This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
Is a one state solution possible
Published on July 24, 2008 By Bahu Virupaksha In Current Events

The peace in the middle east seems to be extremely difficult because both Israel and Palestine are locked in a state of mutual recrimination: peace with justice means that the existing paradigm for ordering the relations between the two societies has to be reconsidered. The Ashkenazi elite from eastern Europe and Poland that is essentially the ruling aristocracy of Israel has dominated the politics of Israel since 1949 and given its long association with Zionism is unlikely to support the obvious soulution to the problem: A single Palestinian and Israeli state. A decade back even the so called liberals in the State of Israel would have been aghast at this solution but now civil society groups in Israel have begun debating the single state solution. The great Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe the author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine has been a long time advocate of this new shift in Israeli perception toward Palestenians.

The central feature of this new solution is the recognition that land for peace has not provided either security to the State of Israel or peace to the Palestinians. It is necessary for those affected by the placement of Israel in the erstwhile land of Palestine to have a chance to lead a life of hope and a normal life as any signatory to the UN Charter of Human Rights will testify. An ethnically pure State of Israel has been of great moment only to the Ashkenazi and the Mizrahim sections of Israeli society with roots in North Africa, Asia and the Ottoman Empire have now willing to consider the possiblity of the joint Israeli-Palestine state. This solution trecogises the historical injustice of evicting the Palestenians from the land and at the same time recognises that a jewish homeland, as promised in the Balfour Declaration is a reality. The fact that 4.5 million Palestenians are living in conditions of extreme deprivation is the real cause for terrorism in the region and if USA is sincere about a viable peace in the region it must address this issue.

For more than 2 decades the official US position as reflected in the Camp David accord and later the Oslo Agreement is the 2 state solution. While Israel is in favor of this policy it does everything to undermine the peace accords by making the living and working conditions of Palestenians in Gaza and the West Bank extremely difficult. These territories are so closely guarded by Israel for fear of suicide attack that both territories have become huge camps where life, to put it mildly, is horrible.

It is time for USA the major backer of Israel to put its weight behind a solution as promised by all American administrations since Richard Nixon.


Comments (Page 4)
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4 
on Aug 05, 2008
From the Israeli declaration of independence, May 14 1948:


WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.


The appeal didn't work.

Israel begged the Arabs to stay and help defend the country but they left (and left the Jews to die).

Hence Israel is now being accused, by well-meaning anti-semites, of "ethnic cleansing".

Language changes when it is about Jews or Israel.

Begging someone to stay becomes "ethnic cleansing".

And being attacked becomes "expansionism".

No wonder Israel is blamed for the deaths of the suicide bombers. If Israel asks an Arab to stay, Israel gets accused of ethnic cleansing; so it's only logical that if Israel asks an Arab not to blow himself up, Israel will get accused of murder.

Perhaps, and I am being serious, Israel should apply at the UN for being allowed, without penalty, to do what the world accuses Israel of.

I for one would not be against granting the Arabs the right to murder Jews whenever they want.

The first would change the world, because if Israel did what she has been accused of all the time, there would be no Palestinian Arabs left after a few weeks.

The second wouldn't have any impact whatsoever. The world already recognises the Arabs' right to murder Jews without penalty. (Or did Syria ever have to pay reparations for invading Israel several times?)


on Aug 07, 2008

Unfortunately we have evidence in History only of human actions. Even if the intentions of Arabs were evil, and Leauki seems convinced of Arab genocidal intentions, the dfact remains that they were never implemented. Only the Germans went ahead and created Dachau, Auschwits, Triblinka and a host of other extermination death camps. I cannot understand how a merely political difference between Arbs from the displaced territory of Palestins can be equated with the German inspired Holocaust.

on Aug 07, 2008

Unfortunately we have evidence in History only of human actions. Even if the intentions of Arabs were evil, and Leauki seems convinced of Arab genocidal intentions, the fact remains that they were never implemented.


We have evidence of the Arabs' words (and I assume them to be honest enough so that I can claim that their intentions were what they said they were).

We have evidence of them trying to invade and destroy Israel several times.

They were never implemented. Exactly. That's what Israel has managed to avoid.

And that's exactly why I am afraid of your solution, which would open the door and the Arabs can try again.

on Aug 07, 2008

Unfortunately we have evidence in History only of human actions.


That doesn't seem to stop you from accusing the Jews of ethnic cleansing.

We have seen the Arabs leave Israel in 1948. We have seen Arab leaders calling on them to leave. And we have seen Israel calling on them to stay.

And from that you "deduce" that Israel committed ethnic cleansing.

Fine. It's not a new idea.

But we have seen Arab leaders calling for genocide. And we have seen Arabs trying to destroy Israel.

And about that you claim that it doesn't prove their intentions.

During the six-day war Arab radio stations announced that the Jews are all dying. Doesn't prove a thing...

Can you tell me how you can deduce the Jews' evil intentions from what they don't do while you seem to be completely unable to deduce anything but the most best intentions when the Arabs announce a genocide and then attack?

Does it not occur to you that perhaps a person who looks at a call for genocide and a subsequent attack as nothing to worry about is NOT the right person to come up with a peace plan?

on Aug 07, 2008
We have evidence of them trying to invade and destroy Israel several times.

They were never implemented.


If they had been, then this whole discussion would be moot.
on Aug 07, 2008

If they had been, then this whole discussion would be moot.


But there would be peace.

At least "peace" per the liberal definition: people slaughtering each other with no Jews or Americans involved.

4 PagesFirst 2 3 4