quote:

---

The former US president Jimmy Carter said yesterday that the leaders of the Islamist movement Hamas would accept a two-state peace agreement with Israel as long as it was approved by a Palestinian referendum or a newly elected government.

Carter - who spoke in Jerusalem after meetings with Hamas figures in the West Bank, Cairo and Damascus - said they had told him they would support the results of a referendum or election on a final status peace agreement negotiated by the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, even if Hamas itself opposed the agreement.

..."They said they would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders if approved by Palestinians and they would accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbour next door in peace, provided the agreements negotiated by prime minister Olmert and President Abbas were submitted to the Palestinians for their overall approval,

---

quote:

---

Hamas has repeatedly confounded observers with its conflicting messages. Actions on the ground — seven rockets were fired on Israel from Hamas-ruled Gaza Monday, including one that wounded a 4-year-old boy — contradicted the Islamic militant group's positive words about coexistence and a truce.

And a leader of the Hamas military wing, which carried out a twin suicide bombing on the Gaza border Saturday, said his group would step up attacks against Israel in coming days.

The salvo of rockets came despite a last-minute phone call from Carter, urging a one-month halt to attacks on Israel, to gain some international goodwill and defuse tensions.

"I did the best I could," Carter said of his conversation with Hamas supreme leader, Khaled Mashaal, pressing him to declare a one-month truce. "They turned me down, and I think they're wrong."

Carter, who delivered a speech in Jerusalem Monday summing up his visit, said top Hamas leaders told him during seven hours of talks in Damascus over the weekend that they are willing to live next to Israel.

Hours later, however, Mashaal sent mixed messages. He stressed that while the militants would accept a state in the 1967 borders, meaning alongside Israel, the group would never outright recognize the Jewish state.

---

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Israel has steadfastly refused to negotiate, rather asserting the policy that Hamas must "recognize" Israel's right to exist, before it is deemed "legitimate". This ridiculous position has been supported by the Bush administration, the Canadian Harper government, and most pro-Israeli Babblers, probably because they have been hoodwinked by the standard fare ultra-Zionist position and its attendant propoganda.

Sanctions were imposed attached to the demand that Hamas must, in effect, sign declaration that it "loves Israel," before negotiation can begin. This is what the demand for recognition means in effect.

This avenue for progress was actionable before sanctions were imposed on Gaza, in a clear attempt to increase tensions and violence, so that Israel could continue to not-negotiate while it further increases its stranglehold on the West Bank, while turning Gaza into a seaside gheto prison.

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html

In anycase, the stated position of Hamas, before the election campaign was that they would accept a two state solution ratified by referendum. The position has not changed. Carter basicly has just managed to get this fact back in the public eye.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Hilarius:
It will take more than Jimmy Carter to convince me that tehy want peace.

---

Why would anyone want to convince you?

Here is "Dr." Hilarius' progressive view of the situation:

"Besides, even if Hamas were to accept it, the population never would."

So, while those terrorist gangsters should not even be spoken to, the real problem is the "POPULATION". The Arabs. The Palestinians.

Right?

I see you learned some fine lessons from your years as a refugee in Israel.

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I see you learned some fine lessons from your years as a refugee in Israel.
[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

---

You are are only telling one side Dr Hilarious, and not even an equivalent one side really, when you get right down to it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Hilarius:
As opposed to Hamas racialism?

An excelent point.

This was an organizing founded on destroying Israel and endings its existence. They're very constitution commits tehm to armed violence to destoy Israel. They've murdered innocent civilians on countless occasions. It will take more than Jimmy Carter to convince me that tehy want peace.

---

It was Israel that determined that national identity would be based in religion. The oroginal Arab propsals for the Levant all proposed a secular state system, as did the 1964 PLO Charter. Israel even supported the Muslim Bortherhood and Sheik Ahemed Yassin in his endeavours in the Gaza Strip in the 70's, just like the US did with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The attempt to create a devide between religious Palestinian leaders and the secular ones was an explicit policy decision of Israel, and one that ended up in the creation of Hamas.

In fact, there is very little to distinguish the essential elements of Hamas political philosphy from that of most Zionist political philosophy. Both propose that the area of Plaestine/Israel should be ruled by one group defined by their religion, wherein the others should be happy under that rule. The only difference is that Zionism asserts the dominance of Judaism, while Hamas asserts the rightful place of Islam.

