6
   

'One-State' Idea Gains Support Of Some Palestinians

 
 
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 09:19 am
'One-State' Idea Gains Support Of Some Palestinians
by Lourdes Garcia-Navarro - NPR Morning Edition
April 12, 2012

Peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians are at a standstill and have been for almost two years. The stated aim of those negotiations is what is known as the "two-state solution," which means the establishment of a viable, independent Palestinian state existing in peace alongside Israel.

But as hopes for an agreement diminish, Palestinians — and even some Israelis — are now talking about other solutions to the conflict. Among them, the so-called "one-state solution."

Former Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei has been a point person in some of the most important negotiations on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"We deal since Madrid with eight Israeli prime ministers," he said, referring to the 1991 Madrid Conference to start a peace process involving Israel, the Palestinians and Arab states.

Palestinian State Not Viable?

So it caused something of a stir when Qurei wrote a piece calling for an end to the two-state solution. He wrote that it was dead in all but name, and that the time had come to explore other options.

NPR spoke with Qurei at his offices in Abu Dis, his hometown in the West Bank. He said the reality on the ground is that a viable Palestinian state is no longer possible.

"Any settlement that will not include East Jerusalem as capital of the state of Palestine, nobody will accept it," he said. "And if you annex it, as the Israelis did now in advance, it means you cut the head of the state of Palestine."

Israel claims all of Jerusalem; Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state.

So the one-state solution is being talked about increasingly in many circles.

This isn't a new idea. It's been around since the founding of Israel. But lately, it's been gaining traction, at least among some Palestinian intellectuals.

In its broadest definition, the one-state solution would mean absorbing the West Bank and perhaps even the Gaza Strip and all of its Palestinian population into a greater Israel, where everyone would have equal rights.

"What, for me, the idea of one-state is about is ... breaking apart the system of privilege that exists and being able to live as an equal," says Diana Buttu, a former legal adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team. "That's the kind of state that I'm looking for."

Buttu is currently at Harvard, where she organized a conference on the one-state solution. She says equality under the law is the main aim of the one-state option.

"What we are talking about is a state which represents all of its citizens, where there isn't preferential treatment given in laws or in policies to one's religion," she says, "where in fact the issue of one's religion has practically no say in terms of what goes on in a person's life."

But the one-state solution is an idea that many Israelis view with dismay.

Israel was founded after the Holocaust as the homeland of the Jewish people. Absorbing millions of Palestinians would mean that eventually — because of birth rates — Israel would no longer be predominantly Jewish.

Reaction In Israel

That, Israelis say, will mean an end to the Jewish state.

But there are also those on the Israeli side who are calling for drastic action.

Yossi Beilin was the lead Israeli negotiator in the secret Oslo peace talks that produced an agreement in 1993; that deal was supposed to pave the way to an independent Palestinian state. This past week, he wrote an open letter advising that the Palestinian institutions the Oslo Accords put in place — namely the Palestinian Authority — should be dismantled.

"I think it is time to say enough is enough. The Oslo process has ended, and now what we have to do is to go toward a permanent solution, if possible," he said on Al Jazeera. "If not, let us dissolve the institutions which were built and which perpetuate, actually, the interim agreement forever."

Beilin says a radical step, like dismantling the Palestinian Authority, would force Israel into an agreement.

"If something like that happens, and the Palestinians are saying to ... the Israelis, 'OK, these are the keys. Take the responsibility, pay for our services' ... I think that something must move then," he says.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is said to be considering the move, though many analysts consider it unlikely that the Palestinian Authority will be dissolved anytime soon. In fact, most observers here say the talk about alternatives to the two-state solution is just that — talk — and that nothing is going to change here in the near future.
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 06:44 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Quote:
'One-State' Idea Gains Support Of Some Palestinians
by Lourdes Garcia-Navarro - NPR Morning Edition
April 12, 2012


Palestinians can "support" whatever they want, but the Palestinians east of the separation fence will never become a resident of Israel no matter how much they whine about it.

The same applies to the Palestinians of Gaza.
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 07:10 pm
It might be a good idea if the Palestineans promise to all go to college and maintain a B+ average.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 07:18 pm
@oralloy,
They already are residents of Israel.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 07:27 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
They already are residents of Israel.


No. The ones living within 1967 borders are residents of Israel.

The ones living in East Jerusalem might become residents of Israel when Israel annexes everything west of the separation fence.

The ones living east of the separation fence, and the ones living in Gaza, are not, and will never be, residents of Israel.
maxdancona
 
  4  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 07:55 pm
@oralloy,
Israel controls the territory. Israel owns the territory. These Palestinians are residents of Israel.

It is a problem of Israel's own making. There are three choices...

1) Deny a large proportion of their residents have no rights because they were born into the wrong ethnic group. Of course this would mean that they can know longer pretend to be a modern democracy.

2) Commit ethnic cleansing where they forcibly remove people from land their families have lived on for hundreds of years. This would certainly) mean violence and bloodshed. (And it would be a bit uncomfortable given their own history).

3) Decide to embrace modern democracy and give equal rights to all of its residents. Of course this would mean giving up the dream of being a majority Jewish state.

4) Give up land for peace in a fair two state solution. Of course this requires offering the Palestinians enough to make them feel it is a good deal.

Of course, the current plan seem to be to build up a mythology that makes option 1 or 2 seem more palatable. There is plenty of propaganda that says that Palestinian are incapable of civility or that Palestinians never lived in the contest land. Of course this mythology is easily disproved.

I hope that we will see options 3 or 4. Ethnic cleansing, or people who are controlled by a government that doesn't represent them and gives them no rights as citizens are not things we want to see in a modern industrialized country.

But these are the only four possible outcomes, and Israel must choose which path it will take.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 08:41 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
These Palestinians are residents of Israel.


No. Only the ones within 1967 borders are residents of Israel.

Maybe when Israel annexes everything west of the separation fence, the Palestinians of East Jerusalem will become citizens of Israel.



maxdancona wrote:
It is a problem of Israel's own making.


Not really. It isn't their fault the Palestinians invaded Israel's ancient homeland and are trying to steal it.



maxdancona wrote:
1) Deny a large proportion of their residents have no rights because they were born into the wrong ethnic group. Of course this would mean that they can know longer pretend to be a modern democracy.


These people (Palestinians east of the separation fence, or in Gaza) are not residents or citizens of Israel.

They don't have the right to participate in Israel for the simple fact that they aren't Israelis.



maxdancona wrote:
3) Decide to embrace modern democracy and give equal rights to all of its residents. Of course this would mean giving up the dream of being a majority Jewish state.


Not really. You are pretending that people are residents of Israel, when they are not.

The separation fence will become Israel's border. Palestinians outside that border will never have any claim on being a citizen of Israel.



maxdancona wrote:
4) Give up land for peace in a fair two state solution. Of course this requires offering the Palestinians enough to make them feel it is a good deal.


That's been tried. The only thing the Palestinians did was murder a large number of Israeli civilians.



maxdancona wrote:
There is plenty of propaganda that says that Palestinian are incapable of civility or that Palestinians never lived in the contest land. Of course this mythology is easily disproved.


Well, the Palestinians certainly lived there after they illegally invaded. But they didn't live there before they illegally invaded.

"Incapable of civility" seems like a fair enough charge. Every time anyone tries to make peace with them, the Palestinian response is to try to murder children.



maxdancona wrote:
I hope that we will see options 3 or 4.


#3 will never happen.

#4 would happen if the Palestinians were willing to make peace. But since the Palestinians aren't willing to make peace, there is no point in worrying about it.



maxdancona wrote:
people who are controlled by a government that doesn't represent them and gives them no rights as citizens are not things we want to see in a modern industrialized country.


The only control Israel will exercise on the Palestinians east of the separation fence, or in Gaza, will be what is necessary to prevent them from murdering Israeli civilians.



maxdancona wrote:
But these are the only four possible outcomes, and Israel must choose which path it will take.


