Al-Awda, the Palestinian right to return coalition, has released a statement about the way forward in Palestinian solidarity that says that BDS has changed the playing field, and BDS is aimed at one democratic state in historic Palestine. Here is the portion of the statement that opposes a two-state solution-- against those who say that visions of one state are "unrealistic." Myself I'm somewhat agnostic, but I recognize the importance/creativity of the statement, at a time when the 2SS has collapsed, but a belief in its vitality is maintained against all evidence inside US power circles (and an oath of that belief is a requirement for access):
First, the principle of self-determination means, above all, that decisions about what is or is not "realistic" belongs to those who live under oppression, rather than their sympathizers — however well meaning. “As in the struggle against South African apartheid,” writes Omar Barghouti, “genuine solidarity movements recognize and follow the lead of the oppressed, who are not passive objects but active, rational subjects that are asserting their aspirations and rights as well as their strategy to realize them.”
Second, is there any social justice movement that has not seemed “unrealistic” or even impossible? Yet, circumstances change rapidly and unpredictably; what was fantasy yesterday often comes true tomorrow. It is enough to remember the long decades that preceded the abolition of slavery, the civil rights victories of the 1960s, or the collapse of colonialism and apartheid in southern Africa.
Third, the "Two-State Solution" is itself realistic only as ratification of a fractured, Israeli-controlled Bantustan; a “Two-Prison” solution, as Palestinian activist Haidar Eid bluntly describes it. This has been the Israeli and U.S. goal since the beginning of the “peace process”; indeed, anyone looking to catch glimpse of a future Palestinian “state” need look no further than the systematic strangulation of Gaza and continued “Judaization” of the land on both sides of the 1948 “Green Line.” In that sense, the most dangerous aspect of this solution is precisely that it is possible.
Finally, “pragmatism” at the expense of justice is always an illusion. As Martin Luther King Jr. famously pointed out, true peace is not merely the absence of tension, it is the presence of justice.
Which makes me wonder what MLK Jr would think of the way affirmative action has expanded way beyond rightfully helping out the special case of African Americans to helping all “people of color” at the expense of the very justice that affirmative action was first enlisted to serve:
link to online.wsj.com
Anyone see any parallel here in the I-P situation and US foreign policy in the Middle East?
There are Palestinians living in Israel now, without the rights of citizenship. A one state solution would only increase the idea that Palestinians are second class citizens, and would encourage both the Israelis and the US government’s objective of continuing its control over the Middle East. I agree with the idea that any decision brokered by the US would be detrimental to the Palestinians, and would allow for the unlawful settlements, and destruction of Palestinians homes. Unfortunately, our Government is using our tax dollars to make US citizens complicit in the unlawful acts of the Israeli government. The Arab world needs to look away from Washington to find another broker for peace. Although Obama promised a change to relations with the Arab world, nothing was more telling then Obama meeting with BiBi after a US citizen was killed aboard the flotilla, and smiling and shaking hands with
the Israeli leader, responsible for the death of the nineteen year old. The one state solution would only show that slavery is alive and well, for that would be the fate of the Palestinians, with the blessings of both the Israeli and US governments.
I don’t see your logic. Do you think Palestinian citizens of Israel would enjoy better status as a voting bloc of one million, or as one of 4-6 million? The one-state solution is really the only one that attempts to address their rights and interests.
robin – The logic of it is very clear: It has nothing to do with the voter numbers. The whites in South Africa were a small minority, weren’t they? It’s all about how you set up the system.
The most ferociously racist people in Israel are for the one-state solution BUT still a “Jewish state”. It solves all their problems. One does get to keep all settlements and can control pariah-”citizens” better than non-citizens, and one can also start expanding further to Greater Israel, knowing that the land is no more “contested”. The only price to pay is to let go of the flimsy pretence of “democracy” but that was overrated anyway (now dead.)
Given that a “2-state solution” is impossible even to dream of because of the nature of Zionism, this will necessarily progress to an openly racist-fascist military state (just because Phil doesn’t like the use of the word Nazi) and to large mass extermination attempts/practice. If the Zionists are not deprived of US support and stopped by total boycott and isolation.
We are in agreement about the need for withdrawing US support and full BDS. But I don’t see where the comparison to South Africa comes in here at all. In South Africa, Blacks could not vote, period. There and in Palestine (and in the American South), the denial of voting rights plays a huge part in the disenfranchisement of the targeted minority.
These right wingers are actually advocating giving millions more Palestinians the vote in Israeli elections, on the government that holds the real power. Unless I missed the part where they said, ‘just kidding, let’s do away with democracy’? They’re not for full equal rights yet, but by and large they’re not equivocating on voting rights, let alone threatening them.
I think we need to be careful of getting too invested in a demonization of the Israeli right (or of anyone for that matter). Is it possible that they are animated by anything more than a hatred of Palestinians? I see them as genuinely scared of partition for the sake of the settlers, who are, after all, their major constituency. The settlers face being uprooted and having their communities scattered in a two-state solution. I can see why their leaders might offer concessions to Palestinian rights to avoid such a fate for themselves and their supporters.
I don’t know if our movement can afford to miss opportunities like this where there is a genuine (if partial) convergence of interests.
Robin – “actually advocating giving millions more Palestinians the vote in Israeli elections”
Really? I haven’t read a single unambiguous word about one-man-one-vote. I read it rather as an obvious intent to make all non-Jewish vote irrelevant. Because it’s either that, or abolish the Ar-, ehm sorry, Jewish State definition. You can’t have both at the same time. Even Houdini can’t. That’s why SA is so important to study.
