equal rights. Do they have equal treatment? No. Not because Israel is a Jewish state, but rather because of the ongoing Arab Israeli conflict.

As for the Palestinians, they are not victims of apartheid, they are occupied,like the Germans after WW2.
This occupation can end tomorrow morning, in spite of the settlements.
Don’t forget that 80% of the settlers live in the main settlement blocs which were built alongside the Israeli border. It would be very easy to make a land swap so that the Palestinians will be compensated for the annexation of the settlements.
About 60% of the Israeli population supports this idea, but they still vote Likud.
Guess why? They fear terrorism.
As long as Hezbollah and Hamas will remain Israel’s real neighbors, the Likud will remain in power. The Arab league offer of 2002 is interesting, but it will remain meaningless as long as the Arabs wont prove Israelis that a pullout from the West Bank will be safe, and that it will not turn the West Bank into a launching pad against Israel.

By: Greg Pollock

Greg Pollock — Sun, 20 May 2012 08:33:56 +0000

I see no evidence that the US will force you to “save” yourself. Caste Lead had no public effect at all on US policy. True, I think the Obama Administration rather disgusted with the “no preconditions so we can keep building while you beg us to leave” policy, but not to the extent of actually doing something. I don’t think any American President can contravene Israel unless something quite horrible happens–and Caste Lead didn’t reach that, giving one an idea of the bar.
.
Sari Nusseibeh has argued for an economic union with no voting rights–because he knows that will ultimate produce a real civil disobedience movement.
.
Aaron: I can no longer see a viable Gaza/West Bank State internally. Completely divided States with that population split will not work. Which means that Israelis are imagining an unstable option when they speak of “two States.” That a single Palestinian State is not feasible given de facto Israeli severence of its geography–without allowing unfettered transport to both areas–the economic creep will give you an annexed Bank. You are likely right that outsiders don’t understand how Israelis see the options; but I am pretty sure now that Israelis have no idea of what an uncontiguous State of such proportions would mean. The talk of “contiguous boarders” for the Bank are rather silly when you conisder severed Gaza.

By: Rehmat

Rehmat — Sun, 20 May 2012 02:50:22 +0000

The two-state idea came out of the 1917 Belfour Declaration. However, it did not suit the leaders of the World Zionist movement who had a dream of Heretz Israel.

Palestinian groups under PLO umbrella were divided on their agenda. Some wanted to recapture the entire historical Palestine stolen from them by the European Zionist Jews – while the other were content to live in a separate state beside Israel. However, after the failure of several “peace accords” negotiated by pro-Israel US administrations – more and more Palestinian leaders and foreign political analysts and even Jewish writers and bloggers are convinced that the two-state solution is very unpractical for both the Jews and the native Muslim and Christian Palestinians.

Two Jewish bloggers, Israeli-born Gilad Atzmon and US-born Roger Tucker – are among those who believe that the only a single democratic Palestinian state with equal rights for the Jewish settlers and native Muslims and Christians will bring a lasting peace in the region.

http://rehmat1.com/2010/06/18/palestine-the-third-option/

By: XYZ

XYZ — Sun, 20 May 2012 02:29:12 +0000

Important point to note in what Noam wrote here. He stated that the Left/Progressives, having apparently lost the battle for Israeli public opinion, need to go around it and have outside powers impose what the Left/Progressives want. In other words, use anti-democratic weapons against the will of the public and the government. Just remember, this is a double-edged sword. If the Left/Progressives advocate anti-democratic measures, then Noam is going to have to acknowledge that the Left/Progressives are justifying allowing the opposition to them to used anti-democratic means to defend themselves.
Just like the Left/Progressives learned after they cheered Sharon breaking all his promises to his voters and destroying Gush Katif anyway, they then found they had no moral right to whine when Mofaz broke all his promises and joined Netanyahu’s gov’t. Is this really the kind of world Noam and the Progressives/Left want……everyone does what ever he wants regardless of whether the democratic rules allow it? Don’t go around whining that the anti-BDS laws are “anti-democrati” when you yourselves advocate anti-democratic measures.

