Antony Loewenstein was involved in a debate at Aussie’s Greens Party over the one-state, two-state business:
During last weekend’s national conference in Melbourne, I was invited to address a forum to advocate a one-state solution (with two speakers pushing for maintenance of the status quo). It is a position backed by senior figures in the NSW Greens and I’m told a growing number of Greens members.
I argued that a one-state solution was the only just solution to the conflict, removing discrimination against Jews and Palestinians and creating a modern state that grants equal rights to all its citizens; one person for one vote.
A Jewish state (or Muslim state, for that matter) is discriminatory by definition. Partition is the cornerstone of a two-state solution, oblivious to facts on the ground that allow 500,000 Jewish settlers to settle illegally on Palestinian land. Such realities cannot be resolved through drawing arbitrary borders.
The two-state solution, I stressed, was a failed dream, easy rhetoric in place of sound and moral policy. Alas, many Jews seem unwilling to give up the concept of a racially exclusionary nation that benefits Jews above Palestinians.
One other speaker, David Rothfield, a Jew who had lived for many years in Israel, argued that there was strong international consensus for the two-state solution and now wasn’t the time to undergo a re-examination of Greens policy. “The role of the Greens in Australia is to prevent the climate emergency”, he said, “and we have to set priorities for the party.”
The other speaker, Sol Salbe, believed that neither the one- nor two-state solutions were likely in the future, but one was even less likely. He argued that the world trend was towards ethnic separation, not united countries. However, he acknowledged the difficulty of separating the two peoples due to the ongoing colonisation project in the West Bank.
The group discussion was highly instructive. It was respectful and thoughtful, two attributes often missing in this debate. Furthermore, many speakers were curious about breaking the deadlock of the Middle East.
One person said that the Greens were supposed to support pluralism and multiculturalism and “Israel is not either” — the US State Department said last week that Israel is a fundamentally intolerant nation — and “we have to support democracy, therefore a one-state solution is the answer”.
I think it’s not too early to begin formulating blueprints for the binational state, including a Constitution. The first principle ought to be that there will be no establishment of religion; all faiths will be tolerated but none will control any government institutions or functions.
Perhaps the binational state will at last give Israel the freedom of civil marriage. The secular population may welcome it as liberation from rabbinical tyranny.
Years ‘n years ‘n years ago, the mixed state was the policy of the PLO. Now that the Izzies have fucked up their chance of a separate state, they’ve got to lump it.
The argument was not really about Palestinians having a separate state, but about Israelis defining their own.
Netanyahoo has blown it. Either he gave ‘Palestine’ something, or nothing. He has given nothing.
He has given Israel the legacy of a long, protracted internal war against the majority, similar to the death throes of apartheid in South Africa.
The sad irony is Israel spent the last sixty odd years slandering, sabotaging, imprisoning, and even murdering Fatah… and Fatah was what could have saved Israel from the conflict you’re describing.
But its too late, now. Israel has chosen blood and violence over peace and justice.
But, Israel is the more diverse of the two.
The greens should support nations, not imposed “democratic” states. In that way the greens become more red than green.
“Sol Salbe, believed that neither the one- nor two-state solutions were likely in the future, but one was even less likely. He argued that the world trend was towards ethnic separation, not united countries.”
Wonder if he includes in his trend the USA, and the European countries? Anybody know?
During the Aussie Greens conference in Melbourne:
“One person said that the Greens were supposed to support pluralism and multiculturalism and “Israel is not either” — the US State Department said last week that Israel is a fundamentally intolerant nation — and “we have to support democracy, therefore a one-state solution is the answer”.
Many of the comments followed suit, across gender and generational lines.
Noam Sheizaf, a journalist and blogger in Tel Aviv, wrote last week that fighting over a two-state solution was a fool’s game. True democracy was the goal:
“… The Palestinians should simply focus on getting equal rights from the Israeli government. This is one fight Israel will have a really hard time winning — in Europe for sure, but even in the US. Are we going to explain that we need to keep the Arabs as second-rate citizens so we can have a Jewish majority? How is that going to sound to the Jews who took part in the civil rights movement, or to a nation which just elected a black president?”
link to antonyloewenstein.com
YES – A one democratic Palestine is the only viable and lasting solution to the Zionist colonialism in the Middle East. However, AIPAC boy in the Washington has his own ideas to resolve the problem for the pleasure of his maters in Tel Aviv.
1. An international presence in the Jordan Valley and other areas in the West Bank.
2. Reducing the areas of East Jerusalem to be under Israeli control, with respect to the Islamic religious sanctities. It will be under the sovereignty of Arab and Islamic countries.
3. Resolving the Palestinian organizations and turning them into political parties.
4. Keeping the major settlement blocs in the West Bank, and negotiating on small settlements in three months.
5. To keep other areas in the West Bank, demilitarized zones, with Israeli control of the skies.
6. To intensify the Israeli-Palestinian security coordination in the West Bank.
7. The Palestinian Authority to prevent the establishment of any military alliance with any regional state (read Islamic regime in Iran).
8. An assurance by the United States for a Palestinian state in the summer of 2011.
9. Agreed to accommodate the number of refugees in the Jordan Valley and other areas in the West Bank, and specifically between the towns of Nablus and Ramallah, and the establishment of an international fund to support the refugees.
10. Israel begins release of Palestinian prisoners, with the start of the signing of this Convention, continue to release for a period of three years.
Obama Plan: Palestinians to legalize Jewish occupation
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
Right now we have a one-state reality, albeit parts of historical Palestine (Gaza and 40-50% of the West Bank) is not included. But then again, Israel has no fixed borders…
Further, I do not know of any other state in the world that build societies solely for the benefit of a certain group in the way Israel does for Jews (in the WB as well as in “Israel proper”). An American Jew can move to a WB settlement, a Palestinian Israeli cannot.
Pingback: mnpACT! Progressive Political Blog | Credit Finance Wisdom