Three guesses allowed as to which of the two characters the Zionists are ready to “sacrifice”. Or read Jabotinsky and Ben Gurion and Weitz (the quota man.)
Violent enforcement of Apartheid officializes the current situation and solves the settler problem, too. And why shouldn’t they enforce it? They could even continue to say, for a few years to come, “But we don’t (yet) have the ovens!”
From the Noam Sheizaf article in Ha’aretz:
Uri Elitzur, former chairman of the Yesha Council of Settlements and Netanyahu’s bureau chief in his first term as prime minister, last year published an article in the settlers’ journal Nekuda calling for the onset of a process, at the conclusion of which the Palestinians will have “a blue ID card [like Israelis], yellow license plates [like Israelis], National Insurance and the right to vote for the Knesset.”
Moshe Arens: Therefore, I say that we can look at another option: for Israel to apply its law to Judea and Samaria and grant citizenship to 1.5 million Palestinians.”
The non-Jewish vote is irrelevant now. Because it’s a minority by design — by ethnic cleansing. It’s not that the votes are not counted. It’s that they are ignored. 4-3 million votes (and 3-4 times the Knesset seats) are harder to ignore than 1 million.
robin – “The non-Jewish vote is irrelevant now. Because it’s a minority by design — by ethnic cleansing”
What I can’t understand is people still assuming that things get better. Instead logic suggests that the only way for Zionists to keep Zionism is to perform ethnic cleansing much more efficiently (by giving “citizenship” and even “vote”), cancel civil rights –also for the Master-Race population if needed. The non-Jewish vote is not totally irrelevant now, because its voters are still below the Weitz quota. The moment they are more it will get cancelled.
Remember again and again: South Africa and Israel were born together and planned by old friends.
How did things get better in South Africa?
Maybe Israelis give up Zionism — or start down that path, which is how I see these right wing proposals — in exchange for peace, legitimacy, AND territory. That’s the trump card of the one-state solution, and it appeals to the settlers more than any other Israelis. And the beauty of it is that the Palestinians can offer more territory in this way, without sacrificing anything. Indeed they also gain territory: the remaining 78% of Palestine which would be open to them without restriction, for the first time since 1948.
robin – “Maybe Israelis give up Zionism — or start down that path, which is how I see these right wing proposals — in exchange for peace, legitimacy, AND territory”
Oh yeah, as anything else than a Jewish state? I’ll believe it when I eat it.
“I agree with the idea that any decision brokered by the US would be detrimental to the Palestinians”
I agree too. I remember something Edward Said wrote in “Culture and Resistance” that the gravest mistake the Palestinians has ever made was to let the US broker a solution..He did not think the US is neutral or being an honest broker..
Al Awda is the humanist arm, HAMAS and FATAH are the terrorist arms, they work hand-in-hand on their goals to destroy the Jewish state.
You state their goals for them.
I’ll just remind you:
Sinn Fein was the “humanist” (as you put it) arm of the IRA.
Look where they are now, despite their “aim” of complete freedom from UK. Yes, deeply unpleasant incidents continue to occur, like riots, like bombs from dissident groups – as they would for a while once a just solution was achieved between Israelis and Palestinians. Some, on both sides, would still have grievances.
The current situation is absolutely unsustainable, and seems to be on a trajectory that could result in horrific tragedy which would lose Israel its “only” supporter and major funder.
“Al Awda is the humanist arm, HAMAS and FATAH are the terrorist arms, they work hand-in-hand on their goals to destroy the Jewish state.”
This kind of argument is dragging this site into an inane, time-wasting back and forth nullity..I strongly advise that this dude is definitely kicked out..
People in Hamas and Fatah would be most surprised to learn that they are working hand-in-hand on common goals.
How is al awda’s statement creative? Because it is well written?
“How is al awda’s statement creative? ”
Who said it is?
Creativity sometimes is overrated..Stating the obvious for those who are unwilling to understand or see for themselves may not be creative but it is certainly worth the effort.
Phil Weiss called it creative- “Myself I’m somewhat agnostic, but I recognize the importance/creativity of the statement”
Ok, my bad, I missed that sentence as I went straight to Alawda’s statement.
WJ
How can one still be, realistically, in favor of a 2 state-solution knowing that 60% of the West Bank has been already gobbled and very little chance that a reversal of the process would take place? Don’t you think that civil war with the settlers could ensue if their evacuation were to be decided?
TGIA- as far as the civil war, that is why it is preferable that Netanyahu negotiates a 2 state solution rather than someone to his left. I accept the improbability of a 2 state solution negotiated by Netanyahu and I don’t see a non Netanyahu government coming to power in the next election, so it is improbable.
(As far as 60% of the west bank- that’s not built up. Far less of the west bank is built upon by the settlers.)
I would think that the percentage of land that Netanyahu has offered to return is not that far from the percentage of land that Abbas is willing to accept. (Certainly even 1% could stymie an agreement, I’m just saying…)
If Netanyahu goes to the people and says we have reached an agreement to end the 100 year war I think the settlers will be alone. I don’t see it happening, particularly since Likud foresees controlling the Jordan river crossings and that just won’t play in Ramallah. And I don’t see how the ROR can be agreed upon.
But the statement: we will wait and justice will come because the arc of justice always comes- okay, I hear you, I can’t say that this will not come true in 35 years, but it’s not creative. The right wing Arens point of view is more creative, trying to change the reality. I’m not saying that it is just, I’m saying it’s creative- thinking outside the conventional thinking of where he started.
Helmut Schmidt blames Americans for the settlements, and indeed for Israel’s going on the wrong track in general, in an interview featured on Scott Horton’s No Comment: Our Century: A Dialogue with Helmut Schmidt and Fritz Stern (II):