Trending Topics:

In major shift, one third of Americans want US to push for one-state outcome in Israel/Palestine

US Politics
on 62 Comments

This is important. Americans are beginning to open their eyes to a one-state outcome in Israel and Palestine. A new poll says the number of Americans who want the U.S. to push for a one-state outcome “with equal citizenship” is now close to the number who want the US to push for two states– 34 percent for one-state as opposed to to 39 percent for two. And the number who would push for One has jumped by 40 percent since last year.

The same poll also suggests that Democrats are expressing greater and greater skepticism about Israel, which could give politicians freedom to say something (maybe?).

The Brookings Poll of American attitudes on the conflict was conducted by Shibley Telhami in November, with 1000+ American respondents.

Here’s the main finding:

Two states, One State, Annexation, Status Quo

The percentage of Americans who want the US government to push for a two-state solution remains constant at 39% from last year; but the percentage of those who
want the US to push for one state with equal citizenship has increased from 24% to 34%.

Among those who support two states, two-thirds would support one state if two states are not possible.

If a two-state solution is not possible, 71% of Americans (84% of Democrats, 60% of Republicans) favor a single democratic state with Arabs and Jews as equal over a
one in which Israel’s Jewish majority is sustained and Palestinians will not have equal citizenship.

There are starkly different levels of partisanship for Israel between Democrats and Republicans. Which side should we favor?

Among Democrats, 77% say neither side, 17% say Israel, and 6% say Palestinians; Among Republicans, 51% say Israel, 46% say neither, and 2% say Palestinians.

The party break continues when it comes to the U.S. supporting a Palestinian state at the U.N.

If Palestinians ask for UN endorsement of a Palestinian state, only 27% of Americans want the US to oppose it, 45% recommend abstaining, and 25% want the US to vote
in favor. Only 15% of Democrats recommend opposing, 36% recommend supporting, and 46% recommend abstaining…

75% of Democrats oppose settlement-building (only half of Republicans do).

There’s a lot of work to be done here. As Lia Tarachansky, who’s here promoting her new film, said the other day, the two-state solution died 15 years ago; and when is someone going to tell Americans? Omar Barghouti said at Columbia University the other night that an “absolute majority” of Palestinians, inside and outside the occupied territories, including the diaspora, would support a one state outcome.

Update: Telhami stresses that even American Jews value democracy more than Jewishness re Israel, in this piece at Foreign Policy. Fifty Jews were among the respondents.

Sixty-one percent of those identifying themselves as Jewish either ethnically or religiously favor Israel’s democracy over its Jewishness. Even among the policy relevant group — those Americans who rank the Palestinian-Israeli conflict either as a top priority or among the top three issues — 54 percent favor democracy, and 42 percent favor Jewishness. In fact, the only group in the sample slightly favoring Jewishness over democracy is those who identify themselves as Evangelical/Born-again Christians (50 percent to 47 percent, which is within the margin of error)…

Telhami reflects another way that the leftwing discourse is affecting America. Concern about Israel/Palestine is concern about human rights, he finds:

many tend to look at this issue through the prism of human rights. In this poll, a plurality of Americans (31 percent) say that human rights are their primary concern when they consider the Palestinian-Israeli conflict — more than American interests (24 percent) and Israeli interests (14 percent).

A quarter of Americans rank human rights as their single most important priority for U.S. foreign policy (compared with 9 percent for international law, and 5 percent for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict). Those who rank human rights highest in their priorities tend to rank the Palestinian-Israeli conflict higher than other Americans do.

That finding, along with the one in my headline, demonstrates that America is listening to the concerns we express on this site.

Thanks to Alex Kane.

 

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

62 Responses

  1. Boomer
    December 5, 2014, 7:09 pm

    I don’t know whether one state or two is better, nor do I have a vote in that. What I would like to “push for” is an end to U.S. financial, military, and diplomatic support for Israel, which makes us complicit in the dispossession and oppression of Palestinians.

    • Horizontal
      December 6, 2014, 3:36 pm

      I’d like to see those numbers as well. Last poll I remember was that those thinking we spent too much on Israel were increasing fastest among the younger generations, as you might expect.

      But to your point, I completely agree — if Israel’s going to continue to do all this killing, land stealing and foot-dragging, they should at least do it on their own dime. On top of that, we could really use the money right here.

      Unfortunately, when you have public officials still making idiotic statements like, “Defending America means defending Israel,” the day of cutting funds is still a ways off.

      • Daniel Rich
        December 6, 2014, 7:19 pm

        @ Horizontal,

        But, but, but… our VP said, ““There is absolutely no daylight between us on the question of Israel’s security,” LINK.

        Why is there so much ‘moonlight’ between ‘us’ and other nations?

