The State of Israel & Palestine?
September 16, 2003 12:05 PM Subscribe
Have we arrived at the end of the two state solution? Tom Friedman, Ehud Barak, various Palestinian leaders, and a growing number of Palestinians on the ground, are starting to wonder if a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine is becoming impossible. The idea is gaining momentum on the ground in Palestine, as the contiguous area needed for a Palestinian state becomes less likely. Are we heading back to the days of "one (hu)man, one vote" campus activism a la the anti-aparthied movement?
"(one vote, one time, gave Hitler supreme rule)"
Oh dear. Less than an hour and the thread's already been Godwin'd. What a cryin' shame.
"One (hu)man, one vote" my butt. Israelis believe their women belong in the military. (Some) Palestinians believe their women are best unseen and unheard. I'm for anything that keeps people in the Middle East from blowing each other away, but somehow I don't think one man one vote is gonna do that.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:35 PM on September 16, 2003
Oh dear. Less than an hour and the thread's already been Godwin'd. What a cryin' shame.
"One (hu)man, one vote" my butt. Israelis believe their women belong in the military. (Some) Palestinians believe their women are best unseen and unheard. I'm for anything that keeps people in the Middle East from blowing each other away, but somehow I don't think one man one vote is gonna do that.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:35 PM on September 16, 2003
*swings*
If no-one 'owned' the land, where do all the Palestinian refugees come from, and why do they want to go back to where their homes used to be in Israel?
If it's 'contested' land, what gives one side the right (backed by massive amounts of US civil and military aid) to take it by force?
*stops swinging, also goes to look for meds*
posted by carter at 1:27 PM on September 16, 2003
If no-one 'owned' the land, where do all the Palestinian refugees come from, and why do they want to go back to where their homes used to be in Israel?
If it's 'contested' land, what gives one side the right (backed by massive amounts of US civil and military aid) to take it by force?
*stops swinging, also goes to look for meds*
posted by carter at 1:27 PM on September 16, 2003
WTF? I can't believe this hasn't turned into a total flame-fest by now.
Gahd, you people are going soft...
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:19 PM on September 16, 2003
Gahd, you people are going soft...
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:19 PM on September 16, 2003
The end goal should be liberty, equality, and security for all-- everyone agrees on that, right?
All human beings should have the same rights, and live in peace. But how to get there? Can Palestinians really ever be free if they are living in cul-de-sacs surrounded by walls, fences, and with entry and exit controlled by a foreign country? Will Israelis ever live in peace as long as they have control over another people who do not have voting rights (or really any rights)? It is these quandries which bring up the one-state solution idea. It's really not so far-fetched, and while it may be a favorite of the anti-statists, as Postroad reminds us, the Nationalists on the other hand include lots of unsavory types as well.
This idea comes out of desperation as Sharon and the rest of the extreme right wing in Israel keep up their war to eradicate the idea of Palestine and Palestinians. The more Sharon makes it impossible for there to be a Palestinian state in the generally accepted definition of the term, the more Palestinians and their supporters will ask for voting and other rights from their de facto masters... which leaves Israel with the choice of either being an all-out apartheid state or... we're back to the 1-state solution.
Unless there is a genocide, this means that the only true Zionists in Israel left are the center-left Labor party, the strongest advocates for a non-apartheid 2-state solution. Sharon's path cannot really be considered a Zionist solution, because he will eventually either obliterate democracy, or Jewish-majority rule.
posted by cell divide at 2:50 PM on September 16, 2003
All human beings should have the same rights, and live in peace. But how to get there? Can Palestinians really ever be free if they are living in cul-de-sacs surrounded by walls, fences, and with entry and exit controlled by a foreign country? Will Israelis ever live in peace as long as they have control over another people who do not have voting rights (or really any rights)? It is these quandries which bring up the one-state solution idea. It's really not so far-fetched, and while it may be a favorite of the anti-statists, as Postroad reminds us, the Nationalists on the other hand include lots of unsavory types as well.
This idea comes out of desperation as Sharon and the rest of the extreme right wing in Israel keep up their war to eradicate the idea of Palestine and Palestinians. The more Sharon makes it impossible for there to be a Palestinian state in the generally accepted definition of the term, the more Palestinians and their supporters will ask for voting and other rights from their de facto masters... which leaves Israel with the choice of either being an all-out apartheid state or... we're back to the 1-state solution.
