Phil posted an interesting interview with non-Zionist Israeli MK Dov Khenin from the Hadash Party while I was attending the One State for Palestine/Israel: A Country for All Its Citizens? conference in Boston. He makes two different comments about the "endgame" of the conflict in Israel/Palestine and specifically refers to the possibility of a one-state solution. I want to respond to his comments.
First, I want to say that I have the utmost respect for MK Khenin. I happened to be in Tel Aviv in the run up to the municipal election in the city this past November and I know his "City for All" campaign and the coalition he put together across ethnic, religious and national divides was an inspiration to many. I am also very excited that this interview appeared in New Voices, Josh Nathan-Kazis continues his great work.
Although Khenin's remarks in that interview are surely a greatly abridged version of his fuller positions, I think they show two things – that a just two-state solution at this point is nearly as utopian as a democratic one-state solution and that even the most principled and progressive wing of Israeli politics is in a state of denial on the untenability of the status quo.
In Khenin's first answer he says he calls for: "the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel . . . both states, Israel and Palestine,
should be democratic ones. In Israel the Arabic minority should have
full equality, and if there is a Jewish minority within the Palestinian
state it should also have its equal status." This is an admirable position and clearly a non-Zionist one. It is also totally out of line with the current "two-state solution" that is being pushed by the US and international community. Rather than calling for equal rights it is calling for ethnic and religious separation.
Khenin's proposal contradicts the essence of the current two-state plan, which maintains the definition of Israel as a Jewish state in that Jews would retain special and exclusive rights over non-Jewish citizens (assuming there still are non-Jewish citizens in the state). Khenin might feel that advocates of one-state are "totally separated from reality," but I would argue that he could sadly be accused of the same thing.
Khenin's answer also reminded me of my post a few weeks ago about the two-state solution and the need to support principles as much of a vision of the endgame. His two-state vision calls for civic equality which is a necessity for any just solution. But it is still not enough in and of itself to end to the conflict. At the conference this past weekend, several speakers spoke about the principles that any solution to the conflict would have to meet and Nadia Hijab summarized them in a nutshell as: Freedom, Equality and Return. They were taken from the call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions issues by Palestinian civil society in 2005. This call is the clearest declaration in recent years of the Palestinian political consensus across the entire Palestinian polity. That document calls for:
1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian
refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN
resolution 194.
These principles are Palestinian baselines for a just solution that would uphold their human rights and reflect international law. Khenin takes the bold step for an Israeli politician to support equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel. As a leftist I assume he supports an end to the Israeli occupation and dismantling the Wall. But the right of return for Palestinian refugees is not addressed in his admittedly truncated description of the endgame and it is an issue that cannot be ignored.
Finally, Khenin points to the very real dangers that a one-state solution in Israel/Palestine will not alleviate the vast inequality between Jews and Palestinians. Of course this is very true, and many point to post-apartheid South Africa as a country still struggling to undo the legacies of domination in the country even after the creation of a unitary democratic state. But, Khenin warns that a single state " is a sure recipe for an explosion of the situation in this country." I would say it's already too late to avoid that. The war in Gaza was just the latest example that the situation has exploded. At the conference in Boston, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe put the Gaza massacres in a time line that stretched back to the founding of the state of Israel, if not earlier. And he warned that worse is yet to come.
The challenge of creating economic and social justice in a future state is a real challenge that will have to be taken on, but it's not a reason to not discuss radical alternatives for the future, or even worse – to maintain the status quo. The current system includes all the challenges the Khenin outlines plus the ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians with the ongoing threat of massacres like we saw in Gaza. I know Khenin does not support the status quo and is working to change it. In the end I believe he is an ally to those advocating for one democratic state in that they are all working for equality and justice for Palestinians and Jews in Israel/Palestine. Unfortunately, the deck is currently stacked against all of them.
Do you have a more detailed report of what actually occurred at the conference?
