babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Questions for "Two State Solution" supporters ...

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Questions for "Two State Solution" supporters ...
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 19 June 2007 06:53 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Since my question in the other thread has been met with obstinate silence by at least one of the usual apologists for Israel, I thought I would pose the same question on its own thread.

Question for "Two State Solution" advocates: Please explain how a workable Palestinian state will ever take hold when Israel, the US, now Canada, and many other countries do everything in their power to strangle that state in its cradle, incite fratricidal conflict among the Palestinians, provide Palestinian Quislings with money and guns, break that prospective state into ungovernable Bantustans, arrest and imprison over 3 dozen Palestinian parliamentarians (including 8 Cabinet Ministers) for over a year, spit in the face of Palestinian democracy by cutting funding to the elected Palestinian Authority that doesn't meet the approval of the occupiers, forcibly rip Palestinian families apart with the "separation" wall, and so on.

And no. Remarks claiming that Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves, or that Palestine is "a land without a people for a people without a land", or citing Biblical or religious prophesy, or distraction by misrepresentation of other similar situations that allegedy haven't worked or can't work, or some other sinister version of moving the goalposts is not considered a serious reply.

That still leaves plenty of room to show what a future Palestinian state would look like alongside Israel and, perhaps most importantly of all, how we are supposed to get to two states from the current situation of one state and one strangled infant. Have a nice day.

[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 19 June 2007 09:24 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, Beltov, either solution will have a lot of trouble taking hold.

And MY questions were not asked out of mortal hostility to the "One State" approach. They are legitimate issues that will have to be addressed if a state like that is to be established. I don't think the Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves(although I think we can agree that the pointless Gaza takeover pretty much morally disqualifies Hamas from being the governing party of the whole place...I mean, why stage a violent takeover of a place you are already governing?).

The process of getting to Two States has many of the same issues involved in getting to One State:

Cooling out the maximalists.

The Water Supply.

The religious aspect.

And, unlike some, I think it is legitimate of those of us who support justice for the Palestinians to ask what they're going to do if they finally get a state in some form.

"It's up to them...we have no right to criticize anything they do because they've suffered" is the mindset that drove "pro-Israel" zealots off the rails, ffs.

You'll need these things to make either solution work:


1) A Reconciliation process(with a S.African style Truth and Reconciliation Commission).

2) An agreement on BOTH sides to give up violence forever. Nobody would call this point unreasonable, I hope.

3) An acceptance that nobody must be expelled, and a Right of Return in some form(or a willingness to provide REAL compensation for those previously expelled rather than the meaningless pittance the Israeli government has so far deigned to offer).

4) An admission by the Zionist movement, both Labor and Revisionist, that it never WAS "a land without people" and that the Palestinians DIDN'T just leave because the big nasty Arab governments around them told them to. An apology by the Israelis for Deir Yassin and all the other attacks on innocent Palestinians.
(With some apologies for the more indiscriminate uses of violence against innocent Israeli civilians by the Al-Aksa Martyrs, by Hamas and by those more extreme than Hamas in the last few years. Basically, we need to put it on record that NEITHER side's tactics were defensible.)

5) A commitment by the Israeli government to massively redirect spending from its colonial war machine to social and economic justice, so that Israeli Arabs, Sephardim, and elderly Holocaust survivors cease to be immiserated in the name of the free market wet dreams of Ashkenazi yuppies. A capitalist Israel is NOT "a light unto the nations".

6) An admission by the U.S. and Russia that they both have caused massive misery in this region by using Israelis and Palestinians in the name of their murderous geopolitical head games. Is everyone with me on this?

Those are what I have so far. Please don't take me for an enemy here, Beltov. I raised points that have to be raised and there's no reason why we as the Left shouldn't expect those groups we support to respect OUR principles in exchange for that support. We've always got burned when we said to others "We support you unconditionally".


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 19 June 2007 09:38 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
5) A commitment by the Israeli government to massively redirect spending from its colonial war machine to social and economic justice, so that Israeli Arabs, Sephardim, and elderly Holocaust survivors cease to be immiserated in the name of the free market wet dreams of Ashkenazi yuppies. A capitalist Israel is NOT "a light unto the nations".

FYI: The "Ashkenazi Yuppies" you describe are actually the backbone of electoral support for the more leftwing parties in Israel such as Merets and Labour. It's the poor Sephardim who massively vote for the Likud with their neo-con eceonomic policies.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 19 June 2007 09:53 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yet it's the Sephardim who are actually being impoverished, and it was the Ashkenazi who refused to accept Amir Peretz as Labor leader because he was non-Ashkenazi. They had NO other reason. This betrayal is what elected that asshole Olmert and caused the Lebanon massacre.
And we can assume their anti-Sephardim racism will continue to keep Sephardim from voting Labor when they were on the verge of coming over.