      • Horizontal
        December 7, 2014, 10:30 am

        I guess that’s the problem — no daylight exposing our foul relationship with Israel. It could really use some, along with a good dose of fresh air.

      • Daniel Rich
        December 7, 2014, 6:49 pm

        @ Horizontal,

        Q: …along with a good dose of fresh air.

        R: …and risk being labeled ‘antioxidant?’

      • Boomer
        December 9, 2014, 7:40 am

        As you say, Horizontal, the day of cutting funds is still a ways off, as in “not in my lifetime.” As you and others note, our ruling class intersects almost totally with the pro-Israel Zionist class. At least that is true if you judge by indicators such as the near unanimous margins by which Congress routinely passes AIPAC-sponsored resolutions, or the opinions expressed by the editorial boards of the newspapers read by our “elites.”

        Privately, some politicians may hold different views. It is possible to fantasize that some President with the courage to speak the truth to the American people might catalyze a change. To do that, he would have to lead from the front, where he would be vulnerable to fragging. Experience shows that such a fantasy is likely to remain just that.

        This is both sad and surprising to me. Sad, because it seems to me that simple decency, common human feelings, basic feelings that underlie many notions of morality and ethics would suffice to motivate change. Surprising, because it seems to me that simple self-interest would have prompted more honest debate and dialogue after 9/11, if not before. Yet that didn’t happen. A few voices were raised, but they were ignored or shouted down. You recall, for example, what happened when Pastor Wright said that America’s chickens were coming home to roost. Admittedly, he was impolitic in the way he spoke the truth about America. But then he was not speaking as a politician. He was, as Marc Ellis might say, speaking as the voice of the Prophetic.

        Rev. Wright: “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” he told his congregation.”

        from: http://abcnews.go.com/blotter/democraticdebate/story?id=4443788&page=1

      • SQ Debris
        December 10, 2014, 3:46 pm

        “the day of cutting funds is still a ways off.” Maybe yes, maybe not. Yeshayahu Leibovwitz was want to say that “this is a political line and a political line can change overnight.” As in the Berlin Wall, or the prohibition on Gay marriage. But the political line won’t change itself. It needs unremitting shoulders to the stone ala MW and company. Rock on up that hill.

  2. RoHa
    December 5, 2014, 7:34 pm

    “Among Democrats, 77% say neither side, 17% say Israel, and 6% say Palestinians; Among Republicans, 51% say Israel, 46% say neither, and 2% say Palestinians.,”

    Assuming roughly equal numbers of Dems and Reps, that is close to a 2 to 1 majority for “neither” over “Israel”.

  3. ritzl
    December 5, 2014, 8:20 pm

    The wording of these answers is perfect! It is simple and honest. It (the wording) shows that the people who respond to these polls far from stupid. They simply lack enough adult/non-manipulative information with which to make adult/non-manipulated judgements. It also shows just how close the popular tipping point is on this issue, where that little teeny tiny amount of information can outweigh decades of propaganda in making [correct] moral/political judgements.

    This goes for the previous poll that Telhami did on the preferred outcome when the elusive two-state outcome finally is declared dead.

    I guess that makes Telhami the “anti-Luntz.”

    • Walid
      December 5, 2014, 9:33 pm

      “In major shift, one third of Americans want US to push for one-state outcome in Israel/Palestine”

      Rirzl, on reading beyond the title, I’d say that the majority of those 1008 polled that were hand-picked by the pollsters had a pro-Israel leaning. The general thrust of the poll appears intended to show that the Americans would favor a US veto against Palestinian statehood and similar positions if asked to side with either the Palestinians or Israel on various issues.

      The difference of opinion shown between Democrats and Republicans in this poll is nothing less than a smoke screen. Telhemi is an Israeli Palestinian and the Center for Middle East Policy that’s behind this poll is generously funded by Cheryl and Haim Saban.

      Reading through the short poll and the overall generalization to each question will show you where this poll is heading. As a rule, pro-Palestinian issues are not published in the US, so this one was suspect from the start, especially coming from a Saban-related group.

      • Citizen
        December 6, 2014, 5:20 am

        Saban’s poll: While 31 percent of those surveyed said they were in favor of US support for Israel over the Palestinians, only 4% said they wanted the US government to push for the Palestinian cause over Israel’s.

        However, 64% of the poll’s participants expressed that they did not want Washington to take a position partial to either side in particular.
        http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/More-Americans-back-US-lean-toward-Israel-over-Palestinians-survey-finds-383774

      • Walid
        December 6, 2014, 8:41 am

        “However, 64% of the poll’s participants expressed that they did not want Washington to take a position partial to either side in particular. ”

        That’s a sleazy way of saying Americans polled don’t object to the US letting Israel run amok as far as the Palestinians are concerned. That poll is full of smoke signals saying much differently what the poll is supposedly telling us about the Palestinians finding a little more sympathy with the Americans. Phil here made a summary of the polls summary and the actual results when reviewed question by question asked and how it was answerd are not at all favourable to the Palestinians, as far as those hand-picked 1008 interviewees are concerned.

