Skip to main content

View Diary: Israel's Protests Are Eroding the Principal of Separation - Show Possibility of Arab/Jewish State (109 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  Very mixed feelings about this. I've been (6+ / 0-)

      hearing this idea for a while (but not in the context of the protests).  
      I really have to take many steps back and consider it -- which I've avoided doing.
      But I figure if I have trouble, and I'm pretty leftist and open to the Palestinian cause, then most people in my (older) generation would be utterly opposed to it.  However, younger people, people my daughter's age (in their 20's) might be less negative.
      One issue -- I remember back from my sociology grad school days that a society with 2 big populations is much less likely to meld than one with a single population or one with lots of cross-cutting groups.  So I have to wonder if a single state would always be at war within itself.  I also wonder whether Palestinians, Ethiopian and darker skinned Jews would be kept in underclass status.  Whereas a Palestinian state would allow more social mobility at least for the Palestinians.

      If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

      by Tamar on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 09:53:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  as someone approximately (10+ / 0-)

        in your daughter's age group, I am definitely not ok with a one state outcome.  It denies two peoples the right of self determination, not to mention a receipie for perpetual conflict and possible civil war.

        What is needed is a Jewish and democratic Israel at approximately the '67 borders alongside a Palestinian state.

        •  Was going to say the same thing. (9+ / 0-)

          I sure don't feel too young these days, but I'm 'only' 32 in a few weeks...

          Heh.

          Concur.  And very well said.

        •  which is why I said "might" be less negative. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fizziks, PeterHug

          I would guess that my younger daughter's Hebrew & Sunday school teachers, all in their 20's, would not be in favor of it at all.  (and it's a Reform temple)

          My husband is with you on this, I'm sure -- he's said it many times.  I'm a little more open to it, but the idea hurts.  

          If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

          by Tamar on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 11:14:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  there you have nailed one of the Gordian Knots (5+ / 0-)

          precisely: exactly what does "approximately the 67 borders" really mean?  I am reminded of an old joke about Begin and defensible borders that when he spoke of defensible borders for Israel, he was not referring to the Dardanelles.  He was referring to the English Channel.  I forget what political situation made the Dardanelles relevant to the joke

        •  About that (6+ / 0-)
          It denies two peoples the right of self determination, not to mention a receipie for perpetual conflict and possible civil war.

          The settlers would cause a civil war at any attempt to remove them, and the government keeps authorizing more settlement housing.  Take a look at a map of the West Bank as it now is and show where a Palestinian state could go.

          You might ask the government why it is denying two peoples the right of self-determination.  It has appeared to me that the state of Israel is intent on suicide.

          When shit happens, you get fertilized.

          by ramara on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 07:19:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That entirely depends on how you define (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          capelza, stargaze, sturunner, Rusty Pipes

          self-determination.  Most democratic nations manage to have self-determination and manage to have multiple ethnic groups within its borders.  

          For example, France used to be a conglomerate of various ethnic groups, all not considered to be French because "French" was defined as anyone living inside the borders of France.  People in the south of France are very different from Parisians.  Look at Spain - there is not one dominant ethnic group inside of this.

          Israel needs to look outside of its traditional views of what it means to be Israeli, and change this definition to be a national identity instead of a religious/ethnic one.  Being Jewish and being Israeli does not need to be synonymous.   And doing so excludes the 20% of Israelis that are not Jewish.

      •  One-state solution: Peace & Harmony (5+ / 0-)

        Just like in Lebanon.

        [for the sarcastically challenged]

      •  as I remember Obama's commitment to a (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Christy1947

        Palestinian state was that it was to be contiguous, economically viable and sovereign.  ITMT I am seeing suggestions of a 3 state solution as some folks are pointing to the British partition of India led to two discrete Pakistans which were not viable as a single governmental unit.

        From reports on IBA TV it appears the government is even more obdurate in maintaining the status quo and increasing development in the OT as compared to meeting the demands of the protestors with the recent attacks used as justification for using any budgetary reconsideration as a instrument to increase IDF funding and to speed up missile defenses in the South

        •  Does being economically viable include (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mochajava13, PeterHug

          being able to control its own imports and exports, and its own borders?  We know that Gaza does not.  Does it mean being able to defend those borders?  How will a de-militarized Palestine defend its borders from incursions?  

          These questions are not even considered among the sticky ones.

          When shit happens, you get fertilized.

          by ramara on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 07:26:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  As events of the last week have shown (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            volleyboy1, JNEREBEL, JayinPortland

            the bigger issue is whether a Palestinian state can control its borders (and population) to prevent excursions.  It was an excursion that led to this weeks incursions.

            In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

            by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 08:32:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But Gaza doesn't (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              capelza, PeterHug, Lefty Coaster

              control its borders.  Israel does.  

              When shit happens, you get fertilized.

              by ramara on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 10:27:25 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Maybe you have information, Paul, that I haven't (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rusty Pipes, PeterHug

              found yet - if so, kindly link to it so we all can see it. That is, who those people were, exactly and specifically, who shot up the buses and laid the buried explosives and how they got themelves and their arms where the attack occurred. Even NYT at this stage is only saying that the Israeli government believes that somebody in Gaza did it, without proof that I have found being cited, and that matter has been vanished away into the fog of matters not pursued in the brawl over IDF shooting Egyptian cops who were in Egypt when shot.

              And there is a teeny weeny practical problem with the 'excursion' issue.

              From JPost,  here, on the 20th of August,     came this:

              The fact that the PRC was behind the attacks on Thursday is another demonstration of how Hamas is losing control over the Gaza Strip as a growing number of terrorist groups – some affiliated with al-Qaida and global jihad elements – reject its authority and believe now is the time to begin escalating the front with Israel.

              At the same time, though, the IDF does not believe the PRC could have carried out such a sophisticated attack – which included a number of cells and close to two dozen heavily armed operatives – without Hamas knowing, atleast to some extent. For that reason, Israel ultimately holds Hamas responsible for the attack and the continued rocket fire into Israel.

              One of the purposes of the infamous blockade often tooted by certain  Israeli pols has been to weaken the  political control of Hamas in Gaza, so as perhaps to get someone else more amenable into governing position. That blockage seems to work better for spices and medicine than it does missiles, despite the proclamation that arms are all that is intended to be interdicted, as the last weekend indicates.

              Now, the alleged  and desired weakening of Hamas in Gaza has appeared, evidence being the unwillingness of some militants to honor the ceasefire which Hamas negotiated which was supposed to take effect on Sunday evening, Gaza time or perhaps Israeli time (they have a daylight savings disagreement, it seems),  and the consequence is that militants more militarily hostile and able  now having less control from Hamas and are now able to do what some of them did after the Bus Massacre, without Hamas being able to stop them.

              Apparently the pols who wanted so much control over Gaza without responsibility for the consequences, did not realize that weakening Hamas for some purposes might also weaken them for other purposes those doing the weakening did not intend. A second round of the same thinking, the first having been to encourage Hamas several decades ago as a counterweight to Fatah, and look what they got for that.

              Another example relevant here is the limitations in the Israeli Egyptian peace treaty which severely limited the military and police forces available for Egypt to use in northern Sinai, which meant fewer folk to deal with the smuggling and other issues that have appeared, including possibly the Bus Massacre, if anyone ever bothers to figure out literally who did it and how and when they got to where they did it.

              There are consequences of attempting to make Hamas so weak, and one of them  is the absence of a sufficiently strong police force to enforce little things like the ceasefire. One cannot both insist that Hamas or any other governing body be too weak to shoot at you, and also insist they be strong enough to keep other people from shooting at you. And now that the cat is out of the bag on what Hamas cannot do in Gaza, this ain't gonna get any easier.

      •  About that last sentence (0+ / 0-)

        It's not like there has been substantial social mobility for Syrians or Egyptians, so I don't think having a state of your own necessarily helps things.  

        Let us resolutely study and implement the resolutions of the 46th Convention of the Democratic Party!

        by Rich in PA on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 04:55:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hey Tamar...I had very mixed feelings writing it (6+ / 0-)

        as it's not what I've been working toward for all these years, and there are many examples just within Israel that would counter what I wrote above.

        But it's an observation I and others have begun to witness. At the very least, it should be noted that this cooperation between Jews and Arabs is positive.

        I'm "THE" Troubadour," and not "Troubadour" without the article. We're different people here at DK :)

        by David Harris Gershon on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 04:57:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have mixted feelings about One State too (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PeterHug

          But its the only real alternative to a permanent occupation regime IMHO.

          Plutocracy too long tolerated leaves democracy on the auction block, subject to the highest bidder ~ BILL MOYERS

          by Lefty Coaster on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 03:40:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I understood that you were observing, not (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PeterHug

          stating desired outcomes.  But it brought to a head lots of things I've been vaguely hearing -- first on Daily Kos about 2 years ago (that really was the first time I heard of a "unified" state), and then from friends and our daughter talking about the difficulty of having a contiguous viable Palestinian state.
          I think because of those problems, some right wingers who have opposed Palestinian independence in the past are now seeing it as the only way to make sure there continues to be a Jewish state.  But many of them, IMO, don't have any real interest in fairness or in Palestine being a viable state.  (if it descends into chaos, they can say -- see we told you those people couldn't run a country!).  
          In any case, my dismay was not at your interpretation but because of the way I see a plan for two states going down the tubes.  Ramara has a comment in here that says it very well:
          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          The more I learn, the more pessimistic I get.

          If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

          by Tamar on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 04:53:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I do not have a horse in this race... (0+ / 0-)

          the eventual solution to this slow-motion catastrophe will (must) be worked out by the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves.

          I don't know if the result will be a one-state, a two-state, or some strange hybrid coming out of this - all I know is that what cannot go on, will not.  And the current trends regarding Israel, the Occupied Territories, and the ongoing conflict are not sustainable.

          I hope that the outcome of all this is a nation or nations who can all be reasonably functional, and reasonably secure - because if that is not the result, Israel will not be a successful state going into the future.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site