And it's the Sephardim who are still being impoverished by the neoliberal economic project that Olmert and Netanyahu are both committed to continuing.

This project is increasing poverty and the increase in this poverty is a major factor increasing tensions within Israel itself.

My point is, Israel needs to abandon militarism and austerity. A more socialist, less militarist Israel would end up being a more secure and stable Israel.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 19 June 2007 10:04 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You can jump up and own in denial, but Sephardic Jews (esp. Moroccans) are the backbone of support for Likud. They LOVE Netanyahu almost as much as they loved Begin. if only Ashkenazi voted in Israel, Labour would have been in power for the past 60 years without interruption.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 19 June 2007 10:11 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I know they DO vote Likud, but is this not in part because the Ashkenazim always considered the Sephardim inferior and that the Labor Party, before it chose Peretz as leader, made no effort whatsoever to reach Sephardic voters?

This is why the sickening defection to Kadima of Shimon Peres was so disgusting. Peretz had beaten Peres fair and square in the Labor primary, but Peres' anti-Sephardic, anti-Mizrahi bigotry wouldn't allow him to do the right thing and help Labor reach across that ethnic divide.
This elected Olmert, and you can see what came of that.

Yes, a lot of Ashkenazim have voted for left parties, but they need to start treating the Sephardim and the Mizrahi as their social and cultural equals.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 19 June 2007 11:06 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm surprised that in such a deeply intense and heated topic you guys are falling into the 'these jews all vote for ___' stereotype.
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 19 June 2007 11:11 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That wasn't MY intent at all, quelar.

I was addressing the question of the social nature of Israeli society and politics.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 19 June 2007 12:10 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's cool, I'm not trying to imply any racism or the like, just saying that Stockholm takes great offense when someone implies that Jewish people in Canada are a monolith of a voting block. I would think the Israeli's would appreciate being afforded their own thought processes.
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 19 June 2007 01:11 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ken Burch: "Why stage a violent takeover of a place you are already governing?"

Based on what I've read online, large quantities of weapons were provided to Fatah and other annointed militias in Gaza with the express purpose of annihilating Hamas. It's more like Hamas prevented a coup d'etat.

quelar: "I would think the Israelis would appreciate being afforded their own thought processes."

I think you've put your finger on a common problem. A number of observers have pointed out that there is often more diversity in Israeli opinion than among those who "support" that country. This is bound to cause the exclusion of perspectives and solutions that might be useful.

I don't entirely follow the usefulness of Ashkenazi/Sephardic debates here but I will venture a few points:

1. Israel is a very strong state. There are billions annually in military aid, gifts in kind (aircraft, helicopters, God knows what else) and so on, as well as public campaigns in other countries to raise money. The myth of Israeli invincibility may have taken a well-deserved shattering in the recent invasion of Lebanon (that has more to do with non-military factors such as the level of discipline and determination of Hezbollah) but no one can seriously suggest that any Palestinian "military" is a match, or ever will be, for the Israeli state.

2. From #1. The Palestinian state is so weak that it's more like an NGO. It needs to be strengthened. The first thing, surely, is that outsiders stop imposing their demands on internal Palestinian politics. We see what an impasse that has led to - secular Palestinian organizations have been totally discredited thanks to the role of the CIA, Israel, etc. in using the PLO to attack Hamas. If we expect secular Palestinian political organizations to become stronger, this is a no-brainer.

3. The situation on the ground has to stabilize. That means Israel has got to stop expanding the settlements, building the wall in Palestinian territory, carrying out daily humiliations of the Palestinians, etc., etc. If you want to stop individual acts of terror and rocket attacks on civilian areas the situation of despair has to end and a civilian authority has to gradually become stronger.

4. Stability includes a cessation of violence on both sides, of course. Hamas is actually pretty good in this regard and, on the whole, exercised remarkable restraint in view of the provocations, bombing the water supply, imprisoning MPs by the dozen, etc. They've made it clear that they do not view Gaza as their property and others need to respect that and stop, as Israeli politicians are currently planning to do, isolating Gaza from the West Bank, East Jerusalem, etc. that will just make things worse. It's seems patently obvious to me that a rather long list could easily be made of actions which seem designed to implode or explode the situation and make it worse. The more powerful player (Israel) has to exercise the greater restraint or have it imposed upon it. There's no other way to put it.

