I think that the two state solution being pushed by Bush, Kerry and so on is a sure fire recipe for endless instability and violence. A quick look at the map of the region will suffice to show that the geographical area covered by the State of Israel + West Bank etc (together about the size of New Jersey) is far smaller than any of the other independant states in the area. In the long run there probably not enough physical room for one completely independant state, let alone two. Furthermore the geographical area covered by the populations is highly interwoven.
The correct solution is some sort of federal solution which would involve the Palestinian State being part of a larger entity ie some sort of confederation either with Israel or with one of the neighbouring states eg Jordan or Egypt.
I have written at greater length on the subject at
http://www.glausiusz.org/tiki/tiki-view_blog.php?blogId=2
Full Version: The fundamental flaws in the two state proposition
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Foreign Policy and National Defense > Foreign Policy & National Defense Issues Archive
I think the Palestinians themselves should decide what kind of state they want.
QUOTE(Antonin @ Nov 11 2004, 07:14 AM)
I think the Palestinians themselves should decide what kind of state they want.
I agree completely that the Palestinians should make their own decisions. However they should make their choices from available realistic options, and to the extent that their decisions do not have a negative impact on other countries.
To take an example from civic life, we all support the right of a person to do whatever they want within the confines of their house. We do however restrict by Laws (and agreements) of various kinds the right of people to engage in activities which would negatively impact their surroundings.
The problem with the Independant Palestinian State idea is that such a State would not have sufficient resources to function independantly in some spheres. If it is recognised from the outset then I am all for it.
To take an example from another area of foreign policy, we are in favour of limiting the rights of states to persue potentially dangerous activities (such as nuclear proliferation) even if their people support such a course of action.
QUOTE
I think the Palestinians themselves should decide what kind of state they want.
Nice sentiments. Never gonna happen. In the real world events dictate our choices.
QUOTE(dante @ Nov 11 2004, 03:09 PM)
Nice sentiments. Never gonna happen. In the real world events dictate our choices.
Perhaps more generally correct to say that:
'Possibilities enable our choices, decisions are made on the basis of considerations,fears , hopes, events and politics'
I read your blog and agree with a great deal of what you said -- especially in regard to the appeasement factors in international involvement in the situation.
As far as some sort of world government, though, I think any attempt to form such would meet with the same basic flaws as are so evident in the United Nations -- that by inviting people to engage in democratic processes who do not actually believe in any sort of democratic principles, you are only inviting the undermining of the principles and legitimacy you are attempting to establish. This has certainly been the case with the U.N., where the Arab states have used it as a bully pulpit to whip up world sentiment against Israel, and supported as they were by the Soviet Block, they were given a sounding board for their views. IMO, this is what has led to the contradiction inherent in the way extreme left supports the fascism and intolerance characteristic of the extreme right in that when a person defends (take your pick) theocracies, totalitarian governments, second class citizenship for women, notions of racial or religious superiority, or the codification of any sort of social role based upon the mores of ancient peoples, they are supporting far right ideals, yet this is often embraced by the far left due to the remnants of old cold-war mentalities.
As far as a one or two state solution, it is the one state solution that I find completely untenable. After the Holocaust, the Jewish state was set up to be the one place where Jewish people could live safe from the sort of persecution that they have suffered through historically by basis of their minority status. Asking them to form a state with the principle purveyers of their persecution today is a little much to ask, I think. I don't think this is a struggle between Israel and Palestinians, but between Jews and Arabs. The notion of "Palestinians" didn't really exist until it became politically expedient to think of them as such, and it would be much like thinking Delawarians are different from Wisconsonites -- sure, there are some little differences here and there (I mean, Delawarians don't refer to a drinking fountain as a bubbler to my knowlege, and Palestinians do pronounce a couple of words with a different accent or have minor variations in customs), but these are really more indicative of variances within a culture than completely different cultures. With this in mind, I think the best solution would be for the Palestinains to be with fellow Arabs in Jordan or Egypt. I don't think that's about to happen, though, so I think a two state solution is the next best step. I just really can't imagine any way you could take two people who quite plainly hate each other -- hatred to the extent it is codified into the textbooks with which children are raised -- and expect any sort of viable state.
As far as some sort of world government, though, I think any attempt to form such would meet with the same basic flaws as are so evident in the United Nations -- that by inviting people to engage in democratic processes who do not actually believe in any sort of democratic principles, you are only inviting the undermining of the principles and legitimacy you are attempting to establish. This has certainly been the case with the U.N., where the Arab states have used it as a bully pulpit to whip up world sentiment against Israel, and supported as they were by the Soviet Block, they were given a sounding board for their views. IMO, this is what has led to the contradiction inherent in the way extreme left supports the fascism and intolerance characteristic of the extreme right in that when a person defends (take your pick) theocracies, totalitarian governments, second class citizenship for women, notions of racial or religious superiority, or the codification of any sort of social role based upon the mores of ancient peoples, they are supporting far right ideals, yet this is often embraced by the far left due to the remnants of old cold-war mentalities.
As far as a one or two state solution, it is the one state solution that I find completely untenable. After the Holocaust, the Jewish state was set up to be the one place where Jewish people could live safe from the sort of persecution that they have suffered through historically by basis of their minority status. Asking them to form a state with the principle purveyers of their persecution today is a little much to ask, I think. I don't think this is a struggle between Israel and Palestinians, but between Jews and Arabs. The notion of "Palestinians" didn't really exist until it became politically expedient to think of them as such, and it would be much like thinking Delawarians are different from Wisconsonites -- sure, there are some little differences here and there (I mean, Delawarians don't refer to a drinking fountain as a bubbler to my knowlege, and Palestinians do pronounce a couple of words with a different accent or have minor variations in customs), but these are really more indicative of variances within a culture than completely different cultures. With this in mind, I think the best solution would be for the Palestinains to be with fellow Arabs in Jordan or Egypt. I don't think that's about to happen, though, so I think a two state solution is the next best step. I just really can't imagine any way you could take two people who quite plainly hate each other -- hatred to the extent it is codified into the textbooks with which children are raised -- and expect any sort of viable state.
QUOTE(Antonin @ Nov 10 2004, 10:14 PM)
I think the Palestinians themselves should decide what kind of state they want.
[SIZE=1]
I think the Palestinians have been expressing what kind of state they want, but it seems there is much confusion and a misconception on the part of those outside of the traditional area of Palestine as to what the borders should look like. Would anyone care to comment, how a successful plan of peace between Israel and Palestine can be achieved, following the "Scribble Doodle Wall" demarking the current Israeli border?
The "Scribble Doodle Wall" is discussed and shown at:
http://www.maravot.com/Maravot_News.html
It would be interesting if Blair and Bush or Kerry could be enticed to walk the wall in person, with the "Scribble Doodle Wall" map in hand.
If you actually broke down my city, or any other city in 24 mile X 24 mile sections the scribble scrabble would appear exactly the same way it does on that map. EVERYTHING ISRAEL DOES IS MAGNIFIED!!!
On the question of world government , I that global problems require global solutions . Obviously the present structure of the UN is not up to that role. Treaties eg kyoto etc have some value however they are dependant on good will and co-operation which is not always available. In short I think we need to look for the most efficent solution in which global decisions will be taken by global bodies and local decisions by local bodies.
As for two States vs one State , I am not proposing one State considering the problems involved in that possibility some of which you have correctly identified. However I think that even if one goes along with two States one has to recognise that geographicaly we are talking about one country. In the long run I think this means that we need a decision making process on common issues. How this decision making process should work is open to discusion and agreement. However I think that ignoring this issue and pretending that setting up two rival States will in itself bring about peace and stability is silly and irresponsible. That is the central issue at this point.
As for two States vs one State , I am not proposing one State considering the problems involved in that possibility some of which you have correctly identified. However I think that even if one goes along with two States one has to recognise that geographicaly we are talking about one country. In the long run I think this means that we need a decision making process on common issues. How this decision making process should work is open to discusion and agreement. However I think that ignoring this issue and pretending that setting up two rival States will in itself bring about peace and stability is silly and irresponsible. That is the central issue at this point.
