Israel needs to change, and change radically.

All the settlements in the West Bank are an unconscionable injustice to the Palestinian people.

There needs to be real compensation to those Palestinians who were deprived of their lands, and an apology for the whole "land without people for a people without land" since Ben Gurion, Begin and everyone else who used that line knew it was a lie when they said it.

But can Israelis ONLY prove they are sincere about wanting peace and justice by advocating the abolition of their own country?

I'm sorry, but I have a big problem with this.

Among other things, it is an insult to every progressive Zionist, and to every Israeli who wants to se an end to injustice and inequality but who doesn't accept the arguement that only abolishing Israeli can achieve this aim.

Also, to make this claim guarantees that the person making it will be disregarded by not only every Israeli of conscience, but every person outside of Israel who opposes the unjust treatment of the Palestinians but also honestly and with good will believes that a unitary state would be unworkable at this time.

Why be so inflexible about the assumption that nothing short of abolishing Israel as presently constituted can be an acceptable solution to the injustices visited on the Palestinian people?

Why simply dismiss most of the Israeli left and the Israeli human rights movement?

All the horrors of mass ethnic cleansing of white people proved to by a myth, and no such thing happened. That was just fearmongering.

[ 10 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Are you suggesting that if Israel gave up the Zionist creed, all the Jews should move?

[ 10 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
And you imply that Israel should exist without being a Jewish state.

---

I affirm it also. Israel should not be a Jewish state. There is no need for such a thing; it harms Jews; it harms non-Jews; it divides people and provides pretexts for discrimination and war; it is a throwback to some medieval era where nations didn't exist, only faiths and fiefdoms.

quote:

---

I can't understand the absolutism involved in the position that not only is Zionism racism, but anyone who considers her or himself a Zionist is, individually, a racist.

---

Any philosophy that advocates the foundation of a state run by and for a single ethnic group is racist. In a counterpunch article I read, Uri Avnery is quoted as saying (albiet near the end of the peice) that Israel must remain a Jewish state. This is a racist(and incredibly unrealistic) position.

quote:

---

I will respond to the question in the title of this thread: No.

---

I can believe a person is somewhat backward in their thinking and still support him or her. Marx was a self hating Jew. Gahndi wanted to help untouchables but refused to overturn the caste system. Betty Freedan was a homophobe, etc etc etc. Just because Avnery is flawed, it doesn't mean he isn't a good man. I will continue to post his articles and promote his organization.

[ 10 October 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 10 October 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by I AM WOMAN:
If Israel is "racist" for occupying a land that at one time belonged to the Palestinians, then can't the same be said of Canada, the U.S, Australia, as well as many countries in Latin America & the Caribbean too ? Why just single out Israel ?

---

Wanted to clarify a couple of things:

1)This thread isn't about MY opinions. I'm not the person who's going to decide whether there's a unitary state, a two-state solution, or no change at all.

2)I am not unalterably opposed to a unitary state for Israel/Palestine. I think it could eventually be done, but that it would have to be a state that was unequivocably secular in nature.
There would need to be a way of honoring the religious and cultural traditions involved, but not priviledging any over any other. At the present moment, it seems clear that neither side in the dispute could say, unambiguously, that it could accept this.

3)Whatever resolution to the I/P dispute was achieved would have to have the voluntary consent of both major national communities and the minorities within those communities. Any attempt to impose something against the will of either community is doomed to fail.

4)Within the spectrum of Israeli politics, this would have to involve winning over those who now identify as "progressive Zionists" or "Left Zionist". A settlement that was based on creating a just situation for all involved could win their support could gain that support. Repeating the meaningless phrase that "Zionism is racism" will simply guarantee that those people will never back a just settlement. There are issues of past experience with powerlessness that lead "Left Zionists" to be extremely hesistant to trust a settlement that doesn't leave it absolutely certain that the Jewish community in what is now Israel and what some would seek to turn into a unitary state will be allowed to live in peace and stability.
Saying this does not mean saying that Palestinians are to blame for the past oppression of the Jewish people. But it does mean that just saying that Jews have nothing to fear from not having a state of their own will always turn the bulk of Israelis and Diaspora Jews against the unitary state idea. The history must be respected and the fears must be respected.

5)For myself, I have always felt some discomfort at the idea of gentiles backing the unitary state idea. I can accept Jewish people being anti-Zionist, for they are operating from a sincere and eloquent point of conscience in the matter and also because they would be sharing in the risks involved in a unitary state project. It's different for gentiles to be anti-Zionist. I'm not sure, given the things we allowed to happen in the past, that we have the right to take that position. There's no high stakes at all for the goyim in the matter.

[ 15 October 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 15 October 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
To be Frank, I don't actually think that Uri Avnery is a Zionist. Saying such in Israel, is similar to saying that you "support the troops but...." It allows a modicum of political protection for those who are opposing the policies of the regieme.

---

quote:

---

Repeating the meaningless phrase that "Zionism is racism" will simply guarantee that those people will never back a just settlement.

---

Why? I can continue to hold that Zionism is racism, while still supporting the efforts of Zionist peace organizations. I can support the idea of a unitary state without being heinously anti Jewish. In fact, the one state solution will ensure that Jewish culture survives and thrives in an Israel in which Jews will soon become a minority

[ 15 October 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I affirm it also. Israel should not be a Jewish state. There is no need for such a thing; it harms Jews; it harms non-Jews; it divides people and provides pretexts for discrimination and war; it is a throwback to some medieval era where nations didn't exist, only faiths and fiefdoms.

I am not in exile. I am at home. Methodists don't need to live in a Methodist state. And neither do Jews.

---

What I'm talking about, however, is historical memory and what happens to a people's sense of trust when that people is powerless and no one protects it in a time of desperate need.

One of the most important questions those who back the unitary state idea is this:

If a unitary state is established, and a non-Jewish majority in that state were to suddenly decide to drive the Jewish section of the population out, would the rest of the world take them in?

Could it be assured that the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand, all of who left Jews and other victims of Hitler to die rather than let "The Other" have a place in their countries(and who between them could easily have accomodated everyone seeking sanctuary), do the right thing this time and take all those people in?

As long as those who aren't Jewish but who support a unitary state can't guarantee that the answer would be "absolutely yes", this severely, as I see it, limits the right of European, Antipodean or North American gentiles to support such a state.

The Palestinians deserve a state and a life of dignity, hope and justice. The world's Jewish people deserve to know that they will never again be subject to extinction.

Those who are gentiles and who back a unitary state have a lot of work to do, as I see it, to build the kind of societies that could make the guarantees of safety for all refugees that I outlined above. Since creating that kind of society would mean creating a society that lived up to the best of the Left's values, no one should object to working for it.

[ 16 October 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Could it be assured that the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand, all of who left Jews and other victims of Hitler to die rather than let "The Other" have a place in their countries(and who between them could easily have accomodated everyone seeking sanctuary), do the right thing this time and take all those people in?

---

We don't have the luxury of saying "Oh that, that's old news, dude" when speaking of history like this. Frankly, with all due respect, it makes anyone who does sound unbelievably insensitive and blase.

And, in the U.S., there is strong reason to believe that many of the people on the more right-wing part of our political spectrum favor Zionism because they want the Jews to leave the U.S. so they can be eventually forced to choose between conversion of death when the "Last Days" come(an event the U.S. right seems to be trying to advance as quickly as possible with its insane policies in the Fertile Crescent). As a Canadian, you need to be aware that your government, slavishly imitative of the U.S. right as it is, probably houses people who share this toxic mindset as well. It has always been part of the "Christian Zionist" viewpoint from Lloyd George and Balfour on down to most Yank televangelists today.

What I'm saying here is that we on the Left have a major project to do to make sure that anyone facing a real fear of persecution or even death on the basis of their identity can have a place of sanctuary. We need to fight for the notion that everybody has the right to live in safety when they are facing the prospect of genocide.
We need to fight for a world where no one is treated as "The Other" and deemed unworthy of survival. This isn't just about Jews, it's universal. We need to be taking in Darfuris, we need to be taking in displaced Iraqis, we need to offer sanctuary to Mexicans escaping their countries fascist police. We need to not only give those people shelter, but education and, if need be, the means to go back and organize themselves for self-protection and defense against their oppressors. And we need to defend those within the boundaries of the countries in which we live against those who oppress them, whether its FN people facing displacement and cultural genocide, people of color facing continued bigotry and violent attacks, and working-class people of both genders and all identities defending their right to a decent wage, safe working conditions and a say in the economic decisions that affect them.

This is all what the Left is SUPPOSED to be doing anyway.

[ 16 October 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

As long as those who aren't Jewish but who support a unitary state can't guarantee that the answer would be "absolutely yes", this severely, as I see it, limits the right of European, Antipodean or North American gentiles to support such a state.

---

Nothing is ever absolutely certain. The problem is that Israel will have an arab majority in the next decade and a half, whether I openly support a unitary state or not, so Israeli Jews will have to seriously consider a one state solution at some point.

[ 16 October 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[QB]
Could it be assured that the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand, all of who left Jews and other victims of Hitler to die rather than let "The Other" have a place in their countries(and who between them could easily have accomodated everyone seeking sanctuary), do the right thing this time and take all those people in?

---

quote:

---

What I'm saying here is that we on the Left have a major project to do to make sure that anyone facing a real fear of persecution or even death on the basis of their identity can have a place of sanctuary. We need to fight for the notion that everybody has the right to live in safety when they are facing the prospect of genocide.

---

...And ignore segregationist policies in Israel which could result in the expulsion and/or murder of many Jewish residents of the land formerly known as Palistine? Look, there has been a substanial Jewish presence in Palistine for over a hundred years. That's nothing to sneeze at. I'm not caling for another holocaust, I really do think that a one state solution is the best way to ensure that Jews will be in Israel proper for another four centuries, if not more.

[ 16 October 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 16 October 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

...And ignore segregationist policies in Israel which could result in the expulsion and/or murder of many Jewish residents of the land formerly known as Palistine?[QUOTE]

...er, no. And there's nothing I've said that comes remotely close to suggesting that idea. Israel desperately needs to be challenged on the way it has treated Palestinians.

[QUOTE][QB] Look, there has been a substanial Jewish presence in Palistine for over a hundred years. That's nothing to sneeze at. I'm not caling for another holocaust, I really do think that a one state solution is the best way to ensure that Jews will be in Israel proper for another four centuries, if not more.

[QB]

---

OK. That's good. And Israel does need to accept demographic reality if the pre-1967 boundaries do reach an Arab majority. At the same time, that same Arab majority(I'm using "Arab" there to distinguish Israeli Arabs from Palestinians, as I assume most people do in discussing the matter)would need to agree on a no expulsion policy and a secular, democratic state. I assume you'd see no problem with this.

There's no inconsistency in acknowledging the historical fears which have driven the thinking of even progressive humane Israelis and at the same time fighting for justice and liberation for the Palestinian people.

[ 16 October 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

I assume most people do in discussing the matter)would need to agree on a no expulsion policy and a secular, democratic state. I assume you'd see no problem with this.

---

[ 16 October 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 16 October 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

Some Hamas rhetoric has at least implied it(which is why, in my view, Hamas should not be the leader of any unitary state in Israel/Palestine).

I've also wondered how a unitary state would deal with the settlements issue.

In a unitary state, you would have to concede the idea, or at least I think you'd have to concede it, that all citizens of such a state had the right to live wherever they chose to live.

Is there not the strong possibility that the settlers could use this principle to argue that the settlements SHOULDN'T be dismantled?

I honestly don't know how that would play out.

If you didn't conceded the premise that everyone in a unitary state had the right to live wherever they chose to live, would you not then have to set up defacto ethnic segregation?

And would not this segregation inevitably be enforced, given the history of the area, with methods just as brutal as the Occupation?

How would the questions of land confiscation and compensation be resolved in this context?

I'm asking this because I'm genuinely puzzled, and I hope no one will find the question inflammatory, as that is truly not my intent.

[ 18 October 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]