5. Negotiations, mediation, whatever. This has got to involve a mediator or mediators that are actually neutral, or at least not so biased as to be dangerous. The USA cannot play this role by itself. It's hands are too bloody. And these negots have to cover all the important points and not exclude fundamental matters without which an agreement would be impossible.

6. I don't think that a single state should necessarily be the goal at the beginning. It's a dream that is decades away. But it should not be systematically or structurally excluded as a precondition.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 19 June 2007 02:20 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:

1. Israel is a very strong state. There are billions annually in military aid, gifts in kind (aircraft, helicopters, God knows what else) and so on, as well as public campaigns in other countries to raise money. The myth of Israeli invincibility may have taken a well-deserved shattering in the recent invasion of Lebanon (that has more to do with non-military factors such as the level of discipline and determination of Hezbollah) but no one can seriously suggest that any Palestinian "military" is a match, or ever will be, for the Israeli state.


Agreed.

quote:
2. From #1. The Palestinian state is so weak that it's more like an NGO. It needs to be strengthened. The first thing, surely, is that outsiders stop imposing their demands on internal Palestinian politics. We see what an impasse that has led to - secular Palestinian organizations have been totally discredited thanks to the role of the CIA, Israel, etc. in using the PLO to attack Hamas. If we expect secular Palestinian political organizations to become stronger, this is a no-brainer.

I'm with you there. The PA must be strengthened.
And it must have as secular, social, and democratic a character as possible.

quote:

3. The situation on the ground has to stabilize. That means Israel has got to stop expanding the settlements, building the wall in Palestinian territory, carrying out daily humiliations of the Palestinians, etc., etc. If you want to stop individual acts of terror and rocket attacks on civilian areas the situation of despair has to end and a civilian authority has to gradually become stronger.

No arguement from me at all on that. I've been saying much the same all along.

quote:

4. Stability includes a cessation of violence on both sides, of course. Hamas is actually pretty good in this regard and, on the whole, exercised remarkable restraint in view of the provocations, bombing the water supply, imprisoning MPs by the dozen, etc. They've made it clear that they do not view Gaza as their property and others need to respect that and stop, as Israeli politicians are currently planning to do, isolating Gaza from the West Bank, East Jerusalem, etc. that will just make things worse. It's seems patently obvious to me that a rather long list could easily be made of actions which seem designed to implode or explode the situation and make it worse. The more powerful player (Israel) has to exercise the greater restraint or have it imposed upon it. There's no other way to put it.


True. The Israeli government needs to accept that it and its constituents are not, by and large, the injured parties in this dispute.

quote:

5. Negotiations, mediation, whatever. This has got to involve a mediator or mediators that are actually neutral, or at least not so biased as to be dangerous. The USA cannot play this role by itself. It's hands are too bloody. And these negots have to cover all the important points and not exclude fundamental matters without which an agreement would be impossible.

Here's a thought. Perhaps John Hume and David Trimble could act as co-mediators. They represent areas that have NO particular interests in this dispute, and they understand the dynamics of an extended conflict in a way that other possible mediators could not.

quote:

6. I don't think that a single state should necessarily be the goal at the beginning. It's a dream that is decades away. But it should not be systematically or structurally excluded as a precondition.


And, once again, my thread on the One State issue was never intended as an ATTACK on the One State idea. I was simply trying to have a discussion on some issues that are inextricably tied into it.

We really aren't that far apart on this, Beltov.
I think we're ultimately moving in the same direction, the direction of a just, peaceful and progressive settlement.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 19 June 2007 05:30 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Stockholm takes great offense when someone implies that Jewish people in Canada are a monolith of a voting block. I would think the Israeli's would appreciate being afforded their own thought processes.

I only take offense to people saying things that are false. Some people on the left who are searching high and low for some way to justify their hatred of Jews - try to peddle this pack of lies that Jews are rightwing - when the fact is that in the US they are second only to African_Americans in terms of their total rejection of the Republican Party and in Canada, for all the sqawking, ridings with large Jewish populations tend to be antipathetic to the Conservative Party.

Similarly, in Israel, it is a FACT documented in countless election studies that Sephardic Jews tend to vote overwhelmingly for rightwing hawkish parties. Wealthier Ashkenazi Jews tend to vote for leftwing social democratic parties. This is not a stereotype. it's a FACT.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 19 June 2007 06:47 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wasn't disputing the fact. I was taking some issue with the reasons for this fact.
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 20 June 2007 06:16 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michael Warschawski has quoted Israeli scholars Oren Yiftachel and Yoav Peled in calling current Israel an ethnocracy and not a democracy at all. In an article regarding the orchestrated campaign against Palestinian MK Azmi Bishara, Warschawski notes:

quote:
If Israel is not a state for all its citizens, what is it? ... Israel is the state of the Jewish people (all over the world). Such a definition has a double implication: while a Jew from Brooklyn, has, as a Jew, “a share” in the State, the Palestinian citizen of Tarshiha in the Galilee is no more than a dweller, a kind of tolerated resident, a guest, a kind of immigrant in his/her own country.

