Green Party supports Palestinian Rights

In fact, the Green Party supports equal rights for everyone, only it’s the Palestinians who are getting screwed over right now. That’s why the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign is holding an event today, Monday 16 April 2007, with none other than Joel Kovel, the Brooklyn psychoanalyst turned peace activist and Green Party luminary. If everyone recalls, Kovel lost out to Ralph Nader in 2000 as the Green’s presidential candidate.

Kovel, however, is still around now pumping up his recent book, Overcoming Zionism. Essentially, the message is, "get over it," that is, get over Zionism, because Zionism doesn’t a democracy make.

I got this announcement about it, since disappeared.

Public meeting with JOEL KOVEL

it read. It indicated that Joel Kovel was speaking his way through Scotland starting today and continuing all week in various cities. Still time if you can get a plane reservation.

Go here for details: http://www.scottishpsc.org.uk/...

Joel Kovel joined the Green Party in 1990. And beside being a presidential candiate in 2000, in 1998 he was the Green Party candidate for US Senator from New York.

His pitch goes,

Greens, Calling for Palestinian Rights, Urge Divestment from Israel

The Green Party of the United States (GPUS) publicly calls for divestment from and boycott of the State of Israel until such time as the full individual and collective rights of the Palestinian people are realized.

www.gp.org

To his credit, Kovel has engaged in struggles for peace and justice since the Vietnam War era. He has worked within the antiwar and anti-nuclear movements, the solidarity movements in Central America and the Caribbean, the movements for democratic media, and, increasingly, for ecological transformation, all while writing presciptions on the New York mental health scene as a psychiatrist.

His book, Overcoming Zionism, came out just a month ago. In it, he declares that he is for Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine. It is the subtitle of the book.

However, lest anyone think that Kovel is out there on the limb, he is really pumping the Green Party agenda to what he thinks is its logical conclusion: one state. Israelis and Arabs loving each other as countrymen and women? Psychiatrists are really weirdoes. Here is the Green agenda, in part, just in case it’s not possible to "overcome."

A Real Road to Peace in the Middle East

The Green Party of the United States recognizes that our greatest contribution to peace in the Middle East will come through our impact on U.S. policy in the region.
Our commitments to ecological wisdom, social justice, grass-roots democracy, and non-violence compel us to oppose U.S. government support for "friendly" regimes, both in Israel and in the Arab world, whenever those regimes violate human rights, international law, and existing treaties. Those same values compel us to support popular movements for peace and demilitarization, especially those that reach across the lines of conflict to engage both Palestinians and Israelis of good will.

(blah blah blah. Let’s get to the meat)

a. We reaffirm the right of self-determination for both Palestinians and Israelis, which precludes the self-determination of one at the expense of the other. We recognize the historical and contemporary cultural diversity of Israeli-Palestinian society, including the religious heritage of Jews, Christians, Muslims and others. This is a significant part of the rich cultural legacy of all these peoples and it must be respected. To ensure this, we support equality before international law rather than appeals to religious faith as the fair basis on which claims to the land of Palestine-Israel are resolved.

b. Blah, blah, blah...turn the U.S. government towards a new policy, which itself recognizes the equality, humanity, and civil rights of Jews, Muslims, Christians, and all others who live in the region, and which seeks to build confidence in prospects for secular democracy. (this is novel stuff coming from America, isn't it?)

c. We reaffirm the right and feasibility of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in Israel.

d. We reject the U.S.' unbalanced financial and military support of Israel while Israel occupies Palestinian lands. We call on the U.S. President and Congress to end all military aid to Israel, shifting much of that aid to ecologically appropriate local projects for economic and social development for Palestinians as well as Israelis. Until Israel withdraws from the Occupied Territories and dismantles the separation wall, we call on our government to suspend all other foreign aid to Israel as well.

e. We demand that the U.S. government end its veto of Security Council resolutions pertaining to Israel. We urge our government to join with the U.N. to secure the withdrawal of Israel to the 1967 boundaries and to withhold its grants and loans to Israel until this withdrawal is undertaken.

f. We recognize the limited natural resources in Palestine-Israel and the necessity of creating an Arab/Israeli commission to negotiate the sharing of water by both nationalities.

Read the rest here. It is merely about things democratic and not of much importance, except maybe Jerusalem as the capital of both countries. It’s all very legal and the Greens want America to make up with the UN. After the WMD foul up and a year of Bolton, the question is, will they take us back?

http://www.gp.org/...

•  Think Green

  Vote Dem.

  by bink on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:04:21 AM PDT

  •  Clarifying

    I'm sympathetic to the Greens, but I would not vote for one for national office unless he or she was like Bernie Sanders and pledged to caucus with the Democrats once elected.

    The way our system works, all liberal or progressive candidates must be in the same party -- or close enough -- in order for their platform to have a chance of success when it comes to enacting legislation.

