Trending Topics:

What Comes Next: Even one state may not be enough

Israel/Palestine
on 32 Comments

whatcomesnexthorizontal

This post is part of “What Comes Next?: A forum on the end of the two-state paradigm.” This series was initiated by Jewish Voice for Peace as an investigation into the current state of thinking about one state and two state solutions, and the collection has been further expanded by Mondoweiss to mark 20 years since the Oslo process. The entire series can be found here.

From its inception, the two-state solution lacked the potential to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.  In response to a political conflict characterized by existential questions and struggles for self-determination, the Oslo Accords partitioned disconnected lands into islands without challenging the institutions producing and rectifying power disparities between a state and a people.  The Oslo Accords made no mention of authoritative law or human rights, and never contended with Jewish claims for self-determination on a territory with an indigenous population.  The lack of historical and legal referents subjected negotiations to moving goal posts.  Accordingly, “the pragmatic solution” became an ever shifting prescription to new realities created by ongoing Israeli expansionism and displacement.

Oslo underscored the raison d’etre of Israel’s establishment—to create a national homeland for Jews necessitating a majority Jewish population, thereby legitimizing a narrative of mutually exclusive humanities demarcated by ethnic and national markers.  The purported solution did not respond to the reality of a singular territory comprised of multiple and overlapping nations and cultures whose treatment by the State corresponded to religious categories regardless of territorial boundaries.  Unlike secular democracies committed to a supposedly indiscriminate rule of Law, Israel does not cultivate an inclusive civic polity.  Instead, it affords its right to nationality to Jews only.  Jewish nationality is attainable by Jews in Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), including East Jerusalem, and anywhere in the world.  Jewish nationals have the exclusive right to the Law of Return, and, by extension, housing and residency privileges that abridge the rights of Palestinian refugees and civilians in the OPT, as well as the State’s non-Jewish Palestinian citizens.  While Israel’s 1.2 million-strong Palestinians are afforded citizenship, they are systematically excluded from the privileges of nationality.  The policies meted out against the indigenous population intend to limit their territorial and historical claims as evidenced by the passage of recent laws, including the Nakba Law and the Ban on Family Reunification.

Those policies are applied in the OPT’s as well.  While civil law within Israel distinguishes between Jewish nationals and citizens and non-Jewish citizens only, in the OPT military law distinguishes between Jewish settler-nationals and Palestinian civilians.  In both contexts, the law privileges Jewish persons, and abridges the rights of non-Jewish others.  No territorial partition can adequately treat an Apartheid institution.

On the other hand, a one-state solution that fails to account for historical, contemporary, territorial, and national claims will also be an inadequate model for conflict resolution.  Though space here limits my ability to elaborate very much, the point is that even the one-state solution is not enough as a vision.  There are questions about return, repatriation, forced migration, past and present, among Jews and Palestinians throughout the Middle East, and questions of national homeland—of future immigration policies, the prospects of bi-nationalism, competing claims to property, and this is to say nothing of restitution and redress for all the suffering wrong upon occupied lands and their populations.

Noura Erakat
About Noura Erakat

Noura Erakat is an activist and human rights attorney.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

32 Responses

  1. amigo
    amigo
    October 14, 2013, 4:01 pm

    ” Netanyahu: For the first time in history, Arabs realize Israel is not the enemy”

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.552361

    How does a group of sane people make peace with a crazy man like nietanyahu.

  2. German Lefty
    German Lefty
    October 14, 2013, 4:25 pm

    The number of states is irrelevant. What matters is that the Palestinians get all their rights back.

    From its inception, the two-state solution lacked the potential to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

    I would say that the two-state solution (1947 Partition Plan) was one of the causes of the conflict.

  3. seafoid
    seafoid
    October 14, 2013, 5:13 pm

    Give jordan to the bots. San remo, buddies. Let them haggle over the sand with the bedouin. Palestine for the Palestinians. The bots could green another desert.

  4. HarryLaw
    HarryLaw
    October 14, 2013, 5:35 pm

    Noura Erakat.. “No territorial partition can adequately treat an Apartheid institution”. But surely a two state solution as advocated by all states at the UN, and all political parties in Palestine, along the lines of the 2002 Arab League proposals would adequately solve the Apartheid situation, either by the settlers moving back to Israel proper as they should or by the Palestinians agreeing to let the settlers stay as equal citizens in an Independent Palestine. While the Palestinian leadership place more importance on the release of a few prisoners [important as that is] it pales into insignificance when they are failing to enhance the Internationally recognized state of Palestine through applying to join all 68 UN agencies and failing to apply to join the ICC and pressure the court to investigate the many war crimes occurring on a daily basis, starting with the illegality of Israel transferring it’s own citizens into territory it holds under belligerent occupation. No exotic political solutions should be entertained until the one favored overwhelmingly by the International community is given it’s day in court.

  5. Jeffrey J. Melnick
    Jeffrey J. Melnick
    October 14, 2013, 6:10 pm

    The above piece by Noura Erakat is a fraud. Instead of reflecting a balanced view, it cherry picks issues whilst making the false claim that …”While Israel’s 1.2 million-strong Palestinians are afforded citizenship, they are systematically excluded from the privileges of nationality.” How absurd. The approximate 20 percent of Israel’s Arab citizens are Israelis. That is their nationality. They serve in the IDF. They travel with Israeli passports and their rights and privileges are no different from any other Israeli. This piece clings to the tired and totally unsubstantiated lie of Israeli “Apartheid”. The onesidedness and anti-Zionist purpose of the piece is as transparent as glass. While individuals like Erakat demand of Israel nothing less than the utopian absolutist position, where the rights of all individuals are required to be perfectly balanced on the scales justice, they are eerily silent concerning lawlessness, routine human rights violations and genocide outside of Israel’s borders. Whilst Israel may not be perfect when it comes to rights of minorities, name me one Arab country where a Jewish judge sentenced a corrupt Arab government official to prison. The reverse happened in Israel. Name me one Arab country where 20% of its Jewish population are citizens and nationals with full voting rights. The reverse is a fact of everyday life in Israel. Name me one Arab country where there is any democratic process whatsoever, for that matter. There are none. Then ask yourself the reason why Erakat and the “well meaning” Secular “Progressives” of the largely atheist Jewish left devote not one iota of energy and attention to the atrocities continuously committed in countries surrounding Israel, including the “Palestinian” territories where human rights are absent in their entirety.

    • talknic
      talknic
      October 15, 2013, 4:51 am

      @ Jeffrey J. Melnick

      “The approximate 20 percent of Israel’s Arab citizens are Israelis. That is their nationality. They serve in the IDF. They travel with Israeli passports and their rights and privileges are no different from any other Israeli”

      How many are given financial incentives to illegally settle in the West Bank? How many allowed into the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank at all? How many have been given building permits in Israel? (or in the occupied territories).

      A Jewish Israeli can marry a Jew from anywhere in the world and they can cohabit in Israel or in the illegal Israeli settlements in the West bank. An Arab Israeli cannot.

      It takes YEARS for illegal settlements (under illegal Israeli civil Law) to be demolished. Arab homes are demolished with alarming regularity under illegal Israeli civil Law in territories occupied.

      ” Whilst Israel may not be perfect when it comes to rights of minorities, name me one Arab country where a Jewish judge sentenced a corrupt Arab government official to prison.”

