Skip to main content

Former President Jimmy Carter recently returned from his fourth journey to the Middle East in the past 16 months. On this most recent trip, he traveled as part of a group of "Elders" that also included Mary Robinson and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

In an op-ed published Sunday in the Washington Post, Carter writes:

A majority of the Palestinian leaders with whom we met are seriously considering acceptance of one state, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. By renouncing the dream of an independent Palestine, they would become fellow citizens with their Jewish neighbors and then demand equal rights within a democracy. In this nonviolent civil rights struggle, their examples would be Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.

Carter further states that "[a] two-state solution is clearly preferable and has been embraced at the grass roots."

He notes that:

We saw considerable interest in a call by Javier Solana, secretary general of the Council of the European Union, for the United Nations to endorse the two-state solution, which already has the firm commitment of the U.S. government and the other members of the "Quartet" (Russia and the United Nations). Solana proposes that the United Nations recognize the pre-1967 border between Israel and Palestine, and deal with the fate of Palestinian refugees and how Jerusalem would be shared. Palestine would become a full U.N. member and enjoy diplomatic relations with other nations, many of which would be eager to respond. Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad described to us his unilateral plan for Palestine to become an independent state.

Still, he concludes, "a more likely alternative to the present debacle is one state[.]"

Both of his suggestions I find intriguing. A de facto declaration of an independent Palestine in those territories occupied by Israel since 1967, recognized by the United Nations, would preserve the notion of two states. But, like Carter, I believe it to be the less-likely alternative. The democratically elected government of Gaza, Hamas, opposes Fayyad's solution. Neither does it seem likely that such a plan, without years of wrangling, could proceed to UN approval.

What, then, would happen if, as Carter suggests, Palestinians in the occupied territories were simply to announce they had renounced the idea of an independent Palestinian state, and say to Israel that they wished to be absorbed into an Israel that would encompass all that territory "between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea"? That they wished to "become fellow citizens with their Jewish neighbors," with "equal rights within a democracy"? And that they wanted to give all that up, and "come home" as fellow Israelis, well, now?

The occupation is not forever, though sometimes it seems like it might be. Setting aside all bickering about its lawfulness, it is not just. And it benefits neither the Palestinians, nor the Israelis; it retards the growth and development of each. It is a constant irritant to both peoples, like a sore that itches like hell, and will not heal. A sore that is also constantly inflamed and picked at by peoples in the surrounding region, and peoples around the world . . . all the way to people on this site.

Yet Israel has not exactly moved with alacrity over the past 40-some years in relinquishing the occupied territories to the Palestinians for the establishment of an independent, robust state. The latest proposal from Israel for a Palestinian state acceptable to Israel's current potentates is of a sort of feeble, fetal entity, without the right to control even its own airspace.

So what of this third way? If Palestinians were to say: we are home, we are Israeli, our borders and your borders are one? Much of "the right of return" would be resolved, because the Palestinians of the occupied territories would at that moment be returned, to a land that becomes theirs, as equal citizens of the same state. The status of Jerusalem would be resolved, becoming a city within a state populated, on equal terms, by peoples of all faiths. Any domestic "existential threat" is obviated by the Palestinian resolve to, if a "civil rights struggle" is in some area deemed necessary, conduct such a struggle via the nonviolent "examples [of] Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela." Any existential threat from abroad evaporates, as no foreign power would be motivated to attack, invade, or attempt to obliterate a state in which Israelis and Palestinians are as one.  

If the Palestinian people of the occupied territories were really to say, we renounce our dream of our own state, we wish to join you in yours: how, really, could Israel say no? And on what grounds?

Thoughts.

Originally posted to blueness on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 01:34 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I actually think it's a solution that could work (7+ / 0-)

    To answer you question about how Israel could say no, and why, here's one thought.

    I had heard this several years ago - don't know if it's true. So perhaps I should pose it as a question.

    What are the population demographics now and in the future. Is the Palestinian population expected to grow to a higher number than the non-Palestinian Israelis?

    And finally, is to, would Israelis view this as a threat (via the ballot box)?

    I personally don't think it should be an issue. But I thought I'd pose the question.

    The crooks are leaving have left office, unprosecuted and scot-free.

    by BentLiberal on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 01:42:58 AM PDT

    •  on this yes. (5+ / 0-)

      Is the Palestinian population expected to grow to a higher number than the non-Palestinian Israelis?

      Yes.

      Also conservative orthodox jews are expected to overtake their more secular counterparts.

    •  yes, (16+ / 0-)

      it is an issue. Carter's op-ed even mentions it:

      They [Palestinians] are aware of demographic trends. Non-Jews are already a slight majority of total citizens in this area, and within a few years Arabs will constitute a clear majority.

      In my opinion, these fears could be eased if the Israelis, before absorbing the occupied territories, finally got around to adopting an explicit, written Constitution . . . which was supposed to have been prepared by October 1, 1948. Such a document would be designed to firmly protect the rights of any and all minorities, whoever they happened to be. As an example, it could include something like the US Constitutional provisions barring religious tests, prohibiting religious discrimination, and guaranteeing the free exercise of religion. The Constitution could further make itself extremely difficult to amend, just like ours does.

    •  You really think it would work? (5+ / 0-)

      With 5 million Israelis saying no thanks, we're not interested?

      Really?

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

      by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 12:05:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  no just israelis... n/t (4+ / 0-)

        "Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

        by canadian gal on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 12:23:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  doh - should say "not just"... n/t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Paul in Berkeley, hikerbiker

        "Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

        by canadian gal on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 12:29:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's such a disingenuous idea (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          livosh1, Karmafish, hikerbiker

          They really think they are being sly about their real goal in constantly bringing up a nonstarter like the one-state, like we can't figure it out.

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

          by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 01:56:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again, who's "they"? (5+ / 0-)

            Could you at least name some names and then say "...and the rest of that crowd"?

            •  apparently (6+ / 0-)

              Jimmy Carter is a "they." He's the reason why I put up this diary. The guy's a former Democratic president, and presumably speaks truthfully when he reports on what he heard there. My assumption, anyway.

              Or maybe not. Maybe he's just a "they."

            •  Yes, I'll tell you (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Karmafish

              pretty much anyone who thinks that a one-state solution is the best way to go, who advocates for the one-state solution, that's who "they" is.  

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

              by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:38:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

                •  Jeesus (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Karmafish

                  is it "Play Dumb Day at DailyKos?"

                  Since I want to maintain some respect for you, I'll just ignore that you asked such an idiotic question.

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

                  by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:44:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't understand your hostility. (7+ / 0-)

                    I'm not being hostile with you. I'm having a problem with your comments about "them" and "they," and based on our past discussions, I think it's possible for us to talk this out.

                    I have several ideas about what you mean by "real goal." What I'm trying to find out is what exactly it is you mean? Because, frankly, the way I'm reading your comments lately, it seems like you're unfairly accusing a lot of people of antisemitism.

                    •  All right, here it is (4+ / 0-)

                      I think that most of the people -- THEY -- who advocate for a one-state solution have two goals. One goal is to have a Palestinian state, and the other goal is to have only a Palestinian state. That is, THEY want to eliminate Israel. THEY want to eliminate a Jewish state, a homeland for the Jews. THEY support Palestinian statehood, THEY support Palestinian nationalism, but THEY oppose Jewish statehood and Jewish nationalism (known as Zionism).  THEY know that this goal cannot be achieved militarily, so THEY cling to the nonstarter one-state idea as THEIR only means of achieving THEIR goal.

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

                      by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:54:54 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  And by the way (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Karmafish, hikerbiker, canadian gal

                      nowhere did I accuse anyone of anti-semitism, although I do believe that anti-Zionism, if not coupled with anti-Palestinianism and anti-nationalism in general, is anti-semitic.

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

                      by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:56:15 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I partly agree with you here. (3+ / 0-)

                        I can see a person not necessarily being an anti-nationalist and still legitimately be an anti-Zionist. But if a person isn't antisemitic, he should definitely be equally opposed to Palestinian nationalism.

                      •  Anti-Palestinian racism or... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        zannie, blueness

                        ...opposition to Palestinian nationalism? The two are not the same.  Additionally, many of us (myself included) are not really supportive of nationalism in general, and just endorse whatever solution appears to be pragmatic and satisfactory.  

                        I think I've said before that there are too many different kinds of anti-Zionism to really make these kind of conclusions.  

                        What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.

                        by Alec82 on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:16:16 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Anti-Palestinian nationalism (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Alec82

                          I thought that was clear enough from the context.

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

                          by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:35:12 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Well it's difficult.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...as Palestinian is an ethnic identity and a largely theoretical state-based identity, at the moment.  

                            As far as your query goes, I would say that anyone who identified as an anti-Zionist without also opposing nationalism on some level would be wading into dangerous waters.  I'm wondering if the inverse is true, though: the other nationalities that do not enjoy their own state, does opposing the creation of one for them, at the expense of others, make one a racist? Certainly opposing equal rights for the Quebecois or Basques would be racist; does opposing the creation of a nation state for them make one so?

                            Maybe part of the problem I'm having is that I don't really agree with nationalism, and any support for it is really based on pragmatism.

                            What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.

                            by Alec82 on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:51:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Stating that being anti-Zionist is equivalent (7+ / 0-)

                            to antisemitism prevents Palestinians who were displaced from their homes in 1948 and for those who remained in Israel to speak about their rights without being branded anti-Jewish.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I refuse to be labeled antisemitic because I oppose a political ideology that has destroyed my people.  I have no problem with the Jewish people.  I am opposed an exclusive political system that denies me the right to the homeland of my family for centuries and denies the ones who remained on the land to participate fully in the political life of the state.

                            "This is not a boycott of Israelis. It's a boycott of pretending that everything is normal in Israel" Naomi Klein http://www.bdsmovement.net/

                            by soysauce on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:07:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm heading out... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            unspeakable, soysauce, hikerbiker

                            ...and so I can't respond in full as I would like, but I do not consider your position at all antisemitic.  I don't think that's what either Paul or unspeakable were discussing.  

                            What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.

                            by Alec82 on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:24:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think this is exactly what we are discussing. (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zannie, Aunt Martha, unspeakable, Alec82

                            The issue of how Palestinians see Zionism, or as Edward Said put it, "Zionism from the point of view of its victims" is the crux of the matter.  I am really confused by what Paul means by the "they" and "their goal".  What is this language if not to undermine Palestinian's legitimate grief at the shackles of Zionism as it is manifested?  

                            "This is not a boycott of Israelis. It's a boycott of pretending that everything is normal in Israel" Naomi Klein http://www.bdsmovement.net/

                            by soysauce on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 07:03:31 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, it does not (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            hikerbiker

                            I'm a Zionist, as you may have gathered, and I support the right of Palestinians to have their own state.  (Everyone pay attention to what I just wrote, so I don't have to deal with some asshole lying about it later).  The two are not inconsistent.  

                            If someone is anti-Zionist within the context of being anti-nationalist in general (and since unspeakable has a hard on about me naming names, I'll indulge him by mentioning that I seem to recall from a thread a year or so ago that Litho falls into this category), there is nothing objectionable about that.  It is principled, and it doesn't single out Jews as being the only group denied the right to nationalism.

                            However, if someone opposes Zionism without opposing other forms of nationalism, then they are singling out Jews, and saying "of all people, you don't get the right to your nationalist aspirations." It's that singling out of the Jews to deny them something everyone else seems to have the right to, that strikes me as anti-semitic.

                            By the way, I'll just throw this in as a final thought, for posterity:  I'm a Zionist, as you may have gathered, and I support the right of Palestinians to have their own state.  

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

                            by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 07:25:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well this much is true (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            callmecassandra

                            It's that singling out of the Jews to deny them something everyone else seems to have the right to, that strikes me as anti-semitic.

                            However, nationalism is not equivalent to statehood.  I don't believe any national group has the right to a state that reflects their ethnic character, and certainly not at the expense of other groups within the territorial boundaries of said state.  Your position would result in every national group being granted a nation state.  That's not the way the world works. Ask the Kurds, the Romani or the Tibetans, among many others.  

                            To the extent that nations exist, they are imagined communities.  No one is attempting to deny Jews or Palestinians a sense of belonging to a national group.  I believe that you are incorrectly conflating nation states with national aspirations.  

                            What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.

                            by Alec82 on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:54:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  hm (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Alec82

                            nationalism is not equivalent to statehood

                            it is also not equivalent to zionism. paul states

                            if someone opposes Zionism without opposing other forms of nationalism

                            which i suppose would have to be weighted against what other forms of nationalism he is referring to. at least he didn't say 'without opposing all other forms of nationalism'. one can be a nationalist without approving of citizenship qualification based on race or ethnicity.

                          •  Fair enough (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zannie, callmecassandra

                            I don't really care, since I'm not a nationalist in either the jingoistic or in the sense of devotion to one's culture and "people" over the interests of common humanity.  Regardless, my point was that he was conflating, at least, statehood with nationalism.  

                            What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.

                            by Alec82 on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 09:09:32 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yes (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Alec82

                            my point was intended as an add on or addition to your point, not any kind of counter balance. one can't just say zionism equals nationalism as they aren't synonymous. he didn't say they were but he implies it.

          •  One could argue... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sortalikenathan

            that two states supporters are segregationists. Since you support a state that is exclusive to Jews, the accusation has merit. However, people don't accuse you of this because they understand your reasons have basis - a history of persecution is pretty good reason to want to live among your own. An exception is made for your views (and for Israel) even though it's undeserved, although understandable.

            However, for those supporters of a single or binational, secular democratic state, you 'slyly' accuse people of hating Jews and hating Israel (it ain't like Israel hasn't done anything to deserve hate, btw) when their reasons for supporting one state lies in either one's values (for which exists no obligation to sacrifice) or the realities on the ground that make it less likely that a two-states will manifest. Would you have us support indefinite occupation, apartheid, ethnic cleansing or genocide?

            If you're accusing people of nefarious motives, then state who they are and what they have said to draw these "sly" accusations from you. Cause at this point, all you're doing is throwing a tantrum, banking on your own "slyness" to deter such discussions which, at this point, have utterly failed.

            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

            by callmecassandra on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:32:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Bullshit (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              hikerbiker

              Honker No. 1:

              "One could argue...that two states supporters are segregationists."  

              Yeah, tell us how.