    Maybe better than the Green Party would be a Green Caucus of congresspeople who are "Green in spirit," but Democratic by party.

    by bink on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:12:31 AM PDT

    •  That's

      actually not a bad idea.

      by kestrel9000 on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:21:51 AM PDT

    •  Greens are protest party with good ideas

      I will vote Democratic, as long as I don't have to protest Hillary buying the nomination.

      by Opinionated Ed on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:54:58 AM PDT

•  Tips or flames.

  Everyone's opinion welcome. Just don't expect a reply to everything.

  by tiztiq on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:05:27 AM PDT

  •  Thanks to everyone for coming by.

    by tiztiq on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:53:42 AM PDT

•  Go here

  http://www.democrats.org/

  by hazzcon on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:08:50 AM PDT

  •  That's the place.

    With ya buddy. Lot a Greens don't waste the vote. Like bink says, think Green vote Dem.

    by tiztiq on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:14:48 AM PDT

    •  I think

      we should adopt most all Green positions and make them Democratic positions so all my Green friends can feel better about voting for Democrats.

      by hazzcon on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:20:18 AM PDT

      •  Love the Greens.

        I vote Dem, but if the Dems would take up more Green positions, we would be a better party.

        by tiztiq on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:57:36 AM PDT

•  I know it seems like a radical

  position, but I agree with the idea of one state.  I don't see how anything else is going to work or be equitable.  The deal proposed in Clinton's last year was not fair and had to fail.  If that is the best we can do with a two state solution, one state is the only solution.
  Divestment is also a perfectly valid way to force change.

  by TeresaInPa on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:13:51 AM PDT

  •  In the best of all worlds.....

    wouldn't it be nice.

    by tiztiq on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:15:34 AM PDT

•  Ho ho ho.

  

  by kestrel9000 on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:20:32 AM PDT

•  one-state: the eradicationist solution

  Once again, the one state solution has just three little flaws: the Palestinians don't want it, the Israelis don't want it, and it couldn't possibly work.

  Why, given its obvious unworkability, are there still people who seriously suggest it? Simple. It's a polite way of saying "I want Israel gone" without actually having to say it directly.

  by zemblan on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:31:42 AM PDT

  •  How can Israel be gone?

    There for 60 years. Israel isn't going any where. I agree it is all very idealistic. But one can hope.

    by tiztiq on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:43:45 AM PDT

    •  one can hope

      One can hope, or one can hope sensibly. The one-state solution is about as likely to happen as a merger between Iraq and Iran, and would go as well. But it does carry within it something that some people dream about: no more State of Israel. And that dream alone is enough for the one-state meme to live on in spite of its absurdity.

      by zemblan on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:52:21 AM PDT

      •  I wouldn't be so sure...

        ...you won't see a merger between Iran and most of Iraq, zemblan.

        by Jay Elias on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:03:17 AM PDT

        •  so make it Iraq, Iran, and Texas n/t

          by zemblan on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:07:11 AM PDT

          •  Texans are hard to get along with.

            BIGGGGG Egos, I hear. Bigger than everyone, everything.

            by tiztiq on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:59:44 AM PDT

•  The Need for Two States

  I support a two state solution, with a strong and viable state for Palestinians.

  The idea of one state with "Israeli and Palestianins loving each other" is a nice idea, but I'm afraid that a country that included Likud and Hamas would end up looking a lot more like Iraq right now.

  Also, I and many others believe there should be a Jewish homeland.  When the Nazis came to power, many, many Jews died because no country would take them in.  After that, many people came to believe that Jews would be safe in the world only when there was a Jewish state committed to the survival of the Jewish people.

  A one state solution that become in effect a Palestinian state because of larger Palestinian birth rates would not be the Jewish state many of us believe in.

  by absalom2 on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:32:41 AM PDT

  •  There's a lot to say for two states.

    Trouble is, I think, the right wing in Israel is going for broke. They want the whole banana. They want one state called Israel. That ain't going to work.

    by tiztiq on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:40:05 AM PDT

  •  Umm...

    Birhrate are affected by health education and security.  There is a reason the Israeli birth rate is lower, they have it and the Palesinians don't.

    If we had a well educated healthy world the population would be dropping not climbing.  

    So the "outbreeding" argument is really a crock.

    by Demena on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:41:38 AM PDT

    •  High Birth Rates

      are caused by lots of things, including religiousity and oppression.  There's no telling how long it will take for things to change.

      But in any case, if every Palestinian in the area were added to the state of Israel, it might well cease to be a Jewish state today.

      That's not a "crock."  And it's not something Israel will, or in my view should, agree to.

      by absalom2 on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:45:43 AM PDT

      •  Israelis need to get more procreative.

        I'm not suggesting a contest, but it might help getting over these fears.

        by tiztiq on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:51:52 AM PDT

      •  Absalom

        Can I ask you a hypothetical?  I hope so.  This is just a thought exercise and not meant to be a slur on anyone.

        Supposing that a new great religious leader arose, not necessarily a 'holy' man but one with great wisdom and presence or if you want to be pessamistic a demagogue.

        Supposing this person had great success in the world in general but more particularly imagine if he had great success in Israel.  Maybe some think he is the Messiah, maybe he is the Messiah or maybe he is something entirely different.  Maybe it requires converting and maybe it doesn't.

