Sandy Tolan has some more advice for George Mitchell - "listen to people who are thinking beyond two-state options, and foster an openness and creativity absent from American diplomacy since the beginning of this tragedy 60 years ago."
Writing in the Christian Science Monitor, Tolan declares "the two-state solution is on its deathbed." He outlines some familiar statistics:
•The biggest Israeli settlement outside East Jerusalem, Ariel, is now home to nearly 20,000 settlers. Their home lies one third of the way inside the West Bank, yet the Israeli "security barrier" veers well inside the occupied territory to wrap Ariel in its embrace. The settlement's leaders proclaim confidently that they are "here to stay," and embark on frequent missions to seek new waves of American Jews to move to the settlement.
•A massive Israeli infrastructure to serve and protect the settlements – military posts, surveillance towers, and settlers-only "bypass roads" that allow Israelis easy access to prayer in Jerusalem or the seaside in Tel Aviv – has cut the West Bank into tiny pieces, fragmenting Palestinian life.
•To maintain separation between West Bank Arabs and West Bank Jews, Israel has erected more than 625 roadblocks, checkpoints, and other barriers – a 70 percent increase since 2005 in a land the size of Delaware, the second-smallest state. Israelis rarely encounter such obstacles, but Palestinians seeking to travel between villages and towns must seek permits, and even then, a short journey can take hours.
•Israel's "suburbs" in Arab East Jerusalem, home now to nearly 200,000 Jews, form a concrete ring, isolating the would-be Palestinian capital from the rest of the West Bank. It is therefore increasingly difficult to imagine how a Palestinian president would govern from a capital that is sealed off from the people of his nation.
On the same day this article ran, we pointed out similar issues and the US role in promoting these "facts on the ground" here on Mondoweiss. These sentiments have almost become commonplace in the US media recently (its been know in Palestine for years). More and more people are realized that the Israeli occupation has become nearly permanent as demonstrated by the recent 60 Minutes story.
Like the 60 Minutes piece, Tolan offers an overview of Israel's options - "the continuation of the status quo, which is growing inexorably into apartheid; or, expulsion of West Bank Palestinians to Jordan, which is already being seriously discussed among Israelis" - but then puts another idea on the table, the one-state solution.
Yet it was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in "sympathetic cooperation" between "the two great Semitic peoples" and who insisted that "no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein's theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein's friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a binational state of "joint sovereignty," with "complete equality of rights between the two partners," based on "the love of their homeland that the two peoples share."
Even though Tolan uses examples from the past, its clear the discourse is moving forward.
(Adam Horowitz)
Why the hell would Israelis ever agree to a one-state solution? The alternatives, however bad, would always seem preferable. I don't even think Palestinains would like a one-state solution very much. How can you expect people who are killing each other to get along and share a country? Belgium can barely keep it together!
*J Street: Defend 60 Minutes for Telling the Truth About Israeli Settlements in the West Bank
The CBS news program 60 minutes is under attack for stating the obvious about Israeli settlements in the West Bank: there can be a two-state solution, or there can be Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but not both.
Send a quick note to CBS to counter the right-wing flak -
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/2747/t/3251/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2523
Seems that once Salsa in involved, those in the know play dead. Involvement with salsa is a sure fire way to have your cause ignored.
Look to South Africa. If the jews are so great, they can easily do what
lower souls, white S Africans did. It would help, all you readers, if
you supported the boycott of Israel, and badgered your congressmen to cut off aid to Israel. You did it for S Africa. Time for Israel.
The West is just catching up on what the Palestinians and other Arabs have known for at least 20 of the last 40 years. Tony Karon's last article is a zinger in that it speaks openly of Israel's desire to just keep the peace process processing indefinitely. Until now, it's been only the most marginalized voices that have discussed this at length.
Tony is calling for Obama to impose a solution, but I think Obama may just say that doing anything about the MEast crisis would be more trouble than it's worth–and it just might cost him his second term. If Obama has any plans at all, he will probably get Mitchell to talk-investigate-talk-investigate for the next four years. Then, if Obama gets his second term, he might just take drastic action. But the best drastic action would be to cut off aid to Israel–and Obama's got the perfect excuse: the US is bankrupt.