QUOTE(Eugeenie @ Nov 12 2004, 06:39 PM)
I read your blog and agree with a great deal of what you said -- especially in regard to the appeasement factors in international involvement in the situation.
As far as some sort of world government, though, I think any attempt to form such would meet with the same basic flaws as are so evident in the United Nations -- that by inviting people to engage in democratic processes who do not actually believe in any sort of democratic principles, you are only inviting the undermining of the principles and legitimacy you are attempting to establish. This has certainly been the case with the U.N., where the Arab states have used it as a bully pulpit to whip up world sentiment against Israel, and supported as they were by the Soviet Block, they were given a sounding board for their views. IMO, this is what has led to the contradiction inherent in the way extreme left supports the fascism and intolerance characteristic of the extreme right in that when a person defends (take your pick) theocracies, totalitarian governments, second class citizenship for women, notions of racial or religious superiority, or the codification of any sort of social role based upon the mores of ancient peoples, they are supporting far right ideals, yet this is often embraced by the far left due to the remnants of old cold-war mentalities.
As far as a one or two state solution, it is the one state solution that I find completely untenable. After the Holocaust, the Jewish state was set up to be the one place where Jewish people could live safe from the sort of persecution that they have suffered through historically by basis of their minority status. Asking them to form a state with the principle purveyers of their persecution today is a little much to ask, I think. I don't think this is a struggle between Israel and Palestinians, but between Jews and Arabs. The notion of "Palestinians" didn't really exist until it became politically expedient to think of them as such, and it would be much like thinking Delawarians are different from Wisconsonites -- sure, there are some little differences here and there (I mean, Delawarians don't refer to a drinking fountain as a bubbler to my knowlege, and Palestinians do pronounce a couple of words with a different accent or have minor variations in customs), but these are really more indicative of variances within a culture than completely different cultures. With this in mind, I think the best solution would be for the Palestinains to be with fellow Arabs in Jordan or Egypt. I don't think that's about to happen, though, so I think a two state solution is the next best step. I just really can't imagine any way you could take two people who quite plainly hate each other -- hatred to the extent it is codified into the textbooks with which children are raised -- and expect any sort of viable state.
As far as some sort of world government, though, I think any attempt to form such would meet with the same basic flaws as are so evident in the United Nations -- that by inviting people to engage in democratic processes who do not actually believe in any sort of democratic principles, you are only inviting the undermining of the principles and legitimacy you are attempting to establish. This has certainly been the case with the U.N., where the Arab states have used it as a bully pulpit to whip up world sentiment against Israel, and supported as they were by the Soviet Block, they were given a sounding board for their views. IMO, this is what has led to the contradiction inherent in the way extreme left supports the fascism and intolerance characteristic of the extreme right in that when a person defends (take your pick) theocracies, totalitarian governments, second class citizenship for women, notions of racial or religious superiority, or the codification of any sort of social role based upon the mores of ancient peoples, they are supporting far right ideals, yet this is often embraced by the far left due to the remnants of old cold-war mentalities.
As far as a one or two state solution, it is the one state solution that I find completely untenable. After the Holocaust, the Jewish state was set up to be the one place where Jewish people could live safe from the sort of persecution that they have suffered through historically by basis of their minority status. Asking them to form a state with the principle purveyers of their persecution today is a little much to ask, I think. I don't think this is a struggle between Israel and Palestinians, but between Jews and Arabs. The notion of "Palestinians" didn't really exist until it became politically expedient to think of them as such, and it would be much like thinking Delawarians are different from Wisconsonites -- sure, there are some little differences here and there (I mean, Delawarians don't refer to a drinking fountain as a bubbler to my knowlege, and Palestinians do pronounce a couple of words with a different accent or have minor variations in customs), but these are really more indicative of variances within a culture than completely different cultures. With this in mind, I think the best solution would be for the Palestinains to be with fellow Arabs in Jordan or Egypt. I don't think that's about to happen, though, so I think a two state solution is the next best step. I just really can't imagine any way you could take two people who quite plainly hate each other -- hatred to the extent it is codified into the textbooks with which children are raised -- and expect any sort of viable state.
QUOTE(Mel Copeland @ Nov 12 2004, 09:28 PM)
[SIZE=1]
Would anyone care to comment, how a successful plan of peace between Israel and Palestine can be achieved, following the "Scribble Doodle Wall" demarking the current Israeli border?
Would anyone care to comment, how a successful plan of peace between Israel and Palestine can be achieved, following the "Scribble Doodle Wall" demarking the current Israeli border?
The issue of Wall etc emphasizes the problematics of the 2 state solution. That being said a lot depends on the willingness of everyone involved to place the common interest above the search for wedge issues !
While it is an unusual case , there is a precedent for setting up a State with somewhat artificial boundaries ie the Vatican State whose boundaries and basic constitution are based on the Lateran Treaties.
[quote=JeffreyG,Nov 13 2004, 11:56 AM]
For those who are not familiar with the origin of the name, Palestine, it comes from the Biblical name, Philistine (meaning "villagers"). They are believed to have come from Crete, landing in Palestine about the time of the Exodus under Moses. They were called variously as the Pulista, Pulusti, Peleset or Pilista, on Egyptian (Rameses III) and Assyrian inscriptions, and counted among the groups of Sea Peoples. The earliest record of these peoples is from the Egyptian king Merneptah (!213 B.C.).
The archeological record shows Greek connections to the Philistines, and they are depicted in Egyptian monuments wearing Mycenaean Greek helmets.
Their region included the Gaza strip, and the Biblical record shows them as a people separate from Judea. They and the Jews were continuously at odds with each other, an early record being that of the battle between David – the future king of the Jews – and Goliath about 1,000 B.C. They since then have never shared one country or land, and in 1948 with the restoration of the Jews to Palestine (then under British mandate), the hope was that the Jews and the Palestinians would share the land. The land was held separate from another parcel created by the UN, which was called the West Bank Territory and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. At that time Jerusalem was held separate (Corpus Separatum), held under UN Mandate.
I put a map of the UN allocation of territory at
http://www.maravot.com/Maravot_News.html
You can also read on the site, below the map, a work on the subject:
Philistia Triumph thou because of me (a commentary on a Psalm).
The Palestinians have deep roots, as do the Jews, and somehow through better knowledge of the two we can find a way for them to live together in Bethlehem, Israel (a hotbed of the conflict), as they do in Bethlehem, PA. Their Declaration of Independence of 1948 surely gives us a basis of hope, if we were to get the two groups to recognize that hope. We also need to get the world to read that document, since it is related to our own Declaration of Independence. It can be read in Philistia Triumph thou because of me
For those who are not familiar with the origin of the name, Palestine, it comes from the Biblical name, Philistine (meaning "villagers"). They are believed to have come from Crete, landing in Palestine about the time of the Exodus under Moses. They were called variously as the Pulista, Pulusti, Peleset or Pilista, on Egyptian (Rameses III) and Assyrian inscriptions, and counted among the groups of Sea Peoples. The earliest record of these peoples is from the Egyptian king Merneptah (!213 B.C.).
The archeological record shows Greek connections to the Philistines, and they are depicted in Egyptian monuments wearing Mycenaean Greek helmets.
Their region included the Gaza strip, and the Biblical record shows them as a people separate from Judea. They and the Jews were continuously at odds with each other, an early record being that of the battle between David – the future king of the Jews – and Goliath about 1,000 B.C. They since then have never shared one country or land, and in 1948 with the restoration of the Jews to Palestine (then under British mandate), the hope was that the Jews and the Palestinians would share the land. The land was held separate from another parcel created by the UN, which was called the West Bank Territory and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. At that time Jerusalem was held separate (Corpus Separatum), held under UN Mandate.
