"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mohandas K. Gandhi
On the day Israelis went to the polls to elect a right-wing government that will include a party calling for the ethnic cleansing of non-Jewish Israeli citizens, Shimon Peres was dispatched to the Washington Post to tell the world they have nothing to worry about. Instead of being concerned about Avigdor Lieberman, Peres believes the current threat to peace are people calling for democracy and equality. Peres writes in his article, "One Region, Two States,"
There is no shortage of opinions when it comes to Middle East affairs, and the recent events in Gaza have not muted them. A minority of Middle East pundits have recently emerged as advocates for a one-state solution, which would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of my forefathers. Having personally witnessed the remarkable progress we have made with the Palestinian Authority in recent years, I believe that a two-state solution is not only the best resolution to this age-old conflict but one within our reach.
Peres's absurd statement, in the wake of Israel's decimation of Gaza, is an insult. For the most part Peres relies on Aaron David Miller's "least bad option" defense for the two-state solution. He combines this with the particularly noxious paternalism of an occupier claiming to advocate for Palestinian self-determination. A Palestinian friend writes,
We are to believe that after 15 years of negotiations that have been used to entrench the occupation (is that even debatable anymore?), he believes that Palestinians “should not be denied the opportunity to take their national destiny into their own hands.” All we have to do is pretend we don’t see what’s been happening on the ground - in the West Bank and Gaza, and with the incredibly steep rise in popularity of fascist parties within Israel. Maybe dragging on the peace process for another fifteen years will lead to even more “remarkable progress.”
There is no doubt others saw through Peres's doublespeak as well. It is only because Israel has made the two-state solution impossible that people are looking for alternatives. It's because of the the expansion of the occupation through the Oslo years, the increasing threats towards Israel's Palestinian citizens and the fact that refugees are still waiting for justice after over 60 years that the one-state solution is gaining in popularity. Peres might think the obtuse references to Singapore will put people at ease, but Israel's own policies are leading more and more people to ask questions.
Ali Abunimah responded to the article by saying, "It's fantastic that they had to roll out Peres in order to defend the two-state solution. They are on the defensive at this level and we have barely even started. It's all crumbling."
For a long time Israel's supporters just ignored the idea of equality and justice in Israel/Palestine. Then they dismissed the idea of one democratic state as utopian or unrealistic, barely worthy or a reply. Now they are starting to fight it. What comes next may be up to all of us. (Adam Horowitz)
It is quite remarkable that Sharon's 'facts on the ground' policy has actually worked and the incredible irony is that it will lead to the demise of a Jewish state.
What is remarkable is that The West bank will re-attach to Jordan. Therefore, there will only be one state, Israel, with all of the Arabs having the right to return to 80% of Mandate palestine- Jordan and the west bank.
I'm very much struck by Peres' mention twice of Israel as the land of his forefathers, whereas the Palestinian Arabs "also deserve to have a state." Palestine is not the land of their forefathers as well? Not even a nod to the fact that the Palestinians have a historic claim to the land that is at least as valid as those of the modern Israelis whose forefathers – or themselves – emigrated to Palestine only in the last 100 years at most?
Admittedly, the same struck me, John Robertson. But did you notice the careful construction?
My right: Connection between biblical rights and international recognition.
Our right: Rights contested by Islamic forces. Pipes could help here. Even the Koran prophesies that Allah gave or will give back the land back to the Jews.
Historical homeland = land of my/our forefathers. Paraphrasing and amending/correcting Muammar Gaddafi.
What he is really saying: We don't need to tell us what we want and deserve. We already have "historical rights legitimate rights plus the recognition of the international community. So you Arabs don't need to tell us what we "want and deserve". We do not need your offer of something we already owe.
Correction:
What he is really saying: We don't need you to tell us, what we want and deserve. We already have "historical rights", plus our rights are recognized by the international community. They are thus legitimate. So you Arabs don't need to tell us what we "want and deserve". We do not need your offer of something we already owe.
It's the Palestinians that want and deserve. And to get something, you Arabs have to first recognize our rights and join the consent of the international community.
We are all aware of the 3000 year old rights of the Israeli Jews. It is a constant refrain.
But international law does not consider mythical claims. It deals with today's consensus of the nations of the earth. It does not argue with Israel's rights to its 1967 borders, it just wants Israel to stop occupying and interfering with the rights of people they kicked of the land in the process of building Israel.
The two state solution will happen in the flash if Israel extends the same rights it wants to for themselves to Palestinians. Palestinians will sign on the bottom line tomorrow without once requesting that international law is bend.
As an alternative, they would like full recognition as human beings of equal value with equal rights in the land of Israel holds both legitimately and illegitimately.
3000? Little bit longer than that, but facts are not that important to Eva. International law considers that Israel, as a sovereign nation, exists. It also realizes that the faction desiring an additional arab state in the region is run by terrorists.
International law considers that Israel, as a sovereign nation, exists.
International law would be pretty stupid if it didn't recognize that Israel exists. Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa also existed, and were recognized as existing.
But problems of this sort can always be solved eventually.
So Hamas is pretty stupid? Interesting that you admitted such, especially as you are one of Philip's species.