Trending Topics:

What Comes Next: A secular democratic state in historic Palestine – a promising land

Israel/Palestine
on 117 Comments

“Because it is a distortion of being more fully human, sooner or later being less human leads the oppressed to struggle against those who made them so. In order for this struggle to have meaning, the oppressed must not in seeking to regain their humanity (which is a way to create it), become in turn oppressors of the oppressors, but rather restorers of the humanity of both.” [1]

–Paulo Freire

The ongoing, tumultuous popular upheavals in the Arab world are ushering in a new phase that may break the rusty but still formidable imperial and neoliberal fetters that have consciously, systemically, and structurally inhibited human development in the entire Arab region. In addition to its anticipated emancipatory impact on peoples across this region, this process of radical transformation promises to further the struggle for self determination and ethical decolonization in historic Palestine.

Decolonization should not be understood as a blunt and absolute reversal of colonization, putting us back under pre-colonial conditions and undoing whatever rights had been acquired to date. Instead, decolonization can be regarded as a negation of the aspects of colonialism that deny the rights of the colonized indigenous population and, as a byproduct, dehumanize the colonizers themselves.

whatcomesnextverticalA secular, democratic unitary state in historic Palestine (in its British Mandate borders) is the most just and morally coherent solution to this century-old colonial conflict, primarily because it offers the greatest hope for reconciling the ostensibly irreconcilable — the inalienable rights of the indigenous Palestinian people, particularly the right to self-determination, and the acquired rights of the indigenized former colonial settlers to live in peace and security, individually and collectively, after ridding them of their colonial privileges.

Morality and legality aside, Israel has adopted a strategy of “territorial seizure and apartheid,” as the publisher of the Israeli daily Haaretz put it, [2] that obviates the practical possibility of implementing a two-state solution in line with a minimalist interpretation of relevant UN resolutions. Blinded by the arrogance of power and the ephemeral comfort of impunity afforded to it by the US-led West, Israel, against its own strategic Zionist interests, has failed to control its insatiable appetite for forcibly displacing more of the indigenous people of Palestine and for expanding its colonial control of their lands, undermining any real possibility for building a sovereign Palestinian state.

The fact that the single democratic state is morally and legally superior, however, does not necessarily make establishing it an easy task. It can only result from, among other factors, a long, intricate process of what I call ethical de-colonization, or de-Zionization, involving two simultaneous, dialectically related processes: reflection and action, or praxis. [3] Ethical decolonization anchored in international law and universal human rights is a profound process of transformation that requires, above everything else, a sophisticated, principled and popular Palestinian resistance movement with a clear vision for justice and a democratic, inclusive society, with equal rights for all, Palestinian refugees included. This resistance must include the growing ranks of anti-colonial Jewish-Israelis, just as the South African struggle against apartheid included anti-racist and principled whites. It is also premised on two other pillars, a democratized and free Arab region, which now looks considerably less imaginary, and an international solidarity movement supporting Palestinian rights and struggling to end all forms of Zionist apartheid and settler-colonial rule.

In parallel with the process of ending injustice and restoring basic Palestinian rights, and while oppressive relationships are being dismantled and colonial privileges done away with, a conscious and genuine process of challenging the dichotomy between the identity of the oppressed and that of the oppressor must simultaneously be nourished to build the conceptual foundations for ethical coexistence in the decolonized future state. Only then can the end of oppression give birth to a common, post-oppression identity that can truly make the equality between the indigenous Palestinians and the indigenized settlers as just, sustainable and peaceful as possible.

Among the most discussed paths to resolving the question of Palestine, the civic, democratic state solution lays out the clearest mechanism for ending the three-tiered regime of injustice that Palestinians have suffered under since 1948 when Israel was created as a settler-colony on the ruins of Palestinian society. The three tiers are the occupation and colonization of the Palestinian – and other Arab –territory occupied by Israel in 1967; the system of institutionalized and legalized racial discrimination,[4] or apartheid, to which the indigenous Palestinian citizens of Israel are subjected to on account of being “non-Jews;” and the persistent denial of the intrinsic rights of the Palestine refugees, especially their right to return to their homes which was affirmed by UN resolution 194. An overwhelming majority of Palestinian civil society has identified [5] these rights as the minimal requirements for the Palestinian people to exercise its inalienable right to self-determination.

A two-state solution cannot adequately, if at all, address the second injustice or the third, the core of the question of Palestine. But what about the bi-national state concept?

Bi-nationalism, initially espoused by liberal Zionist intellectuals [6], assumes that Jews around the world form a nation and is consequently premised on a Jewish national right in Palestine, on par and to be reconciled with the national right of the indigenous, predominantly Arab population. Bi-nationalism today, despite its variations, still upholds this ahistorical and morally untenable national right of the colonial-settlers.

A bi-national state solution also cannot accommodate the right of return as stipulated in UNGA resolution 194, not to mention the fact that it infringes, by definition, the inalienable rights of the indigenous Palestinians on part of their homeland, particularly the right to self-determination. Recognizing national rights of Jewish settlers in Palestine or any part of it cannot but imply accepting the right of colonists to self-determination. Other than contradicting the very letter, spirit and purpose of the universal principle of self-determination primarily as a means for “peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation” to realize their rights [7], such a recognition of national rights for a colonial-settler community may, at one extreme, lead to claims for secession, or Jewish “national” sovereignty, on part of the land of Palestine, undermining Palestinian self-determination.

A Jewish state in Palestine (“a state of the Jewish nation”), no matter what shape it takes, is by definition exclusionary; it cannot but contravene the basic rights of the land’s indigenous Palestinian population and perpetuate a system of racial discrimination that ought to be opposed categorically. Any other exclusionary regime in Palestine that denies citizens some of their rights based on their identity — ethnic, religious, gender, sexual, etc. — must be rejected just as strongly.

Accepting modern-day Jewish Israelis as equal citizens and full partners in building and developing a new shared society, free from all colonial subjugation and discrimination, as called for in the democratic state model, is the most magnanimous — rational — offer any oppressed indigenous population can present to its oppressors. Only by shedding their colonial privileges, dismantling their structures of oppression, and accepting the restoration of the rights of the indigenous people of the land, especially the right of Palestinian refugees to return and to reparations and the right of all Palestinians to unmitigated equality, can settlers be indigenized and integrated into the emerging nation and therefore become entitled to participating in determining the future of the common state.

The indigenous population, on the other hand, must be ready, after justice had been reached and rights had been restored, to forgive and to accept the former settlers as equal citizens, enjoying normal lives — neither masters nor slaves. The above explained process of de-dichotomization at the identity and conceptual level, not just in the concrete reality, that must proceed in parallel to the realization of rights is the most important guarantor of minimizing the possibility of lingering hostility or, worse, a reversal of roles between oppressor and oppressed once justice and equal rights have prevailed. The ultimate goal should be justice, equality and ethical coexistence, not revenge.

As the One State Declaration [8], issued by several Palestinian, Israeli and international intellectuals and activists in 2008, states:

“The historic land of Palestine belongs to all who live in it and to those who were expelled or exiled from it since 1948, regardless of religion, ethnicity, national origin or current citizenship status.

“Any system of government must be founded on the principle of equality in civil, political, social and cultural rights for all citizens. Power must be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all people in the diversity of their identities; …”

In a future democratic state cultural particularity and diverse identities should be nourished, not just tolerated, by society and protected by law. Palestine was for centuries a fertile meeting ground for diverse civilizations and cultures, fostering communication, dialogue and acculturation among them. This heritage, almost forgotten under the cultural hegemony of Zionist colonial rule, must be revived and celebrated, regardless of any power asymmetry in the new state. We also must keep in mind that half of the Jewish-Israeli population, the Mizrahi/Arab Jews, have their cultural roots in Arab and other Middle Eastern cultures, making future coexistence even more likely.

While many Palestinians living in the occupied territories or in exile cannot entertain the idea of ever co-existing with Israelis in a post-colonial reality, mainly due to the current harsh conditions of Zionist racism, oppression and dispossession, most would agree that in the period that predated the Zionist conquest, when Jews were part of society, co-existence was ordinary. Unlike Europe, the history of Arab and Islamic civilizations does not include massacres or pogroms targeting the indigenous Jewish populations.  Indeed, Jewish culture reached a highpoint under Arab-Islamic rule in Andalusia. Co-existence after establishing justice, far from being an artificial, “imported” concept, would connect with deep roots in our own history.

Moral reconciliation between conflicting communities is impossible if the essence of the oppressive relationship between them is sustained. The objectively contradictory identities of the oppressor and oppressed cannot find a moral middle ground. So long as oppression continues to characterize the communities’ relationship only coercion, submission and injustice are possible outcomes. Reconciliation and coexistence, then, can only result from ethical decolonization.

It is fair to assume, however, that the colonizers will use what they have at their disposal to perpetuate their colonial privileges and thwart transformative change towards justice. Some analysts go as far as predicting that Israel would use its nuclear weapons, its “Samson Option,” rather than accept the dismantling of its Zionist apartheid regime. Even without such dramatic predictions, one can surmise that the colonial community in Palestine will not only circle the wagons, as it were, against any common threat to the oppressive order; it will also shed any pretence of democracy or supposed respect for human rights and commit unprecedented egregious crimes against the indigenous Palestinians to maintain the system of oppression.