        The title is saying that 1/3 are for a one-state; what do the other 2/3 say? That poll is a Zionist torpedo.

      • ritzl
        December 6, 2014, 1:29 pm

        Hi Walid. I went back and re-read the questions/responses and the seem pretty self-explanatory to me. There may be some “tailoring” going on to conform to a Zionist/Saban PoV, but I honestly didn’t see a hidden agenda and the results are not good for that PoV. It would be tough to sugarcoat these results without throwing out the whole poll.

        I read them as saying that US public support for Israel’s current policies (“Jewish State”) and intransigence (“settlements”) is molecule-thin – and getting thinner.

        Q4 was the only question (imho) that showed an unequivocal support for Israel. In Q4, “In general, what role do you want the US to play in mediating the conflict?”, only those who consider this in their top three issues expressed a majority opinion that the US should “lean toward Israel.” Since no absolute respondent numbers were given in Phil’s link, while a plurality of people focused on this issue say “lean toward Israel,” the actual number saying that could have been 6/1008 AND heavily weighted toward enforced Jewish communal sentiment. If both of those minimizing factors are in play, that makes that one question and seemingly “pro-Israel” response very insignificant in terms of expressing overall US public opinion on this Issue.

        Perhaps someone here has the absolute response numbers. If they show differently than what I just wrote above, I stand corrected.

        Having said that, Telhami’s association with Saban is troubling. Offsetting that a little, and only osmotically, is that Telhami is at the University of Maryland, where the Program on International Policy Attitudes/World Public Opinion (PIPA/WPO) organizations are located. Near as I’ve been able to tell, they do excellent polling work, especially on this issue. The phrasing of Telhami’s questions reminded me of their style of wording, so I think there may be some influence and crosstalk there.

        BUT, my second reaction to this poll was exactly as you point out. These poll-ees could have been cherrypicked and it would be good to see another polling org use these same questions with a different/independent sample selection process.

        I hope this poll becomes an annual tracking poll.

        Peace.

      • ritzl
        December 6, 2014, 1:30 pm

        Oops. Meant to include the PIPA/WPO link: http://www.pipa.org/

      • ritzl
        December 6, 2014, 1:45 pm

        Double oops. I didn’t see the update. Thanks Phil and Alex.

      • Walid
        December 6, 2014, 1:49 pm

        Thanks for taking the time to read through it and commenting on it, ritzl, for a while I felt like a “voice in the wilderness”. I found a 50-minute interview of Telhami that recounts how he grew up as a Christian in 1950s Israel in a Haifa suburb and the way he recounts it, it was all sugar’n’spice living under the Zio regime, so he’s not your run-of-the-mill anti-Zionist activist. Some of it has to have rubbed-off.

      • foresomenteneikona
        December 6, 2014, 6:35 pm

        Walid, I don’t think your comments are fair to Telhami. Whatever his background, his work is generally marked by objectivity and rigor, and is not marked by political agendas. For example, his chapter on Arab perceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in “The World Through Arab Eyes” is insightful and presents Arab perspectives in a way that is generally sympathetic but clearly not motivated by a particular agenda with respect to the conflict.

        I have reservations about the poll described here, and Weiss’ interpretation of the results, but I think there is no reason to suggest that the results are affected by sampling bias.

      • Walid
        December 7, 2014, 12:36 pm

        Foresomenteneikona, I’m not familiar with Talhimi and his work, my harsh comments were of the poll that came across as an encrypted message favouring the Zionist enterprise. Being associated with a Saban outfit didn’t help to soften my views of it. I have the same reservations about whatever that comes out of Brookings’ branch office in Doha, Qatar; a couple of years or so back, the Doha director was a guest speaker at the Herzliya annual gathering of vultures. Talhimi being associated with such people from near and far puts him in league with the bad guys as far as I’m concerned.

        I’d be grateful to hear Ramzi’s reaction to the poll. If he tells me I’m wrong, I’ll shut up.

  4. pabelmont
    December 5, 2014, 9:46 pm

    The so-called south African Moment will occur when a poll among Israelis and Palestinians shows that THEY would like a one-demo-state.

    All that USA feelings are good for, at best, is Zilch (unless AIPAC can be defanged). Yes, yes, in NY and FL and CA and maybe elsewhere enough “Jewish Voters” who have always been presumed to be Zionists have explained those3 3 states. But AIPAC explains the many, many others.