…and another thing, if there is an attempt to revive the two-state solution (see Carter's new book), it will take one more war–a doozie. An Israeli civil war would be a spectacle, since 30% of the IDF is now Jewish fundamentalists–and that figure is growing.
Israel supported White South Africa didn't it?
It's amazing how much slack we give those Nazis.
Okay, on another blog, someone commented–without a link, that (the great) Uri Avnery said that the Palestinians would fare better with two states; with one state, the Israelis would have the international law right to do whatever they want from the river to the sea, (and get ethnic cleansing under way)–while currently, the Pals have some status under international law which gives them some protection. I wish someone would find the Avnery link–seems to me an argument that should be weighed here.
Everybody I know would affirm cutting off all aid to Israel.
Why the hell would Israelis ever agree to a one-state solution?
Good question. They wouldn't, but they are in fact operating is such a way that it will be the only option left. As has been pointed out repeatedly, and most recently by Simon on 60 Minutes, they face three choices with the one state solution.
1. A democratic binational state with an Arab majority, which as you say Israel will never accept since it means it cannot be a Jewish state.
2. An apartheid state which from historical precedence is not sustainable. or
3. The expulsion of sufficient numbers of Arabs that maintains a Jewish majority. At the present time this is not a viable option.
Thus Israel is on the horns of a dilema. But they cannot give up the West Bank. The current Zionist leadership are fully aware of these options. So what is going on in their mind?
Let me speculate here. I believe that they are considering the transfer option 3. The caveat to option 3 is that transfer is not viable at the present time, but it could be if a major international crisis diverts the attention of the rest of the world from the West Bank. That is why they are working so hard to provoke the US to go to war against Iran. If that happened they could have the international crisis that would give them sufficient cover to expel large numbers of Palestinians. So by this reckoning when you hear people strongly urging the US to prevent Iran from developing nuclear power, think about us providing the crisis that could bring the transfer option 3 into play.
You would have thought the "international crisis that would give them sufficient cover" conspiracy theorists would have given up after screaming at the top of their lungs during the initial iraq invasion. But no. The imagination quotent of these nut jobs is very low on the scale.
what will occur is a separation of hamistan from the West bank minus Jerusalem. The west bank will be absorbed by Jordan. The Gazans who can not stand living in hamistan will be given the option of becoming Jordanian like 75% of their brothers. 80% will take it.
The remaining 20% will find some way to commit suicide while blaming the Jews for their lunacy.
Chris,
what will occur is a separation of hamistan from the West bank minus Jerusalem. The west bank will be absorbed by Jordan.
I suggest asking the Palestinians what they'd like to do, you know? Hold a referendum or something. Will-of-the-people type of thing. It's the way we do things in my neighbourhood — what about you?
Phil: this is my final warning. Mondoweiss is useless for any serious discussion if it is infested with zionist trolls. Therefore, serious discussion will not occur: instead, the stupidest of the anti-zionists will allow themselves to be drawn into idiotic flame wars, in which the trolls will hope they will say things that can be used against them elsewhere. That is ALL that will be achieved here.
In my opinion, you have been given an ultimatum by various parties you still regard as authoritative, to the effect that, if you allow "anti-zionists, anti-semites, and outright nazis" to post comments here, you must also allow the same or greater access to the hasbara trolls, or else you will be regarded – and defined in their own puppet press – as a "nazi sympathiser". Being a total coward, you have acceded to this demand, and thus rendered your own supposedly brave gesture, of creating this blog, valueless. Certainly you post little here as news that is not already widely known by Internet habitues.
Rowan,
Being a total coward
That's harsh…
I kind of like having the trolls around and I'll miss them if they go away.
