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
link to youtube.com
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.
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.
If there is a better basis to go forward toward a resolution than this statement, I don’t know what it might be.
Two States is dead, by Israel’s own hand. Moving on…
Good post, Annie. Thanks for publishing “Sumud’s” insights.
seafoid – thank you so much for this inspiring clip.
Dr. Said died in Sept. 2003, just four months after this lecture – what a loss! Imagine if his incisive mind and his communication skills were still available today.
“When the Israeli economy collapses ”
From what?
Take your pick, Hophmi . Will it be a war lost? Will it be the cost of dismantling YESHA? Will it be reparations for the occupation ? Will it be the fruits of 43 years of underfunded education? will it be the cost of supporting the Orthodox? will it be a slow drain away of the working schmucks who pay for everyone else? Will it be a Japan style global slump ? Will it be peak oil? Will it be an attack by bond vigilantes?
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.
link to haaretz.com
From the Haaretz article:
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu approved Wednesday a series of steps that would crack down on Jewish extremists responsible for recent violent attacks on IDF soldiers and other targets [including a Jerusalem mosque], but rejected a recommendation to label them a “terror group.”
A question for Hostage’s legal expertise (if he’s reading this) – if Netanyahoo had applied the “terror group” label to these fanatics, would there be legal consequences for those Americans who provide financial support to the settlers?
if Netanyahoo had applied the “terror group” label to these fanatics, would there be legal consequences for those Americans who provide financial support to the settlers?
A penal measure should not be enacted retroactively under the existing statute (nullum crimen sine lege). The legal consequences for providing support to a terrorist organization begin with a determination made the Secretary of State and publication of a notice to that effect in the Federal Register in accordance with § 219 of the Immigration And Nationality Act. link to uscis.gov
None of the activities I’ve seen in the reports constitutes “terrorist activities” as defined in our statutes, with the exception of a possible attempt on the life of the Brigade Commander and his driver that was relayed second-hand by the former Chief Rabbi of the IDF: link to haaretz.com
The Immigration And Nationality Act provides that an attempt to kill a foreign official as defined in Title 18 § 1116 can constitute a terrorist act. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_18_00001116—-000-.html
Israel will be able to deal with the radical settler movement, because it is a democracy, and like all democracies will curb the extremist tendencies within it, as happened in the seventies and eighties in Europe. – Unlike the Palestinians, who tend to tolerate, if not to promote, intolerant and militant groups within them (see the extremist fringes associated with the PLO: the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine or the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade – and with Hamas: the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, for instance or the Popular Resistance Committees).
I think extremism is a far more acute problem in Palestinian society, which has not yet developed the tools of democratic self-regulation.
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.
I didn’t read most of your post following your questions
if you haven’t read it, I suggest you read One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse.
It is a great book
Trying to curb my rants, thanks for the tip. I would like to hear more detailed ideas from the posters here though. Usually it seems to be hand waving optimism, with bold assumptions I do not see materializing. I have talked personally to a few of the 1-staters in Israel and the West Bank. I think it needs to be phased; though it may stall at a “2 state” phase.
anonymouscomments’ question is pretty much ‘how can a 2 or 1 state solution happen’?
there is the realistic dynamic that the current situation w/ continuing Israeli land grabbing w/ total US support (and therefore no incentive to compromise) will likely continue towards mostly single Jewish state w/ no state, rather reservations for the Palestinians. But the conflict will continue at an increasing intensity. Who know what goes from this point.
On the other hand, a possible process towards a single state would be to offer dual citizenship to the so-called settlers and the Palestinian Israelis. Then, over time, allow freedom of travel, commerce, land ownership leading to bi-national political structures, leading to full citizenship for all.
I think it was Uri Avnery who commented that Israel is an army first and a state second. I mention this, because I cannot envision the Jews of Israel giving up their army and handing it over to anyone else. Until you can explain to me the emotional logic that will convince the Jews of Israel to make their army open to the Arab Muslims of Israel (after you have convinced the Arab Muslims of the Holy Land to agree to being drafted into the army) I will remain unconvinced of the peaceful path to a one state solution. The flag, the national anthem and the name of the country will be relatively easy to solve once you have solved the army question.
I agree with you WJ I too do not see how the Jews of Israel can allow Arabs into their army. But at the same time the Israeli army has conquered so much land occupied by a majority of Arabs that they will become a majority and they will have to become part of the army. This is not something that I advocate, it is simply what is happening. You, as well as myself, are powerless to prevent the one-state solution. We have to face reality — the settlers on the WB cannot be removed at this point. Nor will the Arabs on the WB be removed. That is a real dilemma.
Circumstances from year to year will determine the final solution but I really do not believe that the solution will be agreeable to the Zionists.
WJ,
The one state idea posits complete equality both in terms of security needs and in terms of expressions of national sovereignty. As long as Israeli Jews continue to believe that their security should be given precedence over that of Palestinians and/or that a “Jewish” army is a sine qua non for their national existence, one state will obviously be impossible. But we knew that already. It’s not the army, but the rejection of the principle of equality that is the problem – the very same problem that precludes a viable two-state solution as well.
“It’s not the army, but the rejection of the principle of equality that is the problem – the very same problem that precludes a viable two-state solution as well.”
Where did you learn marksmanship, Shmuel? That sentence hit the very center of the bulls eye. 28 words that says it all.
Boy do I wish a single secular state could happen –because it is the only outcome that won’t ultimately be a complete disaster for everyone. But, it won’t. It is the same dynamic that most assuredly drives Israel away from a sustainable two state solution that will also make a single, secular state an impossiblity and the single Jewish state the desired endpoint. We all know why; just like T Friedman lemented
link to nytimes.com
the dynamic of Israel is towards more the fear mongering and the rule of the religious nut-cases, the so-called settlers (procreating like bunnies). So, with the blind support from the US, what incentive is there to limit the ongoing land grabbing towards a single Jewish state? none.
What stopped S. Africa was the international pressure and the knowledge that ultimately be black population could sustain a painful revolution. This is not the case for Israel and the Palestinians.
I wonder what Israel will do about the ‘Palestinian Question’? Or will the final ME confligration solve the problem.
“I mention this, because I cannot envision the Jews of Israel giving up their army and handing it over to anyone else”
That’s funny, they’ve already handed it over, lock, stock and barrel, to the settlers, and the ultra-religious. Who still aren’t satisfied, and are attacking their own Army.
RITFL! They may have to hand it over to the Israeli Arabs, if they want to keep it!
After all, somebody is going to have to maintain order, and keep the Jews from each other’s throats!
I believe that politics follows hearts and minds, not the other way around.
And, that the way to make political change is first to change attitudes.
The J14 movement was the most promising of any attitude changing event that I can see, but it was nearly universally condemned here on the basis that it wasn’t of the nature of political change.
Mutual humanization is it, and starting from where people are. There is no effort at mutual humanization, if you regard any other attitude as a litmus test, literally on anything.
Jews/Zionists are human beings deserving of respect. Palestinians are human beings deserving of respect.
Simple. Buildable, and a foundation to build upon.
Richard Witty said, ‘I’m hiding over here. On the Norm Finkelstein thread, Mondoweiss visitors have asked me for links to my unsourced claims defending the Joan Peters book, (which I do admit I didn’t read). Instead of responding to them, which would constitute “dialog,” I come over here, and issue more of my usual pro-motherhood statements.
‘I’m lucky Mondoweiss is such a busy site. Another few hours, and the Finkelstein thread will recede even further, with my claims still unsubstantiated. Meanwhile, I’ll be ready late tomorrow morning, to pounce on the very latest posts.’
Back to your harrassment effort North?
Richard Witty said, ‘I get snippy with James North, but I still haven’t provided any links to support my wild allegations about the Peters book. No matter; shortly new posts will be up and I’ll jump in right away.’
North,
You must have better uses of your time and intelligence than to conduct this “blocker” strategy.
Is it better to address arguments, or to dismiss them?
You made a straw-man shift in my comment relative to the Peters book.
What political purpose do you think I have that you are motivated to inject static, rather than clarification?
You think there is a smoking gun, a hidden agenda, some secret?
I am what I say I am, and advocate for what I say I advocate for.
Richard Witty said, ‘More incomprehensible verbiage from me, but still no citations to back up my positive view of Joan Peters.’
I didn’t state a “positive view of Joan Peters”.
Do you know how to read?
Richard, you did not make a single comment in the thread about Mustafa Tamimi.
link to mondoweiss.net
NONE
link to mondoweiss.net
NONE again
You have 11,000+ comments on this blog. You knew Phil growing up. And you are generally though of as the anti-Mascot of MW.
So please don’t assume that anyone here other than equally hypocritical, racist, phony-liberals believe you when you rant about ‘mutual-blah-blah’.
You are not a credible or moral person. That is why you are not taken seriously or respected.
“You made a straw-man shift”
Yes, I used to know some scarecrows who enjoyed doing a little cross-dressing now and then, too.
“I am what I say I am, and advocate for what I say I advocate for.”
You are what you are, and that’s all that you are? Try eating a can of spinach, Popeye.
“I didn’t state a “positive view of Joan Peters”.Do you know how to read?”
Any commenter’s full archive can be accessed by simply clicking the name above any comment. To access Richard Witty’s comment archive, simply set your cursor on “Richard Witty, and click.
“You must have better uses of your time and intelligence than to conduct this “blocker” strategy.”
I’m sorry for my poor reading skills, Richard, but why is “blocker” in quotes? I don’t see the word on this page. Who are you quoting? Could you point me to the post you are quoting from, so I can read the word in context?
Thank you, in advance, for your quick and cogent answer.
“Jews/Zionists are human beings deserving of respect. Palestinians are human beings deserving of respect.”
Don’t tell us, we know. Go tell AIPAC, go tell JNF. Go tell the settlers, go tell the Likudniks. Go tell Israel.
And of course, your insinuation that Mondoweiss holds that Jews/Zionists are not human beings stinks to high heaven, and is typical of the nasty mendaciousness you bring to every post.
The J14 movement failed because the protesters did not have a unified agenda. They figured once they started ‘making demands’ differing opinions would divide the movement and it would collapse. This is the same thing with the occupy movements in the US. Yeah they have a wiki with various ideas, but they’re too afraid of dividing everybody if they start ‘making demands.’ This is why it too is headed for failure unless they take the beast head-on (like exposing names and their dynastic families).
The problem with politics is that MOST PEOPLE are very much sleeping sheeple. Their hearts and minds are being manipulated by the ruling class. I had an IRL political argument with my in-laws and they were religiously disagreeing with me in favor of repeating tired rhetoric the MSM hypnotized them with. Unknowingly useful idiots for the elite. They have zero clue they are protecting the very people they complain about by repeating their bullet point scare tactics.
Witty is right about changing attitudes. But in order to do that, you have to harness the exact same tools that are used to manipulate public opinion: the media. An impossible task for a ‘nobody’ like myself. The mutual humanization thing is not so simple however. Because changing attitudes is not a simple task. Spreading awareness that the elite ruling class ‘dynasties’ of the world (bankers and monarchs, many who are even inter-related) are the problem is simple. Getting everybody to agree on how to solve the problem is not simple. We’re stuck in an endless argument among ourselves over superficial differences. We should be fighting against the PTB, not each other, but the PTB have the ability to influence public opinion. Sorry to get off topic there, but it’s kinda related.
Witty is less a liberal Zionist and more of an ‘agnostic’ Zionist. He cherry picks certain favorable aspects from what Zionism really is and has his own flavor of Zionism which isn’t really Zionism. By not supporting one state or binationality, he supports segregation. There is no mutual humanization in a 2SS. Nobody expects the Jews to leave Israel. Some realize that the Jews in the WB are never going anywhere either. This is why a 2SS is impossible and also why Israel is guilty of Apartheid.
My post was not posted, so I’ll try again.
The J14 movement is in its infancy. The first thing to do is to unify around principles, not political conclusion.
The favorable principles that I appreciated (also with the occupy movements, at least the positive ones that went viral into my home areas), were the making of common cause among all that were working people, the 99%.
As only 80% of Israelis are Jewish, that meant that a large portion of the Palestinian community was invited as peers, and many participated as peers.
I’ve argued on 972, that the insistence that the J14 movement necessarily include the occupation in every breath, would kill the movement.
For any that argue for peer status within Israel, or the precedent of peer status between Israelis and their neighbors, supporting a movement for whom the 99% as peers is the norm, should be a no-brainer, and without conspicuously stated qualifications.
The J14 movement is in its infancy.
If by “infancy” you mean “deathbed”, sure. The J14 movement has already fizzled out and it’s not likely to have any lasting effects.
“And, that the way to make political change is first to change attitudes.”
And if the smell of rotting Palestinian corpses bothers you while waiting for Israel to “change attitudes” do what Richard does- hold your nose.
not that i’m against a single-state solution of the p/i confilict, but isn’t the primary* task of u.s. supporters of justice for palestine to bring down the u.s.-israel special relationship? until this is accomplished speculation on a solution to this conflict, while interesting and personally gratifying, isn’t it like putting the cart before the horse?
*also isn’t it the most that u.s. supporters possibly can do?
yourstruly, There are differing opinions depending on how many ‘layers’ you peel back. Taking on the lobby won’t necessarily bring down the special relationship, but it’s a good start. The problem is the whole establishment of the modern era. The conspiracy theory about the “NWO” is completely backwards. The West has been globalizing this planet with ‘democracy’ for decades. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s not a NWO either, it’s the status quo. There already is a one-world government (the UN) and a one-world leader (the US). The NWO is the current world order. I have this theory that the ‘homeland’ in DHS really is derived from ‘moledet’ and an old Hebrew definition of ‘moledet’ can be understood to mean ‘common era’
The US are the world’s police. It’s a fact. They want to preserve this plutocracy wrapped in democracy’s clothing. Even going after the lobby, or anything really, is putting the cart before the horse. Why not put all our energy in taking on the elite? The international criminal banking empire and all the fools who protect them (world leaders.. financial dynasties of all flavors, especially monarchs like the Windsors). That is the problem. They have no transparency. We didn’t elect anybody on wall street, therefore we don’t live in a democracy. Because wall street is unofficially part of the government.
The establishment is a bankster establishment. Cut off the head, and things like I/P will solve themselves. The occupy movement should spend sometime exposing these people. Names and names of family members. Faces. Political contributions. Daily activities including what they do in their private life. Some might say ‘that’s not right, bringing their families into it’ and I say why? They live the lifestyle, they are also part of the problem. Do something that scares the elite because right now they are just laughing at the protesters.
yes, i agree & most definitely, but wouldn’t undoing the criminal zionist entity israel be a couple of steps towards that goal? and once underway……