But then again, it took years for Israel to redefine the background paradigm of the Arab approach to the conflict as a religious conflict, something which the Arabs resisted until very recently, with the rise of Hamas, which again, was at something which Israel had a direct hand in creating.

So does the fact that Israel is perdicated on a racialist philosophy mean that Hamas is right to take a stand against negotiations with Israel? Is the converse true? In fact the throughout the last 5 years, it is the Hamas position that has been tractable, while the Israeli position has rejected negotiation.

In that light, who are the real religious zealots? Hamas? Really? After several unilateral ceasefires, and saying that they would respect a two state solution, if mandated by referendum?

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
The lesson that Hilarius missed while serving in the Israeli armed forces is that Arabs are human beings too, and that when you dehumanize and destroy people for long enough, they may occasionally resist.

---

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
The people who make up Hamas are "human beings".

---

You're wasting your breath. Hilarius has already said that the population is even worse than Hamas.

quote:

---

Hamas are not human beings. People who take delight in murdering innocents are not human. People who encourage their followers to blow themselves up are not human. Parents who rejoice at their children's killing themselves in order to kill others are not a member of the same species as the rest of us.

---

Doesn't this violate some oath or other you took to become a doctor?

Some on babbly probably know her from her work with Jewish Women Against The Occupation as well as seeing them at Oise events and voicing their protest to many of the speakers who come to Toronto.

They are my cousins and not a day goes by that I have not emailed one or both about a thread here on babble to seek their opinion on the state of the world so to speak.

They are the ones also by the way that first told me of this group that Eibie was putting together that became the ACJC

They raised an interesting point when we were discussing the chances of peace in the Middle East.

They have no problem and have no fears with a 2 state solution -- that sees a strong Palestine beside a strong Israel. They want a true peace as they called it.

But what shocked me was their comment about the golan. They never want the golan to be returned to Syria. I asked why because in my opinion this differed from their opinion on the '67 lands.

He said that as a boy the kibbutz he lived at in the golan had been shalled and straffed. For that reason he was against giving back the golan.

So in reference to this repeated offer of giving back '67 lands.

God am I getting slow in my old age. My nose used to be way way sharper than that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Clearly the proposal is in regards to an solution neogtiated by the PA, which has not insisted on a resolution to the Golan issue as part of its peace package since before Oslo.

---

Cueball did Israel not capture the Golan in 1967? Returnign all lands captured in 1967 would therefore include the Golan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Hilarius:
Um, they DO. I'm a Jew. I'm an Israeli. They want to kill me. They want to kill my family. They wouldn't even hesitate. If they succeeded, they would celebrate it.

---

I can see why given what you have just said here today. If I were Palestinian, I might want to kill you too. I certainly would have less compunction about doing so given the souless nature of your last diatribe. Tough luck buddy.

And don't bring your family into it, they are not responsible for your degeneration into racist hate. That is your problem and your problem alone to deal with.

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Until I hear otherwise I have to assume that 1967 lands returned has to include the golan. Since it was also taken in 67

Now if it does not include golan then it should be more specific

Does it therefore only refer to west bank and gaza? No jerusalem or yes?

quote:

---

Originally posted by miles:

Cueball did Israel not capture the Golan in 1967? Returnign all lands captured in 1967 would therefore include the Golan.

Israel captured land from 3 countries. Syria, Jordan and Egypt in 1967.

---

It's a ridiculous Red Herring. The discussion is about Hamas agreeing to abide by a settlement agreed to by the PA and put to a referendum. The same position they held 2 years ago when they were elected.

Fact: The PA renounced joint resolution of the comprehensive settlement of all Arab land claims with the Oslo accords. In fact, many non-Palestinian Arabs blame Yasser Arafat for sneaking around behind the back of the Arab league and breaking solidarity on these issues by agreeing to Oslo.

The Golan issue is not relevant to the proposed two state solution.

This prevarication on point, is just another attmept by the sundry Zionists around here to support rejection. Unfortunately you will have to try something else because this is defitely not relevant at all. Not that the historical facts are necessary, or particularly of interests to most Zionists as can be evidenced by the fact that most of them are so out to lunch that they don't even realize that there is nothing new at all about this proposal as fronted by Jimmy Carter.