I put a map of the UN allocation of territory at
http://www.maravot.com/Maravot_News.html
You can also read on the site, below the map, a work on the subject:
Philistia Triumph thou because of me (a commentary on a Psalm).
The Palestinians have deep roots, as do the Jews, and somehow through better knowledge of the two we can find a way for them to live together in Bethlehem, Israel (a hotbed of the conflict), as they do in Bethlehem, PA. Their Declaration of Independence of 1948 surely gives us a basis of hope, if we were to get the two groups to recognize that hope. We also need to get the world to read that document, since it is related to our own Declaration of Independence. It can be read in Philistia Triumph thou because of me
I think it somewhat incorrect historically to equate the present day 'Palestinians' with historical 'Philistines' etc. As far as I am aware there have been many population movements in the middle East over the past centuries. The term Palestinian now generally refers to Muslim peoples resident in the general area of Israel and the West Bank starting from the beginning of the previous century.
While I have respect for history, I think that in itself one cannot base any solution on historical considerations alone. I think to borrow a comparison from housekeeping the solution to a messy room is arranging the furniture in an optimum manner and looking after day to day housekeeping.
While I have respect for history, I think that in itself one cannot base any solution on historical considerations alone. I think to borrow a comparison from housekeeping the solution to a messy room is arranging the furniture in an optimum manner and looking after day to day housekeeping.
QUOTE(Mel Copeland @ Nov 14 2004, 01:01 AM)
For those who are not familiar with the origin of the name, Palestine, it comes from the Biblical name, Philistine (meaning "villagers"). They are believed to have come from Crete, landing in Palestine about the time of the Exodus under Moses. They were called variously as the Pulista, Pulusti, Peleset or Pilista, on Egyptian (Rameses III) and Assyrian inscriptions, and counted among the groups of Sea Peoples. The earliest record of these peoples is from the Egyptian king Merneptah (!213 B.C.).
The archeological record shows Greek connections to the Philistines, and they are depicted in Egyptian monuments wearing Mycenaean Greek helmets.
Their region included the Gaza strip, and the Biblical record shows them as a people separate from Judea. They and the Jews were continuously at odds with each other, an early record being that of the battle between David – the future king of the Jews – and Goliath about 1,000 B.C. They since then have never shared one country or land, and in 1948 with the restoration of the Jews to Palestine (then under British mandate), the hope was that the Jews and the Palestinians would share the land. The land was held separate from another parcel created by the UN, which was called the West Bank Territory and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. At that time Jerusalem was held separate (Corpus Separatum), held under UN Mandate.
The archeological record shows Greek connections to the Philistines, and they are depicted in Egyptian monuments wearing Mycenaean Greek helmets.
Their region included the Gaza strip, and the Biblical record shows them as a people separate from Judea. They and the Jews were continuously at odds with each other, an early record being that of the battle between David – the future king of the Jews – and Goliath about 1,000 B.C. They since then have never shared one country or land, and in 1948 with the restoration of the Jews to Palestine (then under British mandate), the hope was that the Jews and the Palestinians would share the land. The land was held separate from another parcel created by the UN, which was called the West Bank Territory and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. At that time Jerusalem was held separate (Corpus Separatum), held under UN Mandate.
QUOTE(JeffreyG @ Nov 14 2004, 12:50 PM)
I think it somewhat incorrect historically to equate the present day 'Palestinians' with historical 'Philistines' etc. As far as I am aware there have been many population movements in the middle East over the past centuries. The term Palestinian now generally refers to Muslim peoples resident in the general area of Israel and the West Bank starting from the beginning of the previous century.
While I have respect for history, I think that in itself one cannot base any solution on historical considerations alone. I think to borrow a comparison from housekeeping the solution to a messy room is arranging the furniture in an optimum manner and looking after day to day housekeeping.
While I have respect for history, I think that in itself one cannot base any solution on historical considerations alone. I think to borrow a comparison from housekeeping the solution to a messy room is arranging the furniture in an optimum manner and looking after day to day housekeeping.
A people do move around, as is best demonstrated by the Jews, and it is also clear, by this example, that they have retained their identity against overwhelming odds. Part of the issue involves just that, maintaining the identity of the Jews, and when they first settled in Israel they proclaimed, with regard to the Holocaust, "never again." They, in respect to that mission, should count on the world that the Holocaust never happens again.
At the same time there are the Palestinians who also have moved around over the eons. And it is true that many people have lived in the land of Palestine (part of which was once called "Hatti Land" the people generally don't disappear altogether. Their traditions continue as a nation, whether they are under the occupation of the Egyptians or Hittites, Assyrians, Persians, Arabs Ottoman Turks, or the British.
Connected to the problems of two different peoples, such as the Palestinians and Jews, attempting to sort out a viable, peaceful future is the fact that others create a mythology about them and their needs and attempt to bamboozle a naive world into believing they can bring peace to Jerusalem, by following their road to peace – like the Bush road to peace – the world only falls into more confusion.
The term "housecleaning" tends to conjure a bad impression, to my mind, since the word "extermination" has been used by interests attempting to deal with similar problems in the past.
Breaking through the dogma would be an exceptional way to find a way to peace in Jerusalem, I suppose.
QUOTE(Mel Copeland @ Nov 14 2004, 11:24 PM)
A people do move around, as is best demonstrated by the Jews, and it is also clear, by this example, that they have retained their identity against overwhelming odds. Part of the issue involves just that, maintaining the identity of the Jews, and when they first settled in Israel they proclaimed, with regard to the Holocaust, "never again." They, in respect to that mission, should count on the world that the Holocaust never happens again.
At the same time there are the Palestinians who also have moved around over the eons. And it is true that many people have lived in the land of Palestine (part of which was once called "Hatti Land" the people generally don't disappear altogether. Their traditions continue as a nation, whether they are under the occupation of the Egyptians or Hittites, Assyrians, Persians, Arabs Ottoman Turks, or the British.
Connected to the problems of two different peoples, such as the Palestinians and Jews, attempting to sort out a viable, peaceful future is the fact that others create a mythology about them and their needs and attempt to bamboozle a naive world into believing they can bring peace to Jerusalem, by following their road to peace – like the Bush road to peace – the world only falls into more confusion.
The term "housecleaning" tends to conjure a bad impression, to my mind, since the word "extermination" has been used by interests attempting to deal with similar problems in the past.
Breaking through the dogma would be an exceptional way to find a way to peace in Jerusalem, I suppose.
At the same time there are the Palestinians who also have moved around over the eons. And it is true that many people have lived in the land of Palestine (part of which was once called "Hatti Land" the people generally don't disappear altogether. Their traditions continue as a nation, whether they are under the occupation of the Egyptians or Hittites, Assyrians, Persians, Arabs Ottoman Turks, or the British.
Connected to the problems of two different peoples, such as the Palestinians and Jews, attempting to sort out a viable, peaceful future is the fact that others create a mythology about them and their needs and attempt to bamboozle a naive world into believing they can bring peace to Jerusalem, by following their road to peace – like the Bush road to peace – the world only falls into more confusion.
The term "housecleaning" tends to conjure a bad impression, to my mind, since the word "extermination" has been used by interests attempting to deal with similar problems in the past.
Breaking through the dogma would be an exceptional way to find a way to peace in Jerusalem, I suppose.
If even housekeeping can be found to have negative connotations, I will try an analagy from the positive and forward looking world of children and parents.
My own limited practical experience of trying to right the worlds wrongs has been in the sphere of trying to sort out various arguments , greivances etc among the little people. In my experience trying to sort out the history of exactly who did what to who, when, is unlikely in itself to lead to peace and reconciliation.
Furthermore it is frequently the case that whoever has the weaker hand in an argument , shows greater alacricity (and creativity) in dredging the great river of the past for events,incidents etc to strengthen their hand.
While knowlege of history is important for any peace bringing mission it is not sufficent in itself for constructive statesmanship.
Any proposed solution should be demonstratably geared to bringing peace and prosperity to the parties involved.
The central point of my article is that I do not think that the 2 state solution is demonstratably geared to bringing peace and prosperity.
While people bring up lots of side issues, I have not seen any refutation of that central idea !!!
QUOTE(JeffreyG @ Nov 15 2004, 10:34 AM)
If even housekeeping can be found to have negative connotations, I will try an analagy from the positive and forward looking world of children and parents.
My own limited practical experience of trying to right the worlds wrongs has been in the sphere of trying to sort out various arguments , greivances etc among the little people. In my experience trying to sort out the history of exactly who did what to who, when, is unlikely in itself to lead to peace and reconciliation.
Furthermore it is frequently the case that whoever has the weaker hand in an argument , shows greater alacricity (and creativity) in dredging the great river of the past for events,incidents etc to strengthen their hand.
While knowlege of history is important for any peace bringing mission it is not sufficent in itself for constructive statesmanship.
Any proposed solution should be demonstratably geared to bringing peace and prosperity to the parties involved.
The central point of my article is that I do not think that the 2 state solution is demonstratably geared to bringing peace and prosperity.
While people bring up lots of side issues, I have not seen any refutation of that central idea !!!
My own limited practical experience of trying to right the worlds wrongs has been in the sphere of trying to sort out various arguments , greivances etc among the little people. In my experience trying to sort out the history of exactly who did what to who, when, is unlikely in itself to lead to peace and reconciliation.
Furthermore it is frequently the case that whoever has the weaker hand in an argument , shows greater alacricity (and creativity) in dredging the great river of the past for events,incidents etc to strengthen their hand.
While knowlege of history is important for any peace bringing mission it is not sufficent in itself for constructive statesmanship.
Any proposed solution should be demonstratably geared to bringing peace and prosperity to the parties involved.
The central point of my article is that I do not think that the 2 state solution is demonstratably geared to bringing peace and prosperity.
While people bring up lots of side issues, I have not seen any refutation of that central idea !!!
Jeffry,
I checked out your considerable research
http://www.glausiusz.org/tiki/tiki-view_blog.php?blogId=2
you said you did on the Palestinian issue and am puzzled why you began it based upon a quotation, "the history of government is one of smaller entities being superseded by larger ones", a quotation from a book you read but could not remember. Actually, many have quoted that Machiavellian concept over the years, but I think the most ancient to observe it was Chandragupta, who repelled Alexander the Great. His teacher observed that the Big fish eat the little fish. How Chandragupta managed to turn Alexander back is interesting but would be wasted on people who don't appreciate the teachings of history.
The idea you proposed – crafting two nations, Israel and Palestine, subject to a Constitution – is not far from what was historically proposed in the Declaration of Independence by the State of Israel, given to the United Nations, May 14, 1948. It proposed one state recognizing the equal rights of all people within its borders, following our own Constitution. Like our Constitution the document is only if people uphold it.
Have you read that document? I believe it is always a good thing to read up on what exists before trying to propose a change.
QUOTE(Mel Copeland @ Nov 15 2004, 10:51 PM)
Jeffry,
I checked out your considerable research
http://www.glausiusz.org/tiki/tiki-view_blog.php?blogId=2
you said you did on the Palestinian issue and am puzzled why you began it based upon a quotation, "the history of government is one of smaller entities being superseded by larger ones", a quotation from a book you read but could not remember. Actually, many have quoted that Machiavellian concept over the years, but I think the most ancient to observe it was Chandragupta, who repelled Alexander the Great. His teacher observed that the Big fish eat the little fish. How Chandragupta managed to turn Alexander back is interesting but would be wasted on people who don't appreciate the teachings of history.
The idea you proposed – crafting two nations, Israel and Palestine, subject to a Constitution – is not far from what was historically proposed in the Declaration of Independence by the State of Israel, given to the United Nations, May 14, 1948. It proposed one state recognizing the equal rights of all people within its borders, following our own Constitution. Like our Constitution the document is only if people uphold it.
Have you read that document? I believe it is always a good thing to read up on what exists before trying to propose a change.
I checked out your considerable research
http://www.glausiusz.org/tiki/tiki-view_blog.php?blogId=2
you said you did on the Palestinian issue and am puzzled why you began it based upon a quotation, "the history of government is one of smaller entities being superseded by larger ones", a quotation from a book you read but could not remember. Actually, many have quoted that Machiavellian concept over the years, but I think the most ancient to observe it was Chandragupta, who repelled Alexander the Great. His teacher observed that the Big fish eat the little fish. How Chandragupta managed to turn Alexander back is interesting but would be wasted on people who don't appreciate the teachings of history.
The idea you proposed – crafting two nations, Israel and Palestine, subject to a Constitution – is not far from what was historically proposed in the Declaration of Independence by the State of Israel, given to the United Nations, May 14, 1948. It proposed one state recognizing the equal rights of all people within its borders, following our own Constitution. Like our Constitution the document is only if people uphold it.
Have you read that document? I believe it is always a good thing to read up on what exists before trying to propose a change.
I have gone and reread the Declaration of Independence by the State of Israel to see if I have missed anything.
There are several fundamental differences between the ideas I have mentioned and those mentioned in the said declaration. The said declaration basically garantees rights for minorities within the Jewish State. Their is a recognition of individual rights with the inherent assumption of a Jewish majority. The need for a Jewish State is based among other things on the historical connection between the Jews and Israel, the lessons from the holocaust etc.
I am not proposing to change all of that. However there are some issues which were not sufficiently addressed at that time (and which have become more pressing as time goes on). Among these issues were the questions of boundaries, the relations to other peoples of the area considered not as individuals but as nationalistic entities in themselves.
The long and short of it is I think we need a State of Israel for the same reasons as in '48. We also need a State which will give the Palestinians a government of their own identity . However we also need a permanent common governmental framework or umbrella, for dealing with those issues which are not amenable to the Solomonic solution of cutting things in half !
This should provoke some discussion; I eagerly await your rebuttal. This is how we learn after all.
Weekend Edition
November 13 / 14, 2004
The Passing of Arafat
With Him Goes the Two-State Solution
By OMAR BARGHOUTI
As the pictures of the human waves have shown, not only his supporters grieved over his death. The more than 100,000 who converged in the Ramallah funeral included many who opposed his political line to various degrees. Even those who categorically opposed his idiosyncratic policy of "la-am," or yes-no, found themselves sharing in this communal sense of loss and sorrow. Arafat was more than just a leader. He was beyond doubt an emblematic Palestinian phenomenon that will not be replaced anytime soon.
Beyond the typical veneration of symbols, Arafat had another attribute that gave him his revered status in the minds and hearts of a majority of Palestinians: his assumption of the role of the political frame of reference. What Arafat did was, more often than not, perceived as somehow linked to a plan to achieve liberation and justice. People joked about, even derided his tactics at times, but he was the lowest common denominator among the diverse Palestinian political parties. He was the closest to the average person's analysis of the situation: emotive, not always rational, indulging in an exaggerated, but widely popular sense of autonomy. One Palestinian refugee once put it as such: "He speaks like us, without those big words that meant absolutely nothing to us. He is truly one of us."
And when you are the reference point, you can afford to shift your position at will. More or less. That's why only Arafat was able to shake hands and sign less-than-just interim deals with Israeli leaders of all convictions -- including accused war criminals -- without being seriously accused of treason. He always commanded the popular benefit of the doubt. This is precisely why only Yasser Arafat could deliver the two-state solution mentioned in numerous peace initiatives. Such a solution, by its very nature, falls far short of the minimal requirements of justice for Palestinians. Besides having passed its expiry date, it was never a moral solution to start with. In the best-case scenario, if UN resolution 242 were meticulously implemented, it would have addressed most of the legitimate rights of less than a third of the Palestinian people over less than a fifth of their ancestral land. More than two thirds of the Palestinians, refugees plus the Palestinian citizens of Israel, have been dubiously and shortsightedly expunged out of the definition of the Palestinians to make this happen. Such exclusion can only guarantee the perpetuation of conflict.
