babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Cry the beloved two state solution

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Cry the beloved two state solution
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 08 August 2003 04:57 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R2F264985
quote:
As I wrote in my document, it is plain to me today that there is no other alternative to ending the conflict. Everyone with eyes to see and ears to hear has to understand that only a binational partnership can save us. That is theonly way to transform ourselves from being strangers in our land into native sons.

quote:
In the past couple of years I realized that I made a mistake; that, like the Palestinians, I too was taken in. I took Israeli talk seriously and didn't pay attention to Israeli deeds. When I realized, one day, that the settlements had doubled themselves, I also realized that Israel had missed its one hour of grace, had rejected the rare opportunity it was given. Then I understood that Israel could not free itself of its expansionist pattern. It is bound hand and foot to its constituent ideology and to its constituent act, which was an act of dispossession.

[ 08 August 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 10 August 2003 03:11 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Damned extremists! How DARE they call for an end to the 'Jewish State'...

Self-haters....

- And as concerns all else, I am of the opinion that the occupation must be destroyed -


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 11 August 2003 11:02 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Excellent article. Thanks. Reflects my thinking, albeit from a distance.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 25 August 2003 06:17 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
An excellent article. All people who believe in human rights, who would like to see an end to the conlict and lasting security for both Israelis and Palestinians in the region need to think in terms of equal rights for both people. I also believe a "shift to a binational mode of thinking" is the best way forward at this time. The peace movement in Israel-Palestine and throughout the world should seriously start thinking about how to move towards this goal.

As Sharon manoeuvers in the shadow of the roadmap, the shortcomings of the mainstream Israeli peace camp have never been more evident

quote:
...

Paradoxically, says one senior Jewish human rights lawyer who wishes to remain anonymous, the peace movement today is largely a victim of its own limited success. The peace camp's core message -- that the occupation was damaging to Israel and that many of the settlements would have to be dismantled eventually -- percolated through to mainstream Israeli society, she says.

"Since the failure of Camp David -- and Israel's successful campaign to villify the Palestinian leadership -- the choices facing Israelis seem much more extreme, much more existential. Israelis feel that we must concentrate on fighting for the survival of our state."

She suggests that the fragility of the peace camp can be explained by the fundamental disagreements on the political left about Zionism. The result has been a failure to develop a coherent strategy for shaping wider Israeli public opinion or engaging with the Palestinian public. She believes there are three basic peace camp attitudes to ending the occupation -- and each is formed by one's view of Zionism. She categorises them respectively as the traditional Zionist left, the moral Zionist left and the anti-Zionist left.

"The first are those who say Palestinians and Israelis should live apart, if only because that offers greater protection to Israelis. They want unilateral separation, and don't care too much whether the terms are good or bad for the Palestinians. Secretly many would be happier if there was a clean break with the country's Arab citizens and they were encouraged to leave their homes in Israel and move to the Palestinian state," she explains.

"Then there are those who believe adamantly that peace can only be secured by offering Palestinians a viable state alongside Israel, by helping them develop their own democratic institutions and by integrating the Arab minority inside Israel as fully equal citizens."

Finally, she says, there is a tiny, radical anti-Zionist element which accepts what the other two cannot: that the future depends on a binational state embodying equal rights for two peoples. "Only this group is not troubled by the idea of the right of return for Palestinian refugees, at least in principle."

These three categories are clearly reflected in the factionalism of the peace movement. In the isolated, radical camp sit some members of the women's peace coalition, Taayush and ICAHD, and the extra-parliamentary Arab political party, Ibn Al-Balad, which boasts a handful of Jewish members.

In the middle -- maybe numbering a few thousand -- are most of the older, more established groups such as Uri Avnery's Gush Shalom and Yesh Gvul, the veteran refusal to serve in the territories movement, as well as many of the new "refuseniks" who captured headlines in early 2002 with their petition against serving. Lately, for example, Avnery has been trying almost single-handedly to resurrect Yasser Arafat's reputation, in the belief that only the Palestinian president can lead his people to an acceptable two-state solution.

And in the first category, the traditional Zionist left, is to be found by far the largest and most influential peace bloc, Peace Now, potentially representing tens if not hundreds of thousands of Israelis. And that, say more radical activists, is precisely the problem for the peace movement.

"The caution of the Peace Now leaders, their fear of alienating the mainstream has killed the peace movement," says Neve Gordon. He lays the blame for the decline of the peace camp during this Intifada squarely at the door of Peace Now. "Many younger members of Peace Now, including many of the refuseniks, had a more radical agenda than the old guard, one that could have captured the public imagination, but they were silenced."

In fact, early on in the Intifada bitter feuding broke out among Peace Now's leaders about whether to support the refuseniks, but in the end the view of the "old guard" -- represented by the stalwarts of the Zionist Labour and Meretz parties -- held sway.

Gordon argues that Peace Now has failed to evolve into an effective peace movement during the current Intifada for several reasons. First, he says, the bloc has been led by figures from the Labour and Meretz parties, like Tzali Reshef and Yossi Sarid, who had a personal political stake in Oslo. With the process's failure, they felt compelled to join former Prime Minister Ehud Barak in blaming the Palestinians for the crisis rather than adopting a more critical position. They stymied younger potential leaders who might have invigorated the peace camp.

Second, the strong Zionist ethos among Peace Now's leaders means that it has problems admitting members from the one million Arab minority into its ranks. The first Arab member was allowed on to its board in 2001. The exclusion of a fifth of the population has both weakened the movement and distorted its vision of what might constitute peace.

Third, Peace Now has refused to challenge the culture of fear encouraged by the government and media, through the endless recycling of images of suicide bombings. This has damaging psychological effects on the general public, distorts their perception of reality and makes them deaf to the peace message, says Gordon.

And fourth, Peace Now has failed to make the connection between the occupation and Israel's domestic economic woes. "Why is it not pointing out that the huge budget cuts being inflicted on the poorest at the moment are directly related to the vast sums being poured into the settlements, bypass roads and now the wall?" says Gordon.

He fears that the growing cynicism among Israelis about their political leaders -- prompted by mounting corruption scandals that reach right up to Sharon himself -- have left ordinary Israelis disillusioned and resigned to a sense of their own powerlessness.

Halper, on the other hand, thinks it too premature to write off the peace camp. "In many ways, the peace movement is stronger in Israel than it has ever been. More dissident voices are being heard and more Israelis are seeing for themselves what occupation means in practice. The numbers may be small but it is a beginning."