They're very imaginative; they post elaborate fictional accounts of history and it's fun to read Ed or Dan Kelly or someone else totally debunk them. They remind me of soap opera characters, reacting emotionally to any perceived slight, lashing out with insults like adolescent girls, playing the part of the perpetual victim even when the role is reversed. Admit it, they add some spice to this blog! I'm also fascinated by the display of blatant ethnocentrism exhibited by the trolls, never pausing to think or feel prior to reacting but hitting the next key stroke fueled by pure tribal power. It's not every day you get to have a conversation with a cult member and get to see how their mind works.
You know what they say about keeping your friends close but your enemies closer? I know we can learn a lot from them. Even if their minds are closed and they don't learn anything from us, don't let that frustrate you, just ignore them if you don't like them. All in all, I think they're a plus.
Rowan, I think blogs with the least comment moderation have the most value. I'm with Hopefully Anonymous. Considering what's been happening in South Africa, I don't know if I'd want to emulate them. Also, most economists would tell you that boycotting South Africa mostly just harmed the most marginal South Africans and strengthened the National Party (just as attacking Gaza has strengthened HAMAS).
Rowan I think you might be correct. I made what seemed to be a reasonable summary of the choices that faced Israel and Chris responded with:
You would have thought the "international crisis that would give them sufficient cover" conspiracy theorists would have given up after screaming at the top of their lungs during the initial iraq invasion. But no.
where he implies that this argument was made in the build up to the Iraq war. It was not, in fact. He simply asserts that it was made, without any documentation. Nor is there any documentation available. It is simply a device to deflect attention from the central points.
I have caught him in outright fabrications before, but he ignores that, and simply comes back with some other deflection, dissimulation or fabrication.
It is difficult, but I believe we should continue, there are lurkers here that can evaluate Chris's fundamental beliefs. The fact that he believes Israel has the right to kill 2 million Palestinians if the US stops bankrolling Israel (as he asserted in a previouse thread) should allow observers to understand where he comes from. Though I do agree that it is frustrating when he succeeds in diverting the discussion. But he is the representative of Zionism. He exposes their positions.
Rowan–agreed, but only to a point. This is one of the GOOD sites. If you wanna see how good, spend some time on Guardian's Comment is Free. At least on Mondoweiss, you can just scroll thru the garbage, as there's plenty of thoughtful comment as well. On most other IP conversation sites, it's all garbage.
Trolls don't mean a thing. Smart people don't respond in kind (or at all). As for Phil, he's providing an essential service.
More likely is a one-state solution involving Israel with some border revisions and a permanent, solid re-partition and whatever hell the Palestinians decide to inaugurate for each other, 1937 with state power and sovereignty.
The Palestinians do not get a one-state Jihadistan from the river to the sea simply by wanting it, sorry. You might actually find a defensive action by the Israeli Islamic Movement itself spurring a mutiny within the bedouin and druze units of the IDF to oppose Hamas. Those of you who read Algerian history do so too lightly, what you are likely to get instead is an alliance of some Jews and some Arabs against other Jews and other Arabs, depending on how indiscriminate the rocket slaughter from the West Bank is, and no Israeli is going to sign up for mixed civil war voluntarily.
Tread carefully American Jewry…the American Goyim are starting to get more than a bit miffed:
"The Palestinians do not get a one-state Jihadistan from river to sea simply by wanting it, sorry".
Eurosabra,
The argument is that the all people, regardless of religion, treated with blind justice as equal human beings, decide what shape the land that they are part of will take, politically. By virtue of there NOT being an Apartheid this is the only war-crimes-free solution.
Your argument of "people can't get political system just by wanting it" is totalitarian in nature and totally contrary to democratic model held dear by an average American.
I again was diaappointed by the opening relative to the content.
"listen to people who are thinking beyond two-state options, and foster an openness and creativity absent from American diplomacy since the beginning of this tragedy 60 years ago."
WHERE IS PROPOSAL? WHERE IS ACTUAL RECONCILIATION?
What would happen if the USA and EU both told Israel and the Palestinians that beginning on X date all financial aid would be cut off unless they both sat down at the negotiation table? The table would be broadcast live to the world. Aid would remain conditional
on progress, starting with any offer and counter-offer, however small. The negotiations could be charted on a wall behind the table, for all to see.