Certainly that would be a newsworthy event, that should be described as a report.
I agree with Adam's take as reflected in his article. The question is, what is Obama going to do about it?
If anyone every had a mandate, political capital with the American populace to change the current status
quo along the lines Adam suggests, it is Obama. I ask the ultimate question is, how much of a leader is Obama? Will he not pursue what Adam suggests for fear it will split his political party, hence endanger his
second term? Or will he go for broke, use his pulpit to speak directly to the American people over the heads of the partisans? That is, over the heads of both political parties, which unite on one thing–don't mess with the Likud policy? So far it looks like he will ignore the largest issues, the ones that echo from his own steadfast past, the ones with the most
international impact in terms of reclaiming the USA's former status in the world. Looking at how Obama
has defended the status quo banking power, the very power that, aided by the super-affirmative action
US government manifested by the end result of no cost mortgages short term, has turned the world's economy upside down in terms of basic both-end responsibility.
Empty suit or great package?
2009 will send the rest of its signals to us.
So far, it doesn't look good.
The time for two state is almost certainly passed. Ma'le Adumin, etc are not Nazi "outposts" they are Nazi cities. They're not going anyplace and they are growing by the hour.
The Israelis equate one state with the destruction of the Jewish state. Of course, they are right. A one state solution would represent an end to Judeo-Nazi supremacy in the "Holy Land" which is what israel has always been, once all the silly rhetoric is stripped away. They will fight one state to the last.
In short, Moshe Dayan's blueprint has become reality:
"We have no solution. You shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wants to can leave — and we will see where this process leads."
citizen
I'm in full agreement, It is really a tragedy that, in the aftermath of the gaza horrors which put the whole world in sympathy with the Palestinians and exposed in shocking fashion, the utter moral bankruptcy and criminality of the Israelis, Obama is squandering this unprecedented political capital and doing nothing.
I'm not sure what you mean by a distinction between the "two-state solution" and the Khenin proposal, or the Geneva proposal for that matter.
To my mind, it is an OBSERVATION that the majorities in each community favor a national approach to a civil cosmopolitan one. There are large numbers of Israelis that might or actually do prefer a western defined civil government to either a nationalist Palestinian or rabid nationalist or neo-religious Zionist. I assuming that there are many Palestinians that similarly prefer a western-style civil democracy to a nationalist Palestinian or a Sharia Palestinian approach.
BUT, I don't believe that they constitute the majority in either community.
And, given that, unless something changes radically, that consent of the governed will not result from the single-state solution.
That, IF the populations commit to their distinct nationalist views, then a single-state would be an imposition, resulting in some 51% ruling harshly over some 49%.
Rather in the vision of two peer states, of 80-20% in each community (if the Palestinians don't ethnically cleanse the West Bank of Jews, largely from the settlers).
What did the conference view as a path to consent? Or, are they hoping for mass uprising internationally to force a change externally, by some power (which doesn't currently exist)?
I'll be posting more on the conference. It's a lot and will take a while. Hopefully there will be some updates on the conference website here – link to onestateforpalestineisrael.com
citizen question on obama "Empty suit or great package?"
empty suit in a good package, but ultimately worthless on the is/pal issue… he has been in long enough to see this clearly… when the usa gets its ass out of being a corporate controlled monopoly they might be able to find a leader who can speak truth… at this point in usa history it is all bullshit from the top down…
Dov Khenin cannot support the one state solution in public due to Israeli law which prohibits any person who actively objects to Israel's definition as a Jewish state from running to the Knesset.
Please keep this in mind when considering his public position.
Anti-Semitism on decline since Israel wiped off map
(FT spoof, cracking good read).