              Honker No. 2:  

              "Since you support a state that is exclusive to Jews, the accusation has merit."

              Liar. I support Israel, which is multi-religious and multi-ethnic. Maybe you are just too ignorant for words, but the population of Israel includes more than a million non-Jewish citizens.  What, that's news to you?  You aren't familiar with someone who posts here under the username "palestinian professor?"  He's Israeli, and he's not Jewish. So you're just a liar.

              As for the haters, I'll name one name, just to satisfy you and unspeakable:  callmecassandra. She's not just a hater, she's a liar, too. As proven here, today.  

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

              by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:42:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Do you object to Israel (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                soysauce, hikerbiker

                being a non-Jewish state?

                Or alternatively, are you committed to a two states for two peoples solution, i.e. a state for Jews and a state for Palestinians ? If you are, what happens to people such as pp? If the state is for Jews, who is for the state's non-Jews?

                •  Yes, and Yes (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Karmafish, canadian gal

                  Yes, I object to Israel being a non-Jewish state. So do millions of Israelis, and millions of Jews worldwide.  

                  Yes, I am committed to a two states for two peoples solution.  What happens to palestinian professor? Nothing. He's an Israeli citizen, there's no reason on earth why he can't stay an Israeli citizen.

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

                  by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:51:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I agree, although, as things stand, PP is (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Paul in Berkeley, canadian gal

                    a second-class citizen in Israel.  With the establishment of 2-states with minority populations remaining in each, civil rights for minorities should be guaranteed.

                    With 2 friendly, neighboring states, both should have a vested interest in improving life for all residents and citizens, Palestinian and Israeli.

                    Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

                    by hikerbiker on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:59:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  So you're asking Palestinians (4+ / 0-)

                    to accept that they'll always be considered equal citizens in a state that isn't meant for them? And at the same time you're saying that Jews would never accept a binational state because their status as equal citizens isn't guaranteed?

                    How do Lieberman's increasing successes fit into this worldview in which the rights of Israeli Palestinians are firmly secured?

              •  First... (4+ / 0-)

                I didn't accuse you of being a segregationist. I said I could make the accusation but choose not to because your reasons have basis.

                Second, I said "exclusive" to Jews - as in a state that conveys a special status to one group over all others.

                You do support a Jewish state in Israel, right? So yeah...I could accuse you of supporting segregation. Hell, I could accuse you of supporting Jewish supremacism. I don't because I don't believe you to be a racist and again, you have history to support your desire for a Jewish state.

                But technically, it is a segregationist position since you would deny Palestinians their legal rights in favor of a separate state which you hope would be somewhat equal to Israel if not by size then sovereignty and prosperity.

                As for the haters, I'll name one name, just to satisfy you and unspeakable:  callmecassandra. She's not just a hater, she's a liar, too. As proven here, today.

                I'm sweet on you, too. Anyway...

                Do you mind addressing this?

                for those supporters of a single or binational, secular democratic state, you 'slyly' accuse people of hating Jews and hating Israel (it ain't like Israel hasn't done anything to deserve hate, btw) when their reasons for supporting one state lies in either one's values (for which exists no obligation to sacrifice) or the realities on the ground that make it less likely that a two-states will manifest. Would you have us support indefinite occupation, apartheid, ethnic cleansing or genocide?

                Are "one-staters" by definition haters of Jews and  Israel?

                The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                by callmecassandra on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:00:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  please (6+ / 0-)

                do not go to the "hater" and "liar" stuff. This diary was actually pretty peaceful for more than 12 hours. I would like you to apologize for those words; if you can't manage that, please refrain from employing them again.

                •  She told two lies (0+ / 0-)

                  dress it up however you like, she told two lies, and I called her on it. Deal with it.

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

                  by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:36:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No. (5+ / 0-)

                    She didn't.

                    I'm familiar with your tactics of distraction. I don't know why you even bother at this point since with me, you always fail.

                    Now, then. What say you about one/bi-national state supporters who do so based on values or based on facts that Israel creates?

                    The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                    by callmecassandra on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:16:05 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Just because you read and write (0+ / 0-)

                      on a 3rd grade level doesn't mean the rest of us do.

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

                      by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 07:19:38 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  ah well... (4+ / 0-)

                        at least you didn't repeat your lies. But then, you were never faithful to them anyway.

                        What say you about one/bi-national state supporters who do so based on values or based on facts that Israel creates?

                        Here's a few things I know.

                        You understand the merits of arguments in support of a binational state. You know that some based these arguments on values that even you share. Hell, you would've had more exposure to those values than I since you live in more receptive environments.

                        You also understand that binational arguments can be based on the fact that it's becoming unlikely that two states will be realized. All other options are no options at all.

                        But what I can't figure out is why you would demand others sacrifice their values when you actually support those values. And it defies comprehension that you would be angered with those of us who point out how it is Israel, not us, not Palestinians and not the Arab states, that's f'cking it up for you.

                        Help me out here, if you don't mind.

                        The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                        by callmecassandra on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 08:11:15 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Actually, I'm starting to think that perhaps (0+ / 0-)

                        you do, given your misstatements about me yesterday regarding David Irving, and your warning when I was asking about who "they" were that I should be careful I don't become like "them."

                        But I'll accept your apologies in advance as long as you buy me the beers you owe me...

  •  Why not a "third option"? (6+ / 0-)

    The argument---ever since the post-WW2 "establishment" of the Israeli State---has been one of Israel-v-Palestine.

    One State.  Two State.  It's like a Dr. Seuss book on an 8-track loop, running on and on---and on, ad nauseum.  There can be only one, or the other---and that's the core of the whole problem.

    Why not both?  Why not a land where both words mean the same thing: "Home"?  Why not Jerusalem as a cooperative national capitol for two peoples?

    Why can't there be a Great Temple and a Great Mosque on the same bit of soil?

    Unilateral capitulation is just that---capitulation---and it is a slippery slope without end....

    The only good freeper is the one found at the bottom of an ocean....

    by Liberal Panzer on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 01:48:47 AM PDT

    •  I'm not so sure (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      capelza, tecampbell, hikerbiker

      most Jewish people really want a Great Temple rebuilt.  The faith has changed so much since those days.

      Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

      by bythesea on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:11:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The symbolism alone (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        capelza

        ...would be a massive kick-in-the-balls to the extremists on both sides of the divide, telling them in the starkest of terms that they're no longer in charge of the discussion.

        The only good freeper is the one found at the bottom of an ocean....

        by Liberal Panzer on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:21:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueness, Alec82, hikerbiker

          You think most of the Jewish community want's to restore constant animal sacrifice?

          Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

          by bythesea on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:32:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  er "wants" not "want's" n/t (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueness

            Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

            by bythesea on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:35:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Silly bythesea-wabbit; (0+ / 0-)

              animal-sacrifice tricks are for childish fundagelical Xianist knuckledraggers who beat black cats with bible tracts before nailing their disemboweled carcasses to mail-box posts in rural Nebraska on Halloween night.  I'm talking about the pure symbolism of putting those two centers of worship---the two extreme outliers of a bell curve, you might say---right next door to each other.  The pulse of radical-right heads exploding en masse should be able to show up on a Richter scale---even from here!

              The only good freeper is the one found at the bottom of an ocean....

              by Liberal Panzer on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:54:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  True enough (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Liberal Panzer, hikerbiker

                and believe it or not that very idea has been floated before since the Dome of the rock isn't going anywhere.  But understand such a restored temple would not be a like a UU Church.  That's one of the reasons many Jewish people never want one rebuilt.

                Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

                by bythesea on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 12:08:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  An open-air monument (0+ / 0-)

                  to what Judaism and its long history is all about could be the perfect resolution; a place where anyone can freely enter and explore what the old gargantuan structure was like.  It would be like rebuilding the Parthenon, or the Temple of Zeus.  A titan of a building, with a thousand places in which a group of people could just sit and contemplate whatever it is that needs contemplating.  A massive repository for all information related to Judaism---and right across the way, a similar spot that archives all things of Islam.  Pure compare-and-contrast research and historical documentation for two great religious concepts---in one place.

                  Just the mere thought would turn any "phud" candidate into a Pavlovian drooling machine....

                  The only good freeper is the one found at the bottom of an ocean....

                  by Liberal Panzer on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 01:41:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Jews aren't even supposed to go up to the Temple (6+ / 0-)

                    Mount until the day the Messiah comes and the Temple is rebuilt (then and only then).

                    So, among other problems with this vision, it would be incredibly sacrilegious to even attempt to build any Jewish structure on the Mount.

                    Many excellent centers for Jewish learning already exist in Jerusalem.

                    That said, it is an appealing thought to one day see a coordinated effort to highlight the history of all 3 relevant religions in Jerusalem.

                    Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

                    by hikerbiker on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:17:24 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  They're not supposed to break God's Commandments, (0+ / 0-)

                      ...either, but they've not shown any remorse for coveting their neighbor's property, for lying and stealing and killing to obtain that property, or for abdicating the holiness of their own Sabbath in the name of unjustified aggressive war.

                      The only good freeper is the one found at the bottom of an ocean....

                      by Liberal Panzer on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 06:40:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  wow. just wow. n/t (10+ / 0-)

                        Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

                        by hikerbiker on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 07:33:45 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Aside from your sweeping (10+ / 0-)

                        overgeneralizations, please show me one group of people somewhere on this planet who hasn't broken the commandments of the god(s) or goddesses(es) they worship.

                        •  I give you a lot of credit (4+ / 0-)

                          for having the composure and patience to respond to that.

                          Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

                          by hikerbiker on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:25:53 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks, but you did too, you know! (4+ / 0-)
                          •  No. My jaw dropped (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness, bythesea, soysauce

                            and I was speechless.

                            Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

                            by hikerbiker on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:27:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  In reply to "all of the above", (0+ / 0-)

                            ...the hypocrisy of defending the selective application of a religious theology is comical to the extreme.

                            "Not supposed to?" is surely not the best that can be offered in an era where a good portion of the Israeli population no longer wishes to follow the religious ideology of their forebears, if for no other reason than the well-oiled gears of that religion's hypocrisy are finally beginning to clatter, and to clank, and to squeal.

                            It is not the "revealed text" of a faith that determines the word of one's deity, because such has been mangled, twisted, shredded and re-assembled countless times by those who are bound by the covenant of that word for their own material ends.  It embraces the endless potential of revisionist thinking: "I shall not, except for when I decide that 'not' is non-applicable."  Such is the madness of the tabernacle tent---the original "smoke-filled back room"; the ancestor of countless Tammany Halls, American Enterprise Institutes, health insurance boardrooms, and all the rest of the avaricious, greedy putrefactiveness---that gave rise to and emboldened the Pharisees of old.

                            It is, instead, nothing more than the simple words of the deity---whether that deity be male, female, both, neither, all of the above, or none of the above---and the final epiphany of the individual to understand that the only path to validation for one of those six options is the realization that the select option can only be as valid as the other five. THAT is the "Messiah" that the population of Jerusalem must wrap its disparate, nationalistic mindsets around---Israeli and Palestinian alike, in equal measure---and THEN the Jewish people can re-ascend the Temple Mount to rebuild.

                            It is, likewise, that same concept of "Messiah" that will bring about an internalized, self-inflicted Armageddon upon the holier-than-thou fundamentalists, ultra-conservative evangelicals, and other assorted hate-mongering Christianists---that will make Masada look like a Sunday picnic.  Think "Jim Jones' Jungle Kool-Aid" to the nth degree here....

                            The only good freeper is the one found at the bottom of an ocean....

                            by Liberal Panzer on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 02:42:58 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  gross (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            hikerbiker

                            the well-oiled gears of that religion's hypocrisy are finally beginning to clatter,

                            there is lots of offense in your post, this is just the tip of the iceberg. i'm hr'ing you because you've crossed my line.

                            sorry, i'm not a huge fan of hr's but basic decency will not allow me to let this insult pass.

                          •  ok (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness, Liberal Panzer, hikerbiker

                            i removed it because as a secular person i think there is plenty of opportunity to find hypocrisy when one encounters the practitioners of all religion. but clearly attacking a religion itself instead of those who interpret it or practice it is below the belt.

                            i don't understand that much about the religion but i am not willing to believe it has survived all these years unless the basic tenants are grounded in goodness. that is just common sense whether one is religious oneself or not. so no i do not think Judaism itself is showing any sign of hypocrisy just because a wave of current practitioners are involved in this hideous occupation. the religion is more longlasting than current political trends.

                          •  I'm reccing you (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zannie

                            ...for two reasons.  First (and foremost), you withdrew an HR that was based on your being personally offended by my comments.  "Hiding" is for something that's excessive across the board, not just for what indignation a few such as yourself might sense.  So that's a good thing.

                            Secondly, you raise a valid point that needs to be expanded upon.  The great fault in all religions---the "well-oiled machine finally beginning to clatter and clank"---is that the religious structures in society, whether Christian, Judaic, Islamic, Shintoist, Buddhist, Confucian, Wiccan, Rastafarian, or what have you---have all become demeaningly subservient to those who allege themselves to be nothing more that practitioners and adherents to their particular faith-regimens.  The individual who will not stand up and storm out---in loudly-expressed, righteous indignation---in the midst of a sermon of hatred and intolerance is no less guilty of that hatred and intolerance than the synaptically-challenged fool who spouts forth that hatred and intolerance from the pulpit.

                            It is not enough; it has never been enough, and it will never be enough, to simply say to one's self that "I disagree."  That is the path of the Enabler, and the path of the Coward.  Those who fail to openly reject the evil, for whatever reason, deserve nothing else than to be lumped in with that evil, associated with that evil, and declared a sycophantic celebrant of that evil.

                            As such, the tactic of attacking those who either wrongfully interpret and apply the tenets of any dogma, or those who by their own actions/inactions defend that wrongful interpretation and application, necessitates by philosophical default the waging of a general offensive upon the overall religion itself.

                            It is called "War"---and it is supposed to be ugly, or as you stated above: "gross".  Otherwise, we'd be up to our eyeballs in it 24/7/365.

                            We would all be "teabaggers"....

                            The only good freeper is the one found at the bottom of an ocean....

                            by Liberal Panzer on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:25:14 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  Not to mention that the Christian end-timers... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            capelza, Alec82

            ...would go absolutely bonkers.  You think they're bad now, just build the Third Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and see how crazy they go.  It'll be like stirring up a really loud, really obnoxious anthill.

