As many voices on this site mourn the two-state solution, I picked up Palestinian-American Ali Abunimah's book, One Country (2006). It tells a long-ago story that seems quaint today:
Drawing parallels between Israel-Palestine and apartheid South Africa makes some people very uncomfortable, as I learned [in 2002] when I spoke on a panel with Rabbi Arnold Wolf, a highly regarded Chicago community leader and early proponent of a Palestinian state among liberal American Jews. I compared arguments that were made to shield Israel from international criticism to those used to justify the actions of apartheid South Africa. Wolf was incensed. "The analogy is despicable," he roared. "The situation was never like it was in South Africa."
That was before: the Iraq war, Jimmy Carter's book, my own report on apartheid in Hebron, the settlers' pogroms of last year, Olmert's apartheid warnings, Steve Walt's apartheid warnings, Gaza, the rise of Netanyahu.
Would Rabbi Wolf still get incensed? Somehow I doubt it. Tell me, rabbi; what do you say now?
Abunimah again:
The clearest lesson from South Africa's example is that the Palestinian message and methods must make it clear that the target is not the Israeli people but an unjust system that denies one people their rights, identity, and dignity, and condemns the other to increasing isolation, fear, and moral corruption. The movement should not be framed around Palestinian nationalism, but should call for a democracy that will protect all people and emancipate them from the prison of communal interest and competition. While building international pressure against the current system and exacting a price from those who support it, Palestinians need to articulate a vision of the future in which Israelis can see themselves.
Beautifully stated. (All emphases mine.) This is also the great challenge to American Jews who understand in the age of Obama that Zionism is not the way. Let us join with others and chart the future.
(Phil Weiss)
The hard part is what to do about Palestinian nationalism/self-determination. With S. Africa, the "progressive" solution was always one-state, equal rights for all. WRT Palestine, the progressives have bought into the same Zionist/nationalist orientation that everyone else has, and all of the focus is on establishing a Palestinian state. But how do you move past that, when the Palestinians themselves want their own state?
You don't move past it. You establish a palestinian state. And you let it grow or die. If it dies, it will be absorbed by Jordan. If it thrives, it will be just one more state that votes to condemn Israel in goose step fashion with the rest of the Arab League.
Ramallah will be its capital, the Israeli's leave most of the settlements,including Hebron. What they don't leave, equal land with the palestinian population will go to the new Palestinian state.
Those Palestinians, just as those Israelis, that don't want to move can stay where they are, but their nationality will be the state that they are in. The Arabs will become full fledged Israelis and the Jews will become full fledged Palestinians.
Likud Charter Does Not Recognize Palestine
Which Israel should Hamas recognize? Israel has not yet stated what its international borders are. Should Hamas recognize the Israel of 1948? The Israel of 1967? The Israel of 2009 with its apartheid wall, settlements, and second class Arab citizens and with East Jerusalem annexed?
By Frank Barat – London
What was the official reason given by Israel and the International community for not recognizing Hamas?
The reason they gave was that Hamas refused to recognize Israel and had a Charter calling for the destruction of the Jewish state.
Everyone (politicians and corporate media leaders) accepted this without asking a few important questions. Which Israel should Hamas recognize? Israel has not yet stated what its international borders are. Should Hamas recognize the Israel of 1948? The Israel of 1967? The Israel of 2009 with its apartheid wall, settlements (settlements building raised by 60 percent in 2008, the year of the Annapolis “Peace Process”, according to a Peace Now report), second class Arab citizens and with East Jerusalem annexed?
Any astute observer could also have objected by reminding people that Hamas (through Haniyeh and Meshal) had said many times over that it was willing to accept Israel as a political entity on the 1967 borders. You do not have to look hard for this, it was stated in the Guardian, Washington Post, amongst others, meaning that Hamas was now in line with most of the international community, accepting a two-state solution.
Another issue came back again and again. The problem is Hamas’s Charter, we would hear. Whatever Meshal or Haniyeh were ready to accept, the Charter came back to haunt them every time.
But what about the Charter of the Likud Party. With Netanyahu and his right-wing party ready to take over, it is only fair to find out a bit more about them.
In the "Peace and Security" chapter of the Likud Party platform, a recent document (1999) it says initially that:
"Peace is a primary objective of the State of Israel. The Likud will strengthen the existing peace agreements with the Arab states and strive to achieve peace agreements with all of Israel’s neighbors with the aim of reaching a comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict."
But then it says about settlements:
"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."
Therefore annihilating the slightest chance of a two-state solution.
On Palestinian self-rule it says:
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs."
Therefore annihilating any chance of seeing a Palestinian sovereign state.
On Jerusalem:
"Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem, including the plan to divide the city presented to the Knesset by the Arab factions and supported by many members of Labor and Meretz."
Therefore annihilating any chance for future peace negotiations because east Jerusalem as capital of a future Palestinian state is non-negotiable for any Palestinian.
We have therefore established that the Likud party charter does not recognize Palestine and will not accept a sovereign Palestinian state. The soon-to-come non-recognition of Likud by the international community and an implemented blockade on Israel should therefore not come as a surprise for Israelis.