They said the conference video will be edited and posted in a few weeks. And each speaker was presenting a paper which will be published.
israeli and jewish consent was said to be desired, as the movement is inclusive. however, since the tactics of BDS can lead to either scenario Adam describes, it's real tactic is to de-zionize, whether they like it or not, and in accordance with international law. meanwhile, the One State commission can evolve a one-state vison IN THE PROCESS, as Ilan Pappe pointed out. He warned against over designing without the inclusion of all parties involved in the final status.
Hold on Asiswhen let me get this straight the idea of BDS is to make the Israeli population accept a one state and that they will eventually if you boycot them enough do way with zionism.Ok i have heard everything is that all you guys have as a tatic it is laughable.You really dont understand how Israelis think do you.
RE: "Ilan Pappe…warned that worse is yet to come."
This is truly frightening. What can be done?
I agree with Michael.
It sounds like they don't take their goal seriously.
"It sounds like they don't take their goal seriously."
I don't believe anybody calling for one-state takes the goal seriously.
I think there is some grandiosity going on, quite frankly. A belief that the anti-Israel movement is bigger and more important than it really is.
This is why I have a hard time taking the Left seriously. It is not serious. ho hum.
a non zionist israeli? israeli=zionist=racist=thief=liar. then there are the mass murders that one hand commits and the other hand goes, "poo poo".
behold, something schmelly this way waddles. historys most defecating, er, moral, army: the IDF – israeli defecating force.
not only do we defecate, we spit and urinate.
ha lah tik lah vah la la. la.
You really don't know how Palestinians think, do you? If you think they will put up with settlement expansion and the occupation and the indiscriminate violence and blah blah blah.
Although, I disagree w/ BDS in the same sense that Chomksy does. There needs to be much more education and awareness on the Satanic State of Israel and it's true history needs to be revealed to the public.
Dismiss these myths that have been part of the Zionist narrative and focus on the Occupation next. Detail the facts – the daily human rights abuses. Education is key. I'll steal a line from Martillo, but give these people the intellectual tools necessary to combat the massive propaganda artifice constructed by the Jewish Establishment and scum like Witty.
"RE: "Ilan Pappe…warned that worse is yet to come."
This is truly frightening. What can be done?"
A History of Modern Palestine:
"My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the "truth" when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. This book is written by one who admits compassion for the colonized not the colonizer; who sympathizes with the occupied not the occupiers."
This idiot admits to bias and lies. I wouldn't worry about what he has to say.
Julian
Lots of people are shitty readers.
Few however, are so keen on advertising the fact, as you seem to be.
By the way, Ilan Pappe's "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" is a first rate book, outstandingly researched and written. You ought to shut your Nazi yap long enough to read it before labeling someone who is head and shoulders your superior as an "idiot."
You idiot.
""My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the "truth" when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous."
whoa! he actually wrote that?????? For real? Goes to show he knows his target audience.
Nice to know they don't think facts and truth aren't important.
You ought to shut your Nazi yap…
Posted by: rykart | March 30, 2009 at 07:00 PM
Clear indication that Rykart has lost the argument.
Suzanne is such unbearable hypocrite. Everyone has a special perspective. I planned to write my master's thesis in the arts with an introduction presenting my psychological profile. To make personal selection transparent. Unfortunately the prof that supported my idea in the psychology department was killed in an accident during holidays in the Alps in Switzerland. I had prepared anything. But he never returned, and I didn't want to exchange him for someone else. I simply couldn't.
For more Israeli perspectives, mostly from the left, or what they call the left in Israel, see JustWorldNews by Helena Cobban.
"It sounds like they don't take their goal seriously."
Why, what topic are you commenting on? A symposium on one-state solution. Sounds pretty serious to me.
Michael lays out the illogicality of imposing solutions on the Israelis. It's too bad that so many Zionists have absolutely no problem imposing solutions on the Palestinians, especially ones that leave them without a state.
"I'll steal a line from Martillo, but give these people the intellectual tools necessary to combat the massive propaganda artifice constructed by the Jewish Establishment and scum like Witty."
LD, there is enough information out there for anyone willing to find it. How did you get to your perspective? By relying on yourself entirely or relying on people who give the "intellectual tools necessary to combat" what we have been fed? There really is enough awareness of Palestinian livelihood and their hardships. How many books are available on this topic alone? I think it is the most written about subject in recent history (in scholar works).
There definitely needs to be more coverage filtering into the mainstream but I am skeptical whether the apathetic public who doesn't even vote really cares what's going on in the Middle East, even with their taxpayer money. Unless their lives change dramatically (ie economic depression and unemployment), unless it is tied specifically to Israel/Palestine, I'm afraid the typical couch potato will languish back into oblivion. All the information didn't prevent Iraq. How much more information do we need to mobilise against further destruction in the Middle East?
Lastly, I will agree with Pappe: the worst is yet to come, which does not bode well for the Palestinians.
The topic is serious. The commitment to what a democratic state is, isn't that serious.
The reporting indicates that the transition to actually thinking about the goal and living the goal, hasn't occurred yet.
The characteristic that most prominently came across from Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and Mandela (so long as the ANC violence was dismissed), was the largeness of their character, the confidence that their leadership was not just a cynical anger ploy.
They conveyed by their character, and the public presentation of their character, that they LIVED in the new consciousness already. They were ALREADY peers, self-respecting and respecting of the other (even as they disagreed radically).
That isn't apparent from the descriptions of Adam of the proponents of the thesis. Maybe he didn't get to know them sufficiently to learn of their character, their real story, or maybe they don't have it.
Their failing and his failing to move beyond dissent solely is a tragedy.
For me its a tragedy in that my goal for the region is mutuality, actual peer status, whether in a single state or two.
Contempt and the threat and actual suppression that emerges from contempt is the real problem, and while resistance can be a statement of one's dignity, it is also a statement of contempt for the other, very muchso in this case.
In the stock market (or moreso if you are an angel investor), deciding what NOT to invest in, accomplishes very little. The primary decision is TO invest, committing and risking. The way that the risk gets reduced is by identifying risks to the goal and the means to the goal, and addressing them.
For anyone interested, here is the full paragraph from Pappe's introduction to The Modern History of Palestine, rather than the crudely truncated one from Julian (in which he even left off the last part of the sentence he quoted without inserting the proper ellipses.)
tree–his larger statement was simply his attempt to explain away his blind bias.
It's not a bad thing to side with those who are seemingly more vulnerable. But the problem with the Left is that it does so unconditionally. And as he says himself, facts and objectivity aren't priority.
The problem with that is that the truth is often knowingly distorted in order to support a ideological principle. Which is flawed logic. (it's also why the Left is widely unpopular with most people)
And it also assigns guilt based on social status. The Left does this in an attempt to even the playing field, but the approach is simplistic, naive–and morally lazy. And the results are often unfair.
I have more respect and trust in people who criticise and attempt to defend the "downtrodden" without a bias.
In the end, how can any claims about Zionist bias be taken seriously when they come from those who are weighed down by their own bias?
It makes no sense. It is not rational, nor is it just.
Suzanne, you cribbed that whole comment — it isn't your style at all.
Cribbed as in plagiarized or copied someone else's statement?
I don't think so, cradle head. lol!
You really and truly composed that all by yourself, Suzanne? Perhaps I have misjudged you; perhaps you do have an adult side. You know how fond I am of you; i don't want to raise my hopes to high too quickly.
Rowan: I have also noticed a duality in Suzanne's posts. Sometimes they are suddenly clear and intelligent, with no sign of the Tourette-like LOL!, "ha ha ha!" that she usually uses to sign off.
And Suzanne, I do think your criticism of lefist humanitarianism is excellent. My own criticism is based on conservative realism and is directed at US Zionists and the US government. Israel can do what it likes, but I don't want my country to subsidize and enable their government's policies.
I think "cradle head" is sweet, though I know she didn't mean it to be.