Irony Isreal was founded on a jewish right-to-return. We can scoff at it but it is the reason for being for that state. Palestineans also desire a right to return, they need to leave the refugee camps and begin building a society.
The two right to returns are not concievable within one tiny state, but within two tiny states they will in the end balance out, given some time the one state solution comes into its own as niether Isreal or a reduced Palestine are all that viable in the long term. But it can only be a coming together of equals.
A state of Palestine, a few pockets, access routes, part of Jeursalem and a right to decide on who is accepted as a member is far from ideal, but who is dealing with ideals here.
Civil peace and room for national development has to be made, non-jewish Isrealis and non-arab Palestineans is a natural legacy and a firm building block for the future. The point is peace with dignity, peace with an ability of Palestineans to begin standing on their own two feet as a nation coming together.
I am heartly sick of the whole one-state-business, where the first premise is the whole historical reason Isreal came into existence is turned upide before the first step is taken. How does this make realistic sense, do you or anyone believe that Isreal can turn its back on its own history, suddenly realise it was a mistake and turn the clock back to pre-1948.
A little bit of realism please.
Yes compromise, these historical problems have to work themselves out. Why do you think Sharon is such a war-monger, because he knowns the only way to stop Isreal integrating into the Middle East, the only way to stop the flow of history, is to embrace constant war (a bit like Bush). Peace, compromise with the Palestineans, civil development of the Levant (including Lebanon, Syria and Jordan) is what he is resisting. So long as Isreal is the one-man-out, Isreal remains in social stasis and Sharon has his world of conspiracies and power secure, including being the US favourite pet state.
Come-on, why is the left so resistant to to simply accepting something as a historical fate accompli, a hiatus towards the ideal, perhaps even a necessary stage in things working themselves out. Two-state solution is no absolute solution - but either is the one state, the two state solution is a way of bring peace and development to a corner of the world which needs both. Isreal needs to mature culturally, the Palestineans need to develop economically and politically, both need reasonable security and peace in order to do so.
With people dying, and most of us safe and secure, our duty is normalise this dirty civil war, not wave banners which if taken seriously would only make the present crisis worse. The world has to impose a solution on the conflict, what should it impose, tell one state that it must become something else? Or do the best it can to place in borders (temporary or permanant) that allow things to settle down and make room for perhaps more long term developments.
As far as I remember the PLO official policy from the mid 1970s onwards was for a two state solution, where the hell does the one state solution come from - I suspect by abstract argument based on the assumption that Isreal should not have become a state (not that history cares for such niceties). There may have been some argument up until 1967, but 30 years on it seems a ridiculous.
I would suggest to comrades that the prime reason why Isreal has not developed past its infantile Zionist ambitions is the chronic insecurity of it position, the embattled state is the mainstay of current zionism, make it secure, make it just one amongst a number of Middle Eastern states and what social power would militant zionism have? Hardly any, in fact it would be discarded like any out-worn shoe, perhaps placed on a national mantle-piece but otherwise as about as relevant as Declaration of Rights is to the US today (a document honoured more in its breach then in its observance).
Sorry Bryan, but history just can't deliver at this time what you suggest, in principle it is utopian.
Greg
--- Message Received --- From: "Bryan Atinsky" <bryan at indymedia.org.il> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 09:43:38 +0200 Subject: Re: Palestine, aka, The right list
Michael stated: "Arguing for a single state in the current climate is arguing against the forces of compromise on both sides -- against the best either of them is willing to contemplate selling to their people."
I somewhat disagree with this analysis. What you say is definitely the case for the Israeli side at the moment. The vast majority of Israelis would never agree to live in one state with the Palestinians where all would have de jure and de facto equal rights, and where the Palestinians would likely constitute a majority in no time at all.
However, I do not think that this is the case for the Palestinian side. I estimate that the majority of the Palestinian population would be interested in just such a solution, and that the Palestinian Authority would have no trouble persuading their population of something of this sort.
For a majority of the Palestinians, the two-state solution is a HUGE comprimise, and a one-state solution, with the Israeli population still intact and given equal-rights would still be a historical comprimise. For the Israeli population, a two state solution (with them in control of the majority of the landmass), is the optimal solution.
Best,
Bryan
_________________________
Greg Schofield Perth Australia g_schofield at dingoblue.net.au ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Modular And Integrated Design - programing power for all
Lestec's MAID and LTMailer http://www.lestec.com.au also available at Amazon.com ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________