    • seafoid
      December 6, 2014, 12:31 am

      It might turn into a Minsky Moment

      http://monthlyreview.org/2011/03/01/structural-crisis-in-the-world-system/

      ” Premise No. 1 is that all systems—from the astronomical universe to the smallest physical phenomena, and including of course historical social systems—have lives. They come into existence at some point, which needs to be explained. They have “normal”lives, the rules of which need to be explicated. The functioning of their normal lives tends, over time, to move them far from equilibrium, at which point they enter a structural crisis, and in due course cease to exist. The functioning of their normal lives has to be analyzed in terms of cyclical rhythms and secular trends. The cyclical rhythms are sets of systemic fluctuations (upturns and downturns), in which the system regularly returns to equilibrium. However, it is a moving equilibrium since, at the end of a downturn, the system never returns to exactly where it was at the beginning of the upturn. This is because secular trends (slow, long-term increases in some systemic characteristic) push the curve slowly upward, as measured by some percentage of that characteristic in the system.
      Eventually, the secular trends move the system too near its asymptotes, and the system is unable to continue its normal, regular, slow upward push. Thereupon, it begins to fluctuate wildly and repeatedly, leading to a bifurcation—that is, to a chaotic situation in which a stable equilibrium cannot be maintained. In such a chaotic situation, there are two quite divergent possibilities of recreating order out of chaos, or a new stable system. This period we may call the structural crisis of the system, and there is a system-wide battle—for historical social systems, a political battle—over which of two alternative possible outcomes will be collectively “chosen.””

  5. Ramzi Jaber
    December 6, 2014, 11:41 am

    1S1P1V – one state, on person, one vote.

    That is the only viable, feasible, and stable solution. No other way. Demographics point to that way. Extremist zionists point to that way. Criminal colonial actions point to that way.

    The arc of history always bends towards justice. Our cause is just. Freedom is just. Equality is just. Human rights is just. PALESTINE IS JUST.

    1S1P1V.

    • just
      December 6, 2014, 11:45 am

      So nice to see you, Ramzi! I hope that you and yours are ok.

      “The arc of history always bends towards justice. Our cause is just. Freedom is just. Equality is just. Human rights is just. PALESTINE IS JUST.

      1S1P1V.”

      Amen. I wish that the arc would bend a lot faster…

      • Ramzi Jaber
        December 6, 2014, 1:40 pm

        Lol, me too. Thank you very much just. You are so very kind. Yes, everything is ok. Wishing you and yours great holidays, merry christmas, and a happy new year.

      • just
        December 6, 2014, 2:46 pm

        ;-)).

        Best wishes to you and yours, Ramzi.

    • Walid
      December 6, 2014, 2:01 pm

      “1S1P1V”

      I fully agree, although I have no voice in the matter. The only way to reach that goal is for BDS to chart a new course to go after Israel proper rather than just its settlements.

      • jon s
        December 7, 2014, 4:49 am

        The only solution which is both morally sound and politically possible (just barely…) is two states. It’s the only path towards peace.

      • Ellen
        December 7, 2014, 5:11 am

        Jos s, get a grip. The current Israeli government will not back a Palestinian state. Actions make that clear, and Netanyahu and his government have come out against it:

        http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-finally-speaks-his-mind/

        Unless the Israeli successful transfer and kill off most all of the local Palestinians, they are not going anywhere .

        Israel has two choices to establish peace: either finish off the ongoing genocide and expulsion of a people, or become a modern unified country, and return to being a home to many as the region of Palestine has always been.

        The choice has always been in Israeli hands. The Zionists made that choice decades ago and that is why Israel finds itself a militarized, non Peaceful, dependent colonial enterprise.

        It is not a state as it has no borders and no constitution and no treaties of alliance with any state.

      • RoHa
        December 7, 2014, 5:25 am

        Why do you think the two state solution is morally sound?

      • eljay
        December 7, 2014, 7:33 am

        >> jon s: The only solution which is both morally sound and politically possible (just barely…) is two states.

        Garbage. A one-state solution is also both morally sound and “politically possible (just barely…)”. And if it is less of the latter, it is without a doubt more of the former.

        >> It’s the only path towards peace.

        Advocating for “peace” – without any concern for justice, accountability and equality – is a sure sign that the person expressing an opinion on the I-P issue is a Zio-supremacist.

      • Horizontal
        December 7, 2014, 10:34 am

        The only solution which is both morally sound and politically possible (just barely…) is two states. It’s the only path towards peace.

        I’d say the entire history of Zionism argues just the opposite.