It is weird when a question is asked it is a red herring.

You see since the meeting with Hamas was in Damascus I thought it would include all lands from 1967.

At best, such a state will be an Israeli Bantustan, a protectorate, suitable for bombing when Israel feels like incinerating a civilian population. Such a state will never be able to defend itself. Such a state will never be economically viable. Describing such a state as a puppet regime, say like the Karzai regime in Afghanistan, would actually be a compliment.

A puppet is actually allowed to speak and, in fact, is encouraged to do so ... so as to give the impression, by the puppet master, that there's no puppetry. The Israeli and US barbarians cannot even do that. They find it necessary to imprison the elected Hamas Parliamentarians, and bellow obscenities at former Presidents like Carter for even speaking to leaders they disapprove of, and so on.

Talking to/about Palestinians like they are human beings is an improvement over the current situation. Even some people that are welcomed to babble cannot manage that, as this thread so amply proves. But it is only a small improvement if the discussion is over solutions that the stronger players have no intention of implementing, solutions which are, in any case, doomed and calculated to fail.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:

Doesn't this violate some oath or other you took to become a doctor?

And uh don't we ban people for this kind of shit around here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

No no, having this guy around is gold!

---

Please show some respect. Indiana Hilarius has self-identified as a female.

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

No no, having this guy around is gold! The pro-Palestinian babblers haven't had such a positive reinforcement for their position since the days of Lakesh/Mishei/Ber.../oh,the other sock puppets that guy used.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Hilarius:

Hamas are not human beings. People who take delight in murdering innocents are not human. People who encourage their followers to blow themselves up are not human. Parents who rejoice at their children's killing themselves in order to kill others are not a member of the same species as the rest of us.

---

I never hear this kind of fascist talk coming from the posters whp tend to side with the Palestinians.

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Hilarius:
Read their damn charter. Read how the define "Palestine".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Please show some respect. Indiana Hilarius has self-identified as a female.

I do agree with the gold part, though... As I said, an invaluable object lesson.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

No no, having this guy around is gold! The pro-Palestinian babblers haven't had such a positive reinforcement for their position since the days of Lakesh/Mishei/Ber.../oh,the other sock puppets that guy used.

---

It seems rather odd, in any case, that countries like the US and Canada with their fulsome praise for the North American version of liberal democracy can't find it in their hearts to support the same thing elsewhere. Having mostly succeeded in destroying secular Palestinian organizations like the PLO, or corrupting them to the point that observers like Robert Fisk mockingly call them "the men of the gold plated bathroom fixtures", the best solution looks to be the most hopeless.

Yes, it really is quite odd. Apparently liberal democracy is only good for "some" people and presumably, since the Palestinians aren't really "people" in the North American meaning of the word, they don't count as prospective citizens of a future Israel/Palestine democracy with one person one vote.

When Palestinians have children, it's considered a crime or an act of war by the Israelis and their backers. They even call it a [demographic time] bom* to emphasize the criminality of it.

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Hilarius:

Hamas are not human beings. People who take delight in murdering innocents are not human. People who encourage their followers to blow themselves up are not human. Parents who rejoice at their children's killing themselves in order to kill others are not a member of the same species as the rest of us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Well, I'd just like to underline the single state idea. There is a lot of material out there on the web to support such an admittedly unlikely outcome.

---

Is this idea on the table? any table?

I understand the 2 state idea.

quote:

---

johnpauljones: Is this idea on the table? any table?

---

The idea, and then the practice, of a non-racial/non-sectarian state in South Africa following the destruction of the Apartheid regime went back to the Kliptown Freedom Charter of 1955.

So, yea. The idea's been around a while.

As I remarked, there is plenty of information available. Just type "single state" and "Israel" as search words in Google, maybe pick your most progressive site and do an advanced search as well, and watch the hours roll away ...

The studious disinterest in a single state solution, the denunciation of it as "unworkable" or "impossible" {typically due to the racial inferiority of the Palestinians, or some odious excuse like that), ought to tip any unbiased observer off that the idea is worth investigating.

Was it not A. Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes who once said: "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". Since the present horrors are only beneficial to those who support ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and two states are impossible since a Palestinian Authority on 10% of the land is weaker than a puppet regime, what else does that leave?