        But lets just hypothesise for a moment that a significant number of Israel's population adopt the teaching of this person and a significant number don't.  Suppose this person even obtains a poitical majority.

        How would you feel about this?  Would it still be a Jewish state?  Should this possiblility be circumvented in some way?  Should it be encouraged?  Do you know where you would find yourself in that situation?

        I'm not trying to provoke you, annoy you or offend you.  There is something here that I clearly need to understand and currently I don't.  That is why I ask these questions.

        by Demena on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:22:42 AM PDT

        •  It Is Annoying

          Because for much of Jewish history, non-Jews have been saying that the solution is for them to convert to another religion.

          That's what the Inquisition, to take one well-known example, was about.

          So, I don't think you'll find many Jews who want to play out hypotheticals with you about, What if the Jews would only stop being Jews.

          by absalom2 on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:52:44 AM PDT

          •  No

            I didn't mean that at all.  And annoying or not I am trying to understand.  It isn't as if I don't have a dog in the race because my maternal grandmother was Jewish or at least apparently so as in one of the two photographs I have seen of her she was wearing a star of david.  Sp please forgive me if I really want to know.

            This can't be about being Israeli.  That is just a nationality, this has to be more about identity about being something called Jewish which is an ethnic group, a religion, both and neither in different circumstances.

            Ok, different tack.  Do you find the following true?  Israel is not a religious state but a democratic country (state) where the majority of people (voters) are of a self-identified group called Jews.

            If not, what is it?

            If that it what it is, then what happens if each of the following occurs;
            (1) The majority is lost
            (2) The self-identification changes
            (3) It becomes part of some supra-national body (like the EU) where a degree of autonomy is lost?

            And more importantly;
            Should these be prevented?
            What means are legitimate to prevent them?

            by Demena on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:33:41 AM PDT

  •  The problem being that Israel has gotten very

    powerful at the expense of many other people. Many of whom were innocent.

    by mattes on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:59:53 AM PDT

    •  It's the sad reality

      People suffer for the decisions of their leadership. When those decisions are as consistently bad and as consistently destructive as what the Palestinians have had to put up with for the last sixty years from their own "leaders," then the suffering is much, much worse.

      The Palestinian state has been within their reach again and again. They have refused it every time, and for the same reason each time: because they didn't want a state of their own unless it also came bundled with the destruction of Israel as well. For some reason, that was a concession Israel has been unable to grant, even when disguised as the "one-state solution."

      by zemblan on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:04:38 AM PDT

      •  Information, copyright approved:

        Just see it once from the other side:

        Why did Arabs reject the proposed UN GA partition plan which split Palestine into Jewish and Arab states?
        Post Your Comment! 5 comments eMail to a friend

        למאמר בעברית

        Posted on AUGUST-10-2001

        The 1947 UN GA proposed partition plan of Palestine is often used by Israelis and Zionists to obscure facts from those new to the argument. As demonstrated below, the myth has been concocted to legitimize Israel in the eyes of many Jews and Western people. It should be noted that each of the facts below can be independently verified either from the Zionist archives in Jerusalem, or from the British Mandate books.

        The best way to present the facts concerning this question is by asking the following questions:

           *

             Are you aware that Palestine's Jewish population was under 8% of the total population as of 1914? (Righteous Victims, p. 83) It should be noted that the mass majority of the Jews residing in Palestine were not citizens of the country, but they recently fled anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia.
             
           *

             Are you aware that in 1914 Jewish land ownership in Palestine was under 2%?
             
           *

             Despite the active British assistance to establish a "Jewish National home" in Palestine (based on the British commitment in the Balfour Declaration), Palestine's Jewish population in 1947 was increased to 33% of its total population. (Righteous Victims, p. 83). Click here for a map illustrating Palestine's population distribution per district as of 1946. Again, prior to the 1948 war many of the Jews in Palestine were not recognized as legal citizens by the Government of Palestine, however, they mostly maintained citizenship of their respective countries, such as Russian, Polish, Romanian, and Germany citizenships.
             
             It's worth noting that even after five decades of ethnic cleansing, occupation, and dispossession, the demographic ratio between Palestinians (8.5 million) and Israeli Jews (4.5-5 million) is still the same as it was in December 1947, which was (and still is) 2 to 1 in favor of the Palestinian people. However, for Israel to maintain its democratic "Jewish state", and above all its "Jewish character", it opted to ETHNICALLY CLEANSE 80% of the Palestinian people out of their homes, farms, businesses.
             
           *

             Are you aware that Jewish land ownership in Palestine was under 7% as of 1947? (Benny Morris, p. 170) Click here for a map illustrating Palestine's land ownership per district as of 1945.
             