As the price of resistance rises, so will scepticism, including among some Palestinians, about the very merit of the struggle for emancipation and justice. This practical consideration coupled with ethical principles should guide effective resistance to Zionist apartheid and inform its adherence at all times to the highest moral standards. Resistance and solidarity forms that adopt a rights-based approach, as in the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, provide a good example. Other than being the right thing to do per se, an ethically consistent struggle in line with international law and universal principles of human rights will encourage Jewish-Israelis to join in “co-resistance” which is the most assured path to ethical co-existence. [9]

By emphasizing equal humanity as its most fundamental principle, the secular democratic state promises to end the fundamental injustices that have plagued Palestine and, simultaneously, to transcend national and ethnic dichotomies that now make it nearly impossible to envision ethical coexistence in a decolonized Palestine, based on equality, justice and freedom—a truly promising land.

Omar Barghouti is a Palestinian human rights activist and independent researcher. He has advocated for the secular democratic state solution for more than three decades. This article reflects his personal analysis and does not represent the views of the BDS movement. 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.

Notes

[1] Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum Books, 1993.

 [2] Amos Schocken, The necessary elimination of Israeli democracyHaaretz, 25 November 2011.

 [3] Paulo Freire, ibid.

 [4] In its most recent session in Cape Town, South Africa, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine concluded that, “Israel’s rule over the Palestinian people, wherever they reside, collectively amounts to a single integrated regime of apartheid.” Even human rights reports issued by the US State Department have condemned Israel’s “institutional, legal and societal discrimination” against the indigenous Palestinians. For example, see the 2010 report: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/nea/154463.htm. Adalah, a leading Palestinian human rights organization in Haifa, lists more than 50 Israeli laws that discriminate against the Palestinian citizens of the state: http://adalah.org/eng/Israeli-Discriminatory-Law-Database.

 [5] Almost the entire spectrum in Palestinian civil society has endorsed these three basic rights in the historic call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS), issued in July 2005.

 [6] See, for instance, M. Reiner, Lord Samuel, E. Simon, M. Smilansky, Judah Leon Magnes, Palestine–Divided or United? The Case for a Bi-National Palestine before the United Nations, Greenwood Press, (Connecticut: 1983).

 [7] http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/2752C904A0F4A3E605256817007220DC

 [8] http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9134.shtml

[9] Maath Musleh, Co-Resistance vs. Co-ExistenceMaan News, 14 July 2011.

Omar Barghouti
About Omar Barghouti

Omar Barghouti is a Palestinian human rights defender and co-founder of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. He is a co-recipient of the 2017 Gandhi Peace Award.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

117 Responses

  1. OlegR
    OlegR
    October 21, 2013, 11:16 am

    /Recognizing national rights of Jewish settlers in Palestine or any part of it cannot but imply accepting the right of colonists to self-determination. Other than contradicting the very letter, spirit and purpose of the universal principle of self-determination primarily as a means for “peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation” to realize their rights [7], such a recognition of national rights for a colonial-settler community may, at one extreme, lead to claims for secession, or Jewish “national” sovereignty, on part of the land of Palestine, undermining Palestinian self-determination./

    So Palestinians have a right to self determination but “indigenized former colonial settlers ” ie Jews don’t ?
    Dream on mister Barghoutti.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      October 22, 2013, 5:57 am

      So Palestinians have a right to self determination but “indigenized former colonial settlers ” ie Jews don’t ?

      Colonists don’t have national rights outside of their nation dummy.

    • justicewillprevail
      justicewillprevail
      October 22, 2013, 10:53 am

      You just dont get it (nothing new). Self-determination in the abstract is meaningless unless you start talking about where, in what guise, and subject to competing claims from people who have a prior right to the land you covet. come on, oleg, try harder before you leave your usual snarky, witless and deliberately misunderstanding complaints.

  2. JustJessetr
    JustJessetr
    October 21, 2013, 12:31 pm

    Well, with the Arab League abandoning the Palestinians: http://mondoweiss.net/2013/05/advance-palestinian-reconciliation.html

    And with Israel succeeding (eventually) in lucrative LNG contracts: http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/3846.cfm

    And with the rise of anti-semitism in Europe (and naturally anti-immigrant sentiment as well), which will undoubtedly lead to more Jews considering immigrating to Israel: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.553653, http://www.thelocal.se/50790/20131014/ , http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/arts/music/in-hungary-a-new-opera-joins-the-chorus-against-anti-semitism.html?hp, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/world/europe/police-raid-golden-dawn-office-in-athens-after-a-killing.html, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/world/europe/far-right-golden-dawn-sees-opening-in-greeces-woes.html?pagewanted=all, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/world/europe/as-golden-dawn-rises-in-greece-anti-immigrant-violence-follows.html,

    And with the counter argument to European anti-Semitism that Jews were always safe in Arab lands so why should they even need an Israel?: http://tech.mit.edu/V123/N12/kraus12.12c.html

    And with Hamas calling for blood again, and again, (so sorry Roger Waters, but Hamas is definitely still on the violent end of things): http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/19/hamas-gaza-chief-calls-new-violent-uprising-agains/

    And with even Desmond Tutu screaming for intervention from the ICC for all sorts of nations, but not even mentioning Israel: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/11/opinion/in-africa-seeking-a-license-to-kill.html?hp&_r=3&

    And with the smartest activists in the world calling BDS’s call for a one-state solution a cult, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jquFBluif6M, and hypocritical nonsense because most Palestinians don’t even claim to be represented by so-called Palestinian Civil Society http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5hY-gffV0M,

    And that there was no “Samson Option”: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/opinion/when-israel-stepped-back-from-the-brink.html

    And with my profound gladness that Israel is still there despite efforts of people around the world to strangle it through whatever means they can, and that I could emigrate there should things ever get bad enough in the US where I could be welcomed as a Jew (one who still loves the USA and works to keep it free by volunteering tirelessly for the ACLU and anti-hydrofracking initiatives)…

    Then I would say that binationalism is pretty much a dead-letter. Because one thing MW conveniently overlooks through it’s self-righteous morality: Palestinians aren’t going to get what they want unless they do it through negotiations with Israel, and negotiations with Israel means a 2SS. No one in power anywhere in the world is working for a 1SS. They are either working for a 2SS which they hope will end peacefully, or simply supplying violent elements with weaponry and propaganda to whip up anti-Israel feelings while not giving one whit of concern for the actual plight of Palestinians. No one in their right minds believes that a violent minority of Palestinians won’t use the establishment of a 1SS or binational home to further attack Jews and make them an underclass or just wipe them out (like Hamas or their equally violent offshoots). No one believes it. Nobody.

    All the Seafoid and Tanaka “Israel-is-a-doomed-project” babble will get the Palestinians no closer to what they deserve, which is to have their own land where they can be free to farm and do business and not be pawns of activists and demagoguery. BDS is the Maoism of today. It talks tough, but eventually it’s adherents kill it off.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      October 21, 2013, 5:31 pm

      Wow JJ,

      That has to be one of the most hysterical , panic stricken, unhinged comments since Miriam’s last opus.

      All very funny and complete BS of course. If anti Semitism was on the rise in Europe, why are Israeli Jews flocking there and why is Germany’s Jewish population as high as it wasn’t fire the Holovaust?

    • K Renner
      K Renner
      October 22, 2013, 9:48 am

      Lovely little rant but it doesn’t achieve anything.

      I also notice your main theme centred around propagating the lie that “talks with expansionist, anti-Palestinian Israelis are the only way to solve the issue satisfactorily and fairly”.

      That “point” alone should be enough to write off anything else you wrote down in that ramble up there.

      • JustJessetr
        JustJessetr
        October 22, 2013, 1:47 pm

        Please. Write it off. Be my guest. And then explain to Palestinians exactly how your way of solving the problem has moved forward their cause one single bit.

        At least “normalization” puts money in Palestinian pockets, gives them some dignity, and a plan to move forward towards a resolution most can accept. In fact, with all the concern over Palestinians on this site, I don’t see anyone suggesting things that help them directly, and immediately. Pointing out every little flaw in what Israel does isn’t help. That’s just grousing, or if you prefer, ranting.

        Wake up and realize that no one wants to sacrafice their security. Anywhere in the world. Yes, that goes for Palestinians too. But if you can’t accept it in Israel, you’re spinning your wheels.

        Finkelstein has you pegged exactly right. A cult.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        October 23, 2013, 7:04 am

        And then explain to Palestinians exactly how your way of solving the problem has moved forward their cause one single bit.

        It’s the Palestinians who came up with the idea you idiot.

        At least “normalization” puts money in Palestinian pockets, gives them some dignity, and a plan to move forward towards a resolution most can accept.

        There’s no dignity in selling your soul and being reliant on welfare from your oppressors.

        Wake up and realize that no one wants to sacrafice their security.

        The security BS is just a rouse to hang on to stolen land and to keep stealing more. Thieves don’t like returning their stolen loot. Rapists don’t want to stop raping. That’s hardly reason to tolerate it.

        Finkelstein has you pegged exactly right. A cult.

        Finkelstein also called you Nazis and a demonic state. I guess you agree with that too right?

      • JustJessetr
        JustJessetr
        October 23, 2013, 1:41 pm

        “It’s the Palestinians who came up with the idea you idiot.”

        Finkelstien has proven time and again the Palestinian Civil Society is just a bunch of one-man NGO’s claiming to speak for all Palestinians.

        “There’s no dignity in selling your soul and being reliant on welfare from your oppressors.”

        There you go, speaking for all Palestinians again. Obviously, the ones who gladly do business with Israel would disagree. But of course, in your mind, they are traitors. No matter that working together is really the only way towards peace.

        “The security BS is just a rouse to hang on to stolen land and to keep stealing more.”

        No one interested in security believes you.

        “Finkelstein also called you Nazis and a demonic state. I guess you agree with that too right?”

        In some ways I do see Israel as demonic for what it does to the Palestinians. I’m not a hate-filled snarling ferret about it though.

        Now go ahead and have the last word, fanatic. And wipe the spittle off your lip.

      • K Renner
        K Renner
        October 23, 2013, 4:57 pm

        >> Finkelstein has you pegged exactly right. A cult.

        I’d spend time arguing against this inaccurate accusation if you weren’t a supporter of one of the most loathsome cults in modern history. As it is, I don’t need to waste breath arguing over a false accusation from some Zionist.

        >> Please. Write it off. Be my guest. And then explain to Palestinians exactly how your way of solving the problem has moved forward their cause one single bit.

        Writing off the rambling of someone who places blame squarely on the Palestinians (essentially victim-blaming) and talking about how “genuine” the Israeli “efforts” are and how they actually want peace and the Palestinians don’t isn’t doing a disservice to the Palestinian cause.

        It’s just calling BS on what’s obviously nothing but.

        >> At least “normalization” puts money in Palestinian pockets, gives them some dignity, and a plan to move forward towards a resolution most can accept.

        This is a joke, right?

        Normalization of Israeli actions and Israeli expansionism in particular provides zero benefits for Palestinians at any level. All the same policies towards them, and they’d have even less, if any, land left that was theirs.

        It doesn’t help the case of the “normalization is a good thing and should happen” camp when you consider that the entirety of the Israeli right doesn’t even acknowledge that the Palestinians even exist as a people, and are for the “wholesale transfer” or effectively an aggressive completion to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

        >> In fact, with all the concern over Palestinians on this site, I don’t see anyone suggesting things that help them directly, and immediately.

        What have you suggested apart from “they should let the Israelis walk all over them and work with the Israeli army”?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        October 23, 2013, 11:25 pm

        Finkelstien has proven time and again the Palestinian Civil Society is just a bunch of one-man NGO’s claiming to speak for all Palestinians.

        Wrong, he does not even make that claim.

        There you go, speaking for all Palestinians again.

        Yeah, right after you did.

        Obviously, the ones who gladly do business with Israel would disagree.

        And who are they that gladly do business with Israel? The corrupt elite living the high life in Ramallah?

        No one interested in security believes you.

        When were you appointed to speak for everyone interested in security? The security state in the US and Israel is a very lucrative racket and therefore relies on hyping and inventing threats.

        Anyone with a brain can work that out.

        In some ways I do see Israel as demonic for what it does to the Palestinians.

        So you admit to supporting and defending a demonic state. I guess that makes you the fanatic doesn’t it?

        Now go ahead and have the last word, fanatic. And wipe the spittle off your lip.

        Sorry, but you soaked the towel with your own.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 24, 2013, 8:27 am

        Finkelstein has you pegged exactly right. A cult.

        Well he didn’t label the BDS movement a cult. He still supports BDS and acknowledgment of the Palestinian right of Return by Israel.

        He simply said that some people in the BDS movement were guilty of cult-like thinking if they believed that Israeli negotiators would also agree to dismantle their own state or that there will ever be widespread grassroots public support for a boycott movement which insists on that particular end result.

      • JustJessetr
        JustJessetr
        October 25, 2013, 10:38 am

        @ Shingo

        “Wrong, he does not even make that claim.”

        Fine. Listen for yourself at 24:50 – 26:41.
        http://www.jewlicious.com/2012/02/norman-finkelstein-exposes-the-bds-movement-as-dishonest-a-cult/

        “And who are they that gladly do business with Israel? The corrupt elite living the high life in Ramallah?”

        Not everyone who disagrees with you is corrupt.

        “No one interested in security believes you. ”

        I’m interested in security for Israel. Friends who immigrate there are interested in security, and I’m interested in it for them. Jews are overwhelmingly interested in security for Israel in one form or another whether they are expansionists or agitate return for ’47 borders. That’s something you just don’t seem to get.

        “So you admit to supporting and defending a demonic state. I guess that makes you the fanatic doesn’t it?”

        In some ways I do support it. In some ways I don’t. I agitate on both fronts. That’s not fanatical.

      • JustJessetr
        JustJessetr
        October 25, 2013, 10:43 am

        Of course Finklestein calls BDS a cult, even if he does support the tactics without supporting the goal of eliminating Israel.

        http://www.jewlicious.com/2012/02/norman-finkelstein-exposes-the-bds-movement-as-dishonest-a-cult/

        Watch 23:01 – 26:41 for only one mention, which is far from the first in the video. And though BDS has surpassed 10 victories since this particular interview, Finklestien still calls BDS a cult in his latest interview from Amersterdam.

        To paraphrase the old comic line: Hey, who ya gonna believe? Me, or your own lying ears?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 25, 2013, 1:06 pm

        Of course Finklestein calls BDS a cult, even if he does support the tactics without supporting the goal of eliminating Israel.

        In 2005, Palestinian civil society issued a call for a campaign of boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it complies with international law and Palestinian rights. There has never been a goal of eliminating Israel. See the full text of the call: http://www.bdsmovement.net/call

      • JustJessetr
        JustJessetr
        October 25, 2013, 1:50 pm

        You and I are both capable of seeing beyond a simple advertisement for public consumption.

        Besides, Finklestein admirably pops the “We don’t want to destroy Israel” myth in the same video.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 25, 2013, 6:38 pm

        You and I are both capable of seeing beyond a simple advertisement for public consumption.

        No, JVP and the US Campaign to End the Occupation have only endorsed the stated consensus goals from that 2005 call to action. They have never endorsed the goal of eliminating Israel – and you can consume that where ever you’d like.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        October 25, 2013, 7:25 pm

        Of course Finklestein calls BDS a cult, even if he does support the tactics without supporting the goal of eliminating Israel.

        Wrong. He says that the demands of BDS, all of hem based on international law mind you, would lead to Israel ceasing to exist as a Jewish apartheid state.

        Of course, all that means is that Israel’s existence is based on it’s ongoing criminality.

        BTW. Fink calls Israel a demonic state and referring to Zionists as Nazis.

        I take it you also agree with him, you know,unless you want to admit to being a hypocrite.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        October 25, 2013, 7:34 pm

        Fine. Listen for yourself at 24:50 – 26:41.

        Like I said, he does not make that claim. In fact, he states that:

        “I support the BDS.”

        Not everyone who disagrees with you is corrupt

        I am pretty sure they are.

        I’m interested in security for Israel.

        If you were you would call for the end of occupation, dismantling of illegal settlements, and withdrawal fo 1967 borders. Otherwise, you are not interested in security so much as interested in protecting the occupation and Israel’s ongoing crimes.

        We all get that.

  3. Bumblebye
    Bumblebye
    October 21, 2013, 12:40 pm

    Hmph.
    Cue wails about existential threats due to fear of loss of ethnic privilege.

  4. German Lefty
    German Lefty
    October 21, 2013, 12:45 pm

    Great article!

    Accepting modern-day Jewish Israelis as equal citizens and full partners in building and developing a new shared society, free from all colonial subjugation and discrimination, as called for in the democratic state model, is the most magnanimous — rational — offer any oppressed indigenous population can present to its oppressors.

    Exactly! It’s the most noble and rational offer. Jewish Israelis can’t expect more than that.

    Bi-nationalism assumes that Jews around the world form a nation and is consequently premised on a Jewish national right in Palestine, on par and to be reconciled with the national right of the indigenous, predominantly Arab population. Bi-nationalism today, despite its variations, still upholds this ahistorical and morally untenable national right of the colonial-settlers.

    Exactly! I could never have phrased it that well.

    • OlegR
      OlegR
      October 21, 2013, 4:12 pm

      So you agree that Jews are not a nation and have no right to self determination ?

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        October 21, 2013, 4:25 pm

        Oleg,

        What about how Palestinians are of Jewish ethnicity based on their DNA?

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        October 22, 2013, 5:01 am

        It’s not what in the blood that matters it’s what in the head.

      • talknic
        talknic
        October 21, 2013, 4:44 pm

        @ OlegR Uh? Self determination – read the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel. Individually we can decide (self determination) to live in the US, Australia, UK, Germany, the list is long and there we’d be nationals of those countries.

        People who do not live in the same nation are not of the same nationality. It’s really very simple. Ethnicity & religion are not the same as nationality

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        October 21, 2013, 4:58 pm

        I have never seen a coherent statement of the right to self-determination and so do not claim it for any group to which I belong.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        October 22, 2013, 5:02 am

        Well Barghoutti does so you should argue with him.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        October 22, 2013, 5:55 am

        Well Barghoutti does so you should argue with him.