I know what is discussed by groups, individuals and yes even some organizations that I belong to and work with here in Canada and abroad.

Complicated problems require all sorts of approaches. That's why I don't join the chorus of monsters who denounce Carter's activities despite the fact that his proposal is fundamentally flawed in my view.

Not even Pres Carter advocates a 1 state solution. Who does?

quote:

---

Recently, the debate about Israel and Palestine has taken an odd turn. The idea of a single democratic state in historic Palestine, once thought dead, has re- emerged as an option worthy of consideration. For some, the idea of a single state is a matter of realism. Tony Judt, for example, argues in The New York Review of Books that the integration of the West Bank may already be irreversible, and suggests that a single binational state may be the only alternative to ethnic cleansing. More recently, Noah Cohen has criticized Noam Chomsky's endorsement of a two-state solution. In Cohen's view, we ought to think of Palestine on the model of South Africa, and follow its solution of endorsing a democratic state for all who live in it.

---

2. From Occupied Palestine

3. Oh look! There's even something on Wikipedia despite the pro-Israeli editing going on over there ... Wiki on a binational solution

4. A Single-State Solution For Israel? by James O. Goldsborough

5. No Room for Two States: The Case for a Single State Solution for Palestine is Irrefutable: by Prof. Hassan Nafaa

6. Two-State Dreamers: If One State Is Impossible, Why Is Olmert So Afraid of It? by Jonathan Cook

7. Oh look! A whole Conference! London Conference on the single state solution

Nope, there's really NO ONE talking about a single state solution.

quote:

---

One important initiative we would like to support here is The One State Declaration, which was published on the 60th anniversary of the General Assembly vote on the UN Partition Plan in 29 November 1947.

---

Here it is ...

quote:

---

The One State Declaration

For decades, efforts to bring about a two-state solution in historic Palestine have failed to provide justice and peace for the Palestinian and Israeli Jewish peoples, or to offer a genuine process leading towards them.

The two-state solution ignores the physical and political realities on the ground, and presumes a false parity in power and moral claims between a colonized and occupied people on the one hand and a colonizing state and military occupier on the other. It is predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora. Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return.

The two-state solution entrenches and formalizes a policy of unequal separation on a land that has become ever more integrated territorially and economically. All the international efforts to implement a two-state solution cannot conceal the fact that a Palestinian state is not viable, and that Palestinian and Israeli Jewish independence in separate states cannot resolve fundamental injustices, the acknowledgment and redress of which are at the core of any just solution.

In light of these stark realities, we affirm our commitment to a democratic solution that will offer a just, and thus enduring, peace in a single state based on the following principles:

* 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;

* There must be just redress for the devastating effects of decades of Zionist colonization in the pre- and post-state period, including the abrogation of all laws, and ending all policies, practices and systems of military and civil control that oppress and discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, religion or national origin;

* The recognition of the diverse character of the society, encompassing distinct religious, linguistic and cultural traditions, and national experiences;

* The creation of a non-sectarian state that does not privilege the rights of one ethnic or religious group over another and that respects the separation of state from all organized religion;
* -The implementation of the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees in accordance with UN Resolution 194 is a fundamental requirement for justice, and a benchmark of the respect for equality.
* -The creation of a transparent and nondiscriminatory immigration policy;

* - The recognition of the historic connections between the diverse communities inside the new, democratic state and their respective fellow communities outside;

* -In articulating the specific contours of such a solution, those who have been historically excluded from decision-making -- especially the Palestinian Diaspora and its refugees, and Palestinians inside Israel -- must play a central role;

* -The establishment of legal and institutional frameworks for justice and reconciliation.

The struggle for justice and liberation must be accompanied by a clear, compelling and moral vision of the destination – a solution in which all people who share a belief in equality can see a future for themselves and others. We call for the widest possible discussion, research and action to advance a unitary, democratic solution and bring it to fruition.

Madrid and London, 2007

Authored By:

Ali Abunimah, Chicago
Naseer Aruri, North Dartmouth, Massachusetts
Omar Barghouti, Jerusalem
Oren Ben-Dor, London
George Bisharat, San Francisco
Haim Bresheeth, London
Jonathan Cook, Nazareth
Ghazi Falah, Akron, Ohio
Leila Farsakh, Boston
Islah Jad, Ramallah
Joseph Massad, New York
Ilan Pappe, Totnes, UK
Carlos Prieto del Campo, Madrid
Nadim Rouhana, Haifa
The London One State Group

Endorsed By:

Nahla Abdo, Ottawa
Rabab Abdul Hadi, San Francisco
Suleiman Abu-Sharkh, Southampton, UK
Tariq Ali, London
Samir Amin, Dakar
Gabriel Ash, Geneva, Switzerland
Mona Baker, Manchester, UK
James Bowen, Cork, Ireland
Daniel Boyarin, Berkeley
Lenni Brenner, New York City
Eitan Bronstein, Tel Aviv
Michael Chanan, London
Lawrence Davidson, West Chester, Pennsylvania
Uri Davis, Sakhnin
Raymond Deane, Dublin
Angelo D'Orsi, Turin
Haidar Eid, Gaza
Samera Esmeir, Berkeley
Claudine Faehndrich, Neuchatel, Switzerland
Arjan El Fassed, Utrecht
As'ad Ghanem, Haifa
Jess Ghannam, San Francisco
Ramon Grosfoguel, Berkeley
Laila al-Haddad, Gaza
Haifa Hammami, London
Alan Hart, Canterbury
Jamil Hilal, Ramallah
Isabelle Humphries, Cambridge, UK
Salma Jayyusi, Boston
Claudia Karas, Frankfurt
Ghada Karmi, London
Hazem Kawasmi, Ramallah
Joel Kovel, New York City
Ronit Lentin, Dublin, Ireland
Malcolm Levitt, Southampton, UK
Yosefa Loshitzky, London
Saree Makdisi, Los Angeles
Nur Masalha, London
Ugo Mattei, Turin
Sabine Matthes, Munich
Walter Mignolo, Raleigh-Durham
Yonat Nitzan-Green, Winchester, UK
Gian Paolo Calchi Novati, Pavia, Italy
Kathleen O'Connell, Belfast
Rajaa Zoa'bi O'mari, Haifa
One Democratic State Group, Gaza
Gabriel Piterberg, Los Angeles
Claudia Prestel, Leicester
Mazin Qumsiyeh, New Haven
Michael Rosen, London
Emir Sader, Buenos Aires/Rio de Janeiro
Guenter Schenk, Strasbourg
Jules Townshend, Manchester, UK
Danilo Zolo, Florence

---

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

No N what i meant was is the idea even being discussed by countries around the world as a possible solution?
I know what is discussed by groups, individuals and yes even some organizations that I belong to and work with here in Canada and abroad.

it is one thing for us to call for 1 state. it is another for a proposal to have been talked about

---

Your links are great. Your lists are great. Which country or world leader has endorsed the idea?

You provided a list of orgs and people who have signed on.

I did not even see Pres Carter's name on one of the lists

So I will ask again. Which world leader, government, foreign minister etc. is endorsing a 1 state solution?

I see lots of evidence of different versions of 2 state solutions.

The only basis for peace in the region is an immediate socialist revolution, both in Israel and the Occupied Territories, with no intervention by any foreign power, followed by the establishment of three provisional revolutionary governments (Israel, Gaza, West Bank) and a revolutionary municipal council in Golan, followed by constitutional assemblies, capped by the establishment of a federation with structure mirroring the relations between the Swiss central government and the cantons.

Now, it is (remotely) conceivable that such a scenario might actually be true - that is, that if implemented, it would be the only or one of the only ways to short-term peace in the region.

The problem is, if none of the significant protagonists are entertaining such a notion - or, more so, if each of them opposes it for their own reasons - then discussing it becomes very academic, or some might say, futile. Instead, one looks for solutions within the realm of compromise, based on the expressed needs and interests of the parties as they actually exist.

Let me give another example.

When my union goes into collective bargaining, it might be nice to tear up the existing collective agreement and replace it with a brand new one combining the finest contract clauses that workers anywhere have managed to garner. But we don't even propose such things, because it's a waste of time.

I think you explained it in a better way.

Someone who has the pull over both Israel public and elected officials and the Palestinian public and elected officials

Forget the diasporas of both. I am talking about someone who can talk to both sides.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
What's unrealistic is the default of defending the status quo and/or defending a two-state solution that has failed, now, for decades, to produce anything other than Bantustans and open air prisons for the Palestinians.

---

1. The status quo is indefensible. Occupation and aggression must end; the right of return must be addressed.

2. Two states - never been tried. The Palestinian Authority is not a "state"; it's some kind of puppet entity under military occupation and/or invasion and targeted assassination and airstrikes and walls and settlers and...

So I wouldn't be so quick to write off solutions that have never actually been tried.

What about a federal state? No kidding?

When the story scrolls off the front page then babblers should still be able to find it in in_cahoots.

Pappe makes it very clear that there is no intention in the Israeli political leadership and elites to bring the occupation to an end. Rather, the occupied territories - say, the West Bank for example - consists of two parts; that part in which the Palestinians are "allowed" to live (for the time being) and that part that Israel is building new settlements, appropriating and, eventually, carrying out a complete ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in it.

I agree that the Palestinian Authority doesn't measure up to a proper state. It is unable to defend itself, or the territory which it is supposed to administer, and the political future of such territory is under the control of Israel. These things, however, will never change under the status quo or some "two-state" solution.

A prison, whether under full lockdown (Gaza) or with some privileges given (West Bank, for the time being) is still a prison. And the warden has left (Gaza) so that collective punishment can be more efficiently carried out, or has continued to build "no go" zones inside the prison (West Bank) in which Palestinians are not allowed. These "no go" zones continue to expand with no end in sight.

In any case, Pappe, and others, argue that two states is an Israeli ruse. The plan is ... keep the infant state sickly and easily punishable indefinitely. OTOH, a consistent effort for a unitary and genuinely democratic state could get some traction. If we're speculating and all.

Two staters actually need to elaborate some route from the present to their goal. I just don't see it at all. There's no pressure on Israel to change from the current direction with that plan.

Again, OTOH: a world wide boycott, a civil disob. campaign, etc., might actually contribute to a united Palestinian refusal to cooperate with the occupier. The key problem is to strengthen the weaker side and give it some leverage.

Right now, as Pappe so wisely puts it, it doesn't even rise to the level of a conflict. When soldiers can rush into a house and force the inhabitants out at will at gunpoint, perhaps giving those who give them a dirty look the butt of a rifle for their troubles, when bulldozing homes are commonplace, when more and more lands are appropriated and made into "no go" areas for Palestinians, then that's not a conflict at all. It's just Israeli solidiers barking orders with the safety on their machine guns in the "off" position.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

In any case, Pappe, and others, argue that two states is an Israeli ruse.

---

It may be a ruse, but it chronologically precedes Israel. 1947.

quote:

---

a world wide boycott, a civil disob. campaign, etc., might actually contribute to a united Palestinian refusal to cooperate with the occupier.

---

Explain to me why such a movement could not have as its object Israeli withdrawal to pre-1967 lines.

Explain to me why its only aim could be a unitary state.

I don't get it.

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

...I don’t think that Israel, as it exists at the moment, is viable. I think the only viable solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a single state in which all Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druze and Druids and whatsoever have the same rights. It’s what we fought for in South Africa, And it’s what will have to be fought for in Israel. And people will jump up and scream: ‘no, we will never live with each other’. But living with each other is what has to be argued for. I think, it’s the only serious alternative. A Palestinian State is not possible. It would be a tiny little Bantustan run by a corrupt leadership, funded by the West and treated like an NGO. That is the PLO. That is the Palestinian Authority. It is not an authority, it is a joke. And the sooner it recognizes that it’s a joke and dissolves itself, the better. That’s what Hamas should do: they should not play this game, they should say ‘we dissolve the Palestinian Authority', it is not an authority, it is an outfit of the Israeli army. We dissolve all these bodies, we are now citizens of whatever entity there is in the region and deal with it. And then just live in their villages and towns, not trying to develop this fake apparatus of government, when that’s a joke, when they have no power at all and are treated like a joke. So all this is done to create a tiny, corrupt Palestinian elite. That’s why Hamas won the elections, because it is opposed to this. If it now capitulates to this, they will be finished”.

Q. Shouldn’t Palestinians give up the fight for a State and concentrate on the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland ?

“Yes, that’s my opinion. I am for a single-State solution. I think the Israelis have made any other alternative impossible. So in my opinion, that is what the Palestinians in Palestine and their movements outside (of Palestine) should do: they should fight for a single State and they should transform the PLO and Hamas into a giant civil rights and liberation movement, on the model of many movements in history. They should say ‘these are the rights we will fight for and we appeal to you not to be violent with us, as we are prepared not to be violent; we are prepared to fight politically for our goals and we’ll see where our struggle takes us’. Anything else will fail. As long as the United States supports the Israelis, these solutions will be difficult. If the US wanted to, they could within five years push a solution through, but they don’t want to, they will not do it. I think, we will have to take the initiative and say: end all this farce of negotiations and this farce of Mahmoud Abbas going to the Israelis to talk like a servant, trying to force Hamas to do the same. It doesn’t serve anybody’s interest. It completely debases the Palestinian cause”.

Q. Do you endorse the right of return of the Palestinian refugees and displaced to their homes and properties ?

“Of course, these rights are there. But these rights will be guaranteed only if there’s a new entity. The Israelis will not accept them”.

---

That's two successful examples. Let the "two staters" now provide some successful examples of their model.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Let the "two staters" now provide some successful examples of their model.

Two examples would be good for a start.

---

This isn't the "start", though. Israel has existed as an internationally recognized country for 60 years. It has been committing aggression, maintaining ethnocentric racist legal structures, illegally occupying foreign territories, carrying out ethnic cleansing... But the country exists. That is not to say that there should be no movement to change its nature and its scope. But to claim, as Tariq Ali does, that Israelis will simply dismantle their existing state after 5 years of U.S. pressure is dangerously idiotic.

So the problem with your challenge to the "two-staters" is that one state already exists, and beside it illegally occupied territories where the people have never established a state. Find a precedent for such a situation in history, and we can talk about "models". Meanwhile, talk about the existing reality, how to move forward, and who will be the protagonists of this forward movement.

quote:

---

A letter that President Bush personally delivered to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon four years ago has emerged as a significant obstacle to the president's efforts to forge a peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians during his last year in office. Ehud Olmert, the current Israeli prime minister, said this week that Bush's letter gave the Jewish state permission to expand the West Bank settlements that it hopes to retain in a final peace deal, even though Bush's peace plan officially calls for a freeze of Israeli settlements across Palestinian territories on the West Bank. In an interview this week, Sharon's chief of staff, Dov Weissglas, said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reaffirmed this understanding in a secret agreement reached between Israel and the United States in the spring of 2005, just before Israel withdrew from Gaza.

---

Refusing to deal with the Americans and Israelis could be argued would be a step forwards compared to the current (two state) nonsense.
The secret letter of President Bush

It is when the discussion begins to focus on 1 state being the only option that I voice my disagreement.

I think we are all in agreement that the status quo must end. I see the end by a viable, safe and prosperous 2 state solution with states living beside each other in peace and harmony.

[ 24 April 2008: Message edited by: Yibpl ]

"The Israel Air Force has dramatically escalated flights over Lebanese air space, in violation of international law.

The UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) says the daily number of Israeli air violations surged from 282 in February to 692 in March.

In the first two weeks of April the number has surged again to 476.

“The overflights constitute violations of Lebanese sovereignty and the Blue Line and continue to undermine the credibility of UNIFIL and the Lebanese Armed Forces,” the UN Assistant-Secretary-General for Political Affairs Angela Kane, told the Security Council on Wednesday night.

“The Government of Israel has continued to claim the flights are carried out for security reasons. My representatives in the region and I have regularly continued to reiterate our concern and call on Israel to cease the increasing number of overflights, which stand in violation of Security Council resolutions,” she said.

The Israeli flights over Lebanon have been going on for decades, despite international protests."

article

"Israel has existed as an internationally recognized country for 60 years. It has been committing aggression, maintaining ethnocentric racist legal structures, illegally occupying foreign territories, carrying out ethnic cleansing... But the country exists"

Palestine existed as well. So did Yugoslavia for that matter. I don't see Israel's present existence as a viable deterrent for a possible and rightful, future dismantling.

[ 25 April 2008: Message edited by: viigan ]