One unexpected recent development is senior peace activists voicing for the first time the view that the two-state solution -- the left's holy grail -- may be a chimera. Halper refers specifically to an article in the Ha'aretz newspaper last week in which two long-standing exponents of "two states for two people", former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem Meron Benvenisti and ex-Gush Shalom leader Haim Hanegbi, admitted to a crisis of faith.

"The wall is the great despairing solution of the Jewish-Zionist society," said Hanegbi. "It is the last desperate act of those who cannot confront the Palestinian issue. Of those who are compelled to push the Palestinian issue out of their lives and out of their consciousness. In the face of that I say the opposite."

Halper points out that both Benvenisti and Hanegbi only admitted to their conversions to a joint state for Palestinians and Israelis in the last few months. "I think a lot of us in the peace camp are going through a transition phase right now, rejecting the old dogmas, he says. "We're seeing what's happening in the occupied territories and most of us are drawing the conclusion that a Palestinian state is no longer possible."

Whether such a verdict will regalvanise Israel's peace movement or weaken it, and whether it can find an audience among a Palestinian public still committed to two states, remains to be seen.


Equality for all people from Jordan to the Mediteranean was the goal of the Palestinian struggle since its beginning. It wasn't until Oslo that US control of the PLO became apparent as it steered its puppets away from demanding equality and towards a two-state non-solution. The PLO's corruption and illigitimacy was made clear for all Palestinians when they were handed limited administration in the West Bank. The PA may is still be commited to their masters' road-map, but whatever support they may have had before, today they don't represent the majority of Palestinian people, who want no more than to live in peace and dignity in their homeland.

From all the secular, Christian, and conservative Moslem Palestinians I've met in the West-Bank, Israel, surrounding Arab states and in North America, I think I can confidently say that the great majority agree that binationalism still is the only solution that could settle all claims and end the conflict.

[ 25 August 2003: Message edited by: satana ]


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 25 August 2003 09:46 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by satana:

Equality for all people from Jordan to the Mediteranean was the goal of the Palestinian struggle since its beginning.

[ 25 August 2003: Message edited by: satana ][/QB]


I wish this point could be made clearer to Jews around the world. Almost all when the hear attacks on Zionism, or calls for the "destruction of the State of Israel," believe, in light of Jewish history, it means the destruction of the
Jewish people. If they heard, and understood, this other message, and that it meant that Jews could live anywhere in the "holy land," as part of a secular, democratic state, there might be a more favourable response to such a proposal.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 25 August 2003 12:18 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The problem with rethinking the solution in purely rational terms is that we immediately run up against all the realpolitik players, notably the current U.S. administration, with its complex domestic concerns.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 25 August 2003 03:15 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And fourth, Peace Now has failed to make the connection between the occupation and Israel's domestic economic woes. "Why is it not pointing out that the huge budget cuts being inflicted on the poorest at the moment are directly related to the vast sums being poured into the settlements, bypass roads and now the wall?" says Gordon.

I find this particularly instructive, especially as I take an interest in the degree to which Israeli policy is beginning to mirror the United States' Reagan era in terms of who benefits the most from government policies.

If I were a leader in the Israeli peace movement I would be taking out ads and sponsoring campaigns that say, in essentials, the following:

"Our government is wasting money on a wall while taking food out of the mouths of the poorest among us. Is this fair?"


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 25 August 2003 03:36 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The PLO's corruption and illigitimacy was made clear for all Palestinians when they were handed limited administration in the West Bank.

This isn't quite true. There were a number of sectors in which the PA was quite successful in creating viable, well-run public institutions with a lot of popular legitimacy. There are some within the highest ranks of Fatah currently who are viewed as serious, honest, politicians who have done much to clean up the economics and corruption that were taking place in some sectors.

quote:
The PA may is still be commited to their masters' road-map, but whatever support they may have had before, today they don't represent the majority of Palestinian people, who want no more than to live in peace and dignity in their homeland.

Again, I think you have overstated the case. Opinion polls, surveys, and veteran commentators (Said, Barghouti, etc.) all seem to confirm that like it or not, Arafat and the centrist secular dimensions of Fatah have the most popular support among Palestinians in a broad general consensus.

quote:
From all the secular, Christian, and conservative Moslem Palestinians I've met in the West-Bank, Israel, surrounding Arab states and in North America, I think I can confidently say that the great majority agree that binationalism still is the only solution that could settle all claims and end the conflict.

I've certainly met many who would also agree. I also met many who believe that Israel can never change and will never be a comfortable home for Palestinians due to the persistent problem of systemic racism in Israeli administration and legal institutions, not to mention the society as a whole. In this they mirror those seperatists in Israel who think that good fences make good neighbours. I think you are right to say that there a lot of Palestinians who see the abstraction of a binational state as a proper solution, but practically impossible. There is still much work to be done on both sides of the fence to prepare the ground for a binational or secular non-national system which I am on record supporting.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 25 August 2003 04:22 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Speaking of which, has anybody ever been able to substantiate the urban legend about Arafat allegedly pillaging international aid money for "secret bank accounts"?
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 25 August 2003 04:32 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As I've written on other threads, the only healthy solution for the region is a binational state (which would protect the safety of Jews and Arabs equally) that is integrated with its neighbours.

Anything else is a ghetto.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 25 August 2003 05:24 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
Speaking of which, has anybody ever been able to substantiate the urban legend about Arafat allegedly pillaging international aid money for "secret bank accounts"?

I haven't. I have heard another urban legend attached to it, however: that the reporter who first broke this story was writing his dispatches on Palestine from a flat in London...


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 25 August 2003 05:39 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know several Israeli politicians have gotten in trouble for having secret US bank accounts
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 25 August 2003 05:47 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Courage, you're right, the PA isn't all bad, and it still has support among a large number of Palestinians, but I can safely say the majority do not have much confidence in them.
I have met many West-Bank residents since the creation of the PA. Everyone tells me that the PLO's popularity has fallen a great deal in recent years. Arafat is still a popular and familiar symbol of struggle, and the PLO seems like the only organization the international community is willing to recognize. The PLO is very vocal and visible, as it gets a lot of western funding, and so far, besides the militant "Islamic" parties there don't seem to be any other alternatives. That may account to why it still seems they are so popular. But when people speak frankly they really are disinchanted with them. I don't know what kind of polls and surveys you've seen, but currently people here estimate no more than 3% of Palestinians actually believe the PA can help them.

I've had a chance to speak with some PLO supporters. When you ask them why they accept the PLO's position on Israel, they call themselves realists, believing that since its too difficult to destroy Israel today, they might as well pander to the realpolitik players and get whatever they can now, in the hope of liberating the rest of Palestine later under better conditions.
I find that disturbing in so many ways.

If Palestinians believe that the racism in Israel can never change then what hope does anyone have that these two people can ever share a border for long before things start blowing up again? How long before all the Arabs in Israel are finally forced to leave their homes?
This is another factor many fear to bring up: if the same Jewish immigration rate and Arab birth rate conitues as it is today, in a few decades Arabs will no longer be a minority in Israel. How can Israel call itself a Jewish state then? It seems most Zionists who support a Palestinian state are hoping it will be an excuse to get rid of Arab-Israelis. I think it is very dangerous for Jews, Arabs, and the international community to overlook this. This is another reason why a just and equitable solution, such as binationalism, should be urgently pursued while it is still possible to it peacefully.

No one denies that binationalism wouldn't work under current conditions. But I believe the long-term security of Jews and Arabs in the region depends on it, and with a lot of work on both sides it is certainly possible. The linked article shows that Israelis can change. Now, people like Benvenisti and Hanegbi need to build support. I think they could use as much help as they can.


skdadl, the problem with thinking, at all, is that we will always run up against realpolitik players. And, on this issue, I don't think those politicians care if there is a solution or not, so long as their power in the region is secure.

Binationalism is rational, but its also a moral solution. Thinking in moral terms may not get you very far politically these days, but if its people you care about its hard not to.

I thought you believed that public opinion can have an affect on world affairs. Well, I believe that it is here, more than anywhere else in the world, that changing public opinion can make a difference.


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 25 August 2003 06:17 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by satana:
Courage, you're right, the PA isn't all bad, and it still has support among a large number of Palestinians, but I can safely say the majority do not have much confidence in them.

Fair enough. I think we're pretty close on this issue, actually. My point was exactly that which you made below - that the so-called 'realism' in supporting the PLO is what keeps them afloat - and afloat they - sort of - are.

quote:
Arafat is still a popular and familiar symbol of struggle, and the PLO seems like the only organization the international community is willing to recognize. The PLO is very vocal and visible, as it gets a lot of western funding, and so far, besides the militant "Islamic" parties there don't seem to be any other alternatives.

I know that the Palestine National Initiative (PNI) is trying to make inroads and (re)vitalise a secular-based national movement. I haven't been to that neck of the woods in about 5 years, however, so I don't know how they are doing 'on the street' - particularly under the brutality of Sharon's policies which do nothing but encourage Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the rest. I'd have to defer to you on this one.

quote:
I don't know what kind of polls and surveys you've seen, but currently people here estimate no more than 3% of Palestinians actually believe the PA can help them.

Do you have a link or source for that? Not that I doubt you, it's just that I'm always on the hunt for resources and such.


quote:
This is another factor many fear to bring up: if the same Jewish immigration rate and Arab birth rate conitues as it is today, in a few decades Arabs will no longer be a minority in Israel. How can Israel call itself a Jewish state then? It seems most Zionists who support a Palestinian state are hoping it will be an excuse to get rid of Arab-Israelis. I think it is very dangerous for Jews, Arabs, and the international community to overlook this.

I agree. The 'demographic bomb' as it is sometimes referred to is part and parcel of a terrible discourse that completely strips Palestinian Arabs of their humanity, making them mere breeding animals or worse, statistics. It reinforces the paranoid ideological tendency to see Palestinian actions (in this case, fornication) as no more than Machiavellian plots against Israel and Jews. The discussion around this 'problem' is rife with the historical blindness that has characterised much of mainstream Zionist thinking about the 'Arab Question'. I find the discussion to be very dangerous in import as well - not least because it mirrors the kinds of 'demographic' discussions that took place in the midst of the worst of the Serbian/Albanian conflict over Kosovo/a. The story was familiar - the Albanian terrorist Muslims are breeding like, well, like rodents, and since this is a clearly a sign of a dark conspiracy to use the womb as a weapon against the Serb nation we need to act quickly and decisively to end their incessant breeding or at least wrest their control of Kosovo before they swarm us in little Muslim terrorist babies. The same kind of talk is prevalent in the discussions of the Palestinian population 'problem'. I fear that the logic of this kind of discussion - it holds much similarity to discussions of rampant zebra mussels or some other parasitic creature - can only end in some sort of moral and physical disaster for both Israelis and Palestinians. Mostly, the problem stems from an stubborn refusal for Israelis and Zionists elsewhere to revisit the ideological notion of the 'Jewish State' and all that implies. Thus the Palestinians may end up bearing the brunt of the 'solution' to a question never asked.

quote:
No one denies that binationalism wouldn't work under current conditions. But I believe the long-term security of Jews and Arabs in the region depends on it, and with a lot of work on both sides it is certainly possible. The linked article shows that Israelis can change. Now, people like Benvenisti and Hanegbi need to build support. I think they could use as much help as they can.

We are on the same wavelength here. The cries of the Zionist right (and our own Stockholm and Celtica, in fact) that a Palestinian state would be just a 'terrorist' state has some truth to it. If we disregard the usage of the term 'terrorist' and realise that the structural problems of trying to create a tiny Palestinian sovereignty beside (or within if you believe the Barak maps are what Israel wants) Israel are huge. Once we consider the issues of settlements, resource allocation (water, mostly) we see that the potential is there for an ongoing hostility between the two entities. One way out of this morass - except for a complete expulsion of the Palestinians, is bi-national or secular non-national citizenship in a new state of 'Israel'.

And as for your comments to skdadl about the 'moral' importance of the binational argument, I couldn't agree more. Both theoretically and tactically, in fact. In another thread discussion with skdadl (actually the one about the Trent Professor in 'News') I tried to explain my thoughts on this. I think that the only force left which is powerful enough to stop the mechanistic tit-for-tat logic of the conflict is to appeal to something not instinctual (as most of the 'moral' arguments currently appeal the instinct of base survival) but to something of a higher sort of emotion. A strategy that calls people up and out of their 'thoughts' and 'instincts' which are so distorted and manipulated at this point into an emotional state of conscience - that feeling of what is best 'for all' that humanity shows in its brighter moments. Such a strategy is so inimical to the present situation, that it could derail the process and start a new pattern of activity.

I can't get any further into this at the moment, but here's the link to what I said before - http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=004814. Ignore the rest of that backbiting thread (I take responsibility for my part in it.) Anyway, I'd be curious what you think.

[ 25 August 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]

[ 25 August 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 02 September 2003 11:18 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know much about the PNI. I've seen their website but I've never heard anyone mention it around here. Personally, I don't see anything diffrent in what they're talking about, and what the "road map" talks about.

The 3% estimate is not accurate. I heard it from a Palestinian refugee in Lebanon and when I asked contacts in the West-bank they weren't surprised. But I expect support is a bit more than that, at least, in Jordan.
Still, if Palestinians could freely vote right now on which "political party" they liked best I'm pretty sure Hamas would win. Their Islamic rhetoric rings better with a population that is deeply concerned with justice. Unfortunately, many don't realize that they are just as corrupt and obligated to western funding, direction and protection as the secular nationalists.

Non-jewish residents in the West-bank are sick of the cufrews, endless checkpoints, being pushed around and shouted at by kids with guns, their land confiscated, their houses broken into, their children imprisoned, the endless humiliation. People are so desperate they are willing to accept a Palestinian mini-state if it would improve the situation. But when the PA was set-up residents had to endure the same hassles whenever they thought of visiting relatives in another town, crossing the green line to get to work became even more difficult, land and property continued to be confiscated, political expression even more suppressed, and arrests only increased, but this time it was the PA doing the dirty work for Israel.
Many still hope it can be better, but I have heard West-bank residents admit that despite all the humiliation under Zionist administration it was still better than the PA. You will never hear anyone admit that in public, though.

Its interesting to see how the majority of Israel's "peace camp" are so eager to create a seperate Palestinian state. Arafat seems more valuable to them than he is to Palestinians. For them a Palestinian state is only a desperate attempt to preserve Zionism in the face of a threatening international community that continues to hold on to dreaded human rights as an ideal.

I've followed the discussion on the other thread. I've had a similar exchange with skdadl before. You express my point of view much more articulately and politely than I ever could. I can't help but see skdadl's disconnected personal views on this subject as nothing better than stubborn ignorance. I started the "what is 'peace'?" thread with that discussion in mind. skdadl seems to believe that peace can be achieved with a stroke of the pen. I'm not sure what kind of peace she imagines that looks like, but it has nothing to do with resolving the conflict. If that is the goal is then both sides need to appeal to a higher authority or standard both are willing to recognize. Applying internationally recognized human rights are, IMO, the best way to rest all claims both sides have against each other. Breaking through the racism is a bit more difficult. It requires both sides to see each other as equals. I believe this can be achieved through regular contact, cooperation, and education from a young age in an environment where both people live together without fear of discrimination or persecution.

Segregation into seperate states can only breed suspicion, fear, hatred and contempt for the other. This has been the "solution" for over 50 years now, and the situation has only gotten worse. I imagine building even more walls between people will only increase the hatred and potential for even more destructive violence in the future. Seperation is like a hastily applied band-aid on a festering wound, it might make you feel like you're doing something about the problem, but its only making things worse.

A state that recognizes and enforces the equal rights of all people with ties to the region regardless of ethnicity or religion, is the only framework through which reconciliation and, eventually, peace can be acheived. I don't believe reconciliation can even begin until that state is reached. The question is how to get there.


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 02 September 2003 12:36 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Since Mishei appears to be ignoring this thread, I'll play a very limited devil's advocate role. How can Jews be integrated into the Middle East after all this, when in most Arab and Muslim countries anti-Jewish screeds and ideologies run rampant? Now, I of all people understand that a lot of the hatred of Jews is a reaction and the discourses used have little historical roots in the Middle East. But what's done is done, right? Regardless of whose fault it is, now the dream of Jews living everywhere in a giant ME superstate or whatever seem a little difficult to imagine in practical terms, doesn't it? In the near future, I mean--"near" meaning up to a century.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 02 September 2003 07:32 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is so nice to wish for a Utopia. Sadly I am more pragmatic. There is no historical indication that the present situation or anything remotely in the future will lend itself to welcoming Jews as a minority in a "secular" (another utopian fantasy) state in the ME. Indeed historically quite the opposite is true.

No, as much as I hate to feel this way Jews need the comfort of protection that only a Jewish state can give them. I consistantly draw the line at anyone who advocates the dissolution of the Jewish state of Israel. To me this is the new antisemitism.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 02 September 2003 07:53 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is so nice to wish for a Utopia.
The entire Zionist project was a Utopian concept from the outset!

From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 02 September 2003 08:00 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Indeed historically quite the opposite is true.

No it isn't.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 September 2003 08:09 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No, as much as I hate to feel this way Jews need the comfort of protection that only a Jewish state can give them.

Hiding behind a wall, armed to the teeth, and adhering to an official racism is not protection. Not even close. It may be comforting, however, to those who find comfort with well armed racists in fortresses.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 02 September 2003 10:51 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

Hiding behind a wall, armed to the teeth, and adhering to an official racism is not protection. Not even close. It may be comforting, however, to those who find comfort with well armed racists in fortresses.


This in itself is a racist over-generalization. Did you actually mean to indict all Israelis as "well armed racists "? That is exactly what you did.

And pray tell Al, how were Jewish holy places treated say in Jordan prior to 1967 any idea? What was the state of some of Judaism's most holy relics in Jerusalem prir to that time? Were Jews treated well in other Muslim countries?..some will say far better than in Europe...possibly true but it is no comfort. Jews left en masse from Arab lands to the freedom of Israel where they were permitted to worship without fear and practice their faith.

No Al, I know you hate to hear it but without a Jewish state Jews would not enjoy the freedom they have today to worship and be Jews. The same freedom that Muslims, Christians and other faiths in Israel have to this day.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 September 2003 11:07 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, everyone is racist except the racists and their defenders. That would be you, wouldn't it, Mishei?

For how long can you defend a racist state without being a racist?

And for the record, I know there are a number of Israelis, Jews and Arabs, who recognize and despise the racism of their state as much as I do.

Too bad you don't.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 02 September 2003 11:34 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Yeah, everyone is racist except the racists and their defenders. That would be you, wouldn't it, Mishei?

For how long can you defend a racist state without being a racist?

And for the record, I know there are a number of Israelis, Jews and Arabs, who recognize and despise the racism of their state as much as I do.

Too bad you don't.


Yes Wing, as usual when you engage in racist rhetoric against Israel, like a magician you engage in deflection and misdirection. Nonetheless, as we parse your words (and as i await your minions coming to your defence agfter all Israelis are not worth defending it seems against racist language you engage in) it is clear you posted what you posted...no apology or acknowledgement because , after all, in your own words:


quote:
everyone is racist except the racists and their defenders. For how long can you defend a racist state without being a racist

I believe this to be a racist statement. I believe those who weilly nilly accuse Israel and Israelis of being racists should look in the mirror. What they will see is racist rhetoric.

BTW, thanks for the slight acknowledgement that out of close to 5 million Israelis there may be a:

quote:
... number of Israelis, Jews and Arabs,
who may not be racist. BTW, I guess by your figuring all non-Jews or non-Arabs living in Israel (ie Hindus, Druze, Bhuddists ) are racists.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 02 September 2003 11:38 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So Mishei, does that mean anyone who opposed the creation of Israel in the first place was an anti-Semite?
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 02 September 2003 11:43 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft:
So Mishei, does that mean anyone who opposed the creation of Israel in the first place was an anti-Semite?

No, this is strawman logic.

I suppose you will point to the Bundists as a prime example. But much of their philosophy was based prior to the Holocaust.

Indeed today I would urge yyou to go to a meeting of the Workman's Circle where the vestiges of bundist philosophy still lives.

Today you will hear strong pro-Israel sentiment tinged with a strong leftist leaning and in some quarters a deep sensitivity towards the Palestinian plight. However their love for and support of Israel is not diminished one iota.

Times and history has changed hard and fast positions.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 02 September 2003 11:52 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...and as i await your minions coming to your defence agfter all Israelis...

Hey Mish, no fair. You give Wingy minions, you give Courage minions. We should all have some minions.

quote:
No Al, I know you hate to hear it but without a Jewish state Jews would not enjoy the freedom they have today to worship and be Jews.

Feeling oppressed in Toronto these days, Mish?

Before the Zionists started moving into the region and making it clear that they wanted to take over Palestine and expel Arabs, Jews in the Middle East were treated no worse than any minority anywhere, your comfort level notwithstanding.

And Mish, giving post-1948 conditions, following the creation of the state of Israel, rather argues against your own point, wouldn't you agree?

[ 03 September 2003: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 03 September 2003 12:52 AM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
It is so nice to wish for a Utopia. Sadly I am more pragmatic. There is no historical indication that the present situation or anything remotely in the future will lend itself to welcoming Jews as a minority in a "secular" (another utopian fantasy) state in the ME.
Indeed historically quite the opposite is true.

Jordan is a secular state. Syria is a secular state. Egypt is a secular state. Iraq is a secular state. Turkey is a secular state. These are all secular states every bit as much as Israel. Moreover, the entire notion of a 'Jewish state' that will once-and-for-all relieve Jews of thier suffering and finally release them from slavery is a Utopia as much as any thought of a secular state that respects the rights of both Arabs and Jews in the Middle East. There is a subtle racism under your argument that rests on two fallacies:

1) That Israel is not currently rife with it's own racism. That it somehow operates outside the problems of discrimination found in many Middle Eastern (but not only there) states. That somehow Israel is a sea of tolerance (never mind the Or Commission, or the Occupation) surrounded by the rough waters of barbarism.

2) That Arabs are incapable of living in a tolerant secular-based society and that given the right to vote and exercise their freedoms, they would necessarily vote to destroy all Jews. Nice one.


quote:
No, as much as I hate to feel this way Jews need the comfort of protection that only a Jewish state can give them.

The term 'Jewish State' is slippery and the site of much contention. What exactly does it mean, Mishei?

quote:
I consistantly draw the line at anyone who advocates the dissolution of the Jewish state of Israel. To me this is the new antisemitism.

Again, you need to define 'Jewish state', Mishei.
Historically, the notion of what constitutes an 'Israeli' and 'Jewishness' has never really been fully elucidated. The lack of clarity over 'nationalism' v. 'religion', for example, is of paramount importance.

Second of all, Mishei, your claim that Muslims and Christians are treated equally is dubious. Did not the Or Commission just come to the conclusion that there is a massive problem of systemic discrimination in Israeli society? Funny, Arabs make up the vast majority of the Muslim and Christian portions of Israeli society. So you are sandbagging in a way. If we accept your catagorisation we can say, well, at least in letter, their religious rights are respected, and Mosques and Churches are not shut down, however, in so many other aspects of their existence, they are actively discriminated against. It all really depends on the catagories we use. In this case, your chosen catagory obfuscates the basic truth of Israeli state discrimination against Arabs, be they Muslim or Christian.

And lastly, this is more of your usual tripe which tries to mystify the question of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians by linking the discriminatory practices of Israel to the epithet 'antisemitism'. It's so painfully boring the 'nth' time around...

[ 03 September 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 September 2003 07:56 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, it is you who display racist qualities. You defend and apologize for a racist state.

Let us review the record:

White supremacists and black supremacists, have often argued for separate balck and white states. They call it separate but equal.

Israel calls for a two state solution. But offers no such equality.

White suremacists defend their demand for a separate state on the grounds that demographics will water down the white race.

Israel argues for separate states on the grounds that demographics will cause Israel to lose its "Jewish characteristic."

White supremacists and Israel supported the apartheid governmemt of South Africa.

Israel engages in a policy of resulting in the imprisonment of close to 3 million people.

Israel is busy turning the West Bank and Gaza into a concentration camp not even with the lowly status of a bantu.

And you defend all of this.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 03 September 2003 10:11 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
I consistantly draw the line at anyone who advocates the dissolution of the Jewish state of Israel. To me this is the new antisemitism.

Sounds more like the new McCarthyism to me.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 03 September 2003 10:31 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
1) That Israel is not currently rife with it's own racism. That it somehow operates outside the problems of discrimination found in many Middle Eastern (but not only there) states. That somehow Israel is a sea of tolerance (never mind the Or Commission, or the Occupation) surrounded by the rough waters of barbarism.

2) That Arabs are incapable of living in a tolerant secular-based society and that given the right to vote and exercise their freedoms, they would necessarily vote to destroy all Jews. Nice one.



I have never claimed that Israel is devoid of racism Lord knows no such entity exists. I have only stated that to describe Israel philosophically and politically as a "racist" state is specious, WRONG and done for propaganda purposes that most people comprehend fully.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 September 2003 10:35 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If people comprehend it fully, could that comprehension be put into words, please?