        No he does not. Try again Troll.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        October 23, 2013, 7:51 am

        As far as I can see (likewise Shingo) Barghouti does not offer a statement of the claimed, presumably universal, right of self-determination. He does make a distinction between inherent and acquired rights which I don’t completely follow. Perhaps someone who knows his writings better could lay out a definition which he uses.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 23, 2013, 1:09 pm

        He does make a distinction between inherent and acquired rights which I don’t completely follow.

        He is acknowledging the acquired human rights, as opposed to property rights, of any naturalized colonizers and their descendants in the new state, e.g. the right to return to your country of origin.

      • eljay
        eljay
        October 21, 2013, 5:15 pm

        >> So you agree that Jews are not a nation and have no right to self determination ?

        Israel is a nation. The state of Palestine – if it comes into being – will be a nation. America is a nation. France, Germany and Canada are nations.

        Jews are free to consider themselves a nation and to be Jewish. But “Jewish State” is not a nation and it’s not self-determination. It is, fundamentally, religion-based supremacism.

      • Pamela Olson
        Pamela Olson
        October 21, 2013, 8:33 pm

        OlegR: So you agree that a Jew in Brooklyn (or Moscow) who has never been to Palestine has more right to Palestinian land than a Palestinian who owns that land (and whose family has lived on it continuously for 700 years)?

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        October 22, 2013, 5:03 am

        Pamela have stopped beating your children yes or no ?

      • Pamela Olson
        Pamela Olson
        October 22, 2013, 12:01 pm

        I don’t have children. But what I said actually corresponds to present reality. Are you denying that?

      • talknic
        talknic
        October 23, 2013, 10:16 am

        @ OlegR “Pamela have stopped beating your children yes or no ?”

        A yes or no question requires that one first ascertains that Pamela has children & if she has, ascertain that Pamela is beating her children

        E.g., Is it not true that the Israeli Government made this statement on May 15th 1948 “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” Yes or no?

      • Pamela Olson
        Pamela Olson
        October 23, 2013, 11:17 am

        OlegR clearly has no answer… Or rather, has an answer that he has to admit makes no sense.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        October 21, 2013, 8:36 pm

        @OlegR,

        So you agree that Palestinians have less claim to the land Israel stole and is stealing than a Jew from Brooklyn who has never set foot in Israel and whose family has never set foot in Israel?

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 22, 2013, 12:15 am

        1. Jews are not a nation in any normal sense of the word.

        2. Jews have as much right to self determination* as their fellow citizens. And no more.
        Australian Jews have the same right to self determination as other Australians.
        Swedish Jews have the same right to self determination as other Swedes.
        But there is no right to self determination as Jews.

        (*Insofar as there is such a right. I share MHughes976’s doubts.)

    • MHughes976
      MHughes976
      October 21, 2013, 4:33 pm

      I would be interested to know whether Barghouti has any theorists of bi-nationalism in mind. What is it to form a nation? There is the Renan-style idea that nations are formed by shared ideology and symbolism but it is hard to see why people have rights because of ideologies in their minds.

    • hophmi
      hophmi
      October 21, 2013, 4:51 pm

      “Exactly! It’s the most noble and rational offer. Jewish Israelis can’t expect more than that.”

      And it’s an offer most Palestinians have little ability to make or ensure. Kumbaya.

      “Exactly! I could never have phrased it that well.”

      Jews do form a nation, and frankly, Omar Barghouti’s opinion on the matter is self-serving and irrelevant.

    • libra
      libra
      October 21, 2013, 5:10 pm

      GL: Great article!

      I agree. In particular I commend Barghouti for moving beyond the vague formulations of the past as to what the outcome of a rights-based struggle would be and making it clear that it must be a single, democratic state. This is much more honest and coherent a position. And a much more powerful one.

      See how our hasbarists don’t like it at all. Not because they are going to be thrown out of Israel. Rather its very reasonableness means it’s an idea that can gain traction and ultimately lead to them losing their ethnic privileges. Of course the enormous advantages that such a state would offer them in the long-term completely elude them, short-sighted freiers that they are.

    • JustJessetr
      JustJessetr
      October 21, 2013, 10:17 pm

      Right! Sounds great!

      Now just get Hamas to call off the blood orgy, and maybe there’s a chance in Hell.

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/19/hamas-gaza-chief-calls-new-violent-uprising-agains/

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        October 22, 2013, 5:54 am

        Now just get Hamas to call off the blood orgy, and maybe there’s a chance in Hell.

        Israel’s orgy has been going for 65 years.

  5. Mike_Konrad
    Mike_Konrad
    October 21, 2013, 12:52 pm

    At least 50% of Israelis are hard right wing. The percentages are growing. Even the so-called left is left only until it affects them. More and more are leaving secularity and taking a prophetic view of Israel. I have seem some quote Old Testament passage as justification for ethnic cleansing.

    What this means is: The Israelis are not going to compromise. This is not judging the Israelis as good or bad. This is a realistic appraisal of their attitude.

    You can talk all you want , come up with wonderful ideas, graphed on 8″x10″ color glossies with a description on the back, and it is not going to do anything.

    The Israelis – rightly or wrongly – are stalling. Their plan is what it always has been. Make a terrible offer to the Palestinians. If the Palestinians do not accept it, then say the Palestinians are the problem. This, if you think about it, is wonderful wisdom on the part of the Israeli negotiators. It is a way to stall, while blaming it on the opponent.

    Israel will NEVER get up the Jordan Valley. Were I an Israeli, I would never give up the Jordan Valley. So the Palestinian areas will be surrounded by Israel, and effectually can never be free.

    Separating these people is the only solution. There are ways to do it peaceably.

    Paying the Palestinians to leave is not as crazy as it sounds at first.

    • talknic
      talknic
      October 21, 2013, 4:51 pm

      Mike_Konrad “The Israelis are not going to compromise. This is not judging the Israelis as good or bad.”

      If what they’re doing is illegal, it is by definition bad.

      “This, if you think about it, is wonderful wisdom on the part of the Israeli negotiators. It is a way to stall, while blaming it on the opponent”

      If you think about it, there is no ‘wonderful wisdom’ about deceit

      ” Were I an Israeli, I would never give up the Jordan Valley.”

      You’d rather be involved in a criminal enterprise. AMAZING!!

      “Separating these people is the only solution. There are ways to do it peaceably. Paying the Palestinians to leave is not as crazy as it sounds at first.”

      to a crazy person…

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      October 22, 2013, 12:33 am

      “Paying the Palestinians to leave is not as crazy as it sounds at first.”

      First pay the Danes to leave Denmark. Then the Palestinians will have somewhere to go.

    • amigo
      amigo
      October 22, 2013, 9:34 am

      “What this means is: The Israelis are not going to compromise. This is not judging the Israelis as good or bad. This is a realistic appraisal of their attitude.” mk

      When you write “Israelis ” you really mean Israeli Jews , dont you.Funny how you so easily glide over the fact that 20% of “Israelis ” are not Jewish.Probably comes easy to a zio racist like you.

      I dont think the Non Jewish Israelis are interested in your desire to make the occupation Nation a success.

      As for you mike , you are just a thief and a supporter of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

      Proud of that, are you.

    • Eva Smagacz
      Eva Smagacz
      October 23, 2013, 9:16 am

      “Paying the Palestinians to leave is not as crazy as it sounds at first.”

      But why pay Palestinians? Why not pay Jews as well? start with the people who spent least time on the Palestinian soil, as their price should be cheapest, and their roots shallowest.

      Surely you would want the greatest bang for your bucks.

  6. eljay
    eljay
    October 21, 2013, 1:14 pm

    >> A Jewish state in Palestine (“a state of the Jewish nation”), no matter what shape it takes, is by definition exclusionary …

    “Jewish State” is a thoroughly supremacist construct. It has:
    – nothing to do with the self-determination of a people within a geographic region who have opted for an autonomous, secular and democratic state within which all citizens are equal; and
    – everything to do with the creation of a Biblically-justified colonialist state preferentially and primarily of and for people, anywhere in the world, who i) have undergone a religious conversion to Judaism or ii) are descended from someone who underwent a religious conversion to Judaism.

  7. mondonut
    mondonut
    October 21, 2013, 1:27 pm

    Apart from the flowery language and pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo this is no different than every other call to eliminate the State of Israel. Israel goes, anyone who self identifies as a Palestinian is in and the Jewish people are a minority again subject to the whims of millions who have been born and bred to hate them.

    But have no fear! They Jewish people will have “de-dichotomization ” to save their hides.

    • talknic
      talknic
      October 21, 2013, 4:55 pm

      mondonut “Israel goes, anyone who self identifies as a Palestinian is in and the Jewish people are a minority again subject to the whims of millions who have been born and bred to hate them”

      Uh? Israel was formed with a minority of Palestinians subject to the whims of millions who have been born and educated by a system to hate them enough to actually ethnically cleanse them in the hundreds of thousands.

    • Cliff
      Cliff
      October 21, 2013, 8:24 pm

      @nut,

      You’re not even a pseudo-intellectual.

      So you’re whining about a possible return to how things were for thousands of years.

      Big f-in deal.

      The Jewish Law of Return is discriminatory and bullshit. Allowing the RoR for Palestinians would simply be justice, whereas the Jewish Law of Return is colonialism and propaganda.

      You are not a descendant of ancient Jews. You are the product of conversion – as are most Jews.