      = Nonsense question. Name one Jewish judge in any Arab country

      “Name me one Arab country where 20% of its Jewish population are citizens and nationals with full voting rights”

      = Nonsense question. Name me any country where 20% of its population is Jewish

      “Name me one Arab country where there is any democratic process”

      Palestine

      “ask yourself the reason why Erakat and the “well meaning” Secular “Progressives” of the largely atheist Jewish left devote not one iota of energy and attention to the atrocities continuously committed in countries surrounding Israel”

      They’re busy trying to get Israel to adhere to International Law for once

      “including the “Palestinian” territories where human rights are absent in their entirety”

      Perhaps Israel the Occupying Power should institute some

    • FreddyV
      FreddyV
      October 15, 2013, 4:57 am

      Jeffrey J. Melnick says:
      October 14, 2013 at 6:10 pm

      “The above piece by Noura Erakat is a fraud. Instead of reflecting a balanced view, it cherry picks issues whilst making the false claim that …”While Israel’s 1.2 million-strong Palestinians are afforded citizenship, they are systematically excluded from the privileges of nationality.” How absurd. The approximate 20 percent of Israel’s Arab citizens are Israelis. That is their nationality. They serve in the IDF.”

      Please present to us any Palestinians (non Druze) who have served in the IDF.

      This is precisely one of the reasons Palestinians are treated differently. Those who do military service are eligible for state payments and privileges that non military are not. What better way to discriminate against the non Jewish demographic.

      “They travel with Israeli passports and their rights and privileges are no different from any other Israeli.”

      Please see here. It would be good to hear your opinion on this:

      http://adalah.org/upfiles/2011/Adalah_The_Inequality_Report_March_2011.pdf

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      October 15, 2013, 7:17 am

      ”While Israel’s 1.2 million-strong Palestinians are afforded citizenship, they are systematically excluded from the privileges of nationality.” How absurd. The approximate 20 percent of Israel’s Arab citizens are Israelis.

      You’re misinformed. Decades ago, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that there is no nation of Israel separate from the Jewish people. It reaffirmed that decision not too long ago: Supreme Court rejects citizens’ request to change nationality from ‘Jewish’ to ‘Israeli’ http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.550241

      The “Arabs” are citizens of Israel, but they are not Israeli nationals. There is no such thing. The government of Israel employs over 120 nationalities to register its population and practices legal discrimination against all of the non-Jewish nationalities. Educate yourself and stop spreading misinformation.

    • eljay
      eljay
      October 15, 2013, 8:01 am

      >> The approximate 20 percent of Israel’s Arab citizens are Israelis. That is their nationality.

      Are the remaining 80% of Israel’s Arab citizens also Israelis? What about the 80% of Israelis who are not “Arabs”? Are they Israeli, too?

      If Israeli is the the nationality, what’s all this nonsense about Israel as “Jewish State”, and about a Jewish “Law of Return”? How is it that non-Israeli Jews – but not other non-Israeli nationals – get to “return” to a country they’re not from and of which neither they nor their predecessors are or were citizens?

      >> They travel with Israeli passports and their rights and privileges are no different from any other Israeli.

      In theory, perhaps, but not in practice.

      >> While individuals like Erakat demand of Israel nothing less than the utopian absolutist position, where the rights of all individuals are required to be perfectly balanced on the scales justice, they are eerily silent concerning lawlessness, routine human rights violations and genocide outside of Israel’s borders.

      Why do Zio-supremacists always defend Israeli immorality and injustice by pointing to imorality and injustice elsewhere? The actions of the serial rapist are no less unjust or immoral simply because serial killers exist.

    • German Lefty
      German Lefty
      October 15, 2013, 8:36 am

      The approximate 20 percent of Israel’s Arab citizens are Israelis. That is their nationality.

      The Israeli Supreme Court disagrees with you.
      “Israel’s population registry lists a slew of ‘nationalities’ and ethnicities, among them Jew, Arab, Druse and more. But one word is conspicuously absent from the list: Israeli. Residents cannot identify themselves as Israelis in the national registry because the move could have far-reaching consequences for the country’s Jewish character, the Israeli Supreme Court wrote. The ruling was a response to a demand by 21 Israelis that the court decide whether they can be listed as Israeli in the registry. The group had argued that without a secular Israeli identity, Israeli policies will favor Jews and discriminate against minorities. In its ruling, the court explained that doing so would have ‘weighty implications’ on the state of Israel and could pose a danger to Israel’s founding principle: to be a Jewish state for the Jewish people. The decision touches on a central debate in Israel, which considers itself both Jewish and democratic yet has struggled to balance both. The country has not officially recognized an Israeli nationality.”
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israeli-court-rejects-israeli-nationality-saying-it-could-undermine-jewish-character/2013/10/04/2a409724-2cbe-11e3-b141-298f46539716_story.html

      • FreddyV
        FreddyV
        October 15, 2013, 9:01 am

        Guys,

        I think poor Jeffrey has got his facts mixed up. Should we just let him reply and explain more clearly?

    • Shmuel
      Shmuel
      October 15, 2013, 9:00 am

      Mr. Melnick,

      I don’t know whether you have ever been to Israel or understand any Hebrew, but Noura Erakat is referring to the difference in Israel between the civil status of citizenship (ezrahut) and that of “nationality” (le’om). The fact that there is no difference between the two terms in English confuses things a bit, but the reality is that Israel discriminates between citizens (and some non-citizens) on the basis of le’om — call it “ethnicity” if you like, although the word itself means “nation” in Modern Hebrew.

      Those whose ethnicity is registered by the Israeli state as “Arab”, for example, are indeed “systematically excluded from the privileges” enjoyed by members of Israel’s charter ethnic group: Jews. Others have provided some of the details of this discrimination here, and the MW archives are full of information on the subject. Whether this is defined as apartheid or not is entirely beside the point. Erakat’s statement is correct either way.

      BTW, as a rule, Palestinian citizens of Israel do not serve in the IDF.

      • German Lefty
        German Lefty
        October 15, 2013, 9:25 am

        The fact that there is no difference between the two terms in English confuses things a bit

        Not just in English. In German, too. In countries with civic nationalism, the terms “citizenship” and “nationality” have the same meaning.

        Imagine we had the same situation in Germany as in Israel:
        – Germany would not have officially recognised a German nationality.
        – German citizens would have to register as either “Aryan” or “Jew”.
        – The German Supreme Court would rule that there is no such thing as a German nationality and that introducing a German nationality would pose a danger to Germany’s founding principle: to be an Aryan state for the Aryan people.
        – Mixes marriages between “Aryans” and “Jews” would not be possible.

      • eljay
        eljay
        October 15, 2013, 10:49 am

        >> German Lefty @ October 15, 2013 at 9:25 am

        I have no doubt that Zio-supremacists would consider the scenario presented in your example to be immoral and unjust. I certainly do.

        For some reason, though, Zio-supremacists are unable (or unwilling) to look at the supremacist “Jewish State” version of that scenario and be equally repulsed by it.

      • ziusudra
        ziusudra
        October 16, 2013, 1:37 am

        Greetings German lefty,
        …..German Citizenship & Nationality are one……
        Nicht ganz, G.L. (not totallity)
        People don’t live with the highest Court, they live with People.
        People everywhere go by venacular & nationality (ethnicity).
        That’s life for Mankind’s tribal mindset.
        I don’t suppose, you’ve ever been to Bavaria?
        Although, I’m considered ‘ok’ as a White Catholic American, i
        remained outside the Insiders ca. from 65 to 10!
        In contiguous Europe, you are considered an outsider
        if you don’t have the village venacular. I now live in Thüringen,
        no change.
        We have many Foreignors with German Passports.
        For the Germans, they are not Germans.
        One of me daughters lives in Italy, no difference.
        One of me daughters live in the US, no problem.
        Me thinks only the US ‘for Whites, have lost this
        ‘village tribal’ feeling, simply because we (Whites)
        are all immigrants from Europe.
        Servus,
        ziusudra
        PS Mankind has many rules determining your foreignness.

      • German Lefty
        German Lefty
        October 16, 2013, 12:38 pm

        @ ziusudra

        People everywhere go by venacular & nationality (ethnicity).
        Nationality (= citizenship) and ethnicity are two different things.

        We have many foreigners with German passports. For the Germans, they are not Germans.
        Read again what you wrote. Pay attention to your choice of words. You wrote “foreigners with German passports” and not “Germans with migration background”. The emphasis and perspective are completely different. Of course, someone who refers to himself as a “foreigner with German passport” will probably be viewed and treated as a foreigner simply because he self-identifies as a foreigner (who just happens to have an additional German passport). Someone who refers to himself as a “German with migration background” is much more likely to be viewed and treated as a German simply because he self-identifies as a German (who just happens to have foreign roots). I assume that you have heard of the German proverb: “Wie man in den Wald hineinruft, so schallt es heraus.” Other people simply mirror your attitude.

        Although, I’m considered ‘ok’ as a White Catholic American, i remained outside the Insiders ca. from 65 to 10!
        In your bio, you refer to yourself as an “American residing in Germany”, not as a “US-born German” or a “German with American roots”. As someone who doesn’t even view himself as German, how dare you complain that others adopt your view and don’t regard you as German either?
        What do you mean by “from 65 to 10”? From 1965 to 2010? Does that mean you have lived in Germany since 1965 and still have a foreign accent? If yes, then you should have a look at people like Tsafrir Cohen and Tamar Amar-Dahl. Cohen came to Germany in 1986 as 20-year-old. Amar-Dahl moved to Germany in 1996 as 28-year-old and became a German citizen in 2006. Both of them speak accent-free German. Also, I don’t think that people like Nelson Müller or Philipp Rösler have problems being accepted as Germans.
        Your statement that you “remained outside the insiders” is really vague. Please tell me about your experiences. What gave you the feeling that people viewed you as outsider?

        In contiguous Europe, you are considered an outsider if you don’t have the village venacular.
        I don’t think that’s true. If I bump into a person who doesn’t speak German like a native speaker, then it’s impossible for me to know whether he is a German (with migration background) or a foreigner (living in Germany). Because of his audible “non-nativeness”, I would probably ask this person stuff like “Which country are you from?” or “When did you come to Germany?” However, just because I acknowledge that he is not a native German doesn’t necessarily mean that I view him as a foreigner. He might as well be a non-native German. Whether I view a non-native as German or as foreigner, mainly depends on how he talks about Germans and Germany. When he talks about present-day Germans, does he include himself by saying “we” or does he exclude himself by saying “they” or “you”? Does he talk about Germany from the perspective of an insider or an outsider?

        I now live in Thüringen, no change.
        I live in Thuringia, too. Would you tell me where in Thuringia you live?

      • Theo
        Theo
        October 17, 2013, 10:33 am

        Lefty

        Although usually I agree with most of your comments, this time I must correct you on above statements.

        I live in Germany, too, and long enough to know german customs, the language and their attitudes toward immigrants.
        They are devided into two classes; 1. from other european countries and 2. anyplace else from the world. Even the class 1. is devided between north european immigrants, they are the best and south europeans, like italians, greeks, yugoslavians, they are not as good.

        Europeans can become germans in a couple generations, however not the ones from Turkey, arab lands, africans or asians. You mentioned Rösler, a vietnamese, who came as a small child, speaks perfect german, yet he never be accepted as a german, because he looks different. The same goes for all those turks, arabs, etc. who speak perfect german, carry a german passport, yet behind their back they are called demeaning names.

        You coming from east Germany should know that especially in those once communist states immigrants from outside Europe are chased, beaten to death, their houses are burned down and treated as undesireable elements.
        Suma sumarum, one can become a german citizen, may speak perfect german, yet, if he does not look european, he will never ever will be accepted by the general population as one of them.

      • German Lefty
        German Lefty
        October 17, 2013, 2:59 pm

        You coming from east Germany should know that especially in those once communist states immigrants from outside Europe are chased, beaten to death, their houses are burned down and treated as undesireable elements.

        Theo, you really need to leave the church in the village. In the Eastern federal states, the percentage of neo-Nazis is a little bit higher than in the Western federal states. However, your description is absolutely ridiculous and also majorly offensive. East Germany is a pretty safe place. In my region, there are numerous ethnic Asians and ethnic Turks and also some black people. I have never heard that anything terrible happened to them. They seem quite happy here.

      • Theo
        Theo
        October 18, 2013, 12:05 pm

        Lefty

        I think you should read the newspapers and watch the news on TV more often, it seems you do not have the faintest idea what is happening in your home.

        What about hat thai young man who was beaten to death by hulligans in Berlin, the trials were just a few weeks ago? Or that african beaten to death on the street? Or talking about Thüringen, those 3 neo-nazis who shot 10 years ago 10 turkish and greek businessmen in the west, but came from your lovely state and after the killing returned there? The 2 men are dead now, but the woman is on trial right now in Munich. What about all those neo-nazi marches in Thüringen and Sachsen, shouting anti-foreign slogans?

        Judging from your writings you are a highly educated person, your english is superb, so I guess you studied anglistic and could be a highschool or college english teacher. Am I correct? Being an intelligent person you should notice what is happening in easten Germany, it is not nice!
        I certainly have other idea of a “pretty safe place”.

      • German Lefty
        German Lefty
        October 18, 2013, 1:54 pm

        Theo, I am aware of these few crimes. They were committed by a small group of neo-Nazis. These racists are in no way representative of the average East German. Regarding the neo-Nazi marches: As far as I know, these are always the same people, who are bussed around. And in many cases, they are outnumbered by the counter-demonstrators. What upsets me is that the coverage by the mainstream media is totally exaggerated. They cast entire East Germany in a negative light, when actually the small groups of neo-Nazis that exist are concentrated in a few towns or cities. And the rest of the population has nothing to do with these people. In my region, things are pretty peaceful.

        your english is superb
        See how you tend to exaggerate things? Your statements can’t be trusted.
        I didn’t study anglistics. I only had the ordinary English lessons at school and at university. Also, I once had a boyfriend from Britain.

    • petersz
      petersz
      October 17, 2013, 5:40 pm

      LOL! The Isreali Supreme Court has ruled that Israeli Nationality does not exist because it threatens Israel’s definition as a Jewish state! So how can Israeli Arabs be Israeli a non-existant nationality?

  6. Sibiriak
    Sibiriak
    October 14, 2013, 8:37 pm

    From its inception, the two-state solution lacked the potential to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In response to a political conflict characterized by existential questions and struggles for self-determination, the Oslo Accords partitioned disconnected lands into islands without challenging the institutions producing and rectifying power disparities between a state and a people

    From their inception, the Oslo Accords were never intended to produce a two-state solution!!

  7. RoHa
    RoHa
    October 14, 2013, 9:36 pm

    “thereby legitimizing a narrative of mutually exclusive humanities demarcated by ethnic and national markers.”

    And that is why the whole Zionist project is wrong.

  8. ritzl
    ritzl
    October 15, 2013, 1:38 am

    There was an article here about “centripitalism.”

    http://mondoweiss.net/2013/10/consociationalism-versus-centripetalism.html

    My take was that that meant future, shared interests among constituencies in one state that might not necessarily be allies in the current, separated condition. I think it was a great, if academic, treatment of “what lies ahead.” There is much common ground between Haredi and Palestinians in a combined state. That’s just one example. Labor and Palestinians would also share economic interests. Meretz, on general principles.

    None of this is entirely certain, given the general Jewish-Israeli aversion to Palestinians in a ruling coalition, but the going-forward elements seem to be there and could realistically be exploited. The decision would have to be made within Jewish-Israeli political elites whether power sharing with non-Jews to accomplish goals they wouldn’t otherwise be able to pursue (Labor will never be included in a right-wing gov’t) is worth the “cost”/stigma of that same power sharing. I think it could well be judged to be “worth it.”

  9. talknic
    talknic
    October 15, 2013, 5:17 am

    From the Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine May 15th 1948

    “The Governments of the Arab States emphasise, on this occasion, what they have already declared before the London Conference and the United Nations, that the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Israels+Foreign+Relations+since+1947/1947-1974/5+Arab+League+declaration+on+the+invasion+of+Pales.htm

    Almost identical to the LoN Mandate for Palestine of 1922

    Quite reasonable compared to Israel’s demands, which BTW have no legal basis what so ever

  10. Hostage
    Hostage
    October 15, 2013, 6:46 am

    The Oslo Accords made no mention of authoritative law or human rights, and never contended with Jewish claims for self-determination on a territory with an indigenous population.

    Well it did for what that’s worth. It stipulated that international law would apply, but be preempted by Israeli law in event of a conflict between the two:

    CHAPTER 3 – LEGAL AFFAIRS

    ARTICLE XVII

    Jurisdiction

    4
    1 Israel, through its military government, has the authority over areas that are not under the territorial jurisdiction of the Council, powers and responsibilities not transferred to the Council and Israelis.
    2 To this end, the Israeli military government shall retain the necessary legislative, judicial and executive powers and responsibilities, in accordance with international law. This provision shall not derogate from Israel’s applicable legislation over Israelis in personam.

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/interim.html

    On the Palestinian side:

    Article XIX of the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, according to which the Palestinians have taken it upon themselves to exercise their powers and responsibilities “with due regard to internationally accepted norms and principles of human rights and the rule of law”. Similarly, under Article II(C)(4) of the Wye River Memorandum, the Palestinian Police is obliged “to exercise its powers and responsibilities with due regard to internationally accepted norms of human rights and the rule of law, and be guided by the need to protect the public, respect human dignity and avoid harassment”.

    — See Paragraph 8 http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/44CF316E24ACCD8B85256C4F00502FD3

    Presumably, if the ICC accepts jurisdiction over crimes committed in Palestine since July 2002 in line with Palestine’s Article 12(3) declaration, those responsible for the most serious crimes on either side can still be brought to justice regardless of any conflicting Israeli law.

  11. Hostage
    Hostage
    October 15, 2013, 6:59 am

    Though space here limits my ability to elaborate very much, the point is that even the one-state solution is not enough as a vision.

    National identity and sense of belonging are based upon shared experiences. The Palestinians in Jordan the West Bank, Gaza, and the foreign refugee camps have been isolated from each other and have developed their own identities and political aspirations.

    Nothing should prevent the establishment of several Palestinian states. I’ve commented in the past that the people of Gaza have the right to a state of their own, if they opt for one instead of reconciliation. In fact, the UN has a number of European and Pacific micro-states that occupy less territory and have smaller populations than some Palestinian refugee camps.

  12. October 15, 2013, 9:29 am

    This is what one finds by a simple Google search of “Israeli Arabs serving in IDF”
    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/number-of-israeli-arab-idf-recruits-dramatically-increases-in-2008-1.255275

    The number of Israeli Arab recruits to the IDF has increased dramatically in the first nine months of 2008, official figures obtained by Haaretz indicate.

    The rise in the Bedouin recruitment rate is attributed to Bedouin’s difficulty in finding well-paid jobs outside the military and problems with the local authorities. The IDF has also improved its treatment of Bedouin army veterans and is helping them find employment.

    The army refused to provide accurate figures, but the number of recruits is estimated to have increased by 50 to 100 from the beginning of the year, bringing the total number of recruits in 2008 to some 300.

    The rate of non-Bedouin Arabs’ recruitment has also increased in recent years, and an officer in the IDF’s Human Resources Branch said he hoped that by next year their recruitment figure will reach 350, equaling the 2003 rate. Another significant increase in recruitment is expected next month.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      October 15, 2013, 10:44 am

      “The number of Israeli Arab recruits to the IDF has increased dramatically in the first nine months of 2008, official figures obtained by Haaretz indicate. ”

      When a state pegs benefits and privileges which should be given to all citizens to vets, in a context where the rules governing the composition of the armed forces are bigoted as the rest in the Judeo-supremacist state, of course you are going to get some who go with their oppressor to get the benefits.

Leave a Reply