      • Walid
        December 7, 2014, 12:41 pm

        “The only solution which is both morally sound and politically possible (just barely…) is two states. It’s the only path towards peace. ”

        Of course it is, or rather it was, Jon, but Israel walked away from this logical solution a long time ago. The Arabs that included Palestine made such an offer to Israel in 2002 and again in 2004. Israel answered with an increased settlements expansiion program.

      • seafoid
        December 7, 2014, 5:27 pm

        Walid

        Israel didn’t walk away from it. Israel built concrete all over it.

        Jon S’s
        “Israel is not a colonial enterprise . Jews were not, are not, and will never be, colonialists in our own historic homeland ” is bullshit.

        Historic homeland is a load of crap.
        Statutes of limitations apply well before 2000 years.
        the Ashkenazim did not come from Palestine. And the Mizrahim- who knows ?
        And big deal if Jews prayed about Jerusalem- doesn’t mean anything in law.

        And Palestinians are not allowed back after 60 years. Sorry Jon, that is incoherent.

        L
        look at the mess they made , bringing all those disparate groups of Jews together and the only thing they could glue them together with was fear. .

      • just
        December 7, 2014, 5:48 pm

        Right again, seafoid.

    • Daniel Rich
      December 6, 2014, 7:30 pm

      @ Ramzi Jaber,

      Q: The arc of history always bends towards justice.

      R: Justice is about 2 opposing forces, with oftentimes an arbitrary entourage, to decide what’s ‘right or wrong.’

      Truth, however, is as naked as ‘nude’ can be.

      • Ramzi Jaber
        December 7, 2014, 10:45 am

        @Daniel Rich

        Ah, truth and Justice! Books have been written on this topic. Without getting too philosophical or abstract, what is happening in Palestine is very REAL and extremely PAINFUL…

        When it comes to Palestine, truth underlines justice as there is no justice without that truth. That truth being:

        1) zionists (NOT jews) built an artificial movement to steal someone else’s land.

        2) zionism itself is a political concept that is outdated and that had long died but zionists do not realize it yet.

        3) zionists illegally stole and colonized Palestine and continue to commit crimes every day against innocent Palestinians.

        4) zionists do whatever they can regardless to where they are to blindly support the zionist regime by abusing the holocaust and anti-semitism for their political ends (which ironically have negative impact of jews). Positions that they would themselves be vehemently opposed to had this situation occurred between other parties not including israel.

        5) zionist organizations around the world hold their regular strategic planning activities to ensure zionist and israeli interests stay at the top of the agenda of political, economic, and social world leaders and organizations.

        6) zionism is not judaism. not all jews are zionists. Palestinians are not fighting against jews. Palestinians are against zionists who stole our land and kill our people.

        7) Many jews are pro-truth and pro-justice, and hence are pro-Palestine.

        8) No people is the chosen people. For those who believe in God, we are all God’s children.

        9) The Bible is not a real-estate guide. God is not a real-estate agent.

        10) Palestine was NOT a land with no people. We were there for thousands of years. My family was there for hundreds of years. That’s hundreds of years more than Ben Gurion, Wiseman, Herzog, Peres, Lieberman, etc. who were all born elsewhere and came to my land and stole it.

        These are the immutable truths and the undeniable facts.

        So, it is upon these truths that peoples and countries around the world are increasingly deciding what is just and what is right. And thanks to the Internet and Social Media, these truths have no barriers and are no longer beholden and controlled by one party or another.

        And so, peoples and countries around the world are concluding that PALESTINE IS JUST.

      • ritzl
        December 7, 2014, 11:16 am

        @Ramzi Jaber December 7, 2014, 10:45 am:

        Your comment is one example of why I wish we could tweet individual comments.

        Thanks. (and to Daniel Rich for the exchange)

      • just
        December 7, 2014, 11:27 am

        Exactly correct, Ramzi!

        1S1P1V!!!

      • jon s
        December 7, 2014, 4:59 pm

        Ellen,
        Are you arguing that two states is wrong because Netanyahu is against it? I would say that if Netanyahu is against it, it’s probably a good idea.
        There’s no “ongoing genocide…” of the Palestinians. The Palestinian population is increasing nicely.
        Israel is not a colonial enterprise . Jews were not, are not, and will never be, colonialists in our own historic homeland.

        RoHa,
        Two states is morally sound because it’s based on the principles of self-determination and equal rights. We live in an era of nation-states. A Jewish state exists, and it’s time for the establishment of a Palestinian state. The Palestinian people are entitled to a state of their own and deserve to live in peace and free of occupation.

        Eljay,
        It’s too bad that “peace ” is something of a dirty word for you. It’s what we -Israelis and Palestinians- need most.

        Walid,
        I agree with you on the missed opportunities and the government’s preference for more settlements. But that doesn’t mean that we should give up.