Likud Charter Does Not Recognize Palestine
The two state solution is the only one.
Its not dead, but definitely threatened to take large steps back.
The two state solution is the only one.
Its not dead, but definitely threatened to take large steps back.
And what are you doing about it, Richard? I have yet to hear you voice a single objection to the extremist settler-friendly positions taken on this board. Wagging your finger in one direction will only get you a sore finger.
There is not yet a Palestine to recognize. Once there is one, Israel will recognize it.
Chris,
I can just see the cynical grin on your face: "There is not yet a Palestine to recognize. Once there is one, Israel will recognize it".
What you just said is equivalent to:
I will welcome any child God has given my family, but I will always use contraceptives and I will certainly make my wife abort any pregnancy.
Maybe Israelis should just stop fighting and give democracy a chance: one person one vote in Likud's defined Israel?
Decolonisation.
Rabbi Wolf passed away last month or a little earlier. I'm afraid he wouldn't be saying anything right now.
Eva, good thing that you and logic never meet. What would we do if we didn't have you to laugh at?
Chris Berel and Richard Witty,
The two-state solution: ok. Settlers leave settlements: ok. Reciprocal land swaps for agreed upon settlements: ok. Massive compensation paid to Palestinians: ok, but you forgot to mention it. Right to return to Israel for a limited amount of Palestinians: ok, but you forgot to mention it. Palestinian state with EAST JERUSALEM as its capital. OK: Where did the Ramallah statement come from, Mr. Berel-troll?
It COULD still be accomplished, with massive pressure on both parties, led by the US and supported by the international community. Do I think it will happen? Call me a cynic, call me a realist.
My answer: "NO"
PM
The late Rabbi Wolf, whom I was privileged to meet, was ahead of his time; unfortunately, time may not catch up with him soon enough to realize his vision. But yes, it's hard to reconcile his social justice with a Jewish state of any kind that does not accord full political and cultural rights to all of its citizens.
Massive compensation paid to Palestinians: ok, but you forgot to mention it
Of course, but paid by the UN as it is their formula.
ther is no 'right of return' for any palestinian. There may be some consideration for family reunification but only within strict limits.
Ramallah is the current capital of the palestinian people. It stays that way, Paul-troll.
Peace would be more likely if BOTH communities considered Jerusalem of religious importance only. (Hard to get any of them to recant that one.)
Palestinians should get their day in court from 1948, and post 1967 land claims. If specific title questions can only be resolved by transfer to Palestinian owners (on a case by case basis), then they obviously should be allowed to reside in their homes and that would constitute a limited right of return.
On the settlements. They are much knottier. I oppose forced removals of hundreds of thousands, however they came to reside there. I favor the land being designated as Palestine, with the requirement that former owners get their day in court and are compensated for forced takings.
Reality of being citizens of Palestine would probably result in settlements shrinking.
I am not talking of all Palestinians having to take an oath of loyalty to Palestinian state, let alone "Islamic and democratic Palestinian State" the way some Israeli Politicians propose.
I believe that many settlers would leave if they had to find employment in West Bank with no automatic right to cross the border daily to Israel, competing fairly with other citizens of Palestine. Paying taxes to local authorities for their properties – in proportion to their value as compared with local buildings – would probably discourage some settlers who are not sufficiently committed – they would probably choose to move to Israel. Being offered equal share of water resources as other citizens of Israel would make sense. Thus economic colonists would leave, and the religious would maintain their link to the land.
Where is it written that only jews shall ever have a right of return?
Why should the UN compensate the Palestinians for what Israel took from them? Germany pays reparations. Why not Israel?
The Palestinian people are a nation without borders–just like Israel/Jewish diaspora.
What's the difference?
It's written in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, 1948, and codified into Israeli law, as "Right of Return" 1950. It's all very democratic, you see.
The right of the Jews to return to Israeli is a law provided by the Israeli people. Did you think you get a say in Israeli law?
I don't see you protesting the fact that Jews may not become citizens of Saudi Arabia or Jordan, by law.
How convenient. The rights of the Germans over non-Germans during the NAZI regime were provided by laws enabled by the German people. Those laws applied both in Germany proper and all occupied lands. Eventually Americans had a say in German law.
Those who pay the piper, call the tunes. Sometimes it takes awhile
for that connection to hook up satisfactorily. I'd say the billions
of unconditional dollars the USA gives Israel every year, plus the matrix of special benefits and guarantees, for example as to oil, and safety, entitles
me, as an American, to have a say in Israeli law. Anyone who wants can google a comparison of the conditional aid the USA gives to Saudi Arabia or Jordan. And also compare what we get
in return. Such detectives will soon learn the nature and extent
of Israel's "special relationship."
BTW the Arab states do not trumpet to the world how they are
the only democracy in the Middle East, nor are they sold that
way to American voters.
No Americans would use the Arab states as role models.
"How convenient. The rights of the Germans over non-Germans during the NAZI regime were provided by laws enabled by the German people.' Citizen
Citizen failed (or knowingly refused to recognize) to see that the Jews in Germany had been legal citizens for 100's of years. But then citizen is not a historian, has few facts available to him, and is pretty much not more than a hate mongering bufoon.