In my opinion, you have been given an ultimatum by various parties you still regard as authoritative, to the effect that, if you allow "anti-zionists, anti-semites, and outright nazis" to post comments here, you must also allow the same or greater access to the hasbara trolls, or else you will be regarded – and defined in their own puppet press – as a "nazi sympathiser".
And there are no hasbara trolls here ? I can already name a few of them.
In any case, I reject any moderation. Let everyone speak freely.
Incidentally, moderation also means censorship of those people you don't want to hear. Those who don't accept nazi talk are very much like homophobes: they are afraid of it, even though they insist so much that they really hate it. If you ain't a Nazi, then why would it matter to you that a Nazi talks, somewhere ? You can destroy his points one by one, very easily. That people are so afraid that Nazism will spread shows just how poor their thinking is.
Hamas would continue smuggling weapons. They have no desire, at this time, to do anything other than rearm, rest, recruit, and wait for an opening to kill Jews.
That is what will happen.
The "one state" solution is laughable. If any of you anti Zionists spent 5 minutes in Israel you would realize it's never going to happen. Also with Hamas in charge of Gaza there won't be a Palestinian State.
I agree with Chris, it's time to move on to a confederation of Gaza with Egypt and the West bank to Jordan.
where he implies that this argument was made in the build up to the Iraq war. It was not, in fact. He simply asserts that it was made, without any documentation.
That surely was a frequent argument. Here is just one article.
I guess you'll find many if you search: Iraq war + Israel + "ethnic cleansing"
*******************************************
Uri Avnery always supported the two state solution. Equally easy to find on the net. It may well be the more realistic solution given the very different societies. One state could be a future vision but surely needs intermediate steps.
And there is another option. Palestine in 1967 borders. Settlers can stay or move to Israel. … Unfortunately not many of the settlers share Uri's state of mind. So it may be the most idealist of all possibilities. But also the most interesting.
Rowan, I think blogs with the least comment moderation have the most value.
I agree 100% TGGP. Rowan has a recurring and odd problem with Phil.
1937 with state power and sovereignty.
I don't like this, Eurosabra, its just another way of calling them Nazis.
Concerning Algeria, I somehow agree with you. Although again, I dislike Jihadistan. Your argument would be much more convincing if the secular party had been treated differently. And it wasn't.
What do you think about Magnes Zionist's support of Hadash?
Uri Avnery:
john pilger over at antiwar…
I agree 100% TGGP. Rowan has a recurring and odd problem with Phil.
Posted by: LeaNder | February 06, 2009 at 07:17 AM
Rowan has this problem with any blog whereupon his comments are proven to be foolish and unworldly. Whenever there are too many people who see through Rowans sophmoric rhetoric, he starts complaining about the lack of moderation. Eventually he skulks off or is tossed off.
The South African dock workers have refused
to unload Israeli goods in solidarity with the Palestinians!!
i think a judaic would call anyone who even criticizes matzo ball soup an anti semite.
how ridiculous of you guys to want to be without criticism.
want a little cheese with that …
"WHERE IS PROPOSAL? WHERE IS ACTUAL RECONCILIATION?"
Antagonists have to actually start talking to one another before proposals can be made. Reconciliation can only occur after fair agreements have been reached and implemented, followed by a sufficient amount of time for people to begin to have confidence in them. Demands for proposals prior to beginning a dialogue are merely an excuse to avoid beginning the long process, which I think will require at least several decades for success. Hamas will fade into irrelevance if the Palestinian people get more out of negotiations than accelerated colonization. It arose because, and only because, Fatah has achieved nothing for the Palestinian people by choosing cooperation instead of armed resistance.
chris berel said:
Rowan has this problem with any blog whereupon his comments are proven to be foolish and unworldly.
2 hours earlier, chris berel had said:
Hamas would continue smuggling weapons. They have no desire, at this time, to do anything other than rearm, rest, recruit, and wait for an opening to kill Jews.
That is what will happen.
No consistency ? Didn't think so.
It really doesn't matter what the Israelis propose. they can't go much better than what was offered at Taba. The problem is 5 million Palestinians are not "returning" to Israel.
