Greg,
Just wanted to thank you for reading well beyond what I stated and for arguing against me for things I never said.
My statement was directly in reply to Michael's which said that the one state solution was: "against the best either of them is willing to contemplate selling to their people."
As Michael acknowledged in his reply to my comment, his statement was a bit too 'symetrical'. The fact of the case is that Israel's backing of the two state solution is directly connected to the Zionist raison detre for the existence of Israel at all as a country. However, in the Palestinian case, the two-state solution is merely a tactical-realistic comprimise, not based on any deep-seated foundation of what it means to be a Palestinian.
I still think that what I wrote was a realistic appraisal of the Palestinian vs. Israeli public opinion on the issue.
That aside, if you HAD asked me what I actually thought, I would have put it very near to what Michael said in his reply to me, which is that: "The idea that the secular one-state solution is best and just, but that the two state solution will have to come first in this world, has been consistently argued by Edward Said ever since Camp David."
The strategy of the radical left in Israel has been, more or less, to constantly demand Israeli adherence to at least what they already agreed upon (and to criticize them for actions they make against the agreements), while at the same time, demanding much more. I can disagree that Oslo was, in any way, a moral or equitable agreement, but still point out how Israeli settlement growth and other 'facts on the ground' fly in the face of both the letter and the spirit of Oslo.
It all revolves around the difference between goals and visions. We must all demand the goal of an immediate withdrawl of the Israeli military presence from any and all of the areas under Palestinian Autonomy; the free movement of food, medical supplies, water and medical personelle in and out of the WB and Gaza; a lifting of the curfews, etc.
But obviously this is not enough, and we must always keep consistent with our long term vision, which for any progressive or leftist must be, a solution which will give everyone (Palestinian and Israeli) in this conflict a chance for a truely equitable and sustainable existence.
A two-state solution may be a decent midterm goal, but a 'Jewish' State next to a Palestinian state can, imho, never be either equitable nor sustainable in the long term. The Jewish state has a large minority population of non-jews who can never be given equal rights as long as they live in what is a legally demarcated Jewish state.
To demand equal rights under the law in Israel is to demand an end to the Jewish state as 'Jewish'.
Therefore, while I can see how a progressive can push for a goal of two-states, I cannot see how a progressive can hold a two state goal as their vision.
I would suggest people take a look at "Proposal for an Alternative Configuration in Palestine-Israel" published by the Alternative Palestinian Agenda, at:
http://www.indymedia.org.il/imc/israel/webcast/display.php3?article_id=15736
their website is:
Best to all,
Bryan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Schofield" <g_schofield at dingoblue.net.au> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 9:48 AM Subject: Re: Palestine, aka, The right list
> Bryan, irony in history is not a matter of compromise from some ideal
solution....> 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....> Sorry Bryan, but history
just can't deliver at this time what you suggest, in principle it is
utopian.