Even that was not on offer from anyone. Israel, with full and unflinching backing from the US, insisted on bantustanizing Palestinian territories, feverishly expanding Jewish colonies, stubbornly denying any responsibility for the Nakba (1948 catastrophe of dispossession) and along with it the right of Palestinian refugees to return, even refusing to recognize the Gaza strip and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) as occupied territories, as stipulated in international law. What Israel demanded was capitulation. Nothing less. Arafat was not ready to sign on the dotted line, so he was severely punished. He went under with the memorable legacy of refusing to surrender. Thus the outpouring of sincere emotions by the mass of distraught Palestinians biding him farewell. "He preferred to die than to submit," many lamented.
Any future replacement of Arafat will have far less tolerance from a battered, impoverished and yet determined constituency. By definition, he will lack Arafat's unique historic clout, will garner less political support and will command far less popular backing; therefore, he will be quite vulnerable to public wrath in case he decides to even match Arafat's compromises, not to mention offer more concessions to Israel, as required to become "relevant" in the Israel-US club. Who would dare?
After Israel wakes up from its delusional euphoria over Arafat's death it will realize that it has lost its very last opportunity to impose on the Palestinians its own peace. Rather than accepting any settlement with the hope that their trusted leader will use it as a launching pad to achieve more far-reaching successes, now Palestinians will start recognizing any peace decoupled from justice for what it is: morally reprehensible and politically unacceptable. As a result, it will be pragmatically unwise as well. It may survive for a while, but only after it has been stripped of its essence, becoming a mere stabilization of an oppressive order, or what I call the master-slave peace, where the slave has no power and/or will to resist and therefore submits to the dictates of the master, passively, obediently, without a semblance of human dignity. This last so long as the slave has no power or will to resist. But only until then.
With Arafat's burial, the two-state solution will bite the dust. No one will dare break this piece of news, as too many have too much to lose if they admit it. But Israel will soon have to reckon with more and more Palestinians calling for a democratic, unitary state where Israeli-Jews and Palestinian-Arabs share equal rights and duties, after doing away with colonial oppression, ethnic supremacy and apartheid, and after the refugees are allowed to return. And if South Africa is any guide, such a struggle may exclude armed resistance, favoring non-violent means instead. How will Israel start to counter such a call on the world stage? Insisting on Jewish ethno-religious exclusivity will further entrench in the world public opinion the image of Israel as an anachronistic, pariah state, a new form of apartheid. Evoking the Holocaust may help Israel deflect any serious consideration of this democratic alternative for a while, but this is bound to crack under pressure from many parties interested in reaching an enduring and just peace in this troubled region.
Palestinians realize that a transient phase of chaos, indecisiveness and perhaps internal strife may descend upon them after Arafat's departure from the scene, but no birth comes without contractions. Those may well be the first signs of the next era: the struggle towards a democratic, secular state in historic Palestine.
Omar Barghouti is an independent Palestinian political analyst. His article "9.11 Putting the Moment on Human Terms" was chosen among the "Best of 2002" by the Guardian. He can be reached at: jenna@palnet.com
Weekend Edition
November 13 / 14, 2004
The Passing of Arafat
With Him Goes the Two-State Solution
By OMAR BARGHOUTI
As the pictures of the human waves have shown, not only his supporters grieved over his death. The more than 100,000 who converged in the Ramallah funeral included many who opposed his political line to various degrees. Even those who categorically opposed his idiosyncratic policy of "la-am," or yes-no, found themselves sharing in this communal sense of loss and sorrow. Arafat was more than just a leader. He was beyond doubt an emblematic Palestinian phenomenon that will not be replaced anytime soon.
Beyond the typical veneration of symbols, Arafat had another attribute that gave him his revered status in the minds and hearts of a majority of Palestinians: his assumption of the role of the political frame of reference. What Arafat did was, more often than not, perceived as somehow linked to a plan to achieve liberation and justice. People joked about, even derided his tactics at times, but he was the lowest common denominator among the diverse Palestinian political parties. He was the closest to the average person's analysis of the situation: emotive, not always rational, indulging in an exaggerated, but widely popular sense of autonomy. One Palestinian refugee once put it as such: "He speaks like us, without those big words that meant absolutely nothing to us. He is truly one of us."
And when you are the reference point, you can afford to shift your position at will. More or less. That's why only Arafat was able to shake hands and sign less-than-just interim deals with Israeli leaders of all convictions -- including accused war criminals -- without being seriously accused of treason. He always commanded the popular benefit of the doubt. This is precisely why only Yasser Arafat could deliver the two-state solution mentioned in numerous peace initiatives. Such a solution, by its very nature, falls far short of the minimal requirements of justice for Palestinians. Besides having passed its expiry date, it was never a moral solution to start with. In the best-case scenario, if UN resolution 242 were meticulously implemented, it would have addressed most of the legitimate rights of less than a third of the Palestinian people over less than a fifth of their ancestral land. More than two thirds of the Palestinians, refugees plus the Palestinian citizens of Israel, have been dubiously and shortsightedly expunged out of the definition of the Palestinians to make this happen. Such exclusion can only guarantee the perpetuation of conflict.
Even that was not on offer from anyone. Israel, with full and unflinching backing from the US, insisted on bantustanizing Palestinian territories, feverishly expanding Jewish colonies, stubbornly denying any responsibility for the Nakba (1948 catastrophe of dispossession) and along with it the right of Palestinian refugees to return, even refusing to recognize the Gaza strip and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) as occupied territories, as stipulated in international law. What Israel demanded was capitulation. Nothing less. Arafat was not ready to sign on the dotted line, so he was severely punished. He went under with the memorable legacy of refusing to surrender. Thus the outpouring of sincere emotions by the mass of distraught Palestinians biding him farewell. "He preferred to die than to submit," many lamented.
Any future replacement of Arafat will have far less tolerance from a battered, impoverished and yet determined constituency. By definition, he will lack Arafat's unique historic clout, will garner less political support and will command far less popular backing; therefore, he will be quite vulnerable to public wrath in case he decides to even match Arafat's compromises, not to mention offer more concessions to Israel, as required to become "relevant" in the Israel-US club. Who would dare?
After Israel wakes up from its delusional euphoria over Arafat's death it will realize that it has lost its very last opportunity to impose on the Palestinians its own peace. Rather than accepting any settlement with the hope that their trusted leader will use it as a launching pad to achieve more far-reaching successes, now Palestinians will start recognizing any peace decoupled from justice for what it is: morally reprehensible and politically unacceptable. As a result, it will be pragmatically unwise as well. It may survive for a while, but only after it has been stripped of its essence, becoming a mere stabilization of an oppressive order, or what I call the master-slave peace, where the slave has no power and/or will to resist and therefore submits to the dictates of the master, passively, obediently, without a semblance of human dignity. This last so long as the slave has no power or will to resist. But only until then.
With Arafat's burial, the two-state solution will bite the dust. No one will dare break this piece of news, as too many have too much to lose if they admit it. But Israel will soon have to reckon with more and more Palestinians calling for a democratic, unitary state where Israeli-Jews and Palestinian-Arabs share equal rights and duties, after doing away with colonial oppression, ethnic supremacy and apartheid, and after the refugees are allowed to return. And if South Africa is any guide, such a struggle may exclude armed resistance, favoring non-violent means instead. How will Israel start to counter such a call on the world stage? Insisting on Jewish ethno-religious exclusivity will further entrench in the world public opinion the image of Israel as an anachronistic, pariah state, a new form of apartheid. Evoking the Holocaust may help Israel deflect any serious consideration of this democratic alternative for a while, but this is bound to crack under pressure from many parties interested in reaching an enduring and just peace in this troubled region.
Palestinians realize that a transient phase of chaos, indecisiveness and perhaps internal strife may descend upon them after Arafat's departure from the scene, but no birth comes without contractions. Those may well be the first signs of the next era: the struggle towards a democratic, secular state in historic Palestine.
Omar Barghouti is an independent Palestinian political analyst. His article "9.11 Putting the Moment on Human Terms" was chosen among the "Best of 2002" by the Guardian. He can be reached at: jenna@palnet.com
I read today that Arafat's great abilty was they he managed to promise all things to three different constituencies 1) He promised the most militant that he would never make a deal, but would negotiate to get publicity. This is what most of his "jihad" speeches and what he allowed on Palestinian state controlled television espoused. This is also why he would never allow the actual "refugees' to vote, or to have their lives improved by outside help. 2) He promised the peace crowd and the west that he would negotiate in good faith, and that he would work it all out with their continued support. He promised this to Egypt as well before last year when they actually made him start to get his finances in order, and give up some power to subordinates. 3) He promised another group that he would agree to things he had to agree to, but only as needed, and that every agreement would be a short term measure and could be broken as soon as they acheived a better negotiating position.
If Barghouti is correct that the two-state solution is dead because no one can unite the palestinians behind any peace plan....then I fear, and yes I even grieve...that the Palestinians will be the Native Americans of the 21st century. They will get what the Israelis give them if they are not going to negotiate peace. They will never have an army, jobs, an economy, education or any self defined borders. The longer they wait the more land they lose. With every Israeli (Arab, Druse, Christian, or Jewish) life they will lose another acre of land or so, I forget where but I once saw someone do the equation of what each Israeli death had cost them in terms of land. They will end up with scattered reservations, no bridges and tunnels to connect their land, no investment in anything, as has been the case since Arafat returned to the area in the early 90's. If they insist on Barghouti's way...this is what will happen.
Condi Rice as Secretary of State, with John Bolton as Deputy? Well...I would not suggest that they follow the path they are on. It's not going to be good for them at all. In spite of what others would like to think...I really do want the best for them and an end to this war. But they have to be fighting for something real, something attainable, and something besides fighting "against" the Jews...they have to be fighting FOR a country or they will lose. If they get this country they have to have a plan for something positive to happen to their futures, not just to beat the Jews or whomever. Otherwise their country will not be enough, ever, for any of them and they will have no PURPOSE. The wounds will never heal and they will never heal their post-traumatic stress society, so it will degenerate into a cultish no man's land. I pray this never happens.
If you want to see what life there is like due to Arafat, war, checkpoints, lack of hope, education ect...then read this in depth analysis by the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group http://www.phrmg.org/intrafada.htm because it shows how hate and wanton murder can totally desensitize a whole society. It's like a drug that takes over the brain and makes all things that the person would never do in a rational, ethical, and moral state of being become reasonable. The addict exists soley for the next drug fix and all of life becomes a means to that end. This has truly been a proxy war, and these people have been the unwitting victims of it all. It has to stop for humanities sake if nothing else, but just like a drug addict you can't tell them to stop if they are determined to keep going.
If Barghouti is correct that the two-state solution is dead because no one can unite the palestinians behind any peace plan....then I fear, and yes I even grieve...that the Palestinians will be the Native Americans of the 21st century. They will get what the Israelis give them if they are not going to negotiate peace. They will never have an army, jobs, an economy, education or any self defined borders. The longer they wait the more land they lose. With every Israeli (Arab, Druse, Christian, or Jewish) life they will lose another acre of land or so, I forget where but I once saw someone do the equation of what each Israeli death had cost them in terms of land. They will end up with scattered reservations, no bridges and tunnels to connect their land, no investment in anything, as has been the case since Arafat returned to the area in the early 90's. If they insist on Barghouti's way...this is what will happen.
Condi Rice as Secretary of State, with John Bolton as Deputy? Well...I would not suggest that they follow the path they are on. It's not going to be good for them at all. In spite of what others would like to think...I really do want the best for them and an end to this war. But they have to be fighting for something real, something attainable, and something besides fighting "against" the Jews...they have to be fighting FOR a country or they will lose. If they get this country they have to have a plan for something positive to happen to their futures, not just to beat the Jews or whomever. Otherwise their country will not be enough, ever, for any of them and they will have no PURPOSE. The wounds will never heal and they will never heal their post-traumatic stress society, so it will degenerate into a cultish no man's land. I pray this never happens.
If you want to see what life there is like due to Arafat, war, checkpoints, lack of hope, education ect...then read this in depth analysis by the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group http://www.phrmg.org/intrafada.htm because it shows how hate and wanton murder can totally desensitize a whole society. It's like a drug that takes over the brain and makes all things that the person would never do in a rational, ethical, and moral state of being become reasonable. The addict exists soley for the next drug fix and all of life becomes a means to that end. This has truly been a proxy war, and these people have been the unwitting victims of it all. It has to stop for humanities sake if nothing else, but just like a drug addict you can't tell them to stop if they are determined to keep going.
QUOTE(jonnap @ Nov 16 2004, 03:37 AM)
This should provoke some discussion; I eagerly await your rebuttal. This is how we learn after all.
Weekend Edition
November 13 / 14, 2004
The Passing of Arafat
With Him Goes the Two-State Solution
By OMAR BARGHOUTI
As the pictures of the human waves have shown, not only his supporters grieved over his death. The more than 100,000 who converged in the Ramallah funeral included many who opposed his political line to various degrees. Even those who categorically opposed his idiosyncratic policy of "la-am," or yes-no, found themselves sharing in this communal sense of loss and sorrow. Arafat was more than just a leader. He was beyond doubt an emblematic Palestinian phenomenon that will not be replaced anytime soon.
Beyond the typical veneration of symbols, Arafat had another attribute that gave him his revered status in the minds and hearts of a majority of Palestinians: his assumption of the role of the political frame of reference. What Arafat did was, more often than not, perceived as somehow linked to a plan to achieve liberation and justice. People joked about, even derided his tactics at times, but he was the lowest common denominator among the diverse Palestinian political parties. He was the closest to the average person's analysis of the situation: emotive, not always rational, indulging in an exaggerated, but widely popular sense of autonomy. One Palestinian refugee once put it as such: "He speaks like us, without those big words that meant absolutely nothing to us. He is truly one of us."
And when you are the reference point, you can afford to shift your position at will. More or less. That's why only Arafat was able to shake hands and sign less-than-just interim deals with Israeli leaders of all convictions -- including accused war criminals -- without being seriously accused of treason. He always commanded the popular benefit of the doubt. This is precisely why only Yasser Arafat could deliver the two-state solution mentioned in numerous peace initiatives. Such a solution, by its very nature, falls far short of the minimal requirements of justice for Palestinians. Besides having passed its expiry date, it was never a moral solution to start with. In the best-case scenario, if UN resolution 242 were meticulously implemented, it would have addressed most of the legitimate rights of less than a third of the Palestinian people over less than a fifth of their ancestral land. More than two thirds of the Palestinians, refugees plus the Palestinian citizens of Israel, have been dubiously and shortsightedly expunged out of the definition of the Palestinians to make this happen. Such exclusion can only guarantee the perpetuation of conflict.
Even that was not on offer from anyone. Israel, with full and unflinching backing from the US, insisted on bantustanizing Palestinian territories, feverishly expanding Jewish colonies, stubbornly denying any responsibility for the Nakba (1948 catastrophe of dispossession) and along with it the right of Palestinian refugees to return, even refusing to recognize the Gaza strip and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) as occupied territories, as stipulated in international law. What Israel demanded was capitulation. Nothing less. Arafat was not ready to sign on the dotted line, so he was severely punished. He went under with the memorable legacy of refusing to surrender. Thus the outpouring of sincere emotions by the mass of distraught Palestinians biding him farewell. "He preferred to die than to submit," many lamented.
Any future replacement of Arafat will have far less tolerance from a battered, impoverished and yet determined constituency. By definition, he will lack Arafat's unique historic clout, will garner less political support and will command far less popular backing; therefore, he will be quite vulnerable to public wrath in case he decides to even match Arafat's compromises, not to mention offer more concessions to Israel, as required to become "relevant" in the Israel-US club. Who would dare?