The Palestinians have a choice too. They have the power to derail #4, by massacring innocent Israelis every time Israel tries to make peace.

Israel's first choice would be #4. But since the Palestinians will not make peace, Israel is going to implement #1.

Your characterization of #1 is wrong though (those Palestinians are not residents of Israel).

Choice #1 doesn't mean there can't be a Palestinian state, by the way. If the Palestinians ever wanted to make peace in the future, they could still set up a state on land east of the separation fence.
maxdancona
 
  4  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 09:38 pm
@oralloy,
Oralloy, your mythology clashes with reality in a couple of ways. First the Palestinians and Jews are genetically very similar. They both have been living in the land that is now Israel for thousands of years. Not surprising since they both have the same ancestors.

I am curious when you think this "invasion" happened. It was thousands of years ago (and if you believe the Bible, the book of Joshua says it was the Jews who invaded). But whether you believe the Bible or not, the Palestinians, like the Jews, have roots in Israel that go back thousands of years.

Second the idea that the Palestinians have been any more barbaric in this conflict that the Isarelis is ridiculous to anyone who doesn't buy the mythology. And the idea that Israel has ever made a good faith effort to make a fair two state solution is also ridiculous.

As long as you (and they) continue to cling on to the mythology that Israel is blameless and the Palestinians are uncivilized beasts we (and they) will never reach agreement.



maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 09:40 pm
@oralloy,
I am also curious how you think this "separation fence" would work.

Would you get rid of the settlements?
Would you rule the land to the East of the fence? If not how would you ensure law and order?
And would you even try to maintain the illusion that Israel is a modern democracy that supports human rights?

oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 10:51 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Oralloy, your mythology clashes with reality in a couple of ways. First the Palestinians and Jews are genetically very similar. They both have been living in the land that is now Israel for thousands of years. Not surprising since they both have the same ancestors.


The Palestinians invaded the area after the Jews had been forced to leave. That is contrary to them having the same ancestors.



maxdancona wrote:
I am curious when you think this "invasion" happened.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%28637%29



maxdancona wrote:
But whether you believe the Bible or not, the Palestinians, like the Jews, have roots in Israel that go back thousands of years.


Palestinian roots only go back to the time they invaded. A bit more than 1,000 years, but well short of 2,000.



maxdancona wrote:
Second the idea that the Palestinians have been any more barbaric in this conflict that the Isarelis is ridiculous to anyone who doesn't buy the mythology.


All the Israelis have done is defend themselves from people who are trying to murder them. Nothing barbaric about defending yourself.



maxdancona wrote:
And the idea that Israel has ever made a good faith effort to make a fair two state solution is also ridiculous.


No. They have. And the only thing they got for their trouble was Palestinians running around murdering Israeli children.

The outrageous denials of this fact are justification for not trying again. One more reason to not bother with #4.



maxdancona wrote:
As long as you (and they) continue to cling on to the mythology that Israel is blameless and the Palestinians are uncivilized beasts we (and they) will never reach agreement.


That's not mythology. It's fact.

No agreement is required. Israel is going to enforce option #1.

There is no point to even trying option #4 again when people offer outrageous denials of past attempts.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 10:55 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I am also curious how you think this "separation fence" would work.

Would you get rid of the settlements?
Would you rule the land to the East of the fence? If not how would you ensure law and order?
And would you even try to maintain the illusion that Israel is a modern democracy that supports human rights?


The vast majority of the settlers are west of the separation fence.

Probably best to withdraw the handful of settlers that are east of the fence. I suppose that there might be something worked out where the settlers were allowed to voluntarily stay with the knowledge that they were "on their own". But probably best to get all the settlers west of the fence.

There would be a need to prevent the land east of the fence from being used to launch attacks into Israel. Should such attacks not happen, security measures could be loosened.

Beyond the need to prevent people from attacking Israel, the Palestinians could be left to their own devices.

That Israel is a modern democracy that supports human rights is fact, not illusion. Self defense is not a human rights violation.
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 06:26 am
@oralloy,
You are so full of crap Oralloy! You are just making stuff up.