I'm never sure what you're getting at when you post such formulations.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 03 September 2003 11:44 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Mishei, it is you who display racist qualities. You defend and apologize for a racist state.

Let us review the record:

White supremacists and black supremacists, have often argued for separate balck and white states. They call it separate but equal.

Israel calls for a two state solution. But offers no such equality.

Mishei: Almost the entire world calls for a two-state solution including most of the Palestinian leadership. Why would Israel have to offer "equality" in a new state not their own?

White suremacists defend their demand for a separate state on the grounds that demographics will water down the white race.

Mishei: To compare jews to white supremacists is ugly in the extreme and continues to expose your dark mind.

Israel argues for separate states on the grounds that demographics will cause Israel to lose its "Jewish characteristic."

Mishei: The state of Israel was established as a once and future home and sanctuary for the remenants of jewry the world over. there are only 13 million jews world wide. Hardly a number to be concerned about outside the jewish world. Without a state of israel, as history all to clearly demonstrated Jews are expendable. This will never happen again.

White supremacists and Israel supported the apartheid governmemt of South Africa.

Mishei: I did not support Isrtael in its position on South Africa nor did many other Jews and israelis. Israel is a sovereign state that makes historical mistakes. this was one of them.

Israel engages in a policy of resulting in the imprisonment of close to 3 million people.

Mishei: No, it was Palestinian terrorists that put Israel in a position where it MUST defend its people from those who would choose to murder them.

Israel is busy turning the West Bank and Gaza into a concentration camp not even with the lowly status of a bantu.

Mishei: See above. And you would defend THIS the wanton murder of innocent Israelis?

And you defend all of this.


[ 03 September 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 03 September 2003 11:59 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well now you're finally making sense, Mish.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 03 September 2003 12:24 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mandos, Jews are already integrated in the Middle East. Even now, after "all this". They have always been integrated in the Middle East and are in fact a natural part of Arab world. You can still find Jewish communities in Egypt and Morocco. There were even more larger communities throughout the Arab world before the Zionist state was established and began encouraging xenophobia in Jewish communities.

I've never heard of any "anti-Jewish ideologies" in the Arab world. You will often hear sermons calling for the death of "Jews" and "Crusaders", refering to the European and American invaders in the Islamic world. Sadly, for many people, militant Zionism is the only aspect of Judaism they are familiar with. But ask even the most "extremist" Muslim militant, and they will tell you the only reason they hate Jews is that they stole their land. That is it. It has nothing to do with being Jewish. It is all about an injustice that has yet to acknowledged. That is the root of the problem. I've tried to explain in my previous post how that problem can be overcome.

Historically Christians have been by far the greatest enemies of Muslims (and most of the world, for that matter), and have done greater injustice than Jews ever could. Yet the Christian community in the Arab world is very well integrated in the Middle East.

The question isn't can Jews be integrated in the Middle East, but do Jews want to be a part of the Middle East.

As for a ME superstate I imagine only a major change in the balance of world power before that can ever happen. And I don't see that happening any time soon.

A unitary or binationalist state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean is far from utopia. It is only a realistic nonviolent political solution that respects the basic human rights of all people in the region.

[ 03 September 2003: Message edited by: satana ]


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 03 September 2003 12:39 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In the wider Muslim world (I have been to a very Muslim country but never to an Arab one), I think it is fair to say that the notion of "Jew" has been given in itself negative connotations. In Pakistan, my mother's country, I have seen Ford's writings and Holocaust denial material, most of it imported from the West, sold on street corners. Everyone assumes that The Jooz are trying to take over the world, sort of like breathing air.

To be sure--this is a reaction after the creation of Israel and most of it is borrowed, as I said; a fundamental part of Pakistan's founding ideology was the undoing of the humiliation of Muslims in the modern world, and the creation of Israel was and is the most prominent symbol of that humiliation and therefore utterly antithetical to Pakistan as a nation. And this borrowed, philosophical anti-semitism took root pretty quickly in a visceral form for that very reason. I don't know whether or not a resolution to the Israel situation might transform this situation--but there is a chance it might not, right?

Perhaps I am extending my experience too much. Perhaps the more direct experience with Jews that the Arab countries have may abate the negative reaction more easily than in Pakistan. But then, they may tolerate "indigenous" Jews better, would they not? How would they integrate European-Israeli Jews, who are and want to be Europeans? American Jews?

It is not how the relationship used to be. It is how the relationship will be now--particularly with the Westerners.

[ 03 September 2003: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 03 September 2003 12:46 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
I have never claimed that Israel is devoid of racism Lord knows no such entity exists. I have only stated that to describe Israel philosophically and politically as a "racist" state is specious, WRONG and done for propaganda purposes that most people comprehend fully.

How much racist segregation, expulsion, discrimination, and occupation does a state have to carry out before it is a 'racist state'?


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 03 September 2003 12:50 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How would they integrate European-Israeli Jews, who are and want to be Europeans? American Jews?

There's the rub. Many of these Europeans and Americans don't want to become Orientals, and so insist on a clear separation between themselves and those among whom they live.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 03 September 2003 01:00 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:

Perhaps I am extending my experience too much. Perhaps the more direct experience with Jews that the Arab countries have may abate the negative reaction more easily than in Pakistan. But then, they may tolerate "indigenous" Jews better, would they not? How would they integrate European-Israeli Jews, who are and want to be Europeans? American Jews?

It is not how the relationship used to be. It is how the relationship will be now--particularly with the Westerners.

[ 03 September 2003: Message edited by: Mandos ]


You are right to situate this problem in the overarching construct of Western power in Asia. I think this will colour the outcome of any effort to change hearts and minds about Zionism and Jews. That said, one only need to look to the heart of Europe where the worst antisemitism once existed (and still does in small pockets) and lead to terrible atrocities against Jews to see that the possibility for quite rapid, whole-cloth change in attitudes is possible.

This is why - as has been debated here hotly - Nazism (and its antisemitism) must be understood as a political sequence - not the manifestation of some visceral or metaphysical hatred of Jews that lies deep in the hearts and souls of Germans specifically, and Europeans generally. To buy this line we are already conceding too much to the racialist theories on which Nazism was founded (and Zionism too) which found nothing but a 'genetic' and 'natural' hostility between 'the Jew' and all others. We have to see that this ideology was part and parcel of a political sequence in which 'Jew' became the operative catagory not an outcropping of some Spencerist/Darwinist competition of the races, or other essentialisations.

At this point in time, the antisemitism in Muslim states in Asia is part of a wider anti-Western attitude, and the ruling political ideologies have not employed the catagory 'Jew' to the same extent or with the same quality as that used in Nazism. If the political sphere could be 'de-Nazified' and the term 'Jew' depoliticised to a great degree in Europe (though I would argue that it became re-politicised in a different fashion through the efforts of some groups dedicated to the memorialisation of the Holocaust, and Zionists), once the conflicts that generated this catagorisation were immobilised, there is no reason to think that the antisemitism extant in Asia cannot be cleared up by a similar settling of accounts and the creation of a new polity with its primary catagory being one of mutual existence and cooperation - such as a binational or multicultural state.

I think we must watch the tendency toward essentialising 'Arab' or 'Muslim' antisemitism as a cultural or 'genetic' feature which is unchangeable, and unrelated to political sequences e.g. Zionism, Western imperialism, etc.

[ 03 September 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 03 September 2003 04:20 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I should point out that the depoliticization of the category "Jew" in Europe took a great deal of carnage. It was a catharsis. Do we hope for such a catharsis in Asia? How other than a catharsis can we dissipate the political "energy" in these categories?

But this is a lot of crystal ball-gazing.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 03 September 2003 04:45 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps the question of "Holocaust memorialisation" could become another thread. Enzo Traverso's essay on Finkelstein, Novack and the uses of memory has come out in English in the review "Historical Materialism". I'll try to get my hands on it.

I have some Jewish friends in Europe who, though they are glad the horror of Nazism was recognised and commemorated, are a bit uncomfortable with some of the huge memorials now being built, as in Berlin. It almost seems to them that they are being categorised as a dead race, when there are still Jews living there (and the Jewish community in Germany is the fastest-growing one in the world).


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 03 September 2003 06:38 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
I should point out that the depoliticization of the category "Jew" in Europe took a great deal of carnage. It was a catharsis. Do we hope for such a catharsis in Asia? How other than a catharsis can we dissipate the political "energy" in these categories?

But this is a lot of crystal ball-gazing.



I'm not unaware of this, however, I'm not sure that it is necessary to have such a 'catharsis' to change hearts and minds. I think this puts too much emphasis on the 'means' of immobilising certain catagories. There are other ways - South Africa gives us a useful lesson.

I would simply say that this energy might be changed by altering the political features on which it relies - the position of the Palestinians, and the relationship of the state of Israel to the 'West', which is deeply interwoven with the former. In don't think we can really worry about how long it takes people in Pakistan, for example, to come around and forget their antisemitism. What is important is to understand that the roots of reconciliation are in Palestinian society already. By virtue of being under the control of Israel they have come to know their Jewish neighbours rather well, and my impression when talking to Palestinians is that their anger is not so much at Jews as such, but at how their desire to have a state of their own, or some degree of political autonomy has been blocked and controlled by the state of Israel and Zionism. Into this mix the figure of 'the Jew' as conceived in European antisemitism has certainly gained some popularity, but my impression was that it isn't deep. Moreover, the power to make this catagory operative is not there, and the figure itself would be undercut and opposed by a sincere effort from Israel to reconcile the conflict.

Sure there are extremists who will 'hate the Jews' long after any kind of solution (if there ever is one) but to use their existence (and I'm not saying you are doing this, Mandos) as reason to block the creation of a new polity is not only unpragmatic, it is downright Utopian of the worst kind. This is precisely the line taken by defenders of the occupation when they point to 'antisemitism' in Palestinian society.

[ 03 September 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 03 September 2003 06:40 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
Perhaps the question of "Holocaust memorialisation" could become another thread. Enzo Traverso's essay on Finkelstein, Novack and the uses of memory has come out in English in the review "Historical Materialism". I'll try to get my hands on it.

I have some Jewish friends in Europe who, though they are glad the horror of Nazism was recognised and commemorated, are a bit uncomfortable with some of the huge memorials now being built, as in Berlin. It almost seems to them that they are being categorised as a dead race, when there are still Jews living there (and the Jewish community in Germany is the fastest-growing one in the world).


I would be interested in such a discussion. However, I fear the censors will descend quickly in unabashed attempts to derail anything un-politic...

We could try anyway...


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 04 September 2003 01:07 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
Perhaps the question of "Holocaust memorialisation" could become another thread. Enzo Traverso's essay on Finkelstein, Novack and the uses of memory has come out in English in the review "Historical Materialism". I'll try to get my hands on it.

I have some Jewish friends in Europe who, though they are glad the horror of Nazism was recognised and commemorated, are a bit uncomfortable with some of the huge memorials now being built, as in Berlin. It almost seems to them that they are being categorised as a dead race, when there are still Jews living there (and the Jewish community in Germany is the fastest-growing one in the world).


Perhaps your friends should be reminded that within living memory there was an attempt to murder all the Jews of Europe. If that succeeded the Jews in th rest of the world were to be exterminated as well.

The plan almost did succeed at least in Europe where two thirds of European Jewry were obliterated. That is 6 million Jews amongst them one and a half million children.

A memorial in the lands of their murder seems the least that could be done, no?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 04 September 2003 01:37 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei, these friends, being about my age, are quite obviously the children of Holocaust survivors, no? My friend in Germany was born in a DP camp, and all the Nazis didn't vanish overnight. You can imagine what he went through as a kid (he was born in 1948). He doesn't have to be reminded of anything. That isn't the point, the point is the impact on European Jews - especially in Germany and Austria - who are living here and now. No opposition to commemorations or memorials, but there is something creepy about such things on a heroic scale.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 13 December 2003 05:22 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A lifelong Zionist converts to the one-state solution:

"After 55 years of Jewish sovereignty, the time has come to dissolve the Jewish state and establish, in its place, a single Israeli-Palestinian state.

"Having reached the conclusion that the territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River must be shared, but cannot be sensibly partitioned," he writes in his book, "we are left with only one alternative: Israeli-Palestinian coexistence in one nation."