After Israel wakes up from its delusional euphoria over Arafat's death it will realize that it has lost its very last opportunity to impose on the Palestinians its own peace. Rather than accepting any settlement with the hope that their trusted leader will use it as a launching pad to achieve more far-reaching successes, now Palestinians will start recognizing any peace decoupled from justice for what it is: morally reprehensible and politically unacceptable. As a result, it will be pragmatically unwise as well. It may survive for a while, but only after it has been stripped of its essence, becoming a mere stabilization of an oppressive order, or what I call the master-slave peace, where the slave has no power and/or will to resist and therefore submits to the dictates of the master, passively, obediently, without a semblance of human dignity. This last so long as the slave has no power or will to resist. But only until then.
With Arafat's burial, the two-state solution will bite the dust. No one will dare break this piece of news, as too many have too much to lose if they admit it. But Israel will soon have to reckon with more and more Palestinians calling for a democratic, unitary state where Israeli-Jews and Palestinian-Arabs share equal rights and duties, after doing away with colonial oppression, ethnic supremacy and apartheid, and after the refugees are allowed to return. And if South Africa is any guide, such a struggle may exclude armed resistance, favoring non-violent means instead. How will Israel start to counter such a call on the world stage? Insisting on Jewish ethno-religious exclusivity will further entrench in the world public opinion the image of Israel as an anachronistic, pariah state, a new form of apartheid. Evoking the Holocaust may help Israel deflect any serious consideration of this democratic alternative for a while, but this is bound to crack under pressure from many parties interested in reaching an enduring and just peace in this troubled region.
Palestinians realize that a transient phase of chaos, indecisiveness and perhaps internal strife may descend upon them after Arafat's departure from the scene, but no birth comes without contractions. Those may well be the first signs of the next era: the struggle towards a democratic, secular state in historic Palestine.
Omar Barghouti is an independent Palestinian political analyst. His article "9.11 Putting the Moment on Human Terms" was chosen among the "Best of 2002" by the Guardian. He can be reached at: jenna@palnet.com
Weekend Edition
November 13 / 14, 2004
The Passing of Arafat
With Him Goes the Two-State Solution
By OMAR BARGHOUTI
As the pictures of the human waves have shown, not only his supporters grieved over his death. The more than 100,000 who converged in the Ramallah funeral included many who opposed his political line to various degrees. Even those who categorically opposed his idiosyncratic policy of "la-am," or yes-no, found themselves sharing in this communal sense of loss and sorrow. Arafat was more than just a leader. He was beyond doubt an emblematic Palestinian phenomenon that will not be replaced anytime soon.
Beyond the typical veneration of symbols, Arafat had another attribute that gave him his revered status in the minds and hearts of a majority of Palestinians: his assumption of the role of the political frame of reference. What Arafat did was, more often than not, perceived as somehow linked to a plan to achieve liberation and justice. People joked about, even derided his tactics at times, but he was the lowest common denominator among the diverse Palestinian political parties. He was the closest to the average person's analysis of the situation: emotive, not always rational, indulging in an exaggerated, but widely popular sense of autonomy. One Palestinian refugee once put it as such: "He speaks like us, without those big words that meant absolutely nothing to us. He is truly one of us."
And when you are the reference point, you can afford to shift your position at will. More or less. That's why only Arafat was able to shake hands and sign less-than-just interim deals with Israeli leaders of all convictions -- including accused war criminals -- without being seriously accused of treason. He always commanded the popular benefit of the doubt. This is precisely why only Yasser Arafat could deliver the two-state solution mentioned in numerous peace initiatives. Such a solution, by its very nature, falls far short of the minimal requirements of justice for Palestinians. Besides having passed its expiry date, it was never a moral solution to start with. In the best-case scenario, if UN resolution 242 were meticulously implemented, it would have addressed most of the legitimate rights of less than a third of the Palestinian people over less than a fifth of their ancestral land. More than two thirds of the Palestinians, refugees plus the Palestinian citizens of Israel, have been dubiously and shortsightedly expunged out of the definition of the Palestinians to make this happen. Such exclusion can only guarantee the perpetuation of conflict.
Even that was not on offer from anyone. Israel, with full and unflinching backing from the US, insisted on bantustanizing Palestinian territories, feverishly expanding Jewish colonies, stubbornly denying any responsibility for the Nakba (1948 catastrophe of dispossession) and along with it the right of Palestinian refugees to return, even refusing to recognize the Gaza strip and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) as occupied territories, as stipulated in international law. What Israel demanded was capitulation. Nothing less. Arafat was not ready to sign on the dotted line, so he was severely punished. He went under with the memorable legacy of refusing to surrender. Thus the outpouring of sincere emotions by the mass of distraught Palestinians biding him farewell. "He preferred to die than to submit," many lamented.
Any future replacement of Arafat will have far less tolerance from a battered, impoverished and yet determined constituency. By definition, he will lack Arafat's unique historic clout, will garner less political support and will command far less popular backing; therefore, he will be quite vulnerable to public wrath in case he decides to even match Arafat's compromises, not to mention offer more concessions to Israel, as required to become "relevant" in the Israel-US club. Who would dare?
After Israel wakes up from its delusional euphoria over Arafat's death it will realize that it has lost its very last opportunity to impose on the Palestinians its own peace. Rather than accepting any settlement with the hope that their trusted leader will use it as a launching pad to achieve more far-reaching successes, now Palestinians will start recognizing any peace decoupled from justice for what it is: morally reprehensible and politically unacceptable. As a result, it will be pragmatically unwise as well. It may survive for a while, but only after it has been stripped of its essence, becoming a mere stabilization of an oppressive order, or what I call the master-slave peace, where the slave has no power and/or will to resist and therefore submits to the dictates of the master, passively, obediently, without a semblance of human dignity. This last so long as the slave has no power or will to resist. But only until then.
With Arafat's burial, the two-state solution will bite the dust. No one will dare break this piece of news, as too many have too much to lose if they admit it. But Israel will soon have to reckon with more and more Palestinians calling for a democratic, unitary state where Israeli-Jews and Palestinian-Arabs share equal rights and duties, after doing away with colonial oppression, ethnic supremacy and apartheid, and after the refugees are allowed to return. And if South Africa is any guide, such a struggle may exclude armed resistance, favoring non-violent means instead. How will Israel start to counter such a call on the world stage? Insisting on Jewish ethno-religious exclusivity will further entrench in the world public opinion the image of Israel as an anachronistic, pariah state, a new form of apartheid. Evoking the Holocaust may help Israel deflect any serious consideration of this democratic alternative for a while, but this is bound to crack under pressure from many parties interested in reaching an enduring and just peace in this troubled region.
Palestinians realize that a transient phase of chaos, indecisiveness and perhaps internal strife may descend upon them after Arafat's departure from the scene, but no birth comes without contractions. Those may well be the first signs of the next era: the struggle towards a democratic, secular state in historic Palestine.
Omar Barghouti is an independent Palestinian political analyst. His article "9.11 Putting the Moment on Human Terms" was chosen among the "Best of 2002" by the Guardian. He can be reached at: jenna@palnet.com
If one leaves aside the rhetoric in this peice , the essence is a rejection of a 2 state solution in favour of a single unitary state solution.
Actually I think that was also the stance of Arafat and the reason he did not go forward with a Palestinian State when he could perfectly easily have done so.
Considering the history of the region a unitary state is not going to lead to peace and prosperity.
Neither is an unstable 2 state solution going to lead to peace and prosperity , despite the beliefs of various people some of them well intentioned if badly informed.
However a solution which contains elements condusive to peace and prosperity in particular a two tier governmental process which built in checks and balance could if suitably designed and implemented, provide a framework for mutual development, co-existance and prosperity.
QUOTE(JeffreyG @ Nov 16 2004, 09:11 AM)
If one leaves aside the rhetoric in this peice , the essence is a rejection of a 2 state solution in favour of a single unitary state solution.
