Men in a boat at Jaffa on the Mediterranean Sea Holy Land[Historical Stock Photos]
Here’s Sumud sharing a vision of the future from a conversation which began with Taxi’s story of a Lebanese shepherd looking at the land of Palestine.
By Sumud
Great story Taxi, thanks.
It touches on something that’s been on my mind lately. The two-state solution is dead as a door-nail, this is clearer than ever before. So what is the way forward?
One possibility is that Israel continues its descent into fascism and some fanatic like Avigdor Lieberman comes to power, and decides in a desperate all-or-nothing fashion to ethnically cleanse all Palestinians from Israel and the OPTs. I really don’t think this is outside the realms of possibility. It would be catastrophic for all involved and make zionist as dirty a word as nazi. While this might be satisfying for everybody who cares about Palestinians I can’t see it happening without *massive* loss of life. Maybe Israelis can’t be woken up any other way, but I hope not.
I wrote a little while ago about the small but vital issue of what a single state might be called. It might be Israel, until the majority Palestinian population enable right of return then change the name to Palestine. Again, while this might be gratifying for all of us who resent the injustice of 60+ years of Nakba, going in this direction still represents a continuity of the Israel vs. Palestine conflict.
Your shepherd friend’s grandfather is extremely wise:
He said his grandfather used to say that all Palestinians: jews, moslem and christian, were the real and only ‘chosen people’ – chosen by god and more fortunate than all other arabs to be born and to live on holy land – chosen to belong to the holy land.
He points to a different way of thinking about who is a Palestinian. It’s inclusive, and goes beyond Israel vs. Palestine. If there’s going to be a single state solution – and there is – then it’s either going to be because zionists are forced into it kicking and screaming, or because they adopt it willingly. Whatever it will be, we can’t turn back time. An outcome as occurred in Algeria (the suitcase or the coffin) would be every bit as disastrous as Lieberman trying to ethnically cleanse Palestinians. Other than who was the victim, there’s no moral difference. We can’t and shouldn’t ignore the fact that many Israeli Jews were born in Israel, and maybe their parents and grandparents were too, even if their ancestors weren’t.
What I’m getting at is that maybe a future single-state needs to not be Israel or Palestine, but something more neutral and inclusive like “Holy Land” (though it sounds clumsy and I’m sure there’s a better word). That way, it is not only Israelis who have to give up something to live in a single peaceful multi-ethnic and multi-religious state, but Palestinians also. If they both have sacrificed, then I think there’s a better chance that it really does put the Israel-Palestine conflict to bed forever, by mapping out a third way where neither party is seen by the other as being victorious.
What do you think? I know there will always be zealots on both sides who can only think of victory in terms of their ‘side’ winning, but maybe the bulk of Palestinians and Israelis can be brought together with a vision of living together, in a new entity that leapfrogs the current us vs them paradigm.
The late Edward Said from 2003
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anOMM5S6NMw&feature=related
When the Israeli economy collapses I wonder what will happen to all the Orthodox and the working class Mizrahim. I presume many English speaking Israelis who can go will do so.
Before we get to a single state for everyone (not just Jews) the Settlers have to crash and burn. Mondo needs a settler correspondent urgently. The kids are going to trash Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-jewish-extremists-not-a-terror-group-but-will-be-given-military-trial-1.401451
I am reminded of a few lines from Mahmoud Darwish’s State of Siege, as translated by Fady Joudah:
“….Then we’ll disagree over everything: over the design of the national flag
(you would do well my living people if you chose the symbol of the simpleton donkey)
and we’ll disagree over the new anthem
(you would do well if you choose a song about the marriage of doves)…..”
One important point, very important, is that in the original Arabic it is pigeons, not doves!
Anyway, when we see the enlightenment which would bring the one country solution to fruition, I suspect the name will not be a contentious issue. But I really like the idea of a flag with a donkey on it.
2SS is “dead” because [1] Israel has done the settlements and [2] the international community has ignored the settlement process and has allowed the settlement process — which is not only nasty but also lawbreaking (as ICJ and UNSC said).
If the Int’l Community never acts, there will be the present 1SS (anti-democratic and apartheid) if not something worse (further exiles).
If the I/C does come to its sense (of decency) and act, why shouldn’t it force Israel to do something (whatever else would action be than use of force or persuasion?) such as to remove the settlements and the settlers and the wall and the siege?
But if it never comes to its sense, and if Israel fails to implode sufficiently, then, yes indeed, 2SS is “dead”.
Under what combination of circumstances can those who dream of a loving 1SS (wouldn’t that be a wonder?) imagine it occurring? Israel imploded? American Jews educated and re-directed toward love and away from fear? I’m all for it.
We should dream/imagine everything positive and work for all of them. So, dreaming, I say, “2SS could be brought about by force, and a decent 1SS could be brought about by love”. Either would be preferable to what we have now, and better for the USA also.
I consider the two state solution unjust (because in the 2-state solution Israel will not allow a full right of return). I also consider it very hard to reach politically, but not at all impossible if the international pressure ramps up, as it is/will.
I would prefer the single state solution, but I do not see any way that such a massive transformation could occur in any *reasonable* time frame (of course, this is absent the unacceptable bloodshed method, whereby a fascist Israel under regional conflict repeats 1948 to make a Jewish 1-state and the conflict still continues from new borders, or an Arab/Persian coalition defeats Israel when it attempts the former).
So I am stuck with the 2-state solution the international community generally has settled on, despite the injustice of it. My question for my fellow MW posters is-
1) WHEN/WHY did the 2-state solution actually die for you? [I understand many of you never supported the 2-state solution; that is principled and you can ignore this question]
2) HOW do you think a just 1 state resolution can be arrived at, step by step with a time frame, and actual political steps?
I will point out that I am not overly optimistic about the 2-state solution, but I am much more pessimistic about a *just* 1-state solution being arrived at. Also, we need to think about the political/mental barriers to both “resolutions”. As Israel has the balance of power, and will for the foreseeable future, we have to consider the political barriers within their society.
Expansionists and the settler fringe obviously oppose the 2-state resolution, while the majority of Israelis accept it, at least in principle. Israel failed to offer it before, but that does not mean the dynamics cannot be altered in the future.
The 1-state solution is opposed by the VAST majority of Israelis, on various levels. The settler fringe opposes it because they want the right to live in their cherished land, but they also want ethnoreligious control of it. Most of Israeli society opposes 1-state because they fear that civil war and ethnic conflict is a very real possibility. In a way, the 1-state solution rewinds the clock to pre-1947, and we see where the Zionist ideologues took events from that starting point. Now we have even more blood in the sand, and we are going to hope that Zionist fanatics do not wage a war to maintain/regain ethnoreligious dominance? What I am saying is that the concern of security coming from Israelis is very real, and not unwarranted. A liberal Israeli who wants justice and *truly* prefers a single state solution *in theory*, may honestly insist that the extreme Zionists, plus a few radicalized Palestinians, is just a recipe for civil war. Such secular Israelis likely fear race riots started from within their own ranks, but that fear is still valid; they just know they cannot control the flow of events and it threatens everyone.
*I do propose that there is a “third way”, which keeps the just dream of 1-state solution alive, and may be the only way to achieve it (absent the bloodshed thing). What if the initial goal is a 2-state resolution, with an ultimate goal of a binational/single state in the future, if desired by both sides. The 2-state solution has less barriers, and once the societies realize they can get along again, latter phases can be voluntarily entered into, with the consent of both sides. Basically, soon after there are 2 states there would be a significant flow of labor and people between both states (as it was from 1967 until the 1st intifada+; even now thousands of people from the West Bank work, legally and illegally, in Israel and the illegal settlements). Only after this position is reached, and peace is sustained for a tangible period, will the parties (namely Israelis) start to accept the idea of sharing the land and coexisting. If for some reason one or both sides feels they want to maintain their own more “ethnic” identity based state, the 2-state resolution would become the ultimate outcome, with only limited manifestations of “union” they can agree upon. It is not just the Israelis who may like the idea of a state which is largely defined by its ethnoreligious majority. The Palestinians in Palestine may also find they enjoy the unique nature of their national identity (and there may be cultural and economic reasons they prefer to remain separate from Israel).
Further, the multi-phased peace lowers the barriers to the initial 2-state resolution for elements on both sides. Settlers know they will have access to religious sites, but perhaps the eventual right to live there [and they need to act well to ever secure such a right to residency/Palestinian citizenship/a single state]. Refugees will get compensation, and realize they may in time get their due right to live in their ancestral homeland (sadly, the nature of it is so radically changed, and so many towns erased, many may be fully contented in the Palestinian state; in fact many of them are integrated and left the camps).
All I can say is that the 1-state dream might be dreaming too big, for a single political step, and therefore prevent any movement. Perhaps a multi-phased plan is the best way to keep a truly just, 1-state solution, even possible. If it fails to reach its highest aspirations, we tried. And I think that is the best way to try for it.