      There is no Jewish DNA. And no Jewish ‘land’. Self-determination belongs to people who live on the land in question, not to people around the world simply because they are of a certain religious group.

      The only people ‘born and bred’ to hate others are Zionists like you, who support Jewish colonialism and the Jewish Law of Return and the JNF against the indigenous Palestinian population.

  8. NormanF
    NormanF
    October 21, 2013, 1:47 pm

    Omar Barghouti should be thanked for showing us the real face of BDS – it seeks to destroy the Jewish State Of Israel and strip the Jewish people of their inalienable right of self-determination.

    He wants to reduce Jews to being again a powerless Jewish dhimmi minority living at the perpetual mercy of Jew-hating Arabs like himself in an Arab majority state. And Jews are all too well aware of what their fate would be in a such a scenario.

    No Jew in Israel in the present and in the future is going to sign away their right of national self-determination. If Barghouti thinks that is in the cards, he doesn’t know Israel as well he thinks.

    Incidentally, it should be noted for the record that his having received a world class education at Israel’s Tel Aviv University has not imbued him with respect for the nation of the people under which he is privileged to study. Arabs with his racist, chauvinist and colonialist outlook aren’t going to get a hearing from Jewish Israelis any time soon.

    For peace to happen, Palestinian Arabs have to accept the Jewish people have equal rights of national self-determination! Given the way Barghouti and Arabs like him view the Jews and Israel – by definition, peace will remain impossible in the Middle East.

    • talknic
      talknic
      October 21, 2013, 4:57 pm

      @NormanF “For peace to happen, Palestinian Arabs have to accept the Jewish people have equal rights of national self-determination! “

      IN ISRAEL fine. Not in non-Israeli territory

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        October 22, 2013, 7:42 am

        talknic:

        @NormanF “For peace to happen, Palestinian Arabs have to accept the Jewish people have equal rights of national self-determination! “

        IN ISRAEL fine. Not in non-Israeli territory

        The point is: Barghouti doesn’t accept Jewish national self-determination IN ISRAEL.

      • talknic
        talknic
        October 22, 2013, 9:29 am

        @ Sibiriak
        “Barghouti doesn’t accept Jewish national self-determination IN ISRAEL”

        He does in one state which is the thrust of his article

        @NormanF “He wants to reduce Jews to being again a powerless Jewish dhimmi minority living at the perpetual mercy of Jew-hating Arabs like himself in an Arab majority state”

        Accepting modern-day Jewish Israelis as equal citizens and full partners in building and developing a new shared society, free from all colonial subjugation and discrimination, as called for in the democratic state model, is the most magnanimous — rational — offer any oppressed indigenous population can present to its oppressors. Only by shedding their colonial privileges, dismantling their structures of oppression, and accepting the restoration of the rights of the indigenous people of the land, especially the right of Palestinian refugees to return and to reparations and the right of all Palestinians to unmitigated equality, can settlers be indigenized and integrated into the emerging nation and therefore become entitled to participating in determining the future of the common state

    • eljay
      eljay
      October 21, 2013, 5:00 pm

      >> For peace to happen, Palestinian Arabs have to accept the Jewish people have equal rights of national self-determination!

      “Jewish State” is not self-determination – it’s a religion-supremacist construct. No-one – not even the Palestinians – should be expected or required to accept that.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      October 22, 2013, 12:36 am

      “it seeks to destroy the Jewish State Of Israel”

      Since that state is evil, that would be a good thing.

      “and strip the Jewish people of their inalienable right of self-determination.”

      On the contr4ary, they would have the right of self-determination as citizens of the unified state.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        October 22, 2013, 7:45 am

        RoHa:

        right of self-determination as citizens of the unified state.

        As you know all too well, the right to self-determination refers to the collective rights of nations, not individuals. -:)

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 22, 2013, 9:06 am

        “As you know all too well, the right to self-determination refers to the collective rights of nations, not individuals. -:)”

        And as citizens of the unified state, the Jews in that state would share in the collective rights that the unified nation would have, in exactly the same way that red-haired Australians share in the collective rights that the Australian nation has.

        (Assuming that there is such a right, of course.)

        Though I am at a loss as to how that “collective right” could be exercised without in some way consulting the individuals about their preferences.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        October 22, 2013, 9:26 am

        RoHa:

        And as citizens of the unified state….

        And if Jewish Israelis–or Arab Palestinians–decide *as collectivities* (yes, via individual choices) not to be citizens in this currently imaginary”unified state”, then what?

        Or, to take another angle on this: do Tibetans *as a people* have a right to self-determination in TIbetan territory, or simply individual rights in a unified Chinese state?

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        October 22, 2013, 9:35 am

        P.S. For the record, I agree with Shlomo Sand regarding the invention of the “Jewish People” and the “Land of Israel”, and I don’t believe Jews ever had a right to colonize Palestine or exercise a right to self-determination by creating a Jewish State there.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 22, 2013, 7:12 pm

        “And if Jewish Israelis–or Arab Palestinians–decide *as collectivities* (yes, via individual choices) not to be citizens in this currently imaginary”unified state”, then what?”

        Then the state will not be formed, and the current mess will continue.

        “Or, to take another angle on this: do Tibetans *as a people* have a right to self-determination in Tibetan territory, or simply individual rights in a unified Chinese state?”

        If the Tibetans have equal individual rights to other Chinese citizens, including the right to a say in the government, and are not subject to oppression (a debateable standard) then they probably have no right of self-determination *as a people*.

  9. NormanF
    NormanF
    October 21, 2013, 2:32 pm

    Barghouti knows full well there is NO “secular democratic state” anywhere in the world. The present PA constitution establishes Islam as the basis of the state, which is universal throughout the Arab World. The Hamas regime in Gaza is a full-blown Islamic dictatorship.

    Barghouti doesn’t indicate any opposition to current Palestinian Arab regines for not conforming to his ideal model. If so – then he is a hypocrite. Israeli Jews can observe close to home that Fatah and Hamas hate each other and further afield in the Middle East, Arabs blow each other up on a daily basis. For all its shortcomings, Israel remains the closest thing in the region to a secular, liberal democracy.

    The real reason why Barghouti can’t embrace it is because its run by Jews! Instead of demanding Israelis cease behaving like colonialists – which they aren’t since Israel has deep historical roots going back to biblical times and the Jewish people are living in their homeland – Barghouti would be well advised to clean up the Arabs’ own dysfunctional house.

    What is going on in the Middle East has nothing to do with Israel, period.

    • Mike_Konrad
      Mike_Konrad
      October 21, 2013, 4:35 pm

      Barghouti knows full well there is NO “secular democratic state” anywhere in the [ARAB] world.

      I think you left out Arab.

      Most of the Western World is highly secular.

    • talknic
      talknic
      October 21, 2013, 5:01 pm

      @NormanF “The real reason why Barghouti can’t embrace it is because ..”

      Israel has insisted on illegally acquiring non-Israeli territory for the last 65 years perhaps? You never allow it to enter into your ridiculous one sided equation

    • Cliff
      Cliff
      October 21, 2013, 8:29 pm

      Hamas is not a dictatorship. They were elected.

      The only dictatorship in Israel/Palestine is that of the Israelis ruling over the dhimmi-status Palestinian Arabs.

      Get out of Palestine you Jewish colonist.

    • kayq
      kayq
      October 22, 2013, 2:07 am

      “Barghouti knows full well there is NO “secular democratic state” anywhere in the world. The present PA constitution establishes Islam as the basis of the state, which is universal throughout the Arab World. The Hamas regime in Gaza is a full-blown Islamic dictatorship.”

      Secular states exist where there is a seperation of church and state, or in Israel’s case, a seperation of synagogue and state. While Israel is a secular state, it is hard bent on being “Jewish and democratic” which cannot happen as long as it keeps denying Palestinian Arabs their freedom, and keeps discriminating.

      As for Fatah/PA, those are lies. Fatah/PA/PLO are SECULAR. They recognise Islam as a majority, but as well it is secular. As for Hamas being a “Islamic regime dictatorship”, Hamas are democratically elected, although both Hamas and Fatah have expired terms now. Hamas is far from a dictatorship but it is Islamic because it is Islamist. However it does not seek to expel Christians because they’re not Muslim unlike Israel who wants a Jewish state.

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      October 22, 2013, 8:31 am

      Instead of demanding Israelis cease behaving like colonialists – which they aren’t since Israel has deep historical roots going back to biblical times…

      Just because a Jewish polity in existed in Biblical times, does not mean that modern-day Jews (most of them descendants of European converts, as Cliff points out) were not colonists.

      For good reason, Jewish settlement organizations were given names like “The Jewish Colonization Association”, the “Palestine Jewish Colonization Association” etc.

  10. yrn
    yrn
    October 21, 2013, 2:38 pm

    I wonder What is a “modern-day Jewish Israeli” ?

    • eljay
      eljay
      October 21, 2013, 5:05 pm

      >> I wonder What is a “modern-day Jewish Israeli” ?

      Since you’re here, and so that you might educate us all, please answer – in clear, definitive and unambiguous terms – the following questions, which I have raised several times:

      1. What are the criteria for considering a person to be a Jew? Please don’t omit any.

      2. Is being a Jew the same as being Jewish?

      3. Under what circumstances – if any – can a Jew be stripped of his Jewish identity and rendered not a Jew?

      4. Can a person be a Jew and not belong to “the Jewish people”?

      5. Can a person belong to “the Jewish people” and not be a Jew?

      Thanks.

      • yrn
        yrn
        October 22, 2013, 10:30 am

        eljay
        I thought only Jews answer a question with another question.
        Are you Jewish ?

      • eljay
        eljay
        October 24, 2013, 5:20 pm

        >> eljay … Are you Jewish ?

        No, I am not Jewish.

        Now that I have answered your question, please do me the courtesy of answering my questions.

        Thank you.

    • talknic
      talknic
      October 21, 2013, 8:37 pm

      yrn “I wonder What is a “modern-day Jewish Israeli” ?

      Same as a non-Jewish Arab Israeli according to some pundits who like to paint over the cracks in the Jewish state’s treatment of its non-Jewish Arab citizens.

      As a matter of course amongst other discrepancies in their argument, they must dis-regard the fact that there are no non-Jewish Arab Israelis in the illegal Israeli settlements in non-Israeli territories.

      • yrn
        yrn
        October 22, 2013, 10:37 am

        talknic

        Very clear indeed….. but get to the point what is a modern-day Jewish Israeli” ?

  11. dimadok
    dimadok
    October 21, 2013, 4:06 pm

    “Unlike Europe, the history of Arab and Islamic civilizations does not include massacres or pogroms targeting the indigenous Jewish populations. ”
    Liar.

    • Mike_Konrad
      Mike_Konrad
      October 21, 2013, 4:38 pm

      You haven’t looked hard. Have you?!

      Start off with the killing of all Jewish males at Medina by Mohammed.

      Moses Ben Maimonides’ family was driven out of Spain by Muslim extremists.

      This is a start.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_under_Muslim_rule

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        October 22, 2013, 5:53 am

        Start off with the killing of all Jewish males at Medina by Mohammed.

        Are you serious? Shall we talk about the massacres carried out by Hebrews in the book fo Joshua or against the Amalekites?

        Moses Ben Maimonides’ family was driven out of Spain by Muslim extremists.

        Muslims protected the Jews in Spain and took them to Turkey silly boy.

      • talknic
        talknic
        October 22, 2013, 9:21 am

        @ Mike_Konrad “This is a start.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_under_Muslim_rule The neutrality of this article is disputed.

      • dimadok
        dimadok
        October 22, 2013, 11:30 am

        @Mike. Are you asking me? I’ve called Barghouti liar.

    • Cliff
      Cliff
      October 21, 2013, 8:31 pm

      You Zionist Jews carried out plenty of pogroms, rapes, massacres, and ethnic cleansing (on-going) against the Palestinians.

      And those atrocities aren’t ancient history.

  12. OlegR
    OlegR
    October 21, 2013, 4:11 pm

    /Recognizing national rights of Jewish settlers in Palestine or any part of it cannot but imply accepting the right of colonists to self-determination. Other than contradicting the very letter, spirit and purpose of the universal principle of self-determination primarily as a means for “peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation” to realize their rights [7], such a recognition of national rights for a colonial-settler community may, at one extreme, lead to claims for secession, or Jewish “national” sovereignty, on part of the land of Palestine, undermining Palestinian self-determination./

    So Palestinians have a right to self determination but “indigenized former colonial settlers ” ie Jews don’t ?
    Dream on mister Barghoutti.

    • talknic
      talknic
      October 21, 2013, 5:07 pm

      @ OlegR //Recognizing national rights of Jewish settlers in Palestine or any part of it cannot but imply accepting the right of colonists to self-determination//

      True Jewish settlers can settle in Israel, that’s what it’s for

      // Other than contradicting the very letter, spirit and purpose of the universal principle of self-determination primarily as a means for “peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation” to realize their rights [7], such a recognition of national rights for a colonial-settler community may, at one extreme, lead to claims for secession, or Jewish “national” sovereignty, on part of the land of Palestine, undermining Palestinian self-determination//

      True Jewish settlers can settle in Israel, that’s what it’s for

      “So Palestinians have a right to self determination but “indigenized former colonial settlers ” ie Jews don’t ?”

      True, Israeli Jews don’t in Palestine (nor do non-Jewish Israelis), they do in Israel . You have yet to learn to comprehend, even though you cut and pasted the pertinent operative phrase “peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation”

      But of course to an idiot for Israel, there is no occupation, despite the UNSC resolutions saying there IS an occupation

      YOU are the problem

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        October 21, 2013, 6:49 pm

        /True Jewish settlers can settle in Israel, that’s what it’s for/

        Not according to mister Barghoutti after all he is talking about
        /A secular, democratic unitary state in historic Palestine (in its British Mandate borders)/

        That includes Israel you so graciously accept to be the place we can have self determination.
        But mr. Barghoutti does not.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        October 22, 2013, 5:48 am

        Not according to mister Barghoutti after all he is talking about
        /A secular, democratic unitary state in historic Palestine (in its British Mandate borders)/

        And how does that deny Jews the right to settle there?

      • talknic
        talknic
        October 22, 2013, 7:53 am

        @ OlegR “That includes Israel you so graciously accept to be the place we can have self determination.
        But mr. Barghoutti does not.”

        Uh? Yes he does.

        Accepting modern-day Jewish Israelis as equal citizens and full partners in building and developing a new shared society, free from all colonial subjugation and discrimination, as called for in the democratic state model, is the most magnanimous — rational — offer any oppressed indigenous population can present to its oppressors. Only by shedding their colonial privileges, dismantling their structures of oppression, and accepting the restoration of the rights of the indigenous people of the land, especially the right of Palestinian refugees to return and to reparations and the right of all Palestinians to unmitigated equality, can settlers be indigenized and integrated into the emerging nation and therefore become entitled to participating in determining the future of the common state.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        October 22, 2013, 8:05 am

        talknic:

        @ OlegR “That includes Israel you so graciously accept to be the place we can have self determination.
        But mr. Barghoutti does not.”

        Uh? Yes he does.

        No, he does not. The issue is whether Jews *as a people* (nation) have a *collective* right to self-determination in any portion of what was mandatory Palestine. Barghouti says “no”.

        When Barghouti talks about “accepting modern-day Jewish Israelis as equal citizens” he is talking about Jews having *individual* rights, not a*collective* national right to self-determination.

      • eljay
        eljay
        October 22, 2013, 8:39 am

        >> The issue is whether Jews *as a people* (nation) have a *collective* right to self-determination in any portion of what was mandatory Palestine. Barghouti says “no”.

        He’s right.

        People within a geographic region can choose to self-determine – in this case, as Palestinians or Israelis – and all citizens of and immigrants to the new states of Palestine or Israel bureaucratically become Palestinians or Israelis and enjoy equality with all other citizens of Palestine or Israel.
        (Each state could also extend preferential immigration status to people originally from their respective geographical regions.)

        People who happen to be Jewish, living in countries all over the world, do not have a right to pick a geographic region in which to set up a supremacist “Jewish State”, a state not for all its citizens, equally – and with preferential immigration status for people originally from that geographic region – but a state primarily and preferentially of and for Jewish people anywhere in the world.

    • eljay
      eljay
      October 21, 2013, 5:29 pm

      >> So Palestinians have a right to self determination but “indigenized former colonial settlers ” ie Jews don’t ?

      Palestine: All citizens are Palestinians, equally. Immigration can be extended preferentially to people originally from the region that comprises Palestine.

      Israel: All citizens are Israelis, equally. Immigration can be extended preferentially to people originally from the region that comprises Israel.

      “Jewish State”: Not all citizens are Jewish and not all citizens are equal. Immigration is extended preferentially not to all people originally from the region that comprises “Jewish State”, but to people who either i) are descended from someone who underwent a religious conversion or ii) have themselves undergone a religious conversion.

      This is not “self-determination” and “Jewish State” is not a nation. It is religion-based supremacism.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        October 22, 2013, 5:05 am

        Nope when Barghoutti says Palestinians he means Palestinian Arabs
        only not Jews.

      • talknic
        talknic
        October 22, 2013, 8:20 am

        @ OlegR ” when Barghoutti says Palestinians he means Palestinian Arabs
        only not Jews.”

        You continue to promote false information why?

        Accepting modern-day Jewish Israelis as equal citizens and full partners in building and developing a new shared society, free from all colonial subjugation and discrimination, as called for in the democratic state model, is the most magnanimous — rational — offer any oppressed indigenous population can present to its oppressors. Only by shedding their colonial privileges, dismantling their structures of oppression, and accepting the restoration of the rights of the indigenous people of the land, especially the right of Palestinian refugees to return and to reparations and the right of all Palestinians to unmitigated equality, can settlers be indigenized and integrated into the emerging nation and therefore become entitled to participating in determining the future of the common state.

  13. Woody Tanaka
    Woody Tanaka
    October 21, 2013, 4:49 pm

    Oleg, Konrad, NormanF, dimdok, mondonut… Add hoppy and all our usual zio goosesteppers will be represented on this thread. Barghoutti’s truths must have hit home.

  14. talknic
    talknic
    October 21, 2013, 5:12 pm

    Ziobots refuse to comprehend. They must, they only have denial between them and the deceit and crimes they willfully support

  15. just
    just
    October 21, 2013, 7:22 pm

    Thank you Mr. Barghouti and to MW. A truly awesome article– full of truth, and with a just path forward toward peace and reconciliation.

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      October 22, 2013, 8:17 am

      just:

      Thank you Mr. Barghouti and to MW. A truly awesome article– full of truth, and with a just path forward toward peace and reconciliation.

      I disagree. I don’t see any path toward reconciliation. The vast majority of Jewish Israelis will not in foreseeable future reconcile themselves to the end of Zionism and the Jewish State. In fact, I don’t think any true reconciliation with Palestinians is likely.

      Israel, imo, must be *forced* into allowing the de jure Palestinian state to exist de facto. Only later–perhaps–will Israel reconcile itself to the existence of such a state.

      • Memphis
        Memphis
        October 22, 2013, 3:05 pm

        That’s what people were saying about White South African’s.

  16. tokyobk
    tokyobk
    October 21, 2013, 8:25 pm

    I don’t know why Barghouti insists on claiming (as he does here and in his talks) that there were no pogroms against Jews in the Arab/Islamic world. And by implication discrimination. From incidents like the Damascus Affair to dhimmi codes which were sometimes ignored and sometimes enforced. And of course there were slaughters Hebron and expulsions/coercions (everywhere) after the period of Zionism and unless that is ok because it the other side, they were worse, etc… well those count too.

    It is not necessary to his argument to create this pure (counter) history. Even if the Arab/Islamic world was as discriminatory and abusive (at times) as the European Christian world towards Jews, which it was not, it would not change in any way the merit of his vision for the next phase of I/P.

    I understand he wants to naturalize human rights in a part of the world which many see as incapable, but the fact is humanity and inhumanity are natural to every part of the world and history. There are plenty of examples, like that of his family member who was breastfed by a Jewish woman, to establish the past naturalness of Jews in the Middle East. But there are other stories too. Not Muslim or Arab stories but Planet Earth stories, where minorities are sometimes abused by majorities.

    About the argument, I can’t imagine a better or more articulate vision of reconciliation in a non-ethnic state.

    Its always been my opinion that we as Jews fought are fighting the wrong battle. What we want(ed) is a state safe for Jews, which a Jewish State may or may not be.

    • dimadok
      dimadok
      October 21, 2013, 9:26 pm

      @tokyobk.
      Zionist ideals and dreams were not about “safe” state for Jews. No one was that naive and plain stupid, given all the past atrocities committed against Jews in Europe or Muslim world. The core of Zionist idea was and in fact remains that we, Jews, are equal in our rights for self-determination, self-governing and national aspirations. For each of these freedoms we, Jews, are willing to pay the price. However we also strive towards peace and coexistence with our neighbors and non-Jewish citizens of the Jewish state. That’s in a nutshell the essence of Zionism.
      By claiming that Jews were building a safe place you are reversing the history of modern Israel before WWII. It only became such after the Holocaust and Muslim expulsions of Jewish communities across the Middle East, Iraq and Iran.
      Therefore, Barghouti arguments should been seen in that particular context of Jewish self- determination and it’s extinction the moment that non-Jewish governing majority resides in this one-state utopia.
      Liberal views are fantastic theme for salon talk but there is a cold and harsh reality, that you as an intelligent person shouldn’t be denying.

      • tokyobk
        tokyobk
        October 22, 2013, 5:19 am

        Diamodok,

        Hertzl and other early Zionists were most certainly worried about the status and safety of Jews in Western and Eastern Europe at the earliest points of modern immigration to Palestine and the formation of the idea of Israel.

        I do think Jews have should have the same rights as other self-identified peoples. But no people have the right to self determine on top of other people.

        The bride is truly beautiful.

        Our real eternal beef is with the scum who deny our natural place on earth, the player haters and double standard bearers, the libelists and conspiracy nuts. Its not with Palestinians or Muslims certainly not with Palestinian Muslim farmers who want to occupy the same land and houses as their fore parents.

        Jewish life in historic Palestine is wonderful thing to be defended, but, imo not in nationalist terms and not at the expense of other individuals and groups.

      • dimadok
        dimadok
        October 22, 2013, 11:41 am

        @ tokyobk from DIMADOK.
        Indeed Hertzl and others were worried about the safety of Jews. However that did not imply that they were thinking for any moment that in the independent state of Jews everything would be roses and unicorns. Importantly, the main argument for the lack of safety and continuous persecution of Jews was their inability to form a state and self-govern, creating vital and equal state and society on par with other nation states. I can understand your inability to identify with this view, since as an American Jew you are lacking that haunting experience of societal Antisemitism that I, for example, have. Other national groups and ethnic minorities can attest to my view such as, Roma people, Basque, Uigurs, Kurds, Alawites, Hashemite, Iranian Azeris and Turks and many others understand the same- without a vital state with all powers that state has no one in the world would care a bit about them. See the last 50 years of modern history.

      • talknic
        talknic
        October 22, 2013, 9:13 am

        @ dimadok ” The core of Zionist idea was and in fact remains that we, Jews, are equal in our rights for self-determination, self-governing and national aspirations.”

        We got it. The State of Israel “an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” May 15th 1948 signed sealed delivered.

        “For each of these freedoms we, Jews, are willing to pay the price”

        Illegally acquiring non-Israeli territory is not paying the price, it is stealing

        “However we also strive towards peace and coexistence with our neighbors “

        By illegally acquiring their territory… interesting theory

        “Therefore, Barghouti arguments should been seen in that particular context of Jewish self- determination and it’s extinction the moment that non-Jewish governing majority resides in this one-state utopia.”

        Continue spreading false notions it shows people how low Israel’s apologists are willing to go, what they will purposefully ignore

        Accepting modern-day Jewish Israelis as equal citizens and full partners in building and developing a new shared society, free from all colonial subjugation and discrimination, as called for in the democratic state model, is the most magnanimous — rational — offer any oppressed indigenous population can present to its oppressors. Only by shedding their colonial privileges, dismantling their structures of oppression, and accepting the restoration of the rights of the indigenous people of the land, especially the right of Palestinian refugees to return and to reparations and the right of all Palestinians to unmitigated equality, can settlers be indigenized and integrated into the emerging nation and therefore become entitled to participating in determining the future of the common state.

      • dimadok
        dimadok
        October 22, 2013, 11:55 am

        @talknic.
        Mr. Barghouti presumes to speak from the position of power and moral superiority, which I find equally amusing and troubling in the same time.
        My amusement comes from the understanding that Palestinians have lost all the support or their political allies, either Qataris, Saudis or Iranians, they have reduced their educated and liberal society to corrupt and donations-dependent assembly of religious, secular and impoverished groups and clans and they still dictate their “generous” offers and conditions to Israel.
        Who gives, may I ask? And I’ll tell who- only the majority of Israelis that still believe in peace and co-existence and are not some “murderous thugs” as often described here. That’s why Mr. Barghouti was able to be educated in Israel and spread his fantasies across the world.
        Secondly, Law of Return and others, assuming some sort of Jewish preference are the core and the essence of Israel after the Holocaust and the expulsion of Arab Jews. Mr. Barghouti may not like them but who honestly cares about that? Is there a law denying citizenship from the non-Jewish Israel who’s born in state of Israel? Are there any privileges for the IDF soldiers based on their national identity? Was Mr. Barghouti discriminated when he applied to Tel Aviv University and while studying there? I don’t think so.
        Therefore, let him has his personal career and promotion on the waves of BDS and other nonsense. But please do not insult the common sense.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        October 22, 2013, 10:37 am

        “The core of Zionist idea was and in fact remains that we, Jews, are equal in our rights for self-determination, self-governing and national aspirations.”

        Nope. The core of the zionist ideology is that Jews are superior to others in those rights and that claimed superiority permits the Jews to build a state on land belonging to another people.

        If all the zionists were suggesting was that they’d be “equal,” then the Jews of Europe, North America, Asia, Africa and the rest of the world would have no more right to settle in and form a state in Palestine — without the leave of the Palestinians — than would the Zulus, the Australian Aborigines, the Finns or any of the other non-Palestinian people in the world. zios never wanted nor claimed that equality. They claim and still claim Jude0-supremacy.

      • JustJessetr
        JustJessetr
        October 22, 2013, 2:08 pm

        “By claiming that Jews were building a safe place you are reversing the history of modern Israel before WWII. It only became such after the Holocaust and Muslim expulsions of Jewish communities across the Middle East, Iraq and Iran.”

        I think this is one of the more thoughtful responses I’ve read.

        I will take it on faith for present argument’s sake that security had nothing to do with wanting to establish Israel. The thing that captures my attention most though, and still rings true today, is that security became an issue after the Holocaust.

        I’m not arguing for or against the veracity of this. But it does remind me of the classic lesson teachers invoke when studying the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides. The war started out as about one thing, then became another, then another and another. And each stage was justified several times over by one or the other side: promises and treaties broken, treachery, and laying down of arms. A simple dispute that was supposed to be diplomatically solved ended up in laying waste to the land. By the time it ended, it was as far from it’s origins as it could be.

        When I studied it, it was used for comparing to the Vietnam War. But this evolution of causes could applied to many areas in the Israel/Palestine conflict. No parallel is exact though, so it’s hard to make savvy predictions about the I/P conflict based on that war alone. Which is why I don’t even like to compare the BDS effort against SA to that against Israel. There really is no comparison.