           *

             Are you aware that the United States of America arm twisted the arms of dozens of small nations to get their support for the partitioning of Palestine? For example, Greece and France were threatened with a foreign aid cutoff, Liberia was threatened with a rubber embargo plus Firestone Company's president threatened to revoke his company's planned expansion in Liberia, bribing several Latin American countries by hinting at the possibility that the U.S. might fund the construction of a Pan-American highway, ... etc. (Righteous Victims p. 184 , Jerusalem Post, and America And The Founding Of Israel p. 141-143)
             
           *

             Are you aware that two US Supreme Court justices, Frank Murphy and Felix Frankfurter, contacted the Philippine's ambassador in Washington D.C. and sent telegrams to the Philippine's president, Carlos Rojas, warning that a vote against the proposed partition plan would alienate millions of Americans. Ten senators also cabled Rojas (Jerusalem Post).
             
           *

             Are you aware that the Jewish Agency budgeted a million dollars for its own bribery campaign? The money allocation appeared in the Jewish Agency's budget as "irregular political activity." (One Palestine Complete, p. 496)
             
           *

             Are you aware that the Zionist leaders enjoyed a clandestine advantage by BUGGING the rooms of the UN Special Committee On Palestine (UNSCOP), and they knew what every committee member and witness was saying? (Righteous Victims, p. 182)
             
           *

             Are you aware that in March 1948 the United States, along with China and France, was withdrawing from its earlier commitments to partition Palestine, and was pressing for "trusteeship" - an extension of Great Power rule- in Palestine beyond May 15th, 1948? (Benny Morris, p. 61) And on March 19th, 1948, Ben-Gurion responded to the idea of UN trusteeship in a press conference in Tel-Aviv with as follows:

               "It is we who will decide the fate of Palestine. We cannot agree to any sort of Trusteeship, permanent or temporary. The Jewish State exists because we defend it." (Israel: A History, p. 165)

           It should be noted that since November 1947 the UN GA has failed to reaffirm the 1947 UN GA proposed partition plan.
           

           *

             Are you aware that the 20th Zionist Congress, which convened in Zurich in August 1937, almost UNANIMOUSLY REJECTED the British proposed partition plan of Palestine (which became known as the Peel Commission Partition plan)? (Israel: A History, p. 88, and One Palestine Complete, p. 414). Although the proposed Peel Commission's partition plan was rejected because the areas allocated to the "Jewish state" was "too small," the concept of partitioning the country was adopted by the 20th Zionist Congress. Click here to view the map proposed by the Peel Commission which was rejected by the 20th Zionist Congress, and click here to view a map proposed by the U.N. GA in 1947 for the partition of Palestine. While inspecting both maps, note the following:
             
             1) The Jewish population in Palestine as of 1937 was under 27% of the total population.
             2) The Jewish population in Palestine as of 1947 was under 33% of the total population.
             3) The Negev Desert was populated with Zionist Jews only in few isolated colonies.
             4) The Peel Commission allocated the most fertile regions of Palestine to the "Jewish state," which included all of Galilee and a much wider area in the coastal region compared to the areas proposed by the UN GA in 1947.
             5) The 1947 UN GA proposed Partition plan did not advocate compulsory population transfer (ethnic cleansing) for Palestinians out of the areas allocated to the "Jewish State", where Palestinians made up 45% of the total population. On the contrary, compulsory population transfer was a major pillar for the success of the Peel Commission Partition plan.
             
             We call upon your sense of fairness while contemplating the following questions:
             
             1) If the Peel Commission plan had been accepted by the Zionists in 1937, how many Jews might have been saved from the Nazi holocaust? In that respect, it's worth quoting Ben-Gurion, who wrote twenty years later:  

               "Had partition [referring to the Peel Commission partition plan] been carried out, the history of our people would have been different and six million Jews in Europe would not have been killed---most of them would be in Israel" (One Palestine Complete, p. 414).
                 

           2) Why is the rejection of the 1937 Peel Partition plan justifiable according to many Zionists, but the Arabs' rejection of the 1947 UN GA Partition plan is not?
             

           *

             To give a different perspective on the issue, it's worth contemplating what Moshe Sharett, the 1st Israeli Foreign Minister, said in justification of why the Palestinian people would reject any Partition to their country. Sharett stated behind closed doors to the Zionist Actions Committee on April 22nd, 1937:  

               "...in contrast to us they [Palestinian Arabs] would lose totally that part of Palestine which they consider to be an Arab country and are fighting to keep it such ... They would lose the richest part of Palestine [referring Peel Commission Partition plan]; they would lose major Arab assets, the orange plantations, the commercial and industrial centers and the most important sources of revenue for their government which would become impoverished; they would lose most of the coastal area, which would also be loss to the hinterland [Palestinian] Arab states. .... This would be such an uprooting, such a shock, the likes of which had never occurred and could drown the whole thing in rivers of blood. " (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 59-60), click here to read the full quote.
               

           *

             Are you aware that the Syrian proposal to refer the Palestine issue to the International Court of Justice at The Hague was defeated by a single vote, twenty one votes against twenty. (Simha Flapan, p. 123)
             
           *

             Are you aware that the 1947 UN GA proposed partition was outside the competence of the Assembly under the Charter of the United Nations? Nowhere in the UN's charter was there the power to partition any country, especially based on racial or religious grounds. Even if the UN had the power, the resolution to partition Palestine was not binding since it was indorsed by the General Assembly rather than the Security Council.
             