      • Ellen
        December 7, 2014, 5:45 pm

        @jons:

        Are you arguing that two states is wrong because Netanyahu is against it? no, you are projecting that which I neither said nor implied. Stop the Hasbarism. You know what I argued — Israel will not accept a two state solution. The plan is to annihilate Palestinians over time.

        Population increase or not is not the definition of genocidal actions. the actions of Israel against the Palestinian population are genocidal. Destruction of food production is just one example.

        Israel is not a colonial enterprise . of course it is. In fact Zionists referred to Palestine as the colonial project through the 40’s. The first Zionist bank establishe (bank Leuimi, I believe it is now called, was “the Colonial Bank of Palestine.). Zionism was defined as a colonial project!

        in our own historic homeland.hmmm, insane nonsence. Sort of like ideas of being a descendent of the Knights of Templer, or the Arian “race.” With that logic the region of a Palestine is historic to all kinds of people everywhere! The Jews of thousands of years ago were one of many groups in the vast area of the Middle East . And you know what? Many groups spent time in that part of the Mediterranean . So I, like mist all, can reach back into history and myths and stories and claim Israel as my historical “homeland.”

        I really do think you are insane.

      • eljay
        December 7, 2014, 6:30 pm

        >> jon s: Eljay, It’s too bad that “peace ” is something of a dirty word for you.

        Peace is a wonderful word. I believe that the application of justice, accountability and equality will result in peace. So let’s do it.

        The real problem is that Zio-supremacists like you abhor the words justice, accountability and equality, because:
        – they don’t absolve you (collectively) of your past and on-going (war) crimes or your obligations under international law; and
        – they don’t validate your claimed rights to Jewish supremacism in a supremacist “Jewish State”.

      • RoHa
        December 7, 2014, 7:39 pm

        “Zionism was defined as a colonial project!”

        And was wrong regardless of that definition.

      • Daniel Rich
        December 7, 2014, 8:01 pm

        @ Ramzi Jaber,

        Truth = undeniable facts = justice.

        You have made your case, and, in any self-respecting court of justice, won it.

        Zionism has turned into ‘necrotizing fasciitis’ and its excrement is what we’re currently forced to look at, in all its bloated hideousness. Those who tell us ‘It’s not what you think it is,’ fail to register the foul stench, the one that reached in these modern days, far beyond the blue yonder.

        The decay is visible to all who look at it from the ‘outside,’ a ‘view’ that clearly differs from most who stare at it from the ‘inside.’

        Peace is the only viable cure, but the ‘Man Men’ are no ‘doctors.’ They’re vagrant Voodoo priest, stuck in a warped time continuum where the past is the future and a wall not a fence. They only need a concrete roof… and all will be well.

        The only way to achieve true peace is through of the acceptance of differences. It’s that simple, actually, but one look around me tells me, we, collectively as a species, are caught in our own web of of lies and deception and all our movements make the web only shake more violently.

        But one day the ‘anchor points’ will snap and ‘the web’ lose it’s function.

        I hope that happens soon.

      • RoHa
        December 8, 2014, 8:30 am

        “We live in an era of nation-states.”

        I would say that we live in an era in which a number of states are 19C-style “nation-states”, a number of states are not, and some are changing from one form to another. But be that as it may, the current popularity of particular political arrangements does not affect the morality of the situation.

        “Two states is morally sound because it’s based on the principles of self-determination and equal rights.”

        Equal rights for everyone in the territory would certainly be a step towards morality, but would also mean that there could not be a Jewish state.  To be Jewish, the state cannot give equal rights to non-Jews.  And if everybody in the territory has equal rights, what would be the point of two states?

        Self determination (insofar as the concept is coherent) has to be the collective right (insofar as it is a right at all) of all the legitimate residents of the territory.  This means that a single state with equal rights for all citizens would, if self determined, be moral solution.   Since such a state would not perpetuate the original injustice to the same extent as two states would, a single state would be even more moral.

        We have discussed at length the supposed right of self determination. While not all of us agree that it exists (MHughes in particular doubt that it is a coherent notion) Hostage and I have argued that, if there is such a right, it is not a right for ethnic/religious/hobby groups. It is a putative prima facie right for legitimate residents of a territory regardless of their ethnicity, ancestry, crackpot beliefs, or disgusting personal habits.

        The major section of my moral arguments about self-determination.
Start here and you can just scroll down.
link to mondoweiss.net
        Or you can take them one at a time.
        link to mondoweiss.net
        (This one includes the typo “and unrepented state”. It should have been “an independent state”, but the typo seems apposite for Israel.)
        link to mondoweiss.net
        link to mondoweiss.net
        link to mondoweiss.net
        link to mondoweiss.net
        Other comments on the topic.
        http://mondoweiss.net/profile/roha?keyword=self-determination

        Hostage agues from a legal perspective.
        http://mondoweiss.net/profile/hostage?keyword=Self+determination

        “The Palestinian people are entitled to a state of their own”

        No they are not. No group is entitled to a state.