Exaggerated? Not at all. Which democratic country has had so many laws proposed (all rejected until now) that speak of canceling citizenship for this or that reason, its non-majority ethnic citizens? Which (even non-democratic) country, except Israel, denies the right of its citizens to have family reunification with her/his spouse, if they are not Jews, and de facto obliges them, by law, to emigrate if they want to live as a family?

The “citizenship” of the non-Jewish Israeli population is not a basic right resulting from being a citizen, but “provided” by the (Jewish) sovereign, and therefore, conditioned, shaky, provisory. As a “Jewish Democratic State,” the sovereign in Israel are not all the citizens, but “the Jewish people.” The basic, obvious, tautological democratic demand for an Israeli State as a State for all its citizens is in fact the demand that the sovereign shall be the collectivity of all citizens, and not a specific ethnic group.


A Return to the 1950's?

Israel has got a long way to go to become the sort of democracy where Palestinians would be equal citizens. Clearly, a single state is a long way off ... and not just due to the dominance of the non-secular Hamas among the Palestinians at the current moment.

Two states is a cruel delusion. One state is currently impossible. Yet a way forward must be found.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Max Bialystock
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13870

posted 20 June 2007 01:34 PM      Profile for Max Bialystock     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I only take offense to people saying things that are false. Some people on the left who are searching high and low for some way to justify their hatred of Jews - try to peddle this pack of lies that Jews are rightwing - when the fact is that in the US they are second only to African_Americans in terms of their total rejection of the Republican Party and in Canada, for all the sqawking, ridings with large Jewish populations tend to be antipathetic to the Conservative Party.

Similarly, in Israel, it is a FACT documented in countless election studies that Sephardic Jews tend to vote overwhelmingly for rightwing hawkish parties. Wealthier Ashkenazi Jews tend to vote for leftwing social democratic parties. This is not a stereotype. it's a FACT.


Two points:

1.) Who are these leftists who hate Jews you are referring to? Most Canadian Jews support the Liberal Party, which isn't leftwing. Thornhill and Mount Royal wouldn't go NDP in a million years, the NDP gets single digits in those ridings.

2.) Ashkenazi vs. Sephardim: Maybe that explains the "Jews for Sarkozy" phenomenon in France (most Ashkenazi Jews in France are irreligious, the Sephardic majority are more traditional)

[ 20 June 2007: Message edited by: Max Bialystock ]


From: North York | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
bohajal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11492

posted 20 June 2007 05:47 PM      Profile for bohajal   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Max Bialystock asked Stockholm:

quote:
1.) Who are these leftists who hate Jews you are referring to?

Yes. Could you please shed some light Stockholm, be direct, instead of uttering innuendos, insinuations and plain accusation of against people you do not name.

This is a cowardly way of "debating".


From: planet earth, I believe | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 20 June 2007 06:12 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If the one state and two state solutions are both impossible dreams, is there a third option that would bring about peace?
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 June 2007 06:28 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
If the one state and two state solutions are both impossible dreams, is there a third option that would bring about peace?

Three states.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 20 June 2007 06:32 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If the one state and two state solutions are both impossible dreams, is there a third option that would bring about peace?

The two state solution has been rendered impossible by the continued erosion of the West Bank by settlers empowered, protected, financed, and encouraged directly by Israel, and indirectly by the failure of the world community, and in particular the US, to condemn the land grabs and to tie military and economic aid on Israeli adherence to the Green Line. As such the two state solution is dead. The single state solution is not impossible. It is de facto. For it to become real requires the Palestinians to recognize the concept of a "Palestinian state" as a hoax being perpetrated upon them in the interests of a Greater Israel and then to change their strategy accordingly to a civil rights struggle.

And for Israel to claim to that it no longer occupies Gaza is akin to a jail warden claiming he does not occupy the prisoner's cell.

[ 20 June 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 20 June 2007 07:23 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Three states.


Are you serious?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 June 2007 07:29 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In a way. I always have trouble with outsiders making decisions about self-determination. So when you said "third option", I thought: "As long as we're telling people how to run their lives, why limit ourselves numerically?"
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 20 June 2007 07:42 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Given the current situation in the middle east, how do you believe the conflict in the "holy land" will resolve itself?
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca