In this interview with Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky points out that a great contribution of Jimmy Carter's "bitterly-condemned" book was to publish Israel's many exceptions to the Road Map, including no stop to settlement construction and so forth. Also that the U.S. and Israel impose on Hamas conditions that we don't observe (renounce violence, recognition of the other, accept the road map). And Chomsky concludes with an endorsement of the Arab peace initiative and of the Clinton parameters of 2001.
Chomsky: Nobody supports—I mean, you can talk about a one-state solution, if
you want. I think a better solution is a no-state solution. But this is
pie in the sky. If you’re really in favor of a one-state solution,
which in fact I’ve been all my life—accept a bi-national state, not one
state—you have to give a path to get from here to there. Otherwise,
it’s just talk. Now, the only path anyone has ever proposed... is through two states as the first stage.
Chomsky is stating my thesis, that the path to a single state lies ONLY through the two-state path.
I believe that the two-state is permanently optimal (nothing is "permanent"), that the choice of jurisdiction is critical to optimizing self-governance.
Should I holding my breath waiting for Chomsky to endorse the British National Party? It too seeks a separatist solution based on on ethnoreligious distinctions. It would be modeled along the same sort of lines that make Israel a Jewish state.
For once, I agree with Witty. As I've said before here, the route to one state leads thru two states.
I don't get it. Why would the Palestinians want a single state provided they achieve an infrastructurally stable and thriving Palestinian state?
What would be the point of merging?
Richard Witty:
"Chomsky is stating my thesis, that the path to a single state lies ONLY through the two-state path."
Never going to happen. I have first hand knowledge of what Arab states are like. I worked in several and have good friends who are Coptic Christians in Egypt. The Israelis know what I know. They would never agree to a single state.
I suggest you speak with some Coptic Christians who have lived under Arab rule and ask them about the possibility of the Israelis agreeing to one state with an Arab majority.
I agree with Julian. Why would either the Israelis OR Palestinians want a single state? Sounds like outsiders are trying to make decisions on their behalf.
I said that I thought that the two-state was optimal.
There is no path to a single state, except through that, and only if that achieves consent of the governed.
Thats what democracy is.
It was definitely denied to the local Palestinian residents (not clear how much they wanted it, when it was available, Jordan was the sovereign over the West Bank until 67)/
To deny it to the current Israeli residents would be fascism, not democracy.
It all depends on the future of the Israeli state when neighboured next to the Palestinian state and also what happens to the Palestinian minority within Israel, as the emergence of a Palestinian state will co-opt their hopes for equality in the eyes of the state. That will also provide internal troubles that won't dissipate with a Palestinian state since they really don't want to relinquish their citizenship with Israel. There is also other disenfranchised from other non-Jews and even Ethiopian Jews who do not feel that they are quite represent by Israel.
BUT if all proves hunky dory and the borders start being pourous, they might not see the need for partition. But that might be a lot of utopian dreaming (looking at India and Pakistan makes a good model to posit this thinking).
Suzanne is right. Let's not be outsiders trying to make decisions on behalf of Jews and Palestinians. Witty is also right: true democracy demands consent of the governed. The solution is so obvious, I'm surprised it hasn't been implemented yet. Let's have an ELECTION where every Palestinian and Jewish adult vote in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank are counted equally and then let the chips fall where they lay. We can have international observers to decrease the risk of election fraud and we can solve this problem in a civilized fashion. What say you?
'Democracy', eh? That old whore?
I think an election is a waste of time and money (since I think we can figure out the outcome of the vote)–but if it would ease people's minds, I wouldn't be against holding a vote.
I wonder if this underscores my point, however, that the Pals are too economically and politically screwed up to run their own state. I got skewered for suggesting that…but this seems to be an underhanded way of saying the same thing–without actually having to say it.
If that's the case, the territories should be absorbed by neighboring Arab states. Shared cultures, shared values.
When has the Pal economy ever been in Pal hands in a meaningful way?
But there is the problem of Israel's theft of Palestinian lands, ethnic cleansing, international law.
If the Pals are too economically and politically 'screwed' than the educated response to that is that 40 years of Israeli crimes against the Palestinian people are the problem.
Hence the nations that provided the jewish immigrants to Palestine should reabsorb their citizens if we're going to be fair.
After all they don't have any real claim to the land beyond their fanatical religious beliefs.
I'm sure most of the countries would love to have them back.
And then the Palestinians could get work on rebuilding their country and building an economy. And then we could scrap the Israeli nuclear weapons program which is undoubtedly the most serious obstacles to nuclear proliferation in the middle east.
We've seen what the outcome of a jewish state is: fascism, racism, WMD attacking it's neighbors and lying to the international community; draining western nations of valuable funds for the continued colonial ambitions of a rouge state void of fundamental respect for international laws governing human rights. I think most of the planet has correctly observed the failure of a jewish state to integrate itself into an international framework of cooperation and decency. Disbanding Israel as a jewish state would be the most fair and noble solution.
It wouldn't be necessary for every jew to leave Palestine, but certainly it would be grotesquely unfair to leave them with any power in a land they so brutally usurped and pillaged?
I think stevie's whiney, hate filled rant is a good example of why the Left (despite claims to the contrary) is marginalized and has no political clout or credibility anywhere in the West.
The idea of Jews leaving Israel is impractical, irrational, and insane. Also take note of how the hater called it Palestine, subsequently refusing to acknowledge an Israeli state.
This is whom Phil attracts with his arguments.
Who's the "hater," again, Suzanne? It usually seems to be you (along with your like minded colleagues, Berel, etc.) expressing all the hatred around here.
Suzanne,
Learn the present and the history, be very self-critical, and from what you conclude from that sincere study, stand your ground.
If you don't know, say "I don't know". If you have a judgement, say "by my math …". If you know solidly "I KNOW…"
Two truths are important. What occurred? What is possible?
Don't be cowed.
Most here don't bother to either study or self-criticize. And, they don't acknowledge the difference between knowledge, suspicion, prejudice, and falsehood.
Suzanne … Don't be cowed … Posted by: Richard Witty | April 05, 2009 at 02:18 PM
I don't think you need to lose too much sleep over that possibility, Richard.
Obama speaking to Czechs now on C-SPAN: "Iran's nukes pose a real threat; so long as this threat persists we will go on with our nuke program, and finally we must assure terrorists never get even one nuclear weapon–Al Quida (sic) is the culprit. Within 4 years we will work with Russia to reduce
nukes, the USA will host a summit on reducing nukes… we can't allow ourselves or other nations to be defined by their differences… a call to arms is easier than one to lay down arms… the ghosts of 1968, the velvet revolution, let us honor our past by reaching for the future–we can do it!"
note the inconsistencies–empty suit?
Actually I said that in direct response to your post about kicking the Palestinians out of their land, as a 'reasonable' solution to Israel's 'problem':
"I wonder if this underscores my point, however, that the Pals are too economically and politically screwed up to run their own state. I got skewered for suggesting that…but this seems to be an underhanded way of saying the same thing–without actually having to say it.
If that's the case, the territories should be absorbed by neighboring Arab states. Shared cultures, shared values."
I wondered if you'd be stupid enough to take the bait.
You sad, stupid woman – thy name is hypocrite….