            Call Congress and demand 2 Senators, 1 VOTING Rep, and full home rule for DC citizens. Anything less is un-American.

            by mistersite on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:52:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Isn't the rebuiling of that Temple (0+ / 0-)

        Supposed to herald the beginning of the end of the world in both Christian and Jewish faiths? Dunno never paid much attention to any religion but I guess that would make a lot of people not to keen on rebuilding.

        "You show me a capitalist, and I'll show you a bloodsucker." - Malcolm X

        by Dr Marcos on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:53:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Well, since Israel plans more settlements (7+ / 0-)

    the two-state solution is almost a bygone conclusion.

    Israel has officially approved the construction of nearly 400 new homes in the occupied West Bank, the Israeli defence ministry has announced.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/...

  •  Talk about Thinking Outside the Box! (11+ / 0-)

    There are layers of brilliance to the one-state idea. Aspects that better the soul, apart from the legal and social transformative opportunities for both sides.

    Very uplifting, Thanks blueness.

    •  it presupposes (9+ / 0-)

      that people are basically good. Against any and all evidence to the contrary, I believe that they are.

      Thank you, Pluto.

      •  Reality: just look at the history of pogroms (4+ / 0-)

        forced conversions, expulsions from one country after another, ghettos, blood libels, death camps and gas chambers.

        Sure, there certainly are a lot of "basically good" people in this world, but Jews have learned from their own personal history that not everyone is good.  

        There is sufficient evidence that having one's own little country, and attempting to control one's own destiny for a change, is vitally important.  Israel will never willingly give this up, despite anyone's utopian fantasies.

        Both Israelis and Palestinians are entitled to independence -- hence, 2 states.

        This one-state fantasy is just pie-in-the-sky and will never be achieved without massive bloodshed.

        Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

        by hikerbiker on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:26:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  i accept (0+ / 0-)

          that if any people can conclude, based on their own historical experience, that human beings are not basically good, it is the Jewish people. And I appreciate the determination of the people of Israel to not permit themselves to be so abused again.

          So I'm interested in your thoughts on these observations from the diary:

          Any domestic "existential threat" is obviated by the Palestinian resolve to, if a "civil rights struggle" is in some area deemed necessary, conduct such a struggle via the nonviolent "examples [of] Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela." Any existential threat from abroad evaporates, as no foreign power would be motivated to attack, invade, or attempt to obliterate a state in which Israelis and Palestinians are as one.  

          To put it in terms even more blunt and stark, a Jewish friend of mine has for years argued that the greatest security against the detonation in Israel of an atomic weapon, arriving either by missile or suitcase, is an Israel transformed into a single state in which Jews and Palestinians live as one.

          •  As I wrote before, I think it's pie in the sky. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueness, canadian gal

            Any existential threat from abroad evaporates

            cannot be guaranteed.

            And the so-called "demographic threat" is also very real.  

            Of course there would not be the same drive to attack from outside the state when there are equal rights and the state is on it's way to becoming majority Palestinian -- and we know that demographics would eventually and inevitably render this "bi-national state" majority Palestinian.

            I'm not claiming that all Palestinians seek the destruction of Israel.  But the Israelis will never willingly take a chance on the ones who might. And they will eventually have to make moves to preserve their majority status (ie: give up territory), as they wish to retain a semblance of democracy.

            In an ideal world, a binational state sounds ideal, but it will never be acceptable to the Israelis.

            So why not pursue a path toward peace which has the potential to be acceptable to both sides:  the two-state solution?

            Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

            by hikerbiker on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:49:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Any single state solution (11+ / 0-)

    would need hard and fast guarantees for minority rights and still that is no guarantee against future conflict.

    It must be late... I'm contributing to an I/P discussion.

    At least it is a good one.  We all want peace.

    The business of Nations is never morality. Moral stories live only through people.

    by tecampbell on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:06:38 AM PDT

  •  Ideally a "one state" solution (7+ / 0-)

    would make the most sense, but in practical terms I don't see it ever happening and some sort of two-state solution is the only thing I see being likely (unless there is dramatic change over the years in the future).

    Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

    by bythesea on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:06:45 AM PDT

  •  In a one state solution, what is home? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    capelza

    I would think that a 2 state solution would allow Palestinians to have clear control of their land to shape and fashion without the over-imposed Israeli fabric.

    Otherwise, what to return to? Homes and villages have been razed.

    Compensation?

    Listen to Noam Chomsky's Necessary Illusions. (mp3!)

    by borkitekt on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:15:06 AM PDT

    •  israel (7+ / 0-)

      becomes their home. Just as palestinian professor talks about so eloquently in these threads. All of the people of the occupied territories become citizens of the Israeli state, and, like any good and decent state, that state is obligated to care for its citizens, especially those who are in the most distress. The peoples of the occupied territories are no longer "temporary" wards for which Israel does not to have to feel great responsibility: they, as Carter describes it, are transformed into "fellow citizens with their Jewish neighbors" with "equal rights within a democracy."

      If the Palestinians wish their own state, that is of course properly their choice. In this piece I am taking Carter at his word, that he genuinely encountered an emerging consensus for a single-state solution.

  •  Having lived in Israel for 7 months (11+ / 0-)

    and having grown up Jewish, let me give the general Israeli mindset as it was taught to me growing up.  

    First, Jew's have been saying for centuries, "Next year in Jerusalem!" to mark their need to return to their homeland after the Jews were dispersed by the Romans some two thousand years ago.  The Jews have maintained since that time that the land of Israel is theirs and all others are invaders.  

    Second, after the holocaust, many Jews became convinced that non-Jews could no longer be trusted to keep from murdering them and so they needed to 1) find a place that was defensible against non-Jews who would do them harm; and 2) God had already promised them such a place in the land of Israel.  They simply needed to return to that place.    

    Given this background, I'm trying to imagine a scenario where Israelis would allow millions of non-Jews the opportunity to control the lives of Jews from within Israel, either with guns or with the ballot box.  It just doesn't sound likely to me.  A lot of Jews haven't forgotten that it was the ballot box that put Hitler in power in the first place.  

    So, let me just say, if a one state solution were ever to happen, but whole understanding of Israeli mindset, and of Judaism would be completely shattered.      

    •  No it didn't. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sayitaintso

      "A lot of Jews haven't forgotten that it was the ballot box that put Hitler in power in the first place."

      No it didn't. Look it up. This is a basic fact.

      So where's all the outrage against anti-atheist bigotry?

      by skeptiq on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:45:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's a bit more complicated than that (5+ / 0-)

        but it is true that the ballot box gave the Nazis the plurality in the Reichstag which led in time to Hitler being in power.

        Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

        by bythesea on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:01:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, and Hitler's mom bore him, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          litho

          which eventually allowed him to be a dictator.

          That means a woman's womb put Hitler in power.

          Let's not engage in this sort of word-jiggling. We both understand that the commenter referred to a widespread myth that Hitler was democratically elected.

          No, democracy did not put Hitler in power. An undemocratic procedure did.

          So where's all the outrage against anti-atheist bigotry?

          by skeptiq on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:10:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not quite (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BentLiberal, alliedoc

            democracy put his party in the plurality which made him a political player.  It is asinine to compare that to his mother giving birth to him.

            Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

            by bythesea on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:13:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No group is guaranteed saftey (0+ / 0-)

              Lets face facts the world is dangerous it is impossible to insure the saftey of any group on the planet let alone humanity itself. Hitler caused a great deal of suffering for his supporters and detractors. It was an unnecessary evil like Pinochet or Stalin. Leaders rise and abuse their power, manipulate the masses and silence their critics. We need to be on the look out for these individuals regardless or who stands to suffer the most as a result of them being in power.

              Politics, economics, and society itself give birth to tyrants, thus it is a product of our very humanity and civilization we must be cautious of. Especially the out of control nationalism they use to justify their atrocities.

      •  From Wikipedia (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dr Marcos

                                    Nazi Party Election Results
        Date        Votes  Percentage   Seats in Reichstag Background
        May 1924 1,918,300 6.5                     32                 Hitler in prison
        Dec 1924 907,300      3.0                     14                Hitler is released
        May 1928 810,100 2.6 12
        Sept 1930 6,409,600 18.3            107         After the financial crisis
        July 1932 13,745,800 37.4            230            After Hitler candidacy
        Nov 1932 11,737,000 33.1            196
        March 1933 17,277,000 43.9            288            Hitler's as Chancellor

        From http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    •  What about the fecundity of Israeli Arabs? (0+ / 0-)

      Your ethnically pure state ideal seems to contradict the facts on the ground, which is that Arabs who are tolerated in Israel have a higher birth rate than the totality of the Israeli Jews.

      BTW, can you imagine Arabs ever being able to control the lives of Jews, as Jews have done to Arabs? With a higher birth rate, the democratic boast of Israel will be put to the test in a few generations.

    •  I'm not sure that a one state solution... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      capelza, blueness

      ...would simply "be allowed" to happen. But being allowed to happen is not the point.

      I assume that it would be the end result of a (hopefully nonviolent) long and difficult struggle.

      Folks would have to be committed enough to the idea to struggle for their civil rights within a one-state paradigm.

      It is the struggle itself that would change reality.

      illegal, n. A term used by descendents of European immigrants to refer to descendants of Indigenous Americans

      by ricardomath on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 08:56:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  you should really take a trip (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueness

      to the holocaust museum in dc. they show a video at the beginning, it explains hitler's rise to power.

  •  One-state "solution" is not a solution. (8+ / 0-)

    Let's not be naive here. Both sides hate each other's guts. The only real solution are two independent states.

    So where's all the outrage against anti-atheist bigotry?

    by skeptiq on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:42:57 AM PDT

    •  if (12+ / 0-)

      "both sides hate each other's guts," "two independent states" does not become the solution. France and England were "two independent states," and they fought each other for 1000 years.

      I don't think most people on both sides do "hate each other's guts." And chances are greater, it seems to me, that there would be fewer such haters if all were in a single state, rather than one people occupying the other, or overseeing the fetal-state of the other, which are the only two other alternatives we are currently presented with.

      •  Yes it is. (0+ / 0-)

        Let them fight it out if they wish - as independent states. But separation is the key. In one state the people of two radically different cultures (many facets of which are the opposites of each other) are unlikely to co-exist comfortably and peacefully, especially when the large portion of one of them will justifiably perceive themselves as victims.

        I don't think most people on both sides do "hate each other's guts.

        And I think you're naive.

        So where's all the outrage against anti-atheist bigotry?

        by skeptiq on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:59:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't make the common (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          capelza, Alec82, Dr Marcos

          mistake of thinking "skeptic" means asshole.

          Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

          by bythesea on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:03:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  "Let them fight it out if they wish" is not a (5+ / 0-)

          solution.

          It's a statement of the problem.

          The crooks are leaving have left office, unprosecuted and scot-free.

          by BentLiberal on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:36:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  "Let them fight it out if they wish"? (5+ / 0-)

          You're talking Bambi vs. Godzilla here. Israel is the regional military superpower, and Palestine is a desperately poor dysfunctional kleptocracy kept in grinding poverty by a combination of Israel's bootheel and its own feckless leadership.

          So, sure. Let's have David Spade and Mike Tyson strap on gloves and see what happens in the ring.

          I think I can predict the outcome, though.

          •  "Bambi vs. Godzilla." (0+ / 0-)

            This notion nicely illustrates the very problem the left has understanding I-P in a nutshell.

            As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. - Mr. Carlson

            by Karmafish on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:57:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Just compare Gazan deaths to Israeli. (0+ / 0-)

              The disparity between the carnage in Gaza inflicted by (American funded) supersonic fighter-bombers, artillery shells, tank fire and helicopter-launched missiles upon civilian neighborhoods and the occasional home-made rocket landing in Israel is pretty stark. Sort of Bambi/Godzilla stark.

              Perhaps my "problem" understanding I-P is that I personally know and respect Palestinians, and can see both sides with a shred of objectivity.

              •  Clearly you cannot (0+ / 0-)

                "see both sides with a shred of objectivity."

                In fact, you do not see the Israeli side at all.

                If you did, you would respect the fact that they endured bombardment of southern Israel for years.  Thousands and thousands of rocket attacks.  The children of S'derot and Ashkelot now suffer from PTSD.

                Hamas and Islamic Jihad knew that eventually Israel would have to strike back... and Israel did.

                Would you expect anything less?

                I mean, is there some sort of Get Out of Jail Free card for attempting to kill Israeli Jews?

                I don't think so.

                As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. - Mr. Carlson

                by Karmafish on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:06:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We'll just have to agree to disagree here. (0+ / 0-)

                  No one here to my knowledge is suggesting that the targeting of Israeli civilians with home-made rockets by the Palestinians in Gaza was anything but evil and self-defeating. Yet supporters of Israel seem constitutionally incapable of honestly examining why the Palestinians are so desperate, so enraged as to embrace such nihilism. Israel holds all the cards here; the Palestinians are essentially impotent by comparison. Violent nihilism is all they have left.
                  Israel responded to the "Gaza problem" by obliterating entire apartment blocks full of civilians with artillery and 1,000 lb. laser guided bombs and killing over a thousand civilians; Israeli troops attested to 'rules of engagement' that empowered them to massacre unarmed civilians rather than risk any casualties. The morality of this speaks for itself.

                  You reap what you sow. The next generation of Gazan/Palestinian children will be that much angrier, that much more intransigent. The scorpion and the frog all over again.

        •  separation empowers irredentist nationalists (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          capelza, blueness, ricardomath

          on both sides, and divides those on both sides who would coexist with one another while tainting them with charges of ethnic/religious/national treason.

          partition has always bred this sort of violence. perhaps collapsing the divide will lead somewhere else.

          surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

          by wu ming on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:58:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (10+ / 0-)

        'I don't think most people on both sides do "hate each other's guts."'

        Well, I think it's at least possible that they do, but the point is that this hatred is not intrinsic or set in stone. The relationship between Israelis and Palestinians is currently that of an occupier and the occupied, an oppressor and the oppressed. As you say, were that relationship to be changed, I think the hatred would gradually dissipate as people started to get on with their lives and focus on the daily problems of work, family, and so on.

      •  Israel is not going to accept (5+ / 0-)

        the possibility that Arabs someday could run their country and set its laws. They would view that as the irradication of the Jewish state, and the subjection of the Jewish people to potential danger. It is just not a realistic option.

        I'm in the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

        by doc2 on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:16:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Aren't they still... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        canadian gal

        France and England were "two independent states,"

        ...independent states?  AFAIK the EU hasn't become a single nation-state yet.

  •  Judah Magnes, Henrietta Szold (10+ / 0-)

    Hannah Arendt, and Martin Buber, among others argued for a Bi-National State.

    What isn't acceptable is the status quo.  

    Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

    by Eiron on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:47:39 AM PDT

  •  Thanks blueness (8+ / 0-)

    Carter's warning about Palestinian leaders increasingly turning to the one-state solution fits with what others have reported, and personally I find it very worrying, if entirely predictable.

    Israel has spent the past few decades relentlessly constructing settlements and infrastructure in the West Bank, confining Palestinians to ever smaller cantons, carving up their territory into dozens of isolated enclaves, forcefully undercutting whatever institutions of governance the Palestinians have developed and just generally undermining what basis exists for a two-state settlement to be implemented. Moreover while some in the West are fooled by each successive diplomatic trick Israel comes up with to justify its rejectionism, the Palestinians know better. They know very well that Israel has no intention whatsoever of abandoning control over the West Bank, and it is becoming increasingly clear to them that Obama, thanks to our failures as activists, isn't going to force it do so.

    In that situation it's only natural to look for alternatives. A one-state or binational solution would have the advantage of being fairer and more sustainable than two states. The problem is that until Israeli society converts en masse from the hard right to anarcho-syndicalism, it isn't going to happen any time soon. Every argument against the likelihood of a two-state settlement applies three-fold against a one-state solution.

    You ask:

    "If the Palestinian people of the occupied territories were really to say, we renounce our dream of our own state, we wish to join you in yours: how, really, could Israel say no? And on what grounds?"

    I think to answer that we can just look at what the standard response to talk of a one-state solution is now. The argument will be:

    1. It is antisemitic and unjust to deny the Jews their own state.
    1. Palestinians will not be able to live at peace side-by-side with Jews (this is a racist argument and a standard colonial trope, but when it comes to Israel-Palestine its still seen as acceptable).
    1. Palestinians have no right to Israel proper, because... [insert whatever spurious reason here: they aren't really a people, they attacked first in '48, they rejected Camp David, etc.].

    etc. The basic argument, openly stated or not, is that Palestinians are not capable of living alongside Jews, and that they would spoil the wonderful, democratic, civilised society that Israeli Jews have created for themselves.

  •  When pigs fly (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paul in Berkeley, Karmafish, oxfdblue

    Ain't gonna happen. The Palestinian birth rate alone would be a deal breaker.

    THE NEEDS OF THE MANY OUTWEIGH THE NEEDS OF THE FEW..........OR THE ONE!

    by Diamond Jim55 on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:15:20 AM PDT

    •  So what (0+ / 0-)

      You just have the current set-up when a minority of Jews rule over a majority of Arabs? You think Netanyahu going to be the guy who makes a just two state solution.

      It is the only Democratic way to view it. The Palestinian birth rate is a fact. Not a political issue.

      If the Palestinians become the majority in the holy land and just demand a one man one vote system it becomes hard and dubious to argue against such a system.

      "You show me a capitalist, and I'll show you a bloodsucker." - Malcolm X

      by Dr Marcos on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 06:06:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  One-State efforts (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    livosh1, dhonig, blueness, Terra Mystica

    will further complicate the issue and perpetuate the conflict for at least 100 years.

     1. Palestinian reconciliation

     2. Declaration of Independence.

    "It takes two to lie. One to lie, one to hear it." Homer Simpson

    by Euroliberal on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:16:57 AM PDT

    •  That's the most likely (4+ / 0-)

      scenario.  Palestinian political reconciliation, unilateral declaration of independence, admission to the UN,   Probably by spring next year.    Expect strong Israeli resistance, for obvious reasons.

      Perhaps some sort of federation is in the future for the two nations.  

      Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

      by Eiron on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:24:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's what I expect alright (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eiron, blueness, Terra Mystica

        Expect strong Israeli resistance, for obvious reasons.

        but what would be different under this scenario is that it won't be enough to overcome the overwhelming pressure from a world community which can't be demonized like the Hamas scapegoat.

        "It takes two to lie. One to lie, one to hear it." Homer Simpson

        by Euroliberal on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:47:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  imagine a scenario (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Euroliberal, blueness, Terra Mystica

          in which an independent Palestine closes its airspace to Israeli military aircraft, and denies passage of Israeli military forces.  

          Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

          by Eiron on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:59:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Under all the two state solutions (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            capelza, Terra Mystica

            From the Clinton plans to Bush's roadmap all the two state solutions included that Israel's military would have free reign over the new Palestine's airspace.

            Also in all the proposals was a ban on Palestine having an army. Of course that kind of undermines the idea of an independent state, not being in full control of its own military policy or airspace but that was what was included in all the two state talks.  

            "You show me a capitalist, and I'll show you a bloodsucker." - Malcolm X

            by Dr Marcos on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 06:11:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly, true (4+ / 0-)

              But if Palestine declares independence and becomes a State with all the rights and responsibilities of a state, it is a different scenario.    

              Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

              by Eiron on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 06:42:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  and that is why (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                capelza, Terra Mystica, Dr Marcos

                it's the best move for them. When will they realize it?

                "It takes two to lie. One to lie, one to hear it." Homer Simpson

                by Euroliberal on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 07:04:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, the obstacles are: (4+ / 0-)

                  the difficulties in reconciling Hamas and Fatah (and some of the minor parties).  Meshaal is in Cairo with Abbas last week, so maybe there is movement.

                  The second is the potential for violence by the Israeli settlers, and perhaps even the State of Israel, on the Palestinians.

                  But, I predict it will happen, unless ISrael begins and concludes a final borders agreement post haste.  

                  Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

                  by Eiron on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 07:11:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  what if Iran is factored into negotiations (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Eiron

                Ahmadinejad has said several times that Iran would support a solution that Palestinians had the right to determine/vote on.

                With that opening, a diplomat with the skills of George Mitchell could get Iran on board with whatever steps toward self-determination the Palestinians decide upon.

                But how would that work:  Would Iran's agreement to step back from interference in Palestine IF Israel genuinely ceded self-determination to the Palestinians be enough to assuage Israel's fury at Iran, or does Israel NEED to have Iran to be furious with as a pressure-release for the angst that will surely follow the concession of self-determination to Palestinians?

  •  We should also ask ourselves (13+ / 0-)

    what our rsponsibilities would be were the Palestinians to start demanding a single state rather than two-states. In my view, if the basis for a two-state settlement continues to erode to the point where its implementation is no more realistic than a one-state solution, and as a result Palestinians launch a one-person-one-vote style struggle for equality and civil rights, it would be our obligation to the support them, just as we supported the civil rights struggle in the US and the movement against apartheid in S. Africa.

    •  In a sense (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      capelza

      the roots of the conflict could be seen as the aspirations of  the Palestinians for a single state, encompassing and replacing the State of Israel.   Obviously not gonna happen.  Over time, the Palestinians have indicated that they accept the reality of the State of Israel.

      Back at the time of partition, a one state solution was considered, but ultimately rejected in favor of the simultaneous formation an Israeli State and an Arab state.

      The Palestinians have a good case to revisit the 1947 partition plan, and claim an independent state of Palestine on the lands partitioned for them by the International community.  And then appeal to the International community for relief when those lands are occupied by a foreign power.  

      Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

      by Eiron on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:44:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        capelza, Terra Mystica, yaque

        "The Palestinians have a good case to revisit the 1947 partition plan, and claim an independent state of Palestine on the lands partitioned for them by the International community."

        If they're going to insist on that then they might as well go the whole hog and demand a one-state solution, because they're both as unrealistic as each other.

        There exists today a virtually unanimous international political and legal consensus for resolving the conflict through a two-state settlement based on the '67 borders. No such consensus exists for the '47 plan or for a single state solution, and the question I think we need to ask ourselves is: is it worth throwing away a broad consensus that took years of struggle to achieve to, essentially, start again from scratch trying to build support for a solution that, currently, has little to no support in any of the constituencies that matter? That's not a step that should be taken lightly, and I think that as long as even a slim possibility remains to achieve a two-state settlement we should keep our focus on that.

        •  As a starting point for negotiations (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          capelza

          and in the absence of any other basis for a legitimate claim for territorial sovereignty, why not?

          Until it is superseded by a another treaty or agreement, that's all there is.  Let final borders be negotiated and settled.   Both parties have their starting points.  

          The Israeli Labor governments have pursued a course of developing lands adjacent to, but across the green line, hoping to retain them in a final agreement.  

          Obama seems to want to see that discussion happen sooner than later.  And I support that.

          If the '67 lines are ok with the Palestinians, fine by me.   The Arab league, the Obama Administration, the EU all seem to be OK with the '67 lines.   Israel would like some adjustments.  

          Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

          by Eiron on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:12:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            capelza, Terra Mystica, Gracian

            "As a starting point for negotiations and in the absence of any other basis for a legitimate claim for territorial sovereignty, why not?"

            There is another basis, though. It's the international consensus two-state settlement, which has broad international political and legal support, unlike the '47 plan, which has virtually none.

            In any case, we don't need a "starting point" for negotiations. We already know what a two-state settlement will have to look like, as we've known for over 30 years. What's needed now is for the US and Israel to accept it.

            "The Israeli Labor governments have pursued a course of developing lands adjacent to, but across the green line, hoping to retain them in a final agreement."

            They've built all over the West Bank, and their position on a final settlement is no less rejectionist than the Likud's.

            "Obama seems to want to see that discussion happen sooner than later.  And I support that."

            This isn't about having a "discussion". We've had years of "discussion", all of which has been fruitless because the basic problem has been left unresolved: Israel refuses to withdraw to its legal borders. It isn't going to be talked into doing so; that will take some serious pressure, and Obama has shown no indication that he will provide it.

            "If the '67 lines are ok with the Palestinians, fine by me.   The Arab league, the Obama Administration, the EU all seem to be OK with the '67 lines.   Israel would like some adjustments."

            If by "adjustments" you mean that Israel insists on annexing a large portion of the West Bank, preventing the Palestinians from establishing a viable, territorially contiguous state and refusing to return East Jerusalem to serve as the capital of a future Palestinian state, then that statement is accurate. If you're referring to the "mutual" and "minor" border adjustments allowed for by 242, then it's not: the Palestinians have in the past been willing to 'adjust' the border to take into account Israel's systematic land theft; the problem is that "mutual" and "minor" land swaps have never been enough for Israel.

            •  A big problem (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              capelza, Terra Mystica

              has been the absence of  defined borders for the State of Israel.  Israel has persistently exploited this ambiguity by expansion into 'disputed" areas (as long as they are disputed, they are fair game, goes the reasoning).

              So Israel has a negative incentive to negotiate final borders.  

              So, the '67 lines are as good as any.   Draw that line in the sand, let the Palestinians declare independence, defining their borders as west of the '67 line.

              Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

              by Eiron on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:34:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  i would agree (5+ / 0-)

      as long as the state being called for adhered to democratic principles, protected minority rights, and was neutral WRT religion and ethnicity.

      surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

      by wu ming on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:15:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  In today's Haaretz (9+ / 0-)

    Last update - 05:49 07/09/2009

    IDF general: Israel incapable of West Bank pullout

    By Chaim Levinson, Haaretz Correspondent

    Almost seven years after he was introduced to Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan, initiated the establishment of the Sela disengagement administration to aid evacuees from Gaza and northern Samaria, and became one of the central figures behind the scenes in carrying out the plan - the head of the National Security Council at the time of the 2005 disengagement, Maj. Gen (res.) Giora Eiland, is convinced that Israel is incapable of evacuating settlements on the West Bank.

    The gist of the article is that the general feels that the Israeli government operates well when confronted with a crisis, but not so well when confronted with an urgent need.  He says the problem is structural, inherent in the political system.

    Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

    by Eiron on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:19:48 AM PDT

  •  By the way, (7+ / 0-)

    Counterpunch hosted an interesting debate on one-state vs. two-state last year. Here's Michael Neumann's argument against a one-state solution, with a rebuttal by Jonathan Cook. Neumann replied here, and Cook had the last word here.

  •  LOL, how is it news? (7+ / 0-)

    Palestinian leaders "seriously" considered one state solution in 1947 and every year after that. Of course, they lost the UN vote, several wars and intifadas in their futile attempts to implement a one state solution, of course, Israel and the Jews will NEVER EVER willingly accept a one state solution which for all intents and purposes means the disappearance of the Jewish state and its replacement with yet another state where the jews are a minority.

    The palestinian leaders are free to dream whatever they want to dream and smoke whatever it is they smoke (I'd love to know what they smoke though :) ) but a one state solution will only take place over the dead body of every Israeli jew.

    •  So that's a vote (4+ / 0-)

      for a two-state solution, then?  

      Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

      by Eiron on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:00:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, it's very easy to say (8+ / 0-)

      "never" - sorry, "NEVER" - but as blueness's previous diary showed, it doesn't actually mean very much. You sound exactly like apologists for apartheid in South Africa, who were equally certain that they would NEVER relinquish any power to the black population (and indeed the arguments they used in their defence are very similar to arguments used by Israel's apologists in opposition to the one-state solution).

      I think one can safely predict that a one-state solution isn't going to be realised any time soon, which is why a two-state settlement should be the immediate goal, if only as a first step to something better.

      •  Hmm (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Karmafish, word is bond, politicalstu

        I think one can safely predict that a one-state solution isn't going to be realised any time soon, which is why a two-state settlement should be the immediate goal, if only as a first step to something better.

        It's exactly this attitude that concerns Israel (both leaders and its people) and hampers the peace process. How can Israelis trust their negotiating partners when they see a two state solution as the final settlement of the conflict, yet they know full well that for "anti-zionists" of all stripes it's just a stepping stone to something "better" - the elimination of the Jewish state.

        •  The idea is not that a two-state settlement (7+ / 0-)

          would be the launching pad for a violent struggle. The point is that after decades of living peacefully together, cooperation between the two-state will likely increase and animosity between the two peoples will very possibly decrease to the point where some sort of federation or binational state will become a realistic possibility.

          Israeli leaders are not in the least bit concerned that a two-state settlement could lead to the destruction of Israel, because they aren't fools. They know full well that a Palestinian state, defenceless and surrounded on both sides by a tactic Jordanian-Israeli military alliance, would pose as much threat to Israel as Luxemburg did to the Soviet Union (as Abba Eban put it).

          •  just because (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Karmafish, Doodad, mattwb, politicalstu

            two states live peacefully side by side and cooperate does not mean they are ever going to merge or form a federation. People harboring this hope will end up sorely disappointed and disappointed people in the Middle East do tend to take to arms. You know perfectly well that there will always be people in the Middle East and in the world hell-bent on eliminating Israel as a jewish state, one way or another. The real question is whether they are going to be fringe or become/remain mainstream in the Palestinian and other arab societies.

            Just out of curiosity, why won't this palestinian state establish ties, cooperate and eventually merge or establish a federation with Jordan. That would make a ton more sense as they share culture, language and religion. But it does not serve the ultimate objective of getting rid of Israel so I am sure the idea will not be entertained by self-proclaimed palestinian supporters.

            •  asdf (7+ / 0-)

              "just because two states live peacefully side by side and cooperate does not mean they are ever going to merge or form a federation"

              I agree, it doesn't necessarily mean that, but if a one-state solution is going to come about I can't see any other realistic way it's going to happen. The future states of Israel and Palestine would be heavily interconnected in numerous ways - economically, territorially, in terms of resources (e.g. water), in terms of Jerusalem, etc., not to mention the situation for Palestinian citizens of Israel. In such circumstances it makes a lot more sense to have some sort of federal or binational arrangement than to have two-separate states, and after decades of living peacefully together the obstacles to that happening (the mutual animosity, distrust, etc.) might well attenuate to the point where it becomes a realistic possibility.

              "People harboring this hope will end up sorely disappointed and disappointed people in the Middle East do tend to take to arms."

              Sorry, there's no basis whatsoever for suggesting that Palestinians would throw away everything they've struggled for in a hopeless battle against one of the world's military superpowers to achieve a goal that is in any event only supported by a minority of the population. You can invent doomsday scenarios all you want, but it just comes across as an attempt to justify the status quo.

              "You know perfectly well that there will always be people in the Middle East and in the world hell-bent on eliminating Israel as a jewish state, one way or another. The real question is whether they are going to be fringe or become/remain mainstream in the Palestinian and other arab societies."

              Just as there will always be people in Israel determined to prevent the existence of a Palestinian state (y'know, like the ones currently in government). We don't need to speculate about whether Palestinians support a two-state settlement or not: they do, and have done for a long time. Moreover once a Palestinian state is established they'll be far less likely to resort to violence against Israel than they are now, since a) that would mean a return to the current status quo of occupation and military repression, and b) they would no longer be living under military occupation, with all the incentives towards violent resistance that brings.

              Of course the real danger is the security of the future state of Palestine from the military superpower that has been occupying, attacking and dispossessing it for decades. That you don't even mention this, focusing instead on the purported Palestinian threat to Israel, which is comparitively miniscule, reveals a lot about your priorities.

              "Just out of curiosity, why won't this palestinian state establish ties, cooperate and eventually merge or establish a federation with Jordan. That would make a ton more sense as they share culture, language and religion."

              Perhaps it will, but I really don't see the use of speculating about that. Palestinians don't want Jordan, they want their own country back, and as inconvenient as that is for you, you're just going to have to accept that.

            •  700 years ago Genoans despised Pisans (0+ / 0-)

              when Pisa and Genoa were two, separate, aggressively competing political and economic entities.

              Today, it is still common for a Genoan to say, "Better a death in the family than a Pisan at the door."  But the two cities are cooperating and contributing cities in one Italy.

              •  so it took them 700 years (0+ / 0-)

                to get along even though they were part of the same country, shared the same religion, language, culture (most of it), had the same ethnicity, had no blood feud going on between them... Do you seriously think it's a relevant example? Get out of town Mac :)

                •  do you seriously know the history of (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Alec82

                  the many times the Italian peninsula was conquered, the many ways the disparate populations who lived on the same Italian geography were as different from each other as the the (semitic) Arabs are from the (semitic) Jews? Do you seriously realize that over the course of as much as half a millenia persons who lived on the Italian peninsula lived there as vassals of occupying powers?  
                  Get back to me when you've expanded your historic database.

                  •  what do your posts have to do with (0+ / 0-)

                    this discussion? Pisa and Genoa are now in one country, London and Paris are in different countries, Prague and Bratislava, Moscow and Kiev used to be in the same country, they are now in different countries. What the hell do your irrelevant posts about the history of Italy have to do with the fact that the Jews and Palestinians (arabs) don't share the same culture, religion, language, don't enjoy similar economic status, have been murdering each other for the last 200 hundred years and will certainly be unable to get along within one state for generations to come.

                    •  is there an ignore function on this forum? (0+ / 0-)

                      you seem to be spouting off just to vent spleen.  
                      Knock yourself out.

                    •  lacking an ignore button (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Alec82

                      your claim that

                      Jews and Palestinians (arabs) don't share the same culture, religion, language, don't enjoy similar economic status,

                      seems to do battle with the notion that the land to which Palestinians are indigenous was also the land to which Jews were indigenous.

                      Palestinians and Jews are both offspring of Abraham; it is not at all unlikely that many Palestinians are descendants of the lost tribes; it is not at all unlikely that indigenous Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Hebrews who were "left behind" when Nebuchadnezzar exiled the Hebrew elite to Babylon, where 75% of them remained.  

                      In short, there are probably more degrees of connectivity between Jews and Palestinians than between Germanic tribes who settled Northern Italy, indigenous Etruscans, Greeks and Nordic tribes who settled Southern Italy, Spain, which ruled large parts of Italy for several centuries, etc.

                      But the larger point is that peoples have had major conflicts of monumental intensity over great spans of years, and have eventually achieved relatively peaceful coexistence.  It can happen again.

                      •  we all came from the same monkey (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Karmafish

                        (according to Darwin at least) and still we have more than two hundred states on the planet. And incidentally the number of states is increasing, not decreasing, making the creation of a Jewish and Palestinian state more logical and more in line with the trend on the planet.

                        And no, peoples did not just go from major conflicts to "relatively peaceful coexistence" the process took hundreds of years of bloodshed, oppression, riots, exploitation, pogroms, murders, persecutions, uprisings etc and  at the end mostly failed. And that's exactly the kind of future that the proponents of a two state solution are trying to avoid for both Jews and Palestinians. And that's exactly the kind of future that people like you (well meaning as you may be) are pushing them into.

                        It's not going to work Mac, the Jews don't give a shit  about Genoa and Pisa, they have their own 2000 years of history and you'll have to pry their state and their majority status out of their cold dead hands. Isn't it obvious?

        •  1994 saw the elimination of the apartheid state (6+ / 0-)

          but to my knowledge the afrikaaners and white south africans continued to exist well enough in the new country, even when the white-run constitutional regime changed into something else.

          ending a state predicated upon the supremacy of one ethnic group over another in a mixed population, and eliminating those privileges in favor of legal equality is not the same as eliminating that ethnic group. the dixiecrats and right wing afrikaaners and ulstermen argued differently, but their claims were not borne out by what happened next.

          surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

          by wu ming on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:21:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  White South Africans are... (0+ / 0-)

            leaving South Africa at a very high rate. I think over 1 million have left since 1994.

            The US south is different because white southerners are a majority in every state.

            Israel will never accept a one-state solution. The perfect example is to the north in Lebanon. Lebanon originally had a Christian majority. Over the years the higher Muslim birth rate and Christian emigration eroded that majority. A 15 year civil war broke out in the mid 70s.

    •  The dead bodies of not (0+ / 0-)

      only Israeli Jews, btw.

      As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. - Mr. Carlson

      by Karmafish on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:00:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here's a good comment (7+ / 0-)

    on the prospects for a one-state solution by Dave Wearing of the Democrat's Diary blog:

    "The one-state, two-state debate eventually boils down to the same question.

    Obviously it is vital to point out the plain fact that the continual settlement of the West Bank, and especially the areas around and within East Jerusalem, make the implementation of the two-state solution less and less feasible. But if you advocate one state, it is not sufficient to say this.

    To argue for one state is to say that Israelis are more likely to give up Israel itself than they are to give up the settlements. That is the only sense in which the difficulty of uprooting the settlers can have any relevance to the case in favour of one state.

    I've seen the one state case made many times, by very smart and informed people, and none has been able to take that argument to its conclusion in a remotely credible way, if indeed they've been prepared to deal with the point at all.

    The Israeli electorate has just elected a viciously hard-right, nationalistic government. If it is not ready to give up the colonies then - very obviously - it is far, far, far less likely to give up the state of Israel itself.

    Under the two-state solution, Israel survives, albeit without the colonies. Under the one-state solution, Israel disappears altogether. The question - while Palestinians continue to suffer - is not which of these you prefer. The question is which of these is possible. If both were possible, you could decide which you prefer. Since one is very difficult, and one is impossible, there isn't a choice to be made, however much we'd like things to be otherwise.

    I would dearly love to see the day where the whole of historic Palestine is a single democratic state of all its citizens. But I do not see why the Palestinians should have to wait for the Israeli electorate to transform from majority-racist into left-internationalist before their oppression can end, or at least be mitigated.

    Probably the best chance a one state solution has, ultimately, is a long period, perhaps several decades to a century, of the two peoples living under a two state solution in relative peace. That could set the scene for greater reconciliation in the future. In this period of calm, Israeli society might get the space and time to reflect on what it has done to the Palestinians, and reach some level of contrition. Who knows? That might well lead to one democratic state further down the road, but these are the only circumstances under which that's likely to happen.

    So if its helpful, perhaps one-staters and two-staters could agree on two-states in the first instace, with one-staters seeing it as an interim solution before a later and final, one-state arrangement."

    •  Is South Africa still South Africa? (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wu ming, capelza, Eiron, blueness, ricardomath

      The essential character of the state has changed, but the nation-state continues to exist within the same boundaries as before and even to a great extent the same culture.  The currency is the same, the constitution is largely unchanged, and the economy continues to function in much the same way as it used to.  Even the demographic structure of the country and the social relations of power strongly resemble those that existed before the collapse of apartheid.

      Israel will not agree to a single state solution willingly, but it could be forced into such a recognition by a broad-based non-violent movement with strong international support.  I see no reason why such a single state could not continue to be called Israel, still have Hebrew as an official language (along with Arabic), still use the shekel, and use modified versions of the Israeli Basic Laws (which hopefully could then be codified into an actual constitution).

      It's alarmist to say that Israel would cease to exist.  Its character as a Jewish state would disappear, but it would remain a homeland for the Jews.

      Remember, it wasn't just the Arabs who wanted a single state in 1948.  Important Zionists, like Buber, Magnes, Einstein, and others, all preferred a bi-national state to partition.

      Richard "The Dick" Cheney: screwing America since 1969

      by litho on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:58:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        capelza, Terra Mystica

        "Israel will not agree to a single state solution willingly, but it could be forced into such a recognition by a broad-based non-violent movement with strong international support."

        In principle yes, but realistically I can't see that happening within the foreseeable future. The most plausible route to achieving a binational or one-state solution goes, it seems to me, through a two-state settlement.

        "It's alarmist to say that Israel would cease to exist.  Its character as a Jewish state would disappear, but it would remain a homeland for the Jews."

        Israel defines itself as a specifically Jewish state. Whatever replaces it could be called "Israel" or "Palestine" or "cheesecake", but the basic character of the state would have fundamentally changed.

        "Remember, it wasn't just the Arabs who wanted a single state in 1948.  Important Zionists, like Buber, Magnes, Einstein, and others, all preferred a bi-national state to partition."

        I'm aware of that, but I don't see the relevance here. The fact is that today, such an idea is anathema to 99% of Israeli Jews.

      •  Over 1 million White South... (0+ / 0-)

        Even the demographic structure of the country and the social relations of power strongly resemble those that existed before the collapse of apartheid.

        Africans have left since 1994. Ever heard of "packing for Perth?"

  •  Totally off topic, but interesting... (0+ / 0-)

    I was selecting some text a second ago in this diary, using Safari 4 with the new Snow Leopard OSX, and when I right or control clicked on it, I got an option for speech I've never seen, so I clicked on it... and it seems to work rather well. Interesting idea to be able to listen to others actually speak as opposed to reading all the time...

    So, Alec sounds good with the "Alec" setting, and there is one that sounds like Steven Hawkings... even one for zemblan:)

    Photobucket

    < snårk/ >

    Listen to Noam Chomsky's Necessary Illusions. (mp3!)

    by borkitekt on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:26:01 AM PDT

    •  Also... (0+ / 0-)

      just because I was searching for a link...

      I've been saving some articles from Haaretz that I thought would be important to reference later, and I prefer to keep them on my computer.

      So, once they are saved, I still have to find the hyperlink for people to find them, so, I started copying the link and then I'd go back to the saved article, click it for "information" (command + I), and place the link in the spotlight comments pane.

      ...Until I noticed that under the More Info tab, the link is automatically included.  

      And, if anyone uses the quick preview feature (space bar) in Snow Leopard it recognizes saved web pages immediately, so, you can scroll through them without having to open them up in a browser. Really neat...

      Listen to Noam Chomsky's Necessary Illusions. (mp3!)

      by borkitekt on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:53:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Place the yoke on my shoulders, please. (0+ / 0-)

    Does this seem reasonable to people here? That the Palestinians willingly subject themselves to Israeli sovereignty and become meek subjects of the regional superpower that has been grinding them into the dust?

    Just thinking out loud, but does that mean Palestinian kids living in the West Bank would become subject to Israel's military draft?

    And how will Palestinians feel about being taxed to subsidize Israel's lunatic fringe orthodox fundamentalists, the very maniacs who have most aggressively stolen West Bank land? The folks who carry Uzi's and M-16's to Synagogue and take pot-shots at neighboring Palestinians for laughs?

    •  if the army allows palestinians to be drafted (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      capelza, Eiron, blueness, unspeakable

      that would make for a rather different army, not unlike when america integrated its armed forces and police forces.

      additionally, i would suspect that an electorate comprised of israeli and palestinian populations would tend to produce political coalitions that took a rather dim view of subsidies to crackpot settlers.

      surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

      by wu ming on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:25:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  i think that it means that the citizens... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueness

      ...of the state would determine in a democratic fashion whether or not a military draft is acceptable in a free and democratic society, or whether it is a form of involuntary servitude and indoctrination towards violence best abolished.

