An excellent piece on why there's been a "sea-change" in favor of binationalism, and the idea is now promoted in "symposia around the world," including those progressive symposia that used to push the two-state solution. By Meron Benvenisti, the pioneer on this issue in Israel, in the New York Times today–oh, sorry, in Haaretz today:
[I]t appears that the
continued preoccupation with establishing a Palestinian state is not
just hopeless, but also injurious, since the delusions that it fosters
enable the continuation of the status quo.
Nothing serves the interests of Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman
better than the demand that they recognize the principle of "two
states."
Two State Arab Americans seem to have gone quite insane: Trained Arab Parrots Antisemitism Accusation. The current state of Hussein Ibish is quite sad. He used to make sense.
What's the "white man's burden" here? I ask this question with the awareness that the white man is shrinking everywhere. If you think I am being glib, think again.
The one-state solution will come to the same fate as the two-state solution—total rejection by Israel. After that, there will only be one solution left, the "kick the goddamn Jews out of the Mideast" solution.
He is? I don't feel any shorter than I was yesterday… Seriously, I can't tell what point you're trying to make. What does the rather antiquated and imperialist notion of the "white man's burder" have to do with this? My interest in the Israel/Palestine situation has nothing to do with any sense of a moral imperative to help struggling not-quite-humans develop into real people. I don't view Israelis or Palestinians as not-quite-humans to begin with, and even if they were, it wouldn't be my or my country's job to shepherd them. The "white man's burden" was really just a rationalization anyway. The powers of Europe and the US were interested in expanding their own power and wealth; any real benefit to the conquered peoples was largely accidental. I was told once by a native of India that the greatest gift the British gave to his country was a common language. Note that he did not say "Christianity" or "a better morality" or even "democracy."
Craig, obviously many people in power in both the US & Israel do take a "white man's burden" view of Arabs, and especially Palestinians. Do you need an old English poem out of their mouths to see that? Do you think the rhetoric of either the US government reps or Israeli government reps suggests all humans are real people? Further, we don't need a lecture from you on how the historical "white man's burden" was really just a rationalization for greed. Wake up, see the new version. But you can't because you have no imagination, no real powers of logic, and are too self-righteous. I hope your kids or you if you have none get to go to Iraq, or next Iran–as foot soldiers. We will cheer them on, wish them the best. Kisses 2 U.
The only way I can make any sense out of your comment is to assume that you have no idea what my view is of Israel/Palestine, which suggests you haven't been reading here very long or don't pay enough attention to the comments to have remembered anything I've said previously. Are you mistaking me for a Likudnik?
No. Just for one who does not read replies to your own comments very well. You didn't address murphy's issues with what you said earlier, or you chose to ignore them.
Meron Benvenisti wrote: "Judging by the increasing number of symposia around the world devoted to promoting a binational state instead of two states for two peoples, a sea change is underway among academics and organizations engaged in progressive thinking." And: "Nothing serves the interests of Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman better than the demand that they recognize the principle of "two states." And, funnily enough, especially for a self-proclaimed "Progressive," nothing serves President Obama worse than doing that demanding. In short, here is yet another American Executive, entangling and risking his entire Presidency in and on this irreconcilable conflict, and now even expressly saying that this involves a possible war against Iran. How in the world is this going to turn out well for him, or us? If you listen, very smartly these annual AIPAC meetings are usually used not just for social purposes or to remind people of AIPAC's existence but are also tied to some specific, topical AIPAC goal. And this year's will be the "Iran Diplomatic Enhancement Act" which AIPAC wants passed. In essence, it seeks to impose a blockade on the delivery of gasoline or refined petroleum products to Iran; somewhat an act of war. And even if Obama hasn't already conceded that he will go along with it, AIPAC's purposes clearly are to shove it down his throat. But the problem is it doesn't appear to need much shoving: Obama himself has put out the word that, already, his *is* willing to impose harsh sanctions on Iran if Netanyahu moves in the supposed direction of a laughably impossible two-state solution. (Stopping settlement activity, engaging in talks and blah blah blah.) But all this is hallucinogenic. In the first place the second that Netanyahu got what he wanted from Obama on Iran he would renounce/repudiate/whatever any true two-state solution and thereby, in keeping with the grand tradition, make yet another fool out of yet another U.S. President. And in the second place a two-state solution is already impossible anyway, as Benvenisti notes. And in the third place there is nothing under the sun short of an attack on Iran that Israel is going to say it is satisfied with. As it has said, it's not just Iran's *possession* of nukes that Israel has declared a "red line," but its possession of a completed fuel cycle. And how is Obama going to force Iran to abandon this when that is totally within Iran's rights—and interests—to develop? Is he really going to go to war with Iran on the demand that it abandons its right to a peaceful nuclear power program? Is the world or the American people really going to accept this? And if not, is he then going to gin up the claim that Iran has a secret nuke *arms* program that must be destroyed like Bush did with Iraq? I doubt it. So what's going to happen? Netanyahu will come to Washington in May and a great show will be made of some few comments of his that he's "backed down" and now accepts a two-state solution and will allegedly stop some colonization and open some checkpoints and blah blah blah. And Obama will thereby be under the unceasing gun to whack Iran and Netanyahu will have all the ability in the world to say that he is in the right holding off on doing anything more towards the two-state solution until Obama has indeed whacked Iran. Obama will then not fully whack Iran, the situation in Israel with the Palestinians will remain in stasis (except that the settlements will continue to quietly creep outward), there will be some explosion somewhere as the Palestinians and arabs realize things are going nowhere, and Obama's tenure will come to an ignominious end. As Kipling might say, just another Westerner who thought he could hustle the East.