Unless there is a genocide, this means that the only true Zionists in Israel left are the center-left Labor party, the strongest advocates for a non-apartheid 2-state solution. Sharon's path cannot really be considered a Zionist solution, because he will eventually either obliterate democracy, or Jewish-majority rule.
posted by cell divide at 2:50 PM on September 16, 2003
I'll sidestep the arguments against democracy and human rights that began this thread, as well as the assault on historical truth (and common sense) that carter pointed out...
cell divide: I hear you, but no radical nationalism has, deep down, any qualms about becoming racist or genocidal and their commitment to democracy is, if anything, even less of an issue. Keep that in mind as the stage is masterfully set by the fascists in Likud for the ethnic cleansing / genocide of the West Bank and possibly Gaza. Also bear in mind that no Israeli government, Labour or Likud, has ever, to my knowledge, proposed a real two state solution, that is, a solution that assigns the whole West Bank and the whole of the Gaza strip to a Palestinian State - and I'm not even touching on the subject of the 1948 refugees and East Jerusalem.
posted by talos at 3:48 PM on September 16, 2003
cell divide: I hear you, but no radical nationalism has, deep down, any qualms about becoming racist or genocidal and their commitment to democracy is, if anything, even less of an issue. Keep that in mind as the stage is masterfully set by the fascists in Likud for the ethnic cleansing / genocide of the West Bank and possibly Gaza. Also bear in mind that no Israeli government, Labour or Likud, has ever, to my knowledge, proposed a real two state solution, that is, a solution that assigns the whole West Bank and the whole of the Gaza strip to a Palestinian State - and I'm not even touching on the subject of the 1948 refugees and East Jerusalem.
posted by talos at 3:48 PM on September 16, 2003
Its funny that Friedman thought arguing against equal rights would be hard for pro-wall people. Two people here already argued that Palestinians should not get to vote because they are inferior. I guess he shouldn't underestimate people's ... creativity.
posted by ~rschram at 6:54 PM on September 16, 2003
posted by ~rschram at 6:54 PM on September 16, 2003
It's not "that Palestinians should not get to vote because they are inferior." And we can't easily throw blanket generalizations around cuz people's rebuttals will be "well not all Palestinians blah blah blah." However, let's be honest. By and large the average die hard Palestinian born and raised in the Middle East does not embrace ideals like "one man one vote" the way most Americans do. I think assuming that a democratic government in the Middle East is going to solve everyone's problems and work like a pacifier against three thousand years of hate and fear is very immature and short-sighted -it's ethnocentric. It's egocentric.
It is my opinion that capitalism is the best ism on the planet. Nothing else works as consistently. However, it's far from perfect. Democracy is far from perfect. I can't blindly assume that other cultures would see things the way I do. Forcing democracy down the throats of other cultures is like forcefeeding bad tasting medicine to a baby. Maybe it's for their own good, but they're not gonna take your word for it and they're not gonna be very happy with you.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:20 PM on September 16, 2003
It is my opinion that capitalism is the best ism on the planet. Nothing else works as consistently. However, it's far from perfect. Democracy is far from perfect. I can't blindly assume that other cultures would see things the way I do. Forcing democracy down the throats of other cultures is like forcefeeding bad tasting medicine to a baby. Maybe it's for their own good, but they're not gonna take your word for it and they're not gonna be very happy with you.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:20 PM on September 16, 2003
"By and large the average die hard Palestinian born and raised in the Middle East does not embrace ideals like "one man one vote" the way most Americans do."
Heh, that's not the least of it. Who, exactly, would the Palestinians be voting for in an independent Palestine? There are no viable candidates in opposition to Arafat: they've all been jailed, intimidated, or killed. Arafat controls the Palestinian press, both print and broadcast, and the major political movements--to say nothing of the terrorist movements such as Fatah, and the PA security forces.
And when, exactly, would these elections be held? Arafat has gone seven years without calling them, despite laws mandating that he do so and his own repeated promises of "any day now..."
And who, exactly, would have the right to vote in these elections? An independent Palestine would likely be an Islamic state, not a secular one, and base its law on shari'a, which would almost certainly disenfranchise Palestinian women. Under the PA today, block voting by groups like Fatah against women in elected office is common, and even meager womens' rights bills do not get signed, if they manage to get passed at all. This is in contrast to Israel, where women have always had the right to vote, have even served as Prime Minister, and Arab-Israeli women vote, have been elected to, and serve in the Knesset.
(For the record, I do favor a peaceful two-state solution. I just don't have much hope it can be achieved or maintained for very long.)
posted by Asparagirl at 11:22 PM on September 16, 2003
Heh, that's not the least of it. Who, exactly, would the Palestinians be voting for in an independent Palestine? There are no viable candidates in opposition to Arafat: they've all been jailed, intimidated, or killed. Arafat controls the Palestinian press, both print and broadcast, and the major political movements--to say nothing of the terrorist movements such as Fatah, and the PA security forces.