The only solution, to his mind, that could preserve the Jewish state - partition into two states, Israel and Palestine - is no longer tenable. The massive settlement construction in the West Bank has sealed its fate. If Israeli Jews now wish to secure their long-term future in the region, he explains, they must agree to abdicate Jewish sovereignty and move swiftly, while the balance of power still tilts in their favor, to a multiethnic democracy."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/370673.html


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 13 December 2003 06:32 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Gavron also goes significantly further than most other writers who eulogize the two-state solution, or warn of its imminent extinction, offering a working model for a unitary state. It begins with the immediate annexation by Israel of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, followed by elections based on a universal franchise. If Israeli Jews don't adopt his model, he warns, the one-state reality will ultimately be imposed on them - in a slow but savage process.

I don't like the way this is written in terms of a formal annexation rather than a recognition of a de facto condition - that many parts of the Occupied Territories have, for years, been effectively integrated into Israel proper by legal decrees and "facts on the ground".

Nevertheless, Israel would have to contend with a Palestinian Authority that, while a name-only thing for the most part, would resist its loss of sovereignty since it would, of necessity, be extinguished after the legal franchise was granted to all who live within the post-1982 borders of Israel. (I say post-1982, since the post-1967 borders would mean the Sinai peninsula, whereas post-1982 means Israel as it is presently constituted)

There would have to be some kind of quid pro quo given to Arafat et al in exchange for loss of administrative authority, such as it is, in the PA - one might be the legal right to stand in elections as a Palestinian-Arab political party, which would almost certainly assure Arafat opposition-side leader status.

I wonder who his Opposition House leader would be. (Israel has, in essentials, adopted the British Parliamentary system in its Knesset, I am given to understand)


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
salaam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4670

posted 14 December 2003 02:58 AM      Profile for salaam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The following is an unofficial translation of a statement from Fateh issued 1 December with its views on the Geneva initiative:
quote:

In the Name of God

Our Freedom Fighting People, Our People in Palestine and in Exile

Initiatives and proposals for solving the Arab- Israeli Conflict appear from time to time. Whether Israeli or Israeli-Palestinian, regional, or international, these proposals are based on the premise that the Palestinian refugee issue can be resolved within the framework of a future Palestinian State.

Of even greater danger is the fact that the current Palestinian regime has opened the door for such initiatives without having a clear vision that is consistent with our people's aspirations! The current regime has encouraged and participated in these initiatives, justifying their position by saying that they are searching for a political breakthrough with the Israeli and international community. Oblivious to the harm being done to the unity of the Palestinian people, this regime includes those who initiate and direct and those who reject such initiatives. This situation is pushing the
Palestinian people towards an internal conflict that could lead to a "civil war" just to maintain the interests of the Palestinian elite currently in
power. This elite - guided by their own self-interests - threatens the unity and steadfastness of the Palestinian people and the right to return of the Palestinian refugees, which is the core of the Palestinian issue.

Concerned about a unified Palestinian position that is consistent with the national consensus, we affirm the following:

First: Taking into consideration that the Right of Return is the foundation of the Palestinian consensus; the core of the Palestinian struggle; the justification for the current revolution; and the dream of two-thirds of
the Palestinian people, we strongly reject all initiatives, agreements, and understandings, whether formal or informal - including Beilin-Abu Mazen, Nusseibeh-Ayalon, the Geneva agreement, among others - that compromise this sacred right. We see such initiatives and agreements as a dangerous trend that transforms the national consensus into a bargaining chip for negotiations.

Second: We do not place responsibility only on those who participated in such initiatives. We also blame the Palestinian regime which plays with the fate of the people and contributes to the damage done to the people's aspirations. For the last three months, this regime has been consumed with petty internal conflicts over the formation of a government rather than the concerns of our people and the critical issues. The regime, which has
placed the most corrupt persons in positions of responsibility in ministries, security and civil organizations, has persisted in playing with
and harming the unity of our people and the national consensus - foremost being the right of return - in an unprecedented manner, in order to maintain Palestinian sovereignty over any square meter.

Third: We remind those who play with the future of our people that an independent Palestinian State on the 1967 occupied land is not part of the strategic consensus, but only a transition program adopted by the PLO at
the 1974 meeting of the Palestinian National Council (PNC). The right of return is a key element of the Palestinian National Charter and the primary reason for the beginning of the Palestinian revolution. If there was a need
for tactical measures it is the Palestinian State which should be used as a bargaining chip in order to achieve the return. The Palestinian State is no longer a priority nor in the popular interest of the Palestinian people. It has become an Israeli security interest that also happens to serve some in the current Palestinian regime, who see the Palestinian
State as a means to increase their own illegitimate profits. Sacrificing the Palestinian State for the sake of achieving the return, therefore, serves the comprehensive Palestinian strategy, while sacrificing the right
of return for the sake of a pseudo State with limited sovereignty sacrifices the people's rights, dreams and aspirations.

Fourth: We believe that we can reach a comprehensive and just peace, a peace in which this land accommodates both peoples within a democratic secular state; a peace that recognizes the rights and duties of both
Palestinians and Israelis; a peace that removes borders, walls and checkpoints; a peace that is not based on displacement and the separation of cities, but rather one that is based on the return of Palestinian refugees; a peace in which everyone is a winner and not a compromiser; and, a peace in which both parties triumph and no one loses.

Fifth: In order to maintain the unity of our people; build democratic Palestinian institutions; and, facilitate each person's right to contribute and participate in the building of civil society and the formation of policy, we call for transparent democratic elections on all
levels, starting with the FATEH Central Committee, through Municipal Councils, the Palestinian Legislative Council, the Presidency and the Palestinian National Council. The purpose of these elections is to reorganize the Palestinian house and protect it from ongoing
administrative, financial, and political corruption, and stop the process of collapse and division.

Based on the abovementioned concepts, and without hesitation, we will start a Popular Campaign in Palestine and in Exile under the Title: "Return First, and Peace for Two Nations in One State".

With this slogan, we will be faithful to our people's dreams and ambitions. We will be faithful to the blood of our martyrs. We will adopt a more realistic approach to achieve a comprehensive and just peace that does not
impose painful compromises on anyone. A solution to the conflict that ignores the interests of two-thirds of the Palestinian people can only be considered as a ceasefire between two parties.

Unified and together until achieving Return, Liberation, and Peace

FATEH - Palestinian Liberation Movement Palestine, 1/12/2003



From: exile | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 21 December 2003 05:58 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As the two-state illusion fades, there is an opportunity for new ideas on how to escape the bloody impasse. There are, on the one hand, the hideous prescriptions of Ravid and Sharon; on the other, the hope offered by a single binational state guaranteeing full rights and equality for Jews and Palestinians. This is the only solution that conforms to universal human rights.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca