View Story | 199 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
through war against the state of Israel and that requires the destruction of that state, makes someone my enemy. Peace and reconciliation are possible only on the basis of both the Jews of Israel and the Arabs of Palestine being able to realize the rights to national self-determination. In other words, two states for two peoples.
Heathlander and another American agree on I-P Peace Plan.
by another American on Sun May 13, 2007 at 06:41:24 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
be achieved only by war, it completely negates Israeli's (most of whom were born in Israel) right to self determination. How exactly is that "justice"?
by Rigor Mortis on Sun May 13, 2007 at 07:53:25 AM PDT
a state with the West Bank being chopped up into four pieces by Israeli settlements.....
so, if you think a two state solution is the answer, then work on removing Israeli settlements from the West Bank, move the "barrier fence" to the side of the 1967 Green Line that is 100% Israelis property, and stop the occupation and economic embargo.
If those things are not done, there will be no two-state solution.
And while I hear may people say that the Palestinians want to destroy Israel, facts on the ground tell me it is actually quite the other way around.
(¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)
by dancewater on Sun May 13, 2007 at 08:46:38 AM PDT
be serious, please. No one is advocating war. No one is advocating "destruction". In fact, those who advocate a one-state solution are people concerned with justice, peace and democracy. There is no doubt that a single state, with equal rights for all its citizens is a noble goal. It is totally the opposite of everything you are trying to associate it with - death, destruction, and war.
The question is whether it can happen. I'd say no, and that's why I support, at least initially, a two-state solution. But those of us who support a two-state solution should not be ecstatic about it. A two-state solution means that a historic injustice will be left uncorrected. It will mean that the crime of ethnic cleansing will yet again have been rewarded. If it is the case that, unjust as it is, the two-state solution is the only way to peace, then fine, we should support it. But we should do so out of necessity, with reluctance and with a heavy heart.
Those who are not yet willing to give up on justice should certainly not be villified in the way you're attempting to do.
The Heathlander
by heathlander on Sun May 13, 2007 at 11:45:34 AM PDT
Just do a quick mental fast-forward as to what the first 5 years of somehow creating and then maintaining the state she proposes would entail.
If you're lying to yourself, that doesn't mean you're telling the truth to others.
by unfounded on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:15:00 PM PDT
Is very explicitly advocating war - it's saying, i will not make a deal to stop the fighting, instead I will fight until we have the whole thing.
There's no other way to read it.
by unfounded on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:15:57 PM PDT
Both a one-state and a two-state solution could conceivably work. I support the former ideally, and the latter secondarily. Either would be preferable to the status quo.
...i realize now / you were not to be blamed, my love / you didn't choose your name, my love...
by Diaries on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:24:46 PM PDT
as a stop-gap on the way to Palestinian control of Israel.
And to think, I call right-wingers dishonest when they claim it's not worth conceding land for peace.
by unfounded on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:37:47 PM PDT
If you can't see Palestinians and Israelis living together without "controlling" each other, that's something you'll have to work out on your own. I don't view a marriage between a man and a woman as a man having "control" over a woman. Neither do I view a one-state arrangement as some perverse form of domination and subjugation, as you seem to.
by Diaries on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:40:34 PM PDT
disgusting comment from Mattes
How did I live without him?
by Pumpkinlove on Sun May 13, 2007 at 02:57:23 PM PDT
What's wrong with saying that, if a two-state solution goes well, then we'd like to see perhaps a federal system and maybe even a merger into a single state? It's wouldn't be a compulsory condition to accepting the two-state settlement. It would just be good if it happened.
by heathlander on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:37:29 PM PDT
"control" of Israel is a silly thing to say. See the comment by Diaries.
by heathlander on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:38:08 PM PDT
and works for, an end-of-conflict two-state peace settlement and who also intends peacefully and in the context of that peace settlement to try to persuade the citizens of both Israel and Palestine to join together in a single state.
My problem is with people who, by opposing a two-state peace settlement (the only peace settlement I can envisage being attainable in my lifetime or that of my children), thereby make themselves enemies of peace.
by another American on Sun May 13, 2007 at 06:43:39 PM PDT
So I suppose Arafat was "advocating war" when he rejected the bantustan solution offered at Camp David in 2000? Of course not - the Palestinians are totally legitimate in demanding that their legal rights are respected. It was Barak, in 2000, who "advocated war" when he refused to offer a reasonable (reasonable by the standard of the law, not by the standard of Israel's desires) settlement.
It is certainly the case that the one-state solution would be better, ideally, than the two-state solution. But I agree with Prof. Finkelstein when he says that Israel would have to change so radically before it would accept a one-state solution that to continue to demand it is to effectively condemn another two generations of Palestinian refugees to lives of misery and despair.
I can't do that, and so I support the two-state settlement. But, as I say, I do that out of reluctance, not with glee.
In any event, it's up to the Palestinians to decide for themselves. We are not acting as diplomats here. We are analysts, and as an analyst it is certainly legitimate to advocate, as umkahlil does, in favour of a one-state settlement.
by heathlander on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:30:38 PM PDT
The bantustan thing has been debunked dozens of times here, so I won't bother to do so again.
But the telling detail is that Arafat walked away from the talks. He didn't offer a single counter-proposal on anything, very similarly to Umkahlil's attitude here when she is presented with ideas for peace.
So yeah, he walked away, chose the intifada instead, and they lost. I'm sympathetic to the Palestinians as a people but absolutely not as a political movement - they're reaping what their leaders have sown.
That's ok, give it 10 years and we'll have a new wall along a more appropriate path, whether the Palestinians "approve" of it or not.
by unfounded on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:35:02 PM PDT
it hasn't been "debunked", but that's not the point here. For the sake of this argument, pretend that my characterisation of Camp David is accurate.
The point it shows, and the point I was making, is that it's surely perverse to accuse one side of "advocating war" simply because they insist that their legal rights be recognised. It is surely more accurate to accuse those who are denying people their legal rights of "advocating war".
by heathlander on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:38:26 PM PDT
and one side started the fighting. The same side lost and now doesn't seem to be any closer to making concessions than before.
Both sides have to compromise here.
by unfounded on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:17:01 PM PDT
In 2000? If so, then you keep missing the point. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned Camp David at all, because that's not the point I was making. It was just meant to be an example.
The point is that one should surely condemn those who seek to deny others their legal rights, not those who stand up for them.
(And saying that "both sides have to compromise" is meaningless. If we view it through the only framework that matters - that of international law - Israel is being asked to compromise on precisely nothing. What we're all discussing is simply to what extent the Palestinians should compromise.)
by heathlander on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:34:15 PM PDT
then I'm sure you know that occupation in and of itself is not illegal.
There's very little precedent for an occupying power willfully giving up its military advantage without some kind of agreement. I can't think of any such case offhand in modern history.
Israel is being asked to compromise on something pretty substantial, particularly considering the stance of the current Palestinian government, such as it is.
by Rigor Mortis on Sun May 13, 2007 at 02:14:24 PM PDT
as are all Security Council resolutions. It is also a fundamental principle of international law that it is "inadmissable to acquire territory by war". Hence, Israel must withdraw.
by heathlander on Sun May 13, 2007 at 02:47:54 PM PDT
If you're familiar with the deliberations that lead to it, and have actually read the text, you'll see it doesn't require Israel to withdraw from ALL the territories it gained control of during the 1967 war. This is reflected both in the English and the French texts.
There is no instrument in international law that says occupation in and of itself is illegal. This is a fact.
It is "inadmissible to acquire territory by war" means you can't annex territory, it doesn't mean you can't occupy it. In most wars someone occupies someone else's land. That's how wars go. So the annexation of East Jerusalem for example is illegal, and most (if not all) countries don't recognize it, and rightly so.
By the way, I agree that Israel should withdraw. I think this should happen as part of a comprehensive peace deal. Just like what happened with Egypt.
by Rigor Mortis on Sun May 13, 2007 at 03:18:45 PM PDT
otherwise it is the de facto acquiring of territory by law. And yeh, I'm familiar with the whole 242 "debate" - it's clear what was meant. At the most, what was talked about were "mutual" and "minor" border alterations.
Occupations are only OK during the conflict. You don't continue occupying after the conflict is over, otherwise that's de facto annexation. Therefore, in the context of a peace settlement, Israel has to withdraw, in accordance with the principle of international law that it is inadmissable to acquire territory by war.
So I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing. The point is not that Israel's occupation has been instrinsically illegal thus far, but that a peace settlement will require it, under international law, to withdraw. Anything else is annexation, illegal under international law.
That's what I said. Israel is being asked to compromise on precisely and exactly nothing.
by heathlander on Sun May 13, 2007 at 03:25:58 PM PDT
Therefore, in the context of a peace settlement, Israel has to withdraw, in accordance with the principle of international law that it is inadmissable to acquire territory by war.
See my comment right above yours, last paragraph.
by Rigor Mortis on Mon May 14, 2007 at 01:26:14 AM PDT
which is why I said that I'm not sure what you're arguing against. What you said was actually in complete agreement with what I said, but you presented it as a disagreement, hence my confusion.
by heathlander on Mon May 14, 2007 at 08:41:48 AM PDT
your characterization of Camp Davis is correct, you fail to analyze Arafat's rejection of Clinton Peace Parameters.
by another American on Sun May 13, 2007 at 06:46:19 PM PDT
process. That was just an example of a totally different point.
by heathlander on Sun May 13, 2007 at 10:55:15 PM PDT
is a noble goal if you think it can happen peacefully.
Otherwise, you're just prolonging the conflict by putting false hope in people's hearts and making them dig in their heels waiting to get their "rights" (I'm still waiting for someone to show me the legal instrument that says people can inherit refugee status or can be refugees from a place they never set foot in, but that's for another discussion).
by Rigor Mortis on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:27:33 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 199 comments