And when, exactly, would these elections be held? Arafat has gone seven years without calling them, despite laws mandating that he do so and his own repeated promises of "any day now..."
And who, exactly, would have the right to vote in these elections? An independent Palestine would likely be an Islamic state, not a secular one, and base its law on shari'a, which would almost certainly disenfranchise Palestinian women. Under the PA today, block voting by groups like Fatah against women in elected office is common, and even meager womens' rights bills do not get signed, if they manage to get passed at all. This is in contrast to Israel, where women have always had the right to vote, have even served as Prime Minister, and Arab-Israeli women vote, have been elected to, and serve in the Knesset.
(For the record, I do favor a peaceful two-state solution. I just don't have much hope it can be achieved or maintained for very long.)
posted by Asparagirl at 11:22 PM on September 16, 2003
they've all been jailed, intimidated, or killed
95% of them by Israel, you of course fail to mention.
One thing I can't stand are the people who claim to be "for peace" and then only see the negatives and evils of the side that just happens to not be part of their general ethnic group.
posted by chaz at 12:19 AM on September 17, 2003
95% of them by Israel, you of course fail to mention.
One thing I can't stand are the people who claim to be "for peace" and then only see the negatives and evils of the side that just happens to not be part of their general ethnic group.
posted by chaz at 12:19 AM on September 17, 2003
"95% of them by Israel, you of course fail to mention."
Sources, please? And don't you think Israel would be championing a viable alternative to Arafat to negotiate with? I mean, they're right now considering outright killing the guy, that's how much they hate him.
Look, there is no doubt that Arafat and his crew have done a remarkable job fending off anyone who could potentially be a threat to him politically or who might further expose (or profit from) PA corruption vis-a-vis monies from the EU and other charitable funds intended for the Palestinian people. Even when figureheads like Abbas were needed for appearance's sake, they had no real power, their hands being tied by Arafat. I know the temptation is to blame everything on Israel. But there's no way that the vast internal problems of the PA and Arafat's continuing hegemony and refusal to call elections can be explained away merely as Israeli meddling.
"One thing I can't stand are the people who claim to be "for peace" and then only see the negatives and evils of the side that just happens to not be part of their general ethnic group."
Riiiight, cause I'm only pointing out the flaws in the PA's experiment with elections, democracy, and universal suffrage cause I'm a Jew. Not because I'm a Republican, or because I'm Zionist, or because I like an underdog, or because I'm a New Yorker and feel a kinship with other communities affected by terror attacks on civilians, or any other reason than my ethnicity as distinct from my ideals, political positions, or gut feelings.
Reductio ad genetica. Thanks for clearing that up for me, chaz! Now please excuse me while I blindly follow my DNA's mandate to eat chopped liver and commit usury.
posted by Asparagirl at 12:53 AM on September 17, 2003
Sources, please? And don't you think Israel would be championing a viable alternative to Arafat to negotiate with? I mean, they're right now considering outright killing the guy, that's how much they hate him.
Look, there is no doubt that Arafat and his crew have done a remarkable job fending off anyone who could potentially be a threat to him politically or who might further expose (or profit from) PA corruption vis-a-vis monies from the EU and other charitable funds intended for the Palestinian people. Even when figureheads like Abbas were needed for appearance's sake, they had no real power, their hands being tied by Arafat. I know the temptation is to blame everything on Israel. But there's no way that the vast internal problems of the PA and Arafat's continuing hegemony and refusal to call elections can be explained away merely as Israeli meddling.
"One thing I can't stand are the people who claim to be "for peace" and then only see the negatives and evils of the side that just happens to not be part of their general ethnic group."
Riiiight, cause I'm only pointing out the flaws in the PA's experiment with elections, democracy, and universal suffrage cause I'm a Jew. Not because I'm a Republican, or because I'm Zionist, or because I like an underdog, or because I'm a New Yorker and feel a kinship with other communities affected by terror attacks on civilians, or any other reason than my ethnicity as distinct from my ideals, political positions, or gut feelings.
Reductio ad genetica. Thanks for clearing that up for me, chaz! Now please excuse me while I blindly follow my DNA's mandate to eat chopped liver and commit usury.
posted by Asparagirl at 12:53 AM on September 17, 2003
Asparagirl:
1. At this point there are very few people that would run against Arafat for the same reason that there would be very few people voting against Mandela in South Africa: He is the leader (for better or for worse) of an independence anti-colonial movement. Even people (secular, left-wing Palestinian emigres) like Edward Said who considered Arafat an idiot and his government as the "corrupt Vichy-like Authority of Arafat".
2. Could you name one "viable alternative" to Arafat who has been murdered by the PLO recently?
3. Why should Israel have any say over who the leader of the Palestinians is? I mean the palestinians are forced to talk with an Israeli leader who was complicit in the Sabra and Shatila massacre. Indeed Sharon seems hell bent in destroying any moderate Palestinian opposition, as is evident in his rhetoric, his tactics and his actions.
4. "Fatah block voting against women" would be more convincing if Legislative Council Representative Dalal Salameh of Nablus (she was elected), wasn't a Fatah member herself: "I have a grassroots background through the Women's Committee and through Fateh, and I am close to the people and their demands and needs."
5. The PLO and Fatah (and its leadership) are secular and have a history of open adversity to Hamas.
6. An independent Palestine would likely be an Islamic state, not a secular one, and base its law on shari'a, which would almost certainly disenfranchise Palestinian women.
Let Palestinian women worry about that, because they all seem much more interested in reclaiming their land for the moment. As I pointed above the PLO is secular and not islamic. One of the leading PLO figures is Hannan Ashrawi, a woman.
7. I can't for the life of me understand how you took chaz's message to be stereotyping of Jews in any way... It was a statement that applied to all radical nationalists the world over, especially aggressive nationalisms.
8. A secular Palestinian woman writes in favour of the one-state solution.
posted by talos at 4:55 AM on September 17, 2003
1. At this point there are very few people that would run against Arafat for the same reason that there would be very few people voting against Mandela in South Africa: He is the leader (for better or for worse) of an independence anti-colonial movement. Even people (secular, left-wing Palestinian emigres) like Edward Said who considered Arafat an idiot and his government as the "corrupt Vichy-like Authority of Arafat".
2. Could you name one "viable alternative" to Arafat who has been murdered by the PLO recently?
3. Why should Israel have any say over who the leader of the Palestinians is? I mean the palestinians are forced to talk with an Israeli leader who was complicit in the Sabra and Shatila massacre. Indeed Sharon seems hell bent in destroying any moderate Palestinian opposition, as is evident in his rhetoric, his tactics and his actions.
4. "Fatah block voting against women" would be more convincing if Legislative Council Representative Dalal Salameh of Nablus (she was elected), wasn't a Fatah member herself: "I have a grassroots background through the Women's Committee and through Fateh, and I am close to the people and their demands and needs."
5. The PLO and Fatah (and its leadership) are secular and have a history of open adversity to Hamas.
6. An independent Palestine would likely be an Islamic state, not a secular one, and base its law on shari'a, which would almost certainly disenfranchise Palestinian women.
Let Palestinian women worry about that, because they all seem much more interested in reclaiming their land for the moment. As I pointed above the PLO is secular and not islamic. One of the leading PLO figures is Hannan Ashrawi, a woman.
7. I can't for the life of me understand how you took chaz's message to be stereotyping of Jews in any way... It was a statement that applied to all radical nationalists the world over, especially aggressive nationalisms.
8. A secular Palestinian woman writes in favour of the one-state solution.
posted by talos at 4:55 AM on September 17, 2003
or because I'm a New Yorker and feel a kinship with other communities affected by terror attacks on civilians
Wave that fucking shroud a little more furiously, would you? Or at least go into your nearest New York Irish bar and state, at the top of your voice, your kinship with other communities affected by terror attacks on civilians.
Now please excuse me while I blindly follow my DNA's mandate to eat chopped liver and commit usury.
Don't forget to grow a beard, either, while you're channelling a couple of old men's personal vendettas.
posted by riviera at 9:36 AM on September 17, 2003
Wave that fucking shroud a little more furiously, would you? Or at least go into your nearest New York Irish bar and state, at the top of your voice, your kinship with other communities affected by terror attacks on civilians.
Now please excuse me while I blindly follow my DNA's mandate to eat chopped liver and commit usury.
Don't forget to grow a beard, either, while you're channelling a couple of old men's personal vendettas.
posted by riviera at 9:36 AM on September 17, 2003
« Older Shooting gallery for addicts | Microsoft Buys-off Foreign Governments Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The notion of one state (one vote, one time, gave Hitler supreme rule), is a favorite of N. Chomsky and E. Said...with of course an overwhelming vot majority to Arabs, given birth rates. It will be, alas, and I am not pleased by this, a war to the end with one or the other side eliminating the other.
Israel became a state by a UN vote ('47) of 31 to 13. After so many wars and losses, should they decide for One State? That is the ultimate reward for the Arabs having refused statehood under the Peele Commission, the UN, and Barak/Arafat talks.
Ok. Now swing away at me. I will get my meds.
posted by Postroad at 12:24 PM on September 16, 2003