The Siege of Jerusalem was the Saracens against Byzantine Empire (Christians). The Romans had long since taken over Israel and expelled many of the Jews. Of course there were a few people of Jewish descent still living there, and as your article points out, they were pretty happy that the Saracens won becauuse The Byzantines were so cruel.

Anyway, the Palestinians had been living in Israel for a thousands of year before this battle happened.


maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 06:28 am
@oralloy,
What would you do with the Palestinians to the west of the "separation fence" (We haven't established where this fence would be)?
eurocelticyankee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 07:14 am
PALISRAELISTINE
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 08:13 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Oralloy, your mythology clashes with reality in a couple of ways. First the Palestinians and Jews are genetically very similar. They both have been living in the land that is now Israel for thousands of years. Not surprising since they both have the same ancestors.



Hey, are the Askenazim chop liver? The Sephardim might be genetically similar to the Palestineans; however, the Cossacks left their semen print, so to speak, on the Jews that lived in Czarist Russia. That comprises a large percentage of present day Israel. Please don't trivialize my genome.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 08:19 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Anyway, the Palestinians had been living in Israel for a thousands of year before this battle happened.





However, like many a forgotten neighborhood, Israel under the Ottoman Empire was a "back alley" compared to its earlier days of habitation. Sure there were some Palestineans there, and some Jews; however, when those Zionist Jews came in the late 19th century, and BOUGHT land from the Ottoman Empire to have kibbutzim (collective farms), the Arabs got nervous that the swallows were returning to Capistrano after a two millenia hiatus. So, more Arabs moved to this "back alley," since now the Jews were IRRIGATING THE LAND, and they knew it was going to be a gentrified neighborhood. And, at some point they grabbed onto the new identity of Palestinean, as opposed to Arab.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 01:53 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
You are so full of crap Oralloy! You are just making stuff up.


Feel free to try to show anything I am factually incorrect about.



maxdancona wrote:
The Siege of Jerusalem was the Saracens against Byzantine Empire (Christians).


Yes. That is when the Palestinians invaded.



maxdancona wrote:
Anyway, the Palestinians had been living in Israel for a thousands of year before this battle happened.


No. They were not in the region before they invaded.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 01:56 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
What would you do with the Palestinians to the west of the "separation fence"


Note my previous statements:

"The ones living in East Jerusalem might become residents of Israel when Israel annexes everything west of the separation fence."

"Maybe when Israel annexes everything west of the separation fence, the Palestinians of East Jerusalem will become citizens of Israel."



maxdancona wrote:
(We haven't established where this fence would be)?


I figured everyone already knew.

The solid blue line on this map is the path of the separation fence:

http://www.fmep.org/maps/redeployment-final-status-options/projection-of-a-palestinian-state-with-provisional-borders-according-to-the-mofaz-plan-november-2009/is-v20n3-map-mofaz-plan.jpg
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 04:34 pm
@Foofie,
Who do you think was living in Jericho when Joshua invaded (as recorded in the Bible)? This happened a long time before the Ottoman empire.

The funny thing is that the Bible claims it was the Jews who were the invaders. Of course modern research from archaeologists and geneticists point out that they were really the same people anyway.

The point is that you can't make a claim to land based on ancestry against people who have the same ancestors.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 12:22 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Who do you think was living in Jericho when Joshua invaded (as recorded in the Bible)? This happened a long time before the Ottoman empire.

The funny thing is that the Bible claims it was the Jews who were the invaders. Of course modern research from archaeologists and geneticists point out that they were really the same people anyway.


Actually, modern research from archaeologists points out that there was no such invasion to begin with. When the Bronze Age ended, Bronze Age societies tended to collapse, and Iron Age societies rose from their ashes. Israel was the Iron Age society that rose in that area.

But that has nothing to do with the Palestinians, who invaded nearly 2,000 years later.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » 'One-State' Idea Gains Support Of Some Palestinians
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/20/2019 at 10:10:39