      • RoHa
        December 9, 2014, 8:00 pm

        Try again with working links

        Start here and you can just scroll down.


        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/05/facebook-counterrevolution-jews-and-arabs-cant-live-together#comment-320089

        (One includes the typo “and unrepented state”. It should have been “an independent state”, but the typo seems apposite for Israel.)

        Other comments on the topic.

        http://mondoweiss.net/profile/roha?keyword=self-determination

        Hostage agues from a legal perspective.

        http://mondoweiss.net/profile/hostage?keyword=Self+determination

      • Annie Robbins
        December 9, 2014, 8:55 pm

        thanks so much RoHa

    • Mooser
      December 8, 2014, 11:13 am

      “That is the only viable, feasible, and stable solution. No other way. Demographics point to that way. Extremist zionists point to that way. Criminal colonial actions point to that way.”

      I can’t wait until Palestinians have equal access to the courts, and bureaucracy can start suing, charging, and finally getting some of their stuff back, and finally getting some accountability.

      Or does the one-state solution start with an amnesty for Israel?

      • Walid
        December 8, 2014, 12:10 pm

        “I can’t wait until Palestinians have equal access to the courts, and bureaucracy can start suing, charging, and finally getting some of their stuff back, and finally getting some accountability.”

        Don’t hold your breath, Mooser, Abbas had promised he’s do it by the end of last month. Now he’s promising to do it before the end of this month. You’ll probably hear of another end-of-the-month promise in January, and in February and so on until the cows come home.

        Even better, in anticipation of a failure to pass for the resolution setting a deadline of November 2016 for Israel to decamp out of the territories, which the UNSC surely will reject, Abbas plans on going to the ICC. That will show them.

        If it’s a forgone conclusion that the US will veto the resolution, why not go directly to the ICC? Loking like the Palestinians are still not seriously considering doing anything.

  6. HarryLaw
    December 6, 2014, 12:36 pm

    “Omar Barghouti said at Columbia University the other night that an “absolute majority” of Palestinians, inside and outside the occupied territories, including the diaspora, would support a one state outcome”. Where does he get those figures from? The only difference between Barghouti and Netanyahu and the one state solution is unequal rights for Palestinians. Short of the ‘transfer’ solution advocated by many in his party, Netanyahu would favor some convoluted constitutional arrangement whereby Israel would not relinquish its claim to sovereignty over the “Land of Israel” as he see’s it, which would necessarily mean some kind of Bantustan model. One state with equal rights for all would be ideal, unfortunately we live in the real world, Israel will not agree to any solution whereby Palestinians will be able to outvote them [if not now, certainly within 10 years]. The Israelis are in a bind, the only policy they have at the moment is more violence and repression, they should have thought where this policy would lead after the 67 war, unless they can reverse policy now, which I don’t think they are capable of, or have a mind to, the state of Israel is living on borrowed time.

    • Walid
      December 6, 2014, 2:11 pm

      “… the state of Israel is living on borrowed time.”

      I think it knows it and it’s simply stalling for time until it can start producing enough water to meet its needs, which is about 10 years away. Until then, it cannot afford the luxury of giving up close to over 3/4 of its water which it’s now stealing from the Palestinians in good part.

    • jon s
      December 8, 2014, 11:04 am

      Ellen,
      You’ve got it upside-down: it’s the Islamic extremists who have a plan to annihilate Israel.
      Common sense has it that if there are people who are victims of genocide , their population shoud be reduced, not growing.
      Are you saying that Israel is NOT the Jewish historic homeland?
      Bank Leumi started out as “Otsar Hityashvut Hayehudim” . “Hityashvut” means “settlement”.In other words the English “Jewish Colonial trust” is an inaccurate translation, which does reflect early 20th century European terminology. I don’t think that the name of the bank proves that Zionism = colonialism.

      I resent you calling me insane, just when my shrink is assuring me that I’m making “significant progress”.

      • Mooser
        December 8, 2014, 11:14 am

        ‘Are you saying that Israel is NOT the Jewish hysteric homeland? ‘

        Nobody denies that.

  7. JLWarner
    December 6, 2014, 3:28 pm

    2 comments:

    The really scary thing is that 14+8=22% favor the status quo of continued occupation.

    The article does not say how many one-staters favor two-states if one-state is impossible (as it surely is).

  8. Horizontal
    December 6, 2014, 3:31 pm

    I’d be curious to know if among those taking the survey, that the option of a one state solution was their first time ever hearing of this possibility? Because it doesn’t seem to me to be out there floating around very much, at least not in the MSM.