  17. RoHa
    RoHa
    October 22, 2013, 3:03 am

    “The core of Zionist idea was and in fact remains that we, Jews, are equal in our rights for self-determination, self-governing and national aspirations.”

    Australian Jews are as self-governing as other Australian citizens are. They have equal rights.

    There is no right of self-determination for Jews qua Jews, just as there is no right of self-determination for Baha’is qua Baha’is, Gypsies qua Gypsies, homosexuals qua homosexuals, or stamp collectors qua stamp collectors.

    And having “national aspirations” does not give a right to realise those aspirations, and certainly not at the expense of other people.

    • OlegR
      OlegR
      October 22, 2013, 5:07 am

      /And having “national aspirations” does not give a right to realise those aspirations, and certainly not at the expense of other people.
      /

      If no determination for us then no determination for Palestinians.
      Clear and simple.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        October 22, 2013, 5:57 am

        If no determination for us then no determination for Palestinians.

        You have self determination and still you deny determination for Palestinians.

      • eljay
        eljay
        October 22, 2013, 7:47 am

        >> If no determination for us then no determination for Palestinians.
        >> Clear and simple.

        The petulance is amusing. The hateful and immoral idiocy behind it is not.

        Clear and simple.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 22, 2013, 8:37 am

        “If no determination for us then no determination for Palestinians.”

        But self-determination for all the citizens of the unified state.

        Again, I have serious doubts about the alleged right, but if there is such a right, it is the right of all the people in the territory. It is not a right of an ethnic group, whether that group is wholly within the territory or not.

  18. Sibiriak
    Sibiriak
    October 22, 2013, 8:49 am

    RoHa:

    if there is such a right, it is the right of all the people in the territory. It is not a right of an ethnic group, whether that group is wholly within the territory or not.

    Are you just telling us what RoHa personally thinks a “right to self-determination” should be, if one were to exist? Or are you claiming that is how the “right to self-determination” is actually understood in international law?

    ———–

    the right of all the people in the territory.

    What territory? What boundaries, decided by whom?

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      October 22, 2013, 9:50 am

      “Are you just telling us what RoHa personally thinks a “right to self-determination” should be, if one were to exist?”

      Yes. I have argued for this in previous posts. Other interpretations seem to make the right even more incoherent than that one. So far none of the resident Zionists have presented a solid counter argument.

      “Or are you claiming that is how the “right to self-determination” is actually understood in international law?”

      As far as I can tell, international law isn’t very clear on the matter. However, that certainly seems to be at least one major interpretation. I suggest you take that issue up with Hostage. He is certainly more familiar with the legal aspect than I am.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      October 22, 2013, 8:34 pm

      Sibiriak says: “Are you just telling us what RoHa personally thinks a “right to self-determination” should be, if one were to exist? Or are you claiming that is how the “right to self-determination” is actually understood in international law?”

      The CITIZENS of Palestine had the right to self determination IN Palestine. Jews or Arabs which were not CITIZENS of Palestine did not have this right IN Palestine.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        October 22, 2013, 8:55 pm

        Talkback:

        The CITIZENS of Palestine had the right to self determination IN Palestine. Jews or Arabs which were not CITIZENS of Palestine did not have this right IN Palestine.

        1) I wasn’t confining my points to the situation in Palestine. I was addressing the concept of a national right to self-determination for peoples in the broadest way. (I’ve already made clear my position that a “Jewish People” spread around the world had no national right of self-determination in Palestine.)

        2)Are you claiming that under international law (not personal beliefs, ala RoHa), that only official citizens of a recognized state have a right to national self-determination? Do national groups have a right to secede from such a state or demand political and cultural autonomy? If so, under what circumstances?

        3)Do only Tibetans who are citizens of China have a national right to self-determination in Chinese-Tibetan territory?

        4)What about indigenous nations/peoples in Canada, the U.S., Latin America etc? Do they have rights to self-determination as nations/peoples independent of citizenship in existing states, or across the boundaries of states? And if so, can those rights be recognized and or exercised against the will of the majority of the citizens of the states in which they live?

        (Note: no where is it implied that self-determination must mean statehood.)

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        October 23, 2013, 11:15 am

        @ Sibiriak.

        Natives/citizens of a country/territory have a right to self determination. When it comes to secession the defensive right to self determinaton of the majority outweighs the offensive right to self determination of a minority. But a moral case for remedial secession can be made if the minority’s basic rights are fundamentally violated.

        International law tends to uphold the integrity of a territory. But it’s not a coincidence that several proposals in the General Assembly and the Security Council to ask the ICJ’s advisary opinion on partition were blocked. The citizens of Palestine were not asked and their right to determine their future goverment by referendum totally ignored.

        The second problem regarding Palestine is that there was not a region of Palestine – lets say – Acre and all people of Acred decided to become independent and after independence everyone who was habitually resident in Acre became a citizen of the new state in Acre. To the contrary. A foreign organisation who claimed to represent a certain group of the citizens of Palestine decided to let its paramilitary wing take a huge part of Palestine by force and expell as much nonmembers of this group it could or didn’t have to allow to come back and then decided to transfer the new citizenship only on those it didn’t expell or prevent to return back. Until today this racist Junta denies them return and citizenship because of their faith.

        And if you don’t support this racism and crime against humanity, you are an antisemite according to Judeocentric chauvinists and racists whose mentality is very close to those who decided that Jews should only be citizens, but not nationals of a certain country in Europe and supported their expulsion and denationalization.

    • talknic
      talknic
      October 23, 2013, 1:42 am

      Sibiriak “are you claiming that is how the “right to self-determination” is actually understood in international law?”

      When a majority of countries agree to or adopt a legal custom it automatically passes into Customary International Law.

      For example: The US adopted the legal custom of having an agreement or treaty with the representatives of the people in a territory before annexing it. See the annexation of Texas, Hawaii, even Alaska which the US bought from the USSR. Each agreed to be annexed to the US. By adopting this legal custom the US played its part in this legal custom of acquiring territory passing into Customary International law.

      “What territory? What boundaries, decided by whom?”

      A declaring body representative of all the inhabitants (regardless of those inhabitants various political persuasions, i.e., not a political party) of a defined territory. Look to the example of Israel. Surely you’ve read the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel? No?

      It was declared by the Jewish People’s Council (and oddly the Zionist Movement which was not even founded by the Jewish Community of Eretz-Israel)

      Accordingly we, members of the People’s Council, representatives of the Jewish Community of Eretz-Israel and of the Zionist Movement, are here assembled on the day of the termination of the British Mandate over Eretz-Israel and, by virtue of our natural and historic right and on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.

      What boundaries?

      ARTICLE 1

      The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory. ***; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states
      ARTICLE 2

      The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law
      ARTICLE 3

      The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

      The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.

      *** Israel’s defined territory

      “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      From that precise moment, 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) Israel was independent of what remained of Palestine (which has never been renamed BTW) and; Palestinian territory was defined by default of the existing state’s around it. Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, Egypt and Israel.

      However with Jewish forces already in and occupying Palestinian territory by the 15th May 1948 and certainly by the 22nd May 1948 http://pages.citebite.com/x1r0b4d1y6mkv and 12th Aug 1948 http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Israels+Foreign+Relations+since+1947/1947-1974/2+Jerusalem+Declared+Israel-Occupied+City-+Governm.htm the Palestinian right to independent self determination was yet again compromised.

      Palestine has been under the occupation of one entity or another since the Roman era. Contrary to the wholly holey moldy old Hasbara mantra, the Palestinians have never had an opportunity to miss.

  19. NickJOCW
    NickJOCW
    October 22, 2013, 8:50 am

    The difficulty with this analysis, which is a paragon of reason and common sense, is precisely that; human beings are not motivated by reason, and common sense is in short supply. The bi-national state Mr Barghouti envisages is a dream, a more attractive dream than Zionism but a dream nonetheless. Dreams are fine until you try to make them real when they have a habit of turning into cloud illusions. That is not to say some kind of bi-national state may not one day exist but the route towards it cannot be embarked upon like a well planed journey, if for no other reason, because all parties need to be and stay single-mindedly united to achieve it. The normal process by which equilibrium is achieved is like the diminishing swings of a pendulum, but in this case the situation has deteriorated to the point it can no longer be left alone long enough for that to happen. The alternative is intervention from an outside force.

    The phrase ‘Palestinian problem’ is a misnomer, the problem is Israel. The notion of a state for the Jewish people in Palestine was itself a dream. Such a state might have been a success in some unpopulated region in South America or East Africa but countenancing it in an area already occupied by identifiable indigenous peoples, and a spiritual focus for two major religions was a challenge too far. The non Zionist world just didn’t imagine it would work out like this, they were mostly left wing liberals inspired by a broader dream of a gleaming society of justice, democracy and peace rising phoenix like from the embers of two world wars to be an example for all mankind; another dream that hit the dust.

    The current process will, surely, simply continue, any moral authority Israel might once have been thought to possess shriveling to nothing as she increasingly finds herself the object of international condemnation and ostracisation (BDS) to the point many who gravitated towards her Zionist dream wake up and gravitate away. As for timing, there is in these things a tipping point, a bit like irritation from a neighbour which you put up with until one day you say, Enough’s enough! and do something about it. Once those settlements fall vacant, grass invades the roads, and the swimming pools stagnate, then…but that would be another dream.

Leave a Reply