By: Hostage

Hostage — Sun, 20 May 2012 00:03:14 +0000

Of course the State of Israel shared it’s ideas with the US government each step along the way. Here are some excerpts from the declassified texts of Abba Eban’s discussions with US officials about an autonomous statelet back in 1967:

Gaza territory was also security problem for Israel. Israel would like have the territory without the population but did not see how that could come about.
…
West Bank presented particularly difficult problems. Incorporation of West Bank into Israel, with its large Arab population, would completely transform Israel’s national existence and reason for being. An Israeli demographic expert had estimated that at present rate of population growth this would produce an Arab majority in Israel within 15 years. In any case it would cause a total reshaping of Israeli politics, as Arab votes were sought, and thus produce alterations in structure of Israel that they did not desire. Neither could Arabs be incorporated into Israel without granting them Israeli citizenship. This would not be permitted by international community nor would it be acceptable to Israeli people themselves.

Eban said they had also given thought to establishment of separate, autonomous Palestinian state on West Bank. This also has serious drawbacks. Days of autonomous dependent regions had really passed. Creation of Palestinian state might simply increase irredentist desires. There would be yet another Arab state on Arab scene. In a year or two it would ask for UN membership, and it would be admitted. Such prospects did not look attractive.

http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d442

By: Reb L. Moses

Reb L. Moses — Sat, 19 May 2012 21:24:17 +0000

B”H 20 May 2012. Many of my in-depth intellectual predications hold proof to the theories of conflict resolution that I promoted back in my campaign in a mayoral position but today address the urban aggravation that is faced by the world’s population, including the beasts nd vegetation. The communities of Israelis and Palestinians can achieve the light from the beacon of environment restoration by initiating projects and training crew to do the manufacture, sales, installation, and economic advancement of equal educational opportunities in the field of renewable energy by one man one vote citizens of Israel National Palestine. I shudder with vibrant joy at the thought of peace and human purpose guiding the world to follow in our wake.

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Sat, 19 May 2012 09:49:00 +0000

I really don’t imagine Glick wants to give West Bank Arabs equal rights with Jews. Women in Green announced Thursday it will support the Knesset lobby for the application of Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria’s bid to apply Israeli law in the region, in order to raise public awareness. Glick is scheduled to address the lobby in Hebrew on Wednesday, when it holds its first conference. (Arutz Sheva, May 18)

By: Aaron the Fascist Troll

Aaron the Fascist Troll — Sat, 19 May 2012 05:11:34 +0000

I honestly don’t know that the word “Palestinian” means, which is why I tend to avoid it. Which groups self-identify as Palestinians? All those who are identified by others as Palestinians? Are all Palestinians Arabs (perhaps with individual exceptions)? I don’t know the answer. I don’t know what “Arab” means either – are Bedouin Arabs? – but it seems a little less ambiguous, and “Arab Israeli” is more commonly used than “Palestinian Israeli.” I admit to sometimes using the former as a synecdoche, though.

Often, “correct” replacements for commonly used words in effect impose identities upon groups of people against their will, or privilege one indigenous group over another. The result being that some indigenous groups prefer the old “incorrect” word to the new “correct” word, which they find offensive. The word “Arab” itself seems to have been an example of this, starting with “Arabism” and, later, Arab nationalism. My question – an honest question, not rhetorical – is whether “Palestinian” is another example.

Sinjim, I never argued that there’s no racial or ethnic discrimination. I addressed the much more specific statement, “segregation and military control operates along ethnic lines.” I said that it operates *more* along lines of citizenship. Your hypothetical example shows only that citizenship itself is ethnically based, which of course is obvious.

By: max

max — Sat, 19 May 2012 01:17:47 +0000

” Does that sound logical?” – absolutely, if you like conspiracy theories and believe that journalists also build their worlds around them