      Just thinking out loud, but does that mean Palestinian kids living in the West Bank would become subject to Israel's military draft?

      illegal, n. A term used by descendents of European immigrants to refer to descendants of Indigenous Americans

      by ricardomath on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:38:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  World Council Of Churches (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Christopher Day, capelza

    Calling for boycott of Settlement products?

    Passed on the last day of the WCC Central Committee meeting, the “Statement on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” encouraged an international boycott of products and services from settlements. It also urged the Israeli government to commit to non-violence and peace negotiations.

    “[While] Israel’s own right to exist in security evokes sympathy and solidarity around the world,” states the Central Committee, WCC’s main decision-making body, “its policies of expansion and annexation generate dismay or hostility.”

    There is a clear distinction, the committee maintains, “between the legitimate interests of the state of Israel and its illegal settlements.”

    The statement comes exactly a week after the group’s outgoing general secretary called Israel’s “occupation” of Palestinian territories “a sin against God.” The Rev. Samuel Kobia had urged the central committee to also make that declaration official.

    In response, the American Jewish Committee called Kobia’s statements “hypocritical.” The committee also said the statements ignore the reason for Israel’s presence in the West Bank.

    Jewish groups have had a long and at times disagreeable relationship with the WCC, which they accuse of being more favorable to the plight of Palestinians.

    The Central Committee statement said all its member churches should boycott settlement products and services so as not to be “complicit in illegal activities on occupied territory” and to “practice morally responsible investment.”

    Christian Post

    Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

    by Eiron on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:41:15 AM PDT

  •  Israel of course would say no (7+ / 0-)

    because a single state with equal rights for all would undermine the essential character of Israel as a Jewish state.

    And nearly all sectors of Israeli society, right, left, and center -- excepting perhaps Israeli Arabs and the far left -- agree on that essential character.

    A single state, I believe, is by far the most just resolution to the conflict, and it so happens to be the outcome preferred by the Arabs themselves to partition sixty-one years ago, but it didn't happen then and it's highly unlikely to happen now.

    Unless the Palestinians do get their act together and pull off a social movement comparable to Gandhi's or King's.  To date, however, those who prefer violent struggle have been able to seize the reins of the popular movement.

    Richard "The Dick" Cheney: screwing America since 1969

    by litho on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:47:52 AM PDT

  •  one state of Israel for Jews and Arabs (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eiron, word is bond, blueness, Doodad

    This was the original Zionist vision. The founders of Israel were progressives who believed in democracy. The Arab leadership again and again, from 1917 to now, has refused to consider the one-state option. One doubts that the Israeli public and leadership would take that chance after all that has happened.

    "You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." John 8:32

    by phillyswede on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:49:16 AM PDT

    •  Heck, Herzl evenly famously (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wu ming, capelza, blueness, Terra Mystica

      considered a mass conversion of Jews to Christianity as a countermeasure to Ant-Semitism.

      Many early Zionists aspired to a jewish Renaissance, establishing a state where Jewish principles, arts and talents could flourish without fear of state sponsored racism.  

      One wonders what they would think now, seeing what 60 years of the experiment has yielded.  

      Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

      by Eiron on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:15:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That's what I've been on about! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Christopher Day, blueness

    The one-state solution makes plenty of sense to me, and has for a few months now.  The part I'd add is putting that single state into the EU, in order to smother it in political correctness and economic equalization, and also to reduce the whole issue of sovereignty...since EU states are now only semi-sovereign.

    Al que no le guste el caldo, le dan dos tazas.

    by Rich in PA on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:33:33 AM PDT

  •  How would Israel respond? (0+ / 0-)

    Probably by consulting the old South African legal code.

    "And the biggest self of self is, indeed, self." Mark Sanford

    by Paleo on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:54:01 AM PDT

  •  I'm in favor, but (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    capelza, Eiron, blueness

    I think Carter may be overstating the support for it in the Palestinian leadership.

    "And the biggest self of self is, indeed, self." Mark Sanford

    by Paleo on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:55:12 AM PDT

  •  It's very easy to be casual (4+ / 0-)

    about other people giving things up.  

    This diary doesn't seem to me to have much basis in the reality of people's history, psychology, or connection to power.

    http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Benjamin%20Gross berg&page=1

    by claytonben on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:58:43 AM PDT

  •  I like the one state solution. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eiron, blueness, ricardomath, soysauce

    I wish the Palestinians and the Israelis peace, and I hope they achieve this one day.

    Medicare for All is Civil Rights

    by masslib on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 06:03:20 AM PDT

  •  Carter is correct. (9+ / 0-)

    The movement among Palestinians is toward a democratic, civil rights struggle.  I observed this is my discussions with Palestinians in Lebanon and the West Bank this past year.  There is no going back in my opinion.  The dialogue has shifted and I don't think that movement on a two-state solution will come in time to change this movement.

    The issue for Israel becomes the nature of Zionism.  Political Zionism that demands superior political rights for Jews will have to end.  This does not mean an end to cultural Zionism that makes Israel the homeland of Jews and their society and culture.  Zionism can no longer be an exclusive political tool.  Palestinians must be allowed their cultural homeland as well with equal political rights in the state.

    "This is not a boycott of Israelis. It's a boycott of pretending that everything is normal in Israel" Naomi Klein http://www.bdsmovement.net/

    by soysauce on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 06:11:38 AM PDT

    •  The movement among Palestinians... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Karmafish, word is bond, Doodad, Captain C

      ...has become even less democratic and secular.  The election of Hamas demonstrates this.

      Arabs have always rejected the two state solution, and rejected any concept of any portion of the Middle East being under anything other than Arab hegemony.  Palestinian nationalism is just a variant on this.  This has taken the form of Nasser's Pan-Arabism as well as militant Islamism.  The one constant has been hatred of Israel and a refusal to accept its existence.  The ultimate form is largely based on the prevailing political trends in the rest of the Arab world.

      During the initial Oslo years, some of us, perhaps naively, believed that there was a significant constituency of the Arab world that was willing to make peace with Israel as a Jewish state.  The return to the "one state meme" is not so much a movement "toward" anything as it is a reversion to racism and rejectionism.

      soysauce, I am trying very, very hard to believe that you are sincere in your calls for peace, coexistance, and the like.  However, until you accept the fact that peace means accepting Israel's right to exist, and stop trying to paint Palestinian rejectionism and racism as a call for "democracy" and "civil rights" then it is clear that you are not a credible partner for any peace constituency on the Israeli side.

      If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that. -- President Barack Obama

      by JPhurst on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 07:36:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I respectfully disagree (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        capelza, Aunt Martha, Terra Mystica

        Arabs have always rejected the two state solution, and rejected any concept of any portion of the Middle East being under anything other than Arab hegemony

        .

        The Arab peace plan on the table is explicitly a two state solution with full diplomatic recognition of Israel.  It has been on the Table for 7 years.  

        Israel has rejected it.  

        Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

        by Eiron on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 08:10:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, it is not... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Doodad

          ...an explicitly two state solution.  Largely because it leaves unresolved the issue of the "refugees."

          When the Saudis first issued the Arab League ultimatum, Sharon rejected it but said that he was prepared to travel to meet with Arab leaders to discuss.  He called their bluff and the Arabs folded immediately.

          If they want to make peace, then let them come to Jerusalem and negotiate.  In any event, with the exception of Syria, there is no sovereign Arab state who has any land occupied by Israel.  So there is no reason for those states to be at war with Israel in the first place.

          Except their racism of course.  But that is just accepted as a given by most of the world.

          If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that. -- President Barack Obama

          by JPhurst on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 08:57:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for your extensive response. (8+ / 0-)

        This is a lot more helpful than your previous comments to me and can help begin a conversation.  

        Arabs have not always rejected the two state solution.  The PLO took big risks in signing the Oslo Accord, and like you observe among the Jewish community, many on the Palestinian side were naively optimistic that something would come of the agreements and that we would see a two-state solution come to being.  Unfortunately, from the Palestinian point of view, the Oslo Accords have been a terrible disaster with the doubling of the size of the settlements and less and less land to build the state.

        The refugee issue is very important to Palestinians.  It can not be otherwise.  We will not abandon our people suffering in poverty in camps.  There must be a resolution and I believe one can be found when Israel is serious about acknowledging the role that the establishment of Israel played in causing their plight.  What the agreement could be, I can't determine, but I believe Israel taking responsibility would be a great gesture and would create an environment where compromise on the refugee issue could take place.

        I long for a day when Jews and Palestinians can co-exist, but this can not happen until their is acknowledgment of the suffering and concerns of both peoples.  We are going to have to work together to figure out how that is possible.  I long believed that two states was an answer.  I can no longer trust in that solution because of the continuing settlement of the West Bank, the confiscation of more homes in East Jerusalem and the blockade of Gaza.  How can we end this occupation so that borders can be drawn?  This is the issue now.  How will you work to bring the two-state solution to being?  If you are not pushing in your community for this, you will see continue to see the calls for a democratic state.  Palestinians are out of options.

        "This is not a boycott of Israelis. It's a boycott of pretending that everything is normal in Israel" Naomi Klein http://www.bdsmovement.net/

        by soysauce on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:31:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No one is asking... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          word is bond, Captain C, canadian gal

          ...to abandon the refugees.  Israel's proposals at Camp David comprehensively dealt with them.

          As part of a peace agreement, they can migrate to the newly formed country of "Palestine."  Arab states, who bear primary responsibility for their plight, can also give them citizenship rather than have them languish in camps.  Sort of like what we do with refugees here in the U.S.

          If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that. -- President Barack Obama

          by JPhurst on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:48:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There will certainly be some refugees (5+ / 0-)

            absorbed by Arab countries like Jordan and Syria.  The issue is Lebanon.  The sectarian balance of the state will never allow Palestinians to be accommodated there.  I am not opposed to refugees  being resettled in a Palestinian state, but what hope is there of that possibility with the expansion of the occupation and the settlements.  I will ask you to please work hard for a negotiated settlement for two states.  Without success now with Obama's efforts, the struggle will be one for equal rights.  I don't think your vision of the state of Israel will be able to survive that kind of struggle.  

            It is becoming the only way for Palestinians to survive as a people.  We will not go away or forget.

            "This is not a boycott of Israelis. It's a boycott of pretending that everything is normal in Israel" Naomi Klein http://www.bdsmovement.net/

            by soysauce on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:30:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hold on a second.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              canadian gal

              The issue is Lebanon.  The sectarian balance of the state will never allow Palestinians to be accommodated there.

              Presumably then, you do not object to Israel's concerns about its own demographics.  Or is it only Arab states that are allowed to take such concerns into account.

              If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that. -- President Barack Obama

              by JPhurst on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 01:37:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I can let soysauce speak for herself, (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Aunt Martha, soysauce

                but I'm pretty sure she'll agree with what I have to say.

                Of course, as Palestinians, we object to the fact that Palestinians, born in Lebanon and knowing only Lebanon their entire lives, are prevented from being equal citizens like everyone else around them.

                The issue in Lebanon is that Palestinians there are mostly Sunni, with a Christian (mostly non-Maronite) minority. Large swathes of the Lebanese political leaderships would be adamantly opposed to that. soysauce is simply acknowledging that reality.

                She also acknowledges that when a Palestinian state is created, most of those refugees will end up there. What she (and virtually every Paletinian) is worried about is the fact that the settlements are taking more and more of that available land, so that in the end there will be no room for any refugees in Palestine.

          •  this comment (5+ / 0-)

            As part of a peace agreement, they can migrate to the newly formed country of "Palestine."  Arab states, who bear primary responsibility for their plight, can also give them citizenship rather than have them languish in camps.  

            illustrates very clearly the problem. Israel must recognize its responsibility as the overwhelming cause of the creation of the Palestinian refugee crisis. This does not mean that Arab states have dealt with the refugee issue in a constructive way; it does mean that the reason there is such a crisis is because Israel never allowed those refugees to return home. Anyone concerned about the plight of refugees today, whether in Darfur or Iraqi refugees in Syria and Lebanon, work toward creating the conditions which guarantees their right to return in peace and security to their homes. Since Israel did not allow this, it bears primary responsibility.

            Sort of like what we do with refugees here in the U.S.

            This reveals to me that you don't know much about US refugee policy either. It is very difficult, and often takes years, for those refugees who actually are admitted into the US to become citizens. It's a long, difficult process, and many refugees face deportation if they do not meet a stringent set of requirements.

            •  Wrong.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Karmafish

              ...because the refugee problem was created by Arab states that rejected partition and declared war on the fledgling Jewish state.  As well as those in Palestine who chose to side with the Arabs in their failed war.

              Nothing in international law requires do overs.

              If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that. -- President Barack Obama

              by JPhurst on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 01:39:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  you're certainly (6+ / 0-)

                not basing your opinion (that's all it is) on anything remotely associated with international law. Your vision is more along the lines of "might makes right." Unless you believe that the 750,000 Palestinian civilians forced to flee their homes were all combatants, they in fact do have rights under international law (since you reference it) to return. Israel is responsible, and always will be, for not allowing the repatriation of Palestinians to their homes (UN resolution 194, Article 11 calls for the right of return).

                But since you erroneously referenced int'l law:

                The sources of the right of return in the Fourth Geneva Convention are Article 4, Article 6(4) and Article 158(3). Article 4 defines protected persons who are covered by the Convention. The definition of protected persons covers all habitual residents of a territory who may have become temporarily displaced from their place of origin during conflict (for whatever reason), and provision for their repatriation has been made in two separate articles of the Convention. The first repatriation provision appears in Article 6(4), which covers the end dates of the applicability of the Convention.  Specifically, Article 6(4) states that the Convention shall remain in effect, even after the cessation of hostilities, for those protected persons in need of repatriation. The second repatriation provision appears in Article 158, which covers the procedures whereby a state may "denounce" the Convention.  Specifically, Article 158(3) states that a denunciation may not take effect until after the repatriation of protected persons has occurred.

                •  So maybe I'll take you seriously... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...when you start clamoring that all the Germans "temporarily displaced" from Danzig, er...Gdansk to "return" to their homes.

                  Palestinian "refugees" may "return" to Palestine when a peace agreement is concluded.  They may not return to Israel unless the Israeli government so chooses to allow them to return.

                  If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that. -- President Barack Obama

                  by JPhurst on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 07:12:00 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  You mean Oslo did not explicitly (4+ / 0-)

        mean an acceptance of Israel's right to exist?  News to me, and to many others.  Meanwhile, Israel has continued to expand the settlements, bypass roads and other aspects of the Occupation, in violation of Oslo, while simultaneously arguing that it has no partner in peace.  Do you reject those policies and actions of the Israeli government?

        •  Oslo did not... (0+ / 0-)

          ...ban settlements.  And it explicitly said that all aspects of final borders to be negotiated.

          In other words, when someone says that all territory conquered by Egypt and Jordan is now "Palestinian land" they are contravening the function of the Oslo accords.

          If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that. -- President Barack Obama

          by JPhurst on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:46:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're right. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Terra Mystica, unspeakable, Alec82

            I misspoke.  However, it did stipulate all sorts of things that Israel has not abided by (and Israel is not alone in this), and I hope you will agree with me that the Occupation has continued to expand since Oslo.  So, I ask you again: Do you reject those policies and actions of the Israeli government?  And do you agree that, under Oslo, the PLO recognized Israel's right to exist?

            •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Captain C
              1.  I reject any policies by the Israeli government that have hindered peace.  I suspect we have quite different interpretations as to what actions have, in fact, hindered peace.
              1.  Under Oslo, the PNA, not PLO, agreed to recognize Israel as a negotiating partner.  It is abundantly clear, however, that the PNA and any other body purporting to speak for Palestinians has never really accepted Israel's legitimacy.

              If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that. -- President Barack Obama

              by JPhurst on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 01:41:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  wow. (7+ / 0-)

    this thread and its responses are telling. the problem with a one-state solution is that the majority of the people on both sides don't want it - yet here we are yet again debating their lives like a science project.

    "Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

    by canadian gal on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 07:40:25 AM PDT

    •  Yep -- the forced marriage idea. (3+ / 0-)

      A nonstarter, really.

      But there are some who do in fact argue that arranged marriages work better than ones based on love . . .

    •  Did you read the link? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      capelza, blueness, Terra Mystica, Alec82

      Carter is reporting that he senses a shift in those attitudes among Palestinians, and Netanyahu's administration is showing no indication of movement towards a two state solution.  Just the opposite, expanding the settlements in defiance of world opinion suggests he is on a "one state solution" of his own.

      I don't think the Israeli public would accept a one state solution with full enfranchisement of the Arab population, but I don't think that is Netanyahu's plan.

      Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

      by Eiron on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 08:13:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  he senses? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Karmafish, hikerbiker

        maybe...  but this is not supported by any sort of public opinion polls. now what you have said about netanyahu seems about right, but this is really the key isn't it.

        we can talk academically about how palestinians want something (even though this is not supported by facts) but if the israelis do not share the same wishes, well then we know that the idea has very little chance of success. the opposite is true of course as well.

        "Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

        by canadian gal on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:09:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Except that more and more, (5+ / 0-)

      this is what Palestinians do want...

      "This is not a boycott of Israelis. It's a boycott of pretending that everything is normal in Israel" Naomi Klein http://www.bdsmovement.net/

      by soysauce on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:44:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  really? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hikerbiker

        i don't see any facts that support that statement. in fact - from what i have seen, it seems completely inaccurate.

        throughout the years "polls consistently showed respectable Israeli and palestinian majorities in favor of a negotiated two-state settlement", in fact the new york review of books published a report to this this direct issue in 2008.

        moreover in 2009, this does not appear to have changed much:

        Results of the poll, commissioned by the grass-roots OneVoice Movement, indicate that 74 percent of Palestinians and 78 percent of Israelis are willing to accept a two-state solution.

        here is a direct bit of the poll directly from the group on palestinian attitudes:

        On the Palestinian side, 97% stated that the establishment of an independent sovereign Palestinian state was an urgent issue for them. Ninety-five percent said the same thing about refugee rights, 94% said the same about an agreement on Jerusalem's future, 91% on the management of holy sites, 90% on the management of the Palestinian state, 89% on the settlements and 88% said the same on the rights to natural resources.

        so there we have it. what i find off-putting here in the comments is that some are speaking of this as if though either the palestinian or israeli peoples wishes are irrelevant.

        "Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

        by canadian gal on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:06:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  maybe (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eiron, Aunt Martha, soysauce

          you could try reading again the diary.

          That the one-state solution seems to be gaining traction among Palestinians is the reason I posted this piece.

          As set forth in the diary, President Carter writes in the Washington Post:

          A majority of the Palestinian leaders with whom we met are seriously considering acceptance of one state, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

          I assume Carter is telling the truth. According to soysauce, who would know better than you or I, he is.

          •  i read it. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Karmafish

            that doesn't mean that i agree with it though. isn't that why you posted it - to get feedback and hear other opinions?

            carter is undoubtedly telling the truth - but that doesn't mean that this is supported by facts on the ground. as i said before - if one looks at polls from a variety of sources, by a long shot, this is not supported by both the palestinians or israelis electorates. but why would anyone who opposed keith's jordanian solution above not then be opposed to a solution that both peoples aren't behind? simply put, the majority - do not favour a one-state solution.

            now perhaps, there is a miniscule chance that there has been a completely reversal of attitudes since april - but i would need to see relevant sources save for carter's recent trip and soysause to confirm this.

            and as an academic exercise - even if the palestinians dramatically shifted their position in recent months and the israelis hadn't, how likely do you think its successful implementation would be?

            "Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

            by canadian gal on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 12:22:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think the point is (6+ / 0-)

              that, and to use your own terminology, the "facts on the ground" are likely, in the long term, to make this the only available choice.

              It really isn't relevant whether both peoples accept it or reject it right now; simply put, if the Palestinian leadership abandons the idea of a two state solution and commits to one state, equal rights for all, Israelis will have to accept that this is the result of decades of settlement activity and expansionism. How they choose to deal with the new political realities would be up to them--but I imagine that denying equal rights to the majority is not the road Israelis will choose, and if they do, it will not last.

              •  hhmmm.... (0+ / 0-)

                im not sure i see any plan being 'the only choice' when this is not what either party wants. just like netanyahu doesn't represent the majorities wishes, neither does a palestinian leadership that sees this as the only available choice moving forward.

                moreover - your point that, 'israelis will have to accept...' surely you know this is both unlikely and unreasonable ( just like the jordanian suggestion). the only way there will be peace is if all affected parties agree on any such plan.

                for me personally i believe neither palestinians or israelis will be wholly satisfied with the final terms of a peace plan (however will accept the basic tenets) but isn't that true of any negotiation?

                "Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

                by canadian gal on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 01:06:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The reason (5+ / 0-)

                  the Jordanian "option" is not an option is because 1) Jordan does not want the West Bank, 2) Israel does want it, and 3) The settlements are not going to be dismantled. Even if Israel unilaterally disengages from most parts of the West Bank, as long as no Palestinian state is recognized by the international community, Israel has not solved its fundamental problem (see Gaza).

                  moreover - your point that, 'israelis will have to accept...' surely you know this is both unlikely and unreasonable

                  It is not unreasonable to demand equal rights. Unlikely? Certainly at the moment it is. But in the long term, and again, this is only if the two state solution is declared officially dead by the Palestinian leadership, Israel can become a pariah state (South Africa style) until its people understand that they cannot govern over a majority and deny them equal rights indefinitely.

                  Obviously this is all hypothetical. But it's about as realistic at this point as a two state solution. I don't believe the conventional two state solution is any longer a possibility.

                  •  nathan... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Karmafish, hikerbiker

                    as i said below - last comment because i am going to eat. it is not unreasonable to demand equal rights. and no - i dont believe the majority of israelis want the west bank.

                    but i dont think that's what we were talking about - we were talking about whether or not a pie-in-the-sky idea that neither the palestinians or israelis want.

                    and i am saddened that you no longer believe in a two-state solution - i do. and i think its never been closer than it is right now. of course many things need to happen first - but i remain optimistic.

                    "Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

                    by canadian gal on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 01:48:40 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What exactly makes it seem closer to you? (4+ / 0-)

                      I mean this seriously; I would very much like to know.  To me it seems further and further away, and what seems closer and closer is one state of Israel, with the question of what kind of state it is going to be up for grabs.

                    •  don't be (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      blueness, Aunt Martha, unspeakable

                      saddened. I said that I don't believe that the conventional outlines of the two state solution are any longer possible, and I've said that before.

                      I wasn't making a comment about whether the majority of Israelis want or don't want the West Bank. The "facts" are that their state does want it (its resources in particular). Under what possible scenario would Israel return all of the West Bank? Or allow a real Palestinian state to emerge (with full sovereignty over land, air and sea?).

                      What I find very interesting is the desire among so many people to have it every way they want--insisting on the rights of settlers to live on Palestinian land, or the necessity of Palestinians to absorb them, or insisting on Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, or insisting on the right of Israel to control Palestinian borders, etc etc--and then being surprised when Palestinians say that no, these things you see as charitable offers are not what the dictionary describes as sovereignty.

                      I do not think that Israel's political class accepts the idea that Palestinians are entitled to real sovereignty. And more importantly, Israel's state policies reflect this. So why be disappointed when people who do care about Palestinian rights recognize this and suggest that the two-state solution has always been a formula for Palestinian capitulation, and the denial of their sovereignty? All Oslo did was produce an armed, corrupt Palestinian police force willing to do much of the IDF's dirty work. So why should we embrace more of these disingenuous schemes?

                      •  let me... (0+ / 0-)

                        change the framing a bit. you comment has many fair points. and i agree there has been so much history and manipulation of various opportunities in the past.

                        but let me ask you something, what - to you, would be a viable path forward that both parties would accept?

                        "Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

                        by canadian gal on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:24:39 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  I'm starting to wonder if the issue is less (4+ / 0-)

                that people aren't accepting the one-state solution and more that it is becoming an increasing reality due to those "facts on the ground" but what kind of state it is going to be is the area of dispute.

            •  the (3+ / 0-)

              "facts on the ground," which you are resisting, are that Carter encountered this:

              A majority of the Palestinian leaders with whom we met are seriously considering acceptance of one state, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

              You are also resisting the questions I asked at the close of the diary, and that I would like to hear you answer:

              If the Palestinian people of the occupied territories were really to say, we renounce our dream of our own state, we wish to join you in yours: how, really, could Israel say no? And on what grounds?

              •  okay. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Karmafish, hikerbiker

                i will answer this and nathan's post as i am heading to a bbq - and i guess my links and logic are getting any traction as they contradict this premise you've positioned here.

                to me its simple - the people do not want it. all i am asking is to have a bit of respect for the this much like you do that of the jordanians.

                "Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

                by canadian gal on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 01:44:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Have fun at your barbecue (4+ / 0-)

                  But hopefully you'll see this some time after you get back.

                  I'd like to make several points. First, the statistics that you cited strike me as answers to questions quite different from a straight up "what sort of state do you support" type survey. In JMCC polls, the answer to that question results in approximately 20-25% of respondents saying they prefer a binational state. So, while the establishment of a Palestinian state is important to all Palestinians that doesn't mean that that's their preferred choice.

                  Second, blueness quotes Carter as saying that the majority of Palestinian leaders are "seriously considering" the binational state solution. That doesn't mean that the majority has accepted it, which I think is the important thing to keep in mind.

                  However, the fact that 1 in 5 non-diaspora Palestinians (a not insignificant number of people) support the binational solution coupled with the fact that most Palestinian leaders are seriously considering it should give pause to those are committed to the two-state solution. Instead of arguing that the binational solution isn't possible, perhaps it would be time better spent for these supporters to wonder why this has become a trend and what can be done to reverse it.

                  •  I wonder if the people who would aim for 1-state (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    canadian gal

                    would be committed, on behalf of themselves and their descendents, to the eternal preservation of the Jewish people?

                    That was and is the purpose of establishing an independent Jewish state.

                    Just as Israelis' priorities will always be self-serving, it would be fair to expect that Palestinian's would be, too.

                    So, why rely upon the good will of others?  Both Palestinians and Israelis know well what it is to be a victim.

                    Two states would provide the opportunity for each people to control their own destiny.

                    Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

                    by hikerbiker on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:55:50 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't disagree. (4+ / 0-)

                      But keep in mind that the questionnaire always posits a two-state solution and a binational (not one-) state solution, which explicitly means that both Jews and Arabs are in the state.

                      In any case, I think it's worth thinking about why so many Palestinians actually prefer a binational state.

                      •  Yes, and I also think it's important to consider (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Karmafish, canadian gal

                        why most Israelis would never consider such an option:  

                        A. History

                        B. Demographics

                        I believe that the Israelis will always consider plans for a binational state to be nothing more than the same old step-by-step plan to destroy Jewish Israel.  

                        Whether or not this is anyone's specific intent, there are no guarantees that this will not be the inevitable result.

                        Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

                        by hikerbiker on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:54:38 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  i'm stuffed! (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    blueness

                    i dunno - the poll numbers seem pretty straightforward to me and further i'm pretty sure the numbers i've cited are similar to the JMCC ones you have just posted.

                    keeping in mind blueness diary is fine - but again i find it pretty odd that people want to discuss or debate the merits of an option on behalf of these groups that 75% or more of them do not want. which is a clear majority of both groups.

                    as to your last point about the palestinian diaspora, this does not surprise me since these numbers pretty much seem to reflect the non-dispora opinion. but i do agree that we need to try and reverse people that have given up hope. to the others that put this option forward with ulterior motives, feh. (btw - not directed at anyone in particular)

                    "Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

                    by canadian gal on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:39:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  soysauce, (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Aunt Martha, soysauce

                  who recently visited Palestine, says the Palestinian people are increasingly moving towards a one-state solution. You ignore her. Carter, who recently visited Palestine, says Palestinian leaders are increasingly moving towards a one-state solution. You ignore him. You, who so far as I know have not recently been to Palestine, say the people are not moving towards a one-state solution . . . presumably because you yourself do not want it. In this way, you can avoid the questions, because you have decided, there in your mind, that the Palestinian people, who live in your mind, "do not want it." Very good.

                  And please do not try to fall back again into the embrace of your polls. They are not on point, because as far as I can tell they did not offer as option the sort of single-state solution to which Carter refers. A single-state solution, to repeat, that both soysauce, who has recently been there, and President Carter, who has recently been there, say Palestinians increasingly favor.

                  •  I think more accurately, moving (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    soysauce

                    BACK to demanding a "one state" solution. a democratic secular state was the original demand.

                    greatest purveyor of violence in the world today, my own govt.-MLK

                    by Tom J on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:57:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  i'm confused. (0+ / 0-)

                    yes me.

                    you would like me to ignore all polls i have read from a couple of decades and up until about 4 months ago based on the observations of two people?

                    and before you criticize the validity of such polls, which perhaps is probably the greatest indicator of public opinion, why not read some? here's one from a few months ago.

                    According to the poll published Wednesday morning, 74% of the Palestinians and 78% of the Israelis are willing to accept the basic solution of two states for two people. On the other hand, 66% of the Israelis and 59% of the Palestinians object to one bi-national state.

                    as to the rest of the tone and personalization of your comment - no thanks ;(

                    "Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

                    by canadian gal on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:50:38 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  i (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      soysauce

                      read your polls. You--again--either didn't read, or chose to ignore, what I wrote:

                      And please do not try to fall back again into the embrace of your polls. They are not on point, because as far as I can tell they did not offer as option the sort of single-state solution to which Carter refers.

                      These are really pretty simple questions.

                      If the Palestinian people of the occupied territories were really to say, we renounce our dream of our own state, we wish to join you in yours: how, really, could Israel say no? And on what grounds?

                      I'm frankly flummoxed that you absolutely refuse to answer them.

                      •  as to ignoring... (0+ / 0-)

                        i have shown polling numbers that demonstrate the majority of palestinians favour their own state and are against a bi-nationalist state, suddenly this means that they are for a single state? as sophia said below - yes, some academics have been pushing this idea for some time now - but that does not mean that it has caught on with the people.

                        as to your question:

                        If the Palestinian people of the occupied territories were really to say, we renounce our dream of our own state, we wish to join you in yours: how, really, could Israel say no? And on what grounds?

                        quite easily. much like the status quo, however dysfunctional as it has for the past 30 odd years has continued... speaking of unanswered questions though:

                        and as an academic exercise - even if the palestinians dramatically shifted their position in recent months and the israelis hadn't, how likely do you think its successful implementation would be?

                        care to give it a kick?

                        "Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

                        by canadian gal on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 08:39:20 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  of course (0+ / 0-)

                          I don't "care to give it a kick." Not after you have, again, refused to answer the questions. You do not get to repeatedly, persistently refuse to answer the questions I have posed to you, but demand I answer a question you have posed as part of your interminable deflection and resistance campaign. I'll be perfectly happy to answer your question once you have answered mine. Here they are again. Highlighted is the one you missed.

                          If the Palestinian people of the occupied territories were really to say, we renounce our dream of our own state, we wish to join you in yours: how, really, could Israel say no? And on what grounds?

                          •  this is just unbelievable. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            hikerbiker

                            perhaps you missed this answer above:

                            quite easily. much like the status quo, however dysfunctional as it has for the past 30 odd years has continued..

                            an answer to your question.

                            but you know what, never mind - i have answered your question and tried to engage you both respectfully and sincerely - but sadly i have not been returned this courtesy. good luck.

                            "Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

                            by canadian gal on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:04:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  no, (0+ / 0-)

                            what is unbelievable is you. Here are the questions again:

                            If the Palestinian people of the occupied territories were really to say, we renounce our dream of our own state, we wish to join you in yours: how, really, could Israel say no? And on what grounds?

                            Here is your response:

                            quite easily. much like the status quo, however dysfunctional as it has for the past 30 odd years has continued..

                            You respond that Israel "quite easily" could say no, but you do not at all answer the question "on what grounds?" Unless you intend as your answer the impenetrable word-cluster "much like the status quo, however dysfunctional as it has for the past 30 odd years has continued."

                            Instead of answering the question, you simply claim you have answered it, though you have not, whine about courtesy, and then, presumably, take your leave. Without being at all responsive. After having for hours wasted my time, as I assumed, wrongly apparently, that you were a person of good faith who would, eventually, answer a couple of simple questions.

                          •  whining now? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pozzo, hikerbiker

                            even though my answer clearly did not meet your word-count needs, i did in fact answer your question. frankly, i simply do not understand what you are attempting to argue here. a one-state solution is not wanted by the majority of both peoples yet you would like me to engage in a long-winded rhetorical discussion about how israel could turn one down, if in an alternate reality that the palestinians wanted one.

                            so again, if in an alternate reality the palestinians wanted a one-state solution, and the israelis didn't - they simply could say no - period. and they could do so on the grounds that the status-quo has continued for the past 3 decades unfettered (save for bloodshed and heartache), without much change either way. [hint: that's my answer]

                            anyway - as you've taken to mocking me the past few comments,  i think its best that i take my leave since clearly i've wasted your time with my viewpoint and it seems that you have very little interest in what i have to say.

                            "Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

                            by canadian gal on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:09:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i'm sorry, (0+ / 0-)

                            but "much like the status quo, however dysfunctional as it has for the past 30 odd years has continued.." is not an answer to the question of "on what grounds" Israel could say "no" if the Palestinian people in the occupied territories announced they wished themselves and those territories to become part of Israel. I can't even understand what those words mean. I have made a living writing and editing the English language for the past 37 years, and you've stumped me. I do not desire "a long-winded rhetorical discussion." I'd simply like a coherent answer to a simple question.

                          •  btw.... (0+ / 0-)

                            the whining now was meant to say: 'so i'm whining now.'

                            "Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

                            by canadian gal on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:20:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  blueness (0+ / 0-)

                            Since you seem to have had such a hard time understanding canadian gal's answers, maybe you should go back and reread some of my comments to you from last night.  Maybe you can start with the ones you recced.

                            To rehash a bit:  

                            The Israelis are not interested in living as a minority population in a binational state.  You seem to not want to accept this fact.

                            Any proposal for a binational state, which would include the populations of the West Bank and Gaza, would render the Jews a minority in this new state.  This is unacceptable from the Israeli viewpoint, for obvious reasons, given their bloody history of over 2 millenia.  The Jewish People would like to retain sovereignty over a tiny piece of real estate, somewhere on planet Earth.  

                            Yesterday you seemed to understand this fact.  Now I see that you are unsure why such a plan is not acceptable to the Israelis.

                            It will take both Palestinians and Israelis to agree to any plan for peace.  Creating a plan that will be acceptable to both sides is obviously extremely challenging, maybe even impossible, given today's actors/leaders.

                            But it is an exercize in futility to continue discussing the merits of this mythical binational state.  Why not be pragmatic and consider the option that actually has the potential to meet most of the needs of the people in Israel and Palestine?  2-states will not be perfect, but the so-called one-state means the destruction of Israel from the Israeli viewpoint and it ain't happening.

                            I'm not sure why you felt the need to harass canadian gal in this thread.  She's one of the best people here at DK and she did not deserve your disrespect.

                            Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

                            by hikerbiker on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 09:21:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you offered (0+ / 0-)

                            answers to the questions posed, which is why I recced you. Canadian gal for many moons refused to provide any answers, then offered a word-grouping--"much like the status quo, however dysfunctional as it has for the past 30 odd years has continued.."--that was unintelligible. Hence my "harassment." Also, you responded from the Israeli perspective; canadian gal claimed to respond from the Palestinian perspective, but by denying the on-the-scene observations of Carter and soysauce, and clinging to polls that are not on point. I agree that canadian gal is a good person, which is why I was flummoxed by her behavior.

  •  I like it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Christopher Day

    In fact, I believe this is the ONLY way that the situation can actually be resolved.  

    The so-called Two State Solution, is, I believe, no solution at all.  It merely exacerbates the problem.  

    What we have in Israel is a failed state.  It is a failed state economically (and would not exist without American taxpayers).  It also, and more importantly, a failed state politically (because it is too weak to disarm the militias/private armies inside its borders).  

    If we carve out a second state, it too will be a failed state for the same two reasons.  

    So, the Two State plan creates two failed states side by side, with NO PLAN to make either one a success.  In fact, since both are likely to be both economically and politically weak, it will in fact create two basket case nutty states, brimming with armed opposition groups.  

    If you think all the armed opponents will migrate out of Israel as soon as its companion failure is crated, you are not thinking about the situation clearly.  Israel will have the better land, resources and religious relics.  Obviously, it will be the preferred failure state.  

    A one state plan is the only one that can stop the insurgency(ies).  Typically, as in South Africa & Ireland, an insurgency can be brought to an end through political means (not military).  Seats in parliament, cabinet ministries, directorships, and so on are the carrots that bring the leading gunmen into the fold.  

    Then the two sides can vie for honors and leadership posts within a system that both have an interest in preserving.  

    It is the ONLY way to end this

    The two state strategy is not even realistic

    Education is the best provision for the journey into old age. -- Aristotle

    by not2plato on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:16:01 AM PDT

  •  Not Smart for either (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eiron, unspeakable, hikerbiker

    The occupation of Palestine can't and won't last..the world is now lined up against it.

    But a one state solution would eventually mean the end of a "Jewish' State no matter how fast the settlers try to outbreed the Palestines...the numbers in less than 10 years would overwhelm the Jewish population.
    Because of the zionist belief in Jewish 'Rule', Israel would end up being an aparthid state for a while, and then eventually Jewish rule would be overturned by sheer demographics.

    "If" the Israelis had any sense at all and wanted to survive as  Jewish State they would get behind a Palestine State forthwith.
    But being smart hasn't exactly been a hallmark of Israel. My bet is they will continue to go for broke...and end up broken one way or another because they can't shed their Greater Israel delusions and fanatism.

    The long term question Israel should be pondering is do they want half a loaf,.. a Jewish state within the boundaries they were orginially given,.. or do they want to end up with none?

    That's the ending choice.

    "Something happens. Then you have to make a choice and take a side."...."The Quiet American", Graham Greene

    by renfro on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:38:40 AM PDT

    •  Demographics (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      renfro

      The fact is that Israeli Jews are already a minority in the territories that Israel exercise sovereignty over. We have already crossed that rubicon probably some time in the past two years. the other fact is that even if a Palestinian state were established in Gaza and the West Bank, the Palestinian citizens of Israel would constitute a majority inside the Green Line in about 50 years. Demographic trends could change of course, but even if a Palestinian majority could be forestalled the continued definition of a state with such a large non-Jewish minority as "a Jewish state" is profoundly anti-democratic.

  •  It's been pretty obvious.. (9+ / 0-)

    ..for the past few years support for the two-state solution has softened, and support for one secular state in 1922 Mandate Palestine has grown at least among Palestinian intellectuals inside and outside of Palestine.  

    I've always found it somewhat remarkable that public opinion polling in the occupied territories has been as high as it has been over the past few years for one democratic state since Palestinians have been "sold" the two-state solution as the only solution since Oslo, and it is well known that there is very little support for the one-state solution within Israel itself.   My guess is that if Palestinians believed there was a chance such a proposal could succeed you would see a lot more support for it, and very quickly.

    Just the other day I was somewhat surprised to see an Op-Ed in Al-Ahram by Mustafa Barghouthi essentially supporting one democratic state, when only two years ago I saw him participate in a panel at the New America Foundation with Daniel Levy, and others, Mapping Solutions on Israel-Palestine, which was a discussion/presentation of what a future Palestinian state could look like territorially.  I'd imagine Dr. Bargouthi as one of those Carter was referring to in his Op-Ed when he wrote: "a[A] majority of the Palestinian leaders with whom we met are seriously considering acceptance of one state, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea."

    That said, I still support the two-state solution at least until it becomes far more clear that Obama will fail and in my view, we're not there yet.  I'm not ideologically opposed to a one state solution, but since it has almost zero support from Israeli Jews, and very little support from Jews outside Israel, I don't see it as a realistic possibility for a least a generation or more.   We are only 60 years post the mass murder of six million Jews in Europe, and it's not difficult to understand after centuries of persecution culminating in the Holocaust why Jews would be very reluctant to give up their majority status within the 1949 armistice line, and the international community very reluctant to pressure them to do so.

    "APN strongly opposes actions that change the status quo in Jerusalem." -- Ori Nir

    by sofia on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 07:42:48 PM PDT

  •  blue, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueness

    I mean you no disrespect, but there are certain questions the answer to which is very simple and the answer to this question is "no."

    The Jews waited 2 millenia for autonomy and we will not give it up.

    As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. - Mr. Carlson

    by Karmafish on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 08:50:41 PM PDT

    •  karma, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Karmafish, soysauce

      I understand that position, and I respect it.

      But given that Carter says he has encountered this:

      A majority of the Palestinian leaders with whom we met are seriously considering acceptance of one state, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. By renouncing the dream of an independent Palestine, they would become fellow citizens with their Jewish neighbors and then demand equal rights within a democracy. In this nonviolent civil rights struggle, their examples would be Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.

      I wonder if you could try to answer these questions, posed first in the diary, questions that, for hours now, I have had no luck at all in getting canadian gal to answer:

      If the Palestinian people of the occupied territories were really to say, we renounce our dream of our own state, we wish to join you in yours: how, really, could Israel say no? And on what grounds?

      A serious couple of questions, and I'm genuinely interested in your answers.

      •  Well, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueness

        it's hard for me to speak for all Jews, everywhere, but I am happy to do so, anyways.

        :O)

        My strong suspicion is that the great majority of Jews would reject the single-state solution, period.  And, in truth, it wouldn't matter if it was Palestinians wishing to join Israel or the English or ethnic Hawaiians.  Most Jews understand that, given our history, we cannot allow our children to be placed in the position in which their safety is dependent upon the well-being of non-Jews.

        The Holocaust pretty much knocked off that idea.

        This is part of the reason why dKos I-P is as nasty as it so often is.

        We think anti-Zionists are asking us to place our children on the potential chopping block and we absolutely refuse to do that.

        As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. - Mr. Carlson

        by Karmafish on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:17:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, let me amend, (0+ / 0-)

        it's not just that "anti-Zionists are asking us to place our children on the potential chopping block and we absolutely refuse to do that," but that if we do refuse, we are condemned as immoral racists.

        We reject this.

        As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. - Mr. Carlson

        by Karmafish on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:25:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site