           *

             Notwithstanding the above facts, are you aware that the 1947 UN GA proposed partition granted the "Jewish state" ABOUT 60% of the total area of Palestine?
             
           *

             Assuming that you are an American, based on the above facts, would you concede sovereignty and land ownership over 60% of your country to a foreign minority, such as Canadians and Mexicans, who owns under 7% of U.S.'s lands? Click here for a map illustrating such comparative partition of the U.S. in favor of one of its ethnic or religious minorities.
             
             If you do not accept such a plan for yourself as an American, then
             
             Why ask the Palestinian people to concede 60% of their land in favor of an ALIEN foreign minority?
             
           *

             For a moment, let's assume that the above arguments and facts are nonsense to the average Israeli and Zionist, and ask the following question:
             
             Assuming that as of 1947 Israeli Jews constituted a 2/3 majority of the total population, owned and operated 93% of Israel's lands, and contributed 55%-60% of the Israeli Gross Domestic Product (GDP), would you accept a U.N. IMPOSED partition of Israel in favor of an alien minority?
             
             It should be NOTED that currently Palestinian-Israeli citizens make up 20-22% of the total Israeli population, so is it acceptable for the U.N. to partition Israel in a favorable way to its Palestinian-Israeli minority? As an Israeli Jew, would you accept a UN GA imposed partition of your country?
             
           *

             We cannot help it but to a draw similarity with a famous Old Testament story, when two women disputed the motherhood of a baby. They took their dispute to King Solomon, who decided to settle the dispute by cutting the baby in half. The baby's mother quickly objected the King's decision and preferred giving up that baby rather than killing it. That is when the wise King recognized that she must be the mother, and the other woman is an imposter. In a similar fashion, the Palestinian people refused the unjust resolution that called for the division of their country with an alien colonizers.
             
           *

             Dr. Walid Khalidi articulated the Palestinians position as follows:

             "The native people of Palestine, like the native people of every other country in the Arab world, Asia, Africa and Europe, refused to divide the land with a settler community."

        As it will be demonstrated below, the decision by the Zionist leadership to accept the 1947 proposed UN GA Partition plan was nothing but a smoke screen, which was done solely to gain international recognition and support. This deception was a political ploy to gain initial international legitimacy for the existence of the "Jewish state", and this was well known to the Palestinian people. The reader is urged to contemplate the following Zionist leaders' quotes in an open mind. Note that most, if not all, of the quotes below are dated before the entry of any single Arab Army into British Mandated Palestine:

           *

             In a letter Chaim Weizmann sent to the Palestine-British high Commissioner, while the Peel Commission was convening in 1937, he stated:
             
             "We shall spread in the whole country in the course of time ..... this is only an arrangement for the next 25 to 30 years." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 66)
             
           *

             Ben-Gurion emphasized that the acceptance of the Peel Commission would not imply static borders for the future "Jewish state". In a letter Ben-Gurion sent to his son in 1937, he wrote:
             
             "No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. [A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning ..... Our possession is important not only for itself ... through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state .... will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country." (Righteous Victims, p. 138)
             
           *

             In 1938, Ben-Gurion made it clear of his support for the "Jewish state" on part of Palestine was only as a stepping ground for a complete conquest. He wrote:

             "[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state--we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107 & One Palestine Complete, p. 403)
             
           *

             One day after the UN vote to partition Palestine, Menachem Begin, the commander of the Irgun gang and Israel's future Prime Minister between 1977-1983, proclaimed:
             
             "The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever." (Iron Wall p. 25)
             
           *

             Ben-Gurion was happy and sad when the U.N. voted to partition Palestine into two states, Palestinian and Jewish. He was happy because "finally" Jews could have a "country" of their own. On the other hand, he was sad because they have "lost" almost half of Palestine, and because they would have to contend with a sizable Palestinian minority, well over 45% of the total population. In the following few quotes, you will see how he also stated that a "Jewish state" cannot survive being 60% Jewish; implying that something aught to be done to remedy the so called "Arab demographic problem". He stated on November 30, 1947:
             

             "In my heart, there was joy mixed with sadness: joy that the nations at last acknowledged that we are a nation with a state, and sadness that we lost half of the country, Judea and Samaria, and , in addition, that we [would] have [in our state] 400,000 [Palestinian] Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 190)
             
           *

             While addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut on December 30, 1947, Ben-Gurion stated:
             

             "In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176)
             
           *

             Ben-Gurion commented on the proposed Peel Commission Partition plan as follows in 1937:

             "We must EXPEL ARABS and take their places .... and, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 66). Note the premeditated plan to ethnically cleanse the Negev and Transjordan which were not allocated to the Jewish State by the Peel Commission, click here to view a map illustrating the areas allocated to the "Jewish State" by the Peel Commission in 1937.
             
           *

             Moshe Sharett, director of the Jewish Agency's Political Department who later became Israel's first foreign minister, declared:
             
             "[W]hen the Jewish state is established--it is very possible that the result will be [population] transfer of [the Palestinian] Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 254)
             
           *

             While addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut on December 30th, 1947, Ben-Gurion said:
             
             "In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%."(Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176 & Benny Morris p. 28)
             
           *

             On February 7th, 1948, while addressing the Mapai Council he responded to a remark that the "Jews have no land in the Jerusalem corridor" with the following:
             
             "The war will give us the land. The concept of 'ours' and 'not ours' are only concepts for peacetime, and during war they lose all their meaning." (Benny Morris, p. 170 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 180)
             
           *

             And on February 8th, 1948 Ben-Gurion also stated to the Mapai Council:
             
             "From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood]. . . there are no [Palestinian] Arabs. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been Jewish as it is now. In many [Palestinian] Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single [Palestinian] Arab. I do not assume that this will change. . . . What had happened in Jerusalem. . . . is likely to happen in many parts of the country. . . in the six, eight, or ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 180-181)
             
           * In a speech addressing the Zionist Action Committee on April 6, 1948, Ben-Gurion clearly stated that war could be used as an instrument to solve the so called "Arab demographic problem". He stated:

             "We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area, even if only in an artificial way, in a military way. . . . I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of [Palestinian] Arab population." (Benny Morris, p. 181 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 181)
             

             Note the premeditated plan to occupy and ethically cleanse areas, such as Galilee and Jerusalem, which were not allotted to the "Jewish State" by the 1947 UN GA Partition plan. Click here to view a map illustrating the areas allocated to the "Jewish State" by the 1947 UN GA partition plan.

        Finally, it's hypocritical when on one hand Zionists use UN GA partition plan as a pretext to legitimize Israel's existence, while they've rejected almost every other UN resolution since Israel's creation, chief among them UN GA resolution 194 that called for the immediate return to all Palestinian refugees to their homes in Israel. To suit Zionists' political agenda, they have deliberately chosen to ignore most, if not all, of UN resolutions concerning Palestine and its people, of course with the exception of withdrawing from occupied southern Lebanon in May 2000. Sadly, Israel has accepted that UN resolution not because it was influenced by a UN, a U.S., or even a European diplomatic pressure, but because it was compelled to do so by the heroic Lebanese resistance.

        Related Links

           * Jerusalem Post: Intensely lobbying the UN behind the scene, half a loaf
           * Zionist Quotes: Expansionism (The Greater Israel)
           * PLands.org: Nakba Anatomy, a Power Point presentation
           * Zionist FAQ: Why seven well armed Arab armies attempted to destroy the poorly armed Jewish State?

        http://www.palestineremembered.com/...

        by mattes on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:33:42 AM PDT

        •  Wow,

          I really tried to read that.  But the prescription in my glasses changed halfway through it.

          by dfb1968 on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:25:41 AM PDT

          •  Well at least you tried....or did you???

            by mattes on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:36:10 AM PDT

•  The One-State fantasy is ridiculous

  sure, it sounds great, after all, isn't it "Democratic"?  So let's play out the scenario, shall we?

  1. One State is declared across all the land.

  2. Palestinian Arabs make up the majority of the country.

  3. The country votes on a new Constitution, majority rules and all that.  What a lovely democracy, don't you think?

  4. The new country has several constitutional models to choose from:

     a. The United States- freedom of and freedom from religion.  No religious test for public office.  What are the odds.

     b. Saudi Arabia- the Koran IS the Constitution.  All citizens must be Muslim, and it is illegal to practice another religion.

     c.  Egypt- predominantly Muslim, but recognizes SOME other religions.  But not all.  

  On December 16, 2006, only after one hearing, the Supreme Administrative Council of Egypt ruled against the Bahá'ís, stating that the government may not recognize the Bahá'í Faith in official identification numbers.[1] The ruling leaves Bahá'ís unable to obtain the necessary government documents to have rights in their country; they cannot obtain ID cards, birth certificates, death certificates, marriage or divorce certificates, passports; they also cannot be employed, educated, treated in hospitals or vote among other things.

     d.  Hamas' Charter- they could just adopt Hamas' Charter as a constitution.  After all, it's a democracy, isn't it?

  Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.

  The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection. Who can presume to speak for all Islamic Generations to the Day of Resurrection? This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Shari’a, and it is similar to all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. This [norm] has prevailed since the commanders of the Muslim armies completed the conquest of Syria and Iraq, and they asked the Caliph of Muslims, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, for his view of the conquered land, whether it should be partitioned between the troops or left in the possession of its population, or otherwise. Following discussions and consultations between the Caliph of Islam, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, be peace and prayer upon him, they decided that the land should remain in the hands of its owners to benefit from it and from its wealth; but the control of the land and the land itself ought to be endowed as a Waqf [in perpetuity] for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. The ownership of the land by its owners is only one of usufruct, and this Waqf will endure as long as Heaven and earth last. Any demarche in violation of this law of Islam, with regard to Palestine, is baseless and reflects on its perpetrators.

  [Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement.

  Which do you think would pass?  

  Upon what can anybody base the absurd delusion that a one-state solution would lead to peace, brotherhood, and happiness, rather than pogroms, evictions, and slaughter?  Anybody who posits this idea is either a silly innocent or a person with a far more obvious and deep agenda, one writ in Jewish blood.

  by dhonig on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:00:36 AM PDT

  •  Not really

    Palestinians don't make up the majority in the combined lands, they make up at most 50%.  Further, the Israelis currently have the massive edge in resources and organizing.  So, to get your radical constitution, you would need every single Arab and some jews to vote for what you and others constantly claim is a plan to eradicate Jews.  How likely does that seem?  I suppose if you believe that Arabs are, by their very nature, evil, than it is no big stretch to imagine.

    However, it's hard to imagine many Arabs in Israel currently voting to place themselves under a Hamas charter.  Even in Palestine, not much more than 50% voted for such a thing, and that vote was mostly seen at a repudiation of Fatah's massive corruption.  Further, to vote for a constitution that places the large Jewish minority (as you claim) as such a disadvantage is basically to put them under Occupation.  And we all know what happens to people under occupation: they fight back violently.

    So, there is no evidence that any majority of Arabs would want an Islamic state as part of a single state solutions.  And even those few who did might well vote against one because it would be certain to  start a civil war.

    You're entire claim is a strawman.  There is ZERO danger of a unified Israel-Palestine becoming an Islamic state.  Such a belief is only possible if you belief that Arabs, by their very nature, are evil.  

    There are a number of good reasons to be against a single-state solution.  The tensions between the two peoples are simply to huge, and their are plenty on both sides who believe that all Jews or all Arabs are evil.  We should recognize these beliefs exist, but we should certainly not join them.

    by weasel on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:32:02 AM PDT

    •  disagree

      Such a belief is only possible if you belief that Arabs, by their very nature, are evil.

      No, not really.  That IS the Constitution of Saudi Arabia, one of the two most influential states in the region.  So why is it a "straw man" to think, given a choice, Palestinian Arabs would not vote for the same thing?  Particularly given the demonization of Jews in Palestinian media over the years?

      Sorry, but I actually remember what happened between 1948 and 1967 in Jerusalem, and it was not a big secular love-fest.  Jews were not allowed to visit their holiest sites, and those sites were intentionally desecrated.  Add to that the Constitution of Saudi Arabi, the Charter of Hamas, Hamas' majority, and the Palestinian's greater birth rate, and it is far from a "straw man."  

      by dhonig on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:36:12 AM PDT

      •  Well

        First, Saudi Arabia is Saudi Arabia, not Palestine, and their constitution is for conditions in Saudi.  You are basically making the Arabs-are-all-the-same argument.

        Second, as for '48-'67, when the land was split between 2 countries in a state of war, that is precisely what the one state solution is designed to fix.  

        Third, as for the Hamas Charter, remember that only came into being as a response to the Occupation in the first Intifada.  Until then, Hamas (or its precursor) had been an entirely peaceful organization.  Further, as I already pointed out, Hamas rode to a majority based on its anti-corruption campaign.  Today, it can only claim support of maybe half of Palestine, which is at most 20% of the entire Israeli-Palestinian population, and that is when Hamas is relevant for its resistance to Israel.  If that resistance were irrelevant, their support would go DOWN, not up.  They are nowhere near 50%.

        Finally, the higher birth rate.  Simply put, it's nonsense, since birth rates have nothing to do with constitution formation, which was the claim you made.  The constitution will already be set when those babies mature.  Second, high birth rate is closely tied to low income.  You seem to be imply that even a unified state would still attempt to keep the Arabs much poorer than the Jews.  Some ugly implications there.  Want to equalize the birth rates?  Equalize the wealth.

        by weasel on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:57:18 AM PDT

        •  No, I'm not

          You are basically making the Arabs-are-all-the-same argument.

          Sorry, but you can try to paint me as evil, but it's B.S.  All I did was look to the other nations in the region, the other nations that support the Palestinian cause.  It is not unreasonable to believe they would look there, rather than the U.S., for a model.

          As for birth rates and demographics NOW, another false argument for several reasons.  First, how many Palestinians will return from Jordan, Egypt, even Europe to the new "One-State"?  Second, even if the numbers are even now, nothing stops a majority from amending a Constitution in the future.  Third, sure there was a state of war between '48 and '67.  There's also a state of war now, something the anti-Israelis seem quite quick to forget.  But the point is not one of war or not war, but respect for religion.  Jews (not Israelis, JEWS) were not kept from the Wailing Wall because they were at war.  Desecrating the site of the Wall with Jewish tombstones was not part of war, but an affirmative anti-Jewish act.  Given that history, there is no reason to accept the fantasies of happy friendship, not absent enormous changes BEFORE the Jews of Israel abandon their Jewish state.

          by dhonig on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:01:50 AM PDT

          •  Joking?

            Third, sure there was a state of war between '48 and '67.  There's also a state of war now,

            Is that a joke?  The whole point of a one-state solution as a PEACE deal is to END the war.

            even if the numbers are even now, nothing stops a majority from amending a Constitution in the future.

            Not really true.  Every Constitution I've ever seen, particularly ours, is buffered against change by a simple majority vote.  That's really what sets a constitution apart from simple legislation.

            by weasel on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:14:13 AM PDT

            •  only by parsing what I wrote

              do you make the first statement seem out of place.  So many anti-Israel posters repeatedly demand concessions on Israel's part NOW, before any agreement, and my point was simple- there still exists a state of war, one you and your ilk ignore when asking so much of Israel.  Yet you seem to think it justifies the ugliest anti-Jewish acts between '48 and '67.  You really can't have it both ways, sorry.

              by dhonig on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:22:37 AM PDT

              •  Who has justified

                any such thing?  You and so many anti-Palestinian posters (to use your language) always make the horrible excuse to come out against peace because there is currently war.  

                No one has justified any activity here, but one can hardly ignore that it happened during the state of war.  Peace talks exist only to end war.  For someone to use the existence of war as an excuse to avoid talk of peace is insane.

                You and your ilk are the best friends of Hamas.  You help ensure there will never be peace from negotiations, leading Palestinians to look only to violence for any hope of independence.  It's a tragedy and a crime.

                by weasel on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:02:39 AM PDT

                •  Liar

                  sorry, but you're a damned liar.  I am not against peace, as evidenced quite clearly by earlier diaries.  I am against what you call "peace," a One-State solution nobody is interested in, and is guaranteed to lead to civil war and eventual genocide.

                  by dhonig on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:09:56 AM PDT

    •  Can't amend what doesn't exist

      Israel has no Constitution.  An Israeli Arab organization, Adalah has recently proposed a constitution with equal rights for all Israel's citizens.  But nothing has ever been ratified.

      Further, Israel has been very effective in shaping the Secular/Fundamentalist balance in the West Bank and Gaza, not only by its early cultivation of Hamas.  Israel's slow strangulation of Palestinian economic, social and political life has encouraged the emigration of secular Palestinians, especially those who can find educational or professional opportunities no longer available in the West Bank or Gaza (the mass exodus of Palestinian Christians is primarily related to these economic issues).

      In addition, Israelis should not be surprised if Palestinians, especially those from more conservative traditions, who are confined to their homes by curfews, who have a high percentage of unemployment even when they aren't under curfew, whose electrical power grid has been bombed (leaving them with little power for necessities, much less entertainment), and whose medical care has been stressed just to provide emergency care, much less primary care (including family planning even for those who are interested), should -- after months of being stuck at home in the dark -- have a higher birth rate.

      by Rusty Pipes on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 01:19:51 PM PDT

•  The Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign

  (SPSC) has no credibility. Kovel shows poor judgment, or his true colors, by associating himself with it. For example,

  • SPSC staged the entirely discredited play, "Perdition". "The play alleged that 'the Zionists' collaborated with the Nazis during the Holocaust and went so far as to imply that 'the Zionists' positively desired the slaughter of Jews in order to help them generate sufficient public sympathy and Jewish emigration to found the State of Israel. At that time, two eminent historians, Martin Gilbert and David Cesarani, as well as both Stephen Roth, a first hand witness to the events discussed in the play, and Rabbi Hugo Gryn, a Holocaust survivor, pointed out to the theatre management both numerous factual inaccuracies in the play and how offensive they found the play. The play was also vilified for historical inaccuracy in editorials and major articles in The Guardian, The Independent, The Times and The Daily Telegraph. The theatre management ultimately pulled the play after they lost confidence in it. Naturally, this change of mind by the Royal Court was portrayed as a manifestation of the Zionist power to prevent free speech."

  • SPSC also have sponsored Gilad Atzmon, "a former Israeli paratrooper, a well-known jazz saxophonist, a campaigner for Palestinian rights and someone who is comfortable employing openly anti-Jewish rhetoric. . . . Atzmon pushes classic anti-semitic Jewish conspiracy libel: 'American Jewry makes any debate on whether the "Protocols of the elder of Zion" are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews (in fact Zionists) do control the world.'"

  by another American on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:06:27 AM PDT

  •  You mean that the author of "Overcoming Zionism"

    Isn't a charming fella with an interest in the fair and equitable treatment of all people on earth?

    I'm shocked, shocked I say.

    by Jay Elias on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:16:51 AM PDT

  •  Kovel himself is either

    extraordinarily credulous or not to be trusted. For example, Kovel has said: "There are people who say Israel should keep expanding all the way to Turkey and should take over everything in the region." Well, there are people who say that the earth is flat.

    by another American on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:23:40 AM PDT

•  I can't think of two groups that deserve each

  other more than the Green Party and activists seeking to destroy Israel under the guise of this singular state utopia.

  by Red Sox on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:10:53 AM PDT

•  Overcoming Zionism? Hey Joel

  You want to overcome Zionism.  You're going to have to do it one zionist at a time.  Write to me and I'll give you my address in Jerusalem.  By the way, come heavy or don't come at all (as Uncle Junior so eloquently put it).

  by dfb1968 on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:20:47 AM PDT