    And with a one state solution, what happens to the right of return?

    • Annie Robbins
      December 6, 2014, 4:26 pm

      it doesn’t seem to me to be out there floating around very much

      well, it’s not reported much for sure. but that doesn’t necessarily mean people are not aware of it. i remember the big protests last summer and they hardly ever hit the press. if i had not been collecting photos i wouldn’t have known anything was going on. but i think it’s way more on people’s radars than we know. the churches for one thing. but if you asked people who don’t know, one state seems like a logical answer for an american.

      i think a lot of people probably have not internalized the jewish victimhood meme. i didn’t really know about it til i started hanging out at mondoweiss, nobody ever told me. i’m not sure the idea of jews “needing a homeland” is fully grasp or shared by the majority of americans because we don’t really have those kinds of values. unless you’re raised with these ideas (brainwashed), it’s just not a very compelling idea.

      • Daniel Rich
        December 6, 2014, 7:15 pm

        @ Annie Robbins,

        Q: one state seems like a logical answer for an american.

        R: I have to disagree with you on this one. One union with many states, yes. One state with no union, no.

      • Horizontal
        December 7, 2014, 10:59 am

        Annie, I perhaps should have been clearer; I was limiting my impression about the one state solution to mainstream America. Sure, if you’re covering any kind of protest, then those are just the folks who would be in the know about the 1SS, as well as an entire range of other issues like climate change, Wall Street dalliance, fracking, etc.

        Depending who was answering this poll, prior knowledge about I/P in general and the 1SS in particular would surprise me. Then again, I don’t go to church so maybe I’m out of the loop on just what most average Americans know.

        OTOH, I’ve heard and read the whole dismissive “Oh, they’re crazy. They’ve been fighting over there forever,” which displays a lot of ignorance regarding the history as well as the current history of the conflict. If that kind of person is imagining a 1SS, I’m willing to bet it’s more along the lines of just having Israel nuke all the Arabs and have Israel live in peace, crazy as that sounds to us.

        Gotta disagree with this: i think a lot of people probably have not internalized the jewish victimhood meme. In my generation, growing up in a mildly Methodist household with the Exodus soundtrack record right in there with those of Burl Ives and The Micky Mouse Club, I internalized the entire Israel as brave little victim fighting off the bad guys meme without even thinking about it, just the way a meme is supposed to work, right? In school, we got films about the Holocaust and during the 67 war, I don’t remember any teacher explaining any other version of events except what a committed Zionist might have made. Same with the media.

        I think the entire identity for Israel is the one they’ve carefully constructed over the years — the same one that’s thankfully falling apart now. I’ve got to imagine that these lingering ideas still hold sway in many quarters, especially so in places where the I/P issue is only background noise.

      • Walid
        December 7, 2014, 12:57 pm

        “…. well, it’s not reported much for sure. but that doesn’t necessarily mean people are not aware of it. i remember the big protests last summer and they hardly ever hit the press.’

        Annie, the point Horizontal didn’t raise was about the ongoing silence about the Palestinians’ right of return. Israel doesn’t wasnt to hear anything about it, the Palestinian leadership have just about flushed it down the drain (Jazeera Papers), and the rest of the Arabs in general can’t be bothered sticking up for it. The only 2 countries that ever raise the issue are those with hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees on their hands, Syria, which has its hands full these days, and Lebanon that no one listens to. This involves about a million refugees that nobody wants with another half million in Jordan. There are no Palestinians in refugee camps in other Arab countries.

  9. Daniel Rich
    December 6, 2014, 6:48 pm

    My aikido sensei told me, “When your opponent pushes, you pull. When he pulls, you push.”

    So, where’s this gonna leave the average Palestinian, in this perpetuated ‘tug of war?’

  10. Horizontal
    December 7, 2014, 11:03 am

    I’d say that is where BDS comes in, as some way of breaking the cycle of nothing changing except loss of more territory & lives.

  11. Kay24
    December 7, 2014, 11:43 am

    How many of these petitions have we seen? Unfortunately it goes nowhere. People are indeed concerned and trying hard to push for the right thing, but everyone seems to be intimidated by the zio crowd.

    “Oz, Grossman sign petition calling on European parliaments to recognize Palestine
    Letter that bears signatures of 800 Israelis, including prominent public figures, has been sent to lawmakers in several countries contemplating the move.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.630423

    • just
      December 7, 2014, 11:50 am

      In the previous nearly barren Israeli wasteland of action for justice for Palestinians, I read that as another good thing. Even “liberal Zionists” are recognizing that the status quo is unsustainable.

      tick tock.

      drip, drip, drip.

Leave a Reply