I spent years in the region and virtually all the Palestinians I spoke with believe they will return and live in what is now Israel.
How can the Palestinians act so tough without F-16s, ballistic missiles, and nuclear bombs?
I guess they're not compensating for anything or acting out their trauma on an innocent third party the way the Jewish Nazis are. They just want their livelihood back.
While the Jewish Nazis just want to undo the Holocaust, feel better about themselves, and acquire their rightful lebensraum.
It's so hard for unaffiliated people to choose a side in this one!
Andrew Sullivan:
The closer you examine it, the clearer it is that neoconservatism, in large part, is simply about enabling the most irredentist elements in Israel and sustaining a permanent war against anyone or any country who disagrees with the Israeli right.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/02/a-false-premise.html
Eventually he skulks off or is tossed off.
The most interesting point, I think, is that he repeatedly demands people, whose opinion he doesn't share, should be blocked or censored. Although, if you have more information, these two phenomena may well be related? …
*********************************************
littlehorn, I don't understand were you see an inconsistency. Can you guarantee that Hamas would stop sending rockets from a Palestine within 1967 borders? Could anybody? Still it would be worth a try.
There could be a couple of incentives like financial support and training and opening the European market to Palestinian products only under these conditions.
Any way one cuts it, the problem commenced with innocent Palestinian dispossession, and the Gaza park is the result now. How any American can support this is beyond me.
Then again, I'm a goy, and not Dick Chaney.
Or Obama.
Well, the Israeli plan seems simple:
1. Herd the Palestinians on the West Bank into shrinking reservations which are disconnected by Israeli roads, settlements and "security areas" and access to which is rigidly controlled, and in most cases prohibited, by the IDF.
2. Call this patchwork of self-administrated prison camps a "state" and install some bribed Fatah lackeys as the "state"'s leaders.
3. Declare that the two-state-solution has been successfully accomplished thanks to the good will of Israel. Act irritated if someone complains into the face of your great accomplishment.
One reason for the harsh Israeli action in recent months is probably that Gaza, as a tiny, but contiguous territory, can't be handled that way – and the publicity value of removing a few thousand settlers has worn off, considering that in the same year, a larger number settled on the West Bank. The preferable solution for Israel would likely be to drop Gaza into Egypt's lap and leave it as their problem.
Works for me, Koshiro.
But knowing the Palestinians and the anti-Semitic Jew haters on this blog, they'll probably call it a raw deal.
I mean, who wouldn't want to live on a nice reservation right next to the light to all nations?
If I ever got to live that close to Israel, I would be like SO happy!
I think that the Palestinians should listen to Tom Friedman. He really has their best interests in mind.
Just because someone is a Jewish Zionist who regularly writes propaganda trying to get Americans to fight wars for the Jews, doesn't mean that Arabs shouldn't trust them.
"It really doesn't matter what the Israelis propose. they can't go much better than what was offered at Taba"
What was offered at Taba? The Israelis walked away from the negotiations.
“I spent years in the region and virtually all the Palestinians I spoke with believe they will return and live in what is now Israel”.
What, both of them?
It really doesn't matter what the Israelis propose. they can't go much better than what was offered at Taba. The problem is 5 million Palestinians are not "returning" to Israel.
True, but part of European colonial history plus a reaction to European troubles surrounding emancipation, as the peaks of emigration were triggered by the Nazis, my countrymen.
There should be a special legal framework for addressing dispossession issues on both sides and recognized by both parties. … (Truth courts … for me wanting to know the truth runs deeper than wanting to take revenge)
Let's suppose there is a Palestinian state in 1967 borders. Let's also assume the court above has a framework equally recognized by "Arabs" and "Jews" or Mizrahi Jews. Now let's also assume that the chance to create a Palestinian state from ground up would make some "Arab Israelis" want to move to the other side of the fence to take part in the effort. Couldn't this "natural movement" be used as a chance to let some people e.g. return to spend their last years in the country they were born in. Why not define a framework that allows a limited movement besides a basic compensation?
I would support unorthodox approaches. Why not allowing children of descendants to study in Israel. Create a special scholarship fund? Wouldn't they help bridge the gap in the long run?
What Israel was prepared to agree to at Taba is very similar to what I outlined above:
A supposedly contiguous Palestinian territory
… which is crossed by settlements and roads which Israel can block at will
= A non-contiguous territory.
Palestinian sovereignty over security, airspace and electromagnetic sphere…
revokable at will by Israel for "security"
= No Palestinian sovereignty over anything.
No Palestinian military. IDF can enter Palestinian territory whenever it feels the need to. Yeah, sounds quite similar.
Israel is sleepwalking into de facto, if not de jure full Apartheid. Apart from continuing and unabated expansionism in the WB it has no policies whatsoever. Once the colonisation of the WB has reached a stage of irreversibility (many claim we're already there) neither a two state solution, nor absorption of WB into Jordan become feasible anymore. The settlers aren't going anywhere and even though many believe the land was given to them by G*d will balk completely at absorption into a Muslim Kingdom.
In essence everything boils down to present or future 'dismantlability' of the settlements and on that score things don't look bright.
In the upcoming elections Likud is likely to win and with the Jewish Fascists of Lieberman also likely making gains, so we all know who will be the next Israeli PM: Bibi Netancescu. Such a coalition is even less inclined to make any 'concessions' and will likely concentrate on the Iranian problem (and perhaps the extermination of Hamas).
As Finkelstein puts it (paraphrasing): "Zionism lives day by day, praying for (and getting) the occasional miracle" (Hamas' election victory e.g.).
And so 'accidental Apartheid' is likely to be created. Forget Palestinian transfer: there is no real Israeli or world appetite for it. No amount of cover or plausible deniability will make a Final Naqba possible.
This then will be the likely end of the Jewish State: transition into a "Democratic and Secular State of Israel and Palestine", encompassing all of Palestine, with freedom and equality for all who live there. Post-Apartheid zionism, if you like…
As regards Bambams (I like him) he hasn't got enough understanding of Zionist Machiavellism and is surrounded by the wrong people to get him a proper education on the subject matter at hand: he'll be Playdo in the hands of the Long Con artists.
LeaNder, I chose "1937" because that was the year the Palestinians tore themselves apart in fratricidal slaughter. I expect a Palestinian entity of any kind to be a mortal threat to Israel, what I intended to bring up there was the fact that continuous bloodshed among Palestinians was the main product of the LAST time the Izzedine al-Kassam Brigades exercised de facto state power across the majority-Muslim areas of Palestine. '36-'39 so weakened Palestinian society that many villages blew away in a puff of smoke in '47-'49. The fact that you don't know this history means you need to be very, very far away from any position of power or influence on the Palestine Question, if only for the good of the Palestinians.
The secular party launched a terror war against Israel as soon as it was able. I think Mustafa Barghouti is the only Palestinian leader who is actually inclined to peace, and he has never had any real power or following within Palestinian society. Some of the smaller groups like the DFLP/PFLP make noises about including Middle Eastern Jews in their Palestinian socialist paradise, but they are fantasists who have never done much in real life besides booby-trapping refrigerators in Jerusalem.
I think Oslo was a mistake, since it empowered a terror war against Israel and nothing else. Faisal Husseini said that Fateh was a Trojan Horse from 1991 on, and who am I to disbelieve him? "War is deceit", Bukhari 4:269.
I think Hadash is an interesting bet, since de-escalation is the only thing that has not been tried, and only a more inclusive State of Israel can handle the longer-term implications of such a diverse society. In effect, its policy of disengagement is designed to let Hamas feel the impotence of the rockets by continuing with normal life in Israel/Gaza despite them. I can't imagine that will work, but nothing has. It calls for Israel giving up all security influence in Gaza, including allowing Hamas administration of the border crossings, so I'll grin and pick up the pieces when some Leftist shithead gets a rocket in his tea in Florentin.
I really, really like the programs of the Left opposition in both Israel-Palestine, and wish that people hadn't voted for war, which is essentially what happened.