Actually I think that was also the stance of Arafat and the reason he did not go forward with a Palestinian State when he could perfectly easily have done so.
Considering the history of the region a unitary state is not going to lead to peace and prosperity.
Neither is an unstable 2 state solution going to lead to peace and prosperity , despite the beliefs of various people some of them well intentioned if badly informed.
However a solution which contains elements condusive to peace and prosperity in particular a two tier governmental process which built in checks and balance could if suitably designed and implemented, provide a framework for mutual development, co-existance and prosperity.
Actually I think that was also the stance of Arafat and the reason he did not go forward with a Palestinian State when he could perfectly easily have done so.
Considering the history of the region a unitary state is not going to lead to peace and prosperity.
Neither is an unstable 2 state solution going to lead to peace and prosperity , despite the beliefs of various people some of them well intentioned if badly informed.
However a solution which contains elements condusive to peace and prosperity in particular a two tier governmental process which built in checks and balance could if suitably designed and implemented, provide a framework for mutual development, co-existance and prosperity.
Can you elaborate? Seems radical to think of these two warring factions as one nation but other countries have had to do so, including the US.
QUOTE(jonnap @ Nov 16 2004, 04:30 PM)
Can you elaborate? Seems radical to think of these two warring factions as one nation but other countries have had to do so, including the US.
I do not think that outcome will be creation of one nation, rather a multi tier framework with some functions at a State level and some functions at a country level.
Incidentally when the dust settles in Iraq , I rhink something along similar lines is likely to ensue.
I have written at greater length on the subject at
http://www.glausiusz.org/tiki/tiki-view_blog.php?blogId=2
admittedly the piece there is rather roundabout and wanders around other issues as well.
I will rearrange the material in a rather more disciplined manner I think, and post again.
Actually this forum has been usefull in receiving input on subject etc.
QUOTE(heart @ Nov 15 2004, 07:49 PM)
I read today that Arafat's great abilty was they he managed to promise all things to three different constituencies 1) He promised the most militant that he would never make a deal, but would negotiate to get publicity. This is what most of his "jihad" speeches and what he allowed on Palestinian state controlled television espoused. This is also why he would never allow the actual "refugees' to vote, or to have their lives improved by outside help. 2) He promised the peace crowd and the west that he would negotiate in good faith, and that he would work it all out with their continued support. He promised this to Egypt as well before last year when they actually made him start to get his finances in order, and give up some power to subordinates. 3) He promised another group that he would agree to things he had to agree to, but only as needed, and that every agreement would be a short term measure and could be broken as soon as they acheived a better negotiating position.
If Barghouti is correct that the two-state solution is dead because no one can unite the palestinians behind any peace plan....then I fear, and yes I even grieve...that the Palestinians will be the Native Americans of the 21st century. They will get what the Israelis give them if they are not going to negotiate peace. They will never have an army, jobs, an economy, education or any self defined borders. The longer they wait the more land they lose. With every Israeli (Arab, Druse, Christian, or Jewish) life they will lose another acre of land or so, I forget where but I once saw someone do the equation of what each Israeli death had cost them in terms of land. They will end up with scattered reservations, no bridges and tunnels to connect their land, no investment in anything, as has been the case since Arafat returned to the area in the early 90's. If they insist on Barghouti's way...this is what will happen.
Condi Rice as Secretary of State, with John Bolton as Deputy? Well...I would not suggest that they follow the path they are on. It's not going to be good for them at all. In spite of what others would like to think...I really do want the best for them and an end to this war. But they have to be fighting for something real, something attainable, and something besides fighting "against" the Jews...they have to be fighting FOR a country or they will lose. If they get this country they have to have a plan for something positive to happen to their futures, not just to beat the Jews or whomever. Otherwise their country will not be enough, ever, for any of them and they will have no PURPOSE. The wounds will never heal and they will never heal their post-traumatic stress society, so it will degenerate into a cultish no man's land. I pray this never happens.
If you want to see what life there is like due to Arafat, war, checkpoints, lack of hope, education ect...then read this in depth analysis by the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group http://www.phrmg.org/intrafada.htm because it shows how hate and wanton murder can totally desensitize a whole society. It's like a drug that takes over the brain and makes all things that the person would never do in a rational, ethical, and moral state of being become reasonable. The addict exists soley for the next drug fix and all of life becomes a means to that end. This has truly been a proxy war, and these people have been the unwitting victims of it all. It has to stop for humanities sake if nothing else, but just like a drug addict you can't tell them to stop if they are determined to keep going.
If Barghouti is correct that the two-state solution is dead because no one can unite the palestinians behind any peace plan....then I fear, and yes I even grieve...that the Palestinians will be the Native Americans of the 21st century. They will get what the Israelis give them if they are not going to negotiate peace. They will never have an army, jobs, an economy, education or any self defined borders. The longer they wait the more land they lose. With every Israeli (Arab, Druse, Christian, or Jewish) life they will lose another acre of land or so, I forget where but I once saw someone do the equation of what each Israeli death had cost them in terms of land. They will end up with scattered reservations, no bridges and tunnels to connect their land, no investment in anything, as has been the case since Arafat returned to the area in the early 90's. If they insist on Barghouti's way...this is what will happen.
Condi Rice as Secretary of State, with John Bolton as Deputy? Well...I would not suggest that they follow the path they are on. It's not going to be good for them at all. In spite of what others would like to think...I really do want the best for them and an end to this war. But they have to be fighting for something real, something attainable, and something besides fighting "against" the Jews...they have to be fighting FOR a country or they will lose. If they get this country they have to have a plan for something positive to happen to their futures, not just to beat the Jews or whomever. Otherwise their country will not be enough, ever, for any of them and they will have no PURPOSE. The wounds will never heal and they will never heal their post-traumatic stress society, so it will degenerate into a cultish no man's land. I pray this never happens.
If you want to see what life there is like due to Arafat, war, checkpoints, lack of hope, education ect...then read this in depth analysis by the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group http://www.phrmg.org/intrafada.htm because it shows how hate and wanton murder can totally desensitize a whole society. It's like a drug that takes over the brain and makes all things that the person would never do in a rational, ethical, and moral state of being become reasonable. The addict exists soley for the next drug fix and all of life becomes a means to that end. This has truly been a proxy war, and these people have been the unwitting victims of it all. It has to stop for humanities sake if nothing else, but just like a drug addict you can't tell them to stop if they are determined to keep going.
I think Omar and Heart both have identified a key problem between the Israelis and Palestinians. Omar pointed out that whatever comes out of future endeavours they cannot represent a master-slave relationship, and Heart referring to the Palestinians becoming the Native Americans of the 21st century.
When exploring solutions I think the first step is to address the laws in effect, as to whether they are fair and equitable and supported by the parties, and see if one can get the parties to recognize and obey the law. I think if the world would point out the law and ask why the two parties are not honoring the law it could be embarrasing to both (since I don't think most people have read the law). But this is a portion of the Declaration of Independence by the state of Israel that seems relevant to me:
1.13 The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
1.14 The State of Israel is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representative of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.
The entire document and other supporting and relevant documents are at "Philistia Triiumph thou..."
http://www.maravot.com/Philistia_Triumph_thou.html
It seems to me that addressing the issue is like addressing warring reds and blues in the US. They have appeared to have agreed to sublimate their disputes and succumb to the law of the US, the Constitution. Israel's Declaration of Independence is the Law and it defers to the Torah as its "Constitution." Perhaps a Constitution of Israel may be worth exploring, to see if both sides might be willing to craft something that guarantees equality for all as the above document promised.
Sometimes it can take time to realize the promises of such documents. In our own case, for instance, as Heart did point out, the American Indians were not treated equally as promised in our Declaration and Constitution, but were given equal nation status that nearly led to their extermination. Of course, the Blacks are still attempting to obtain their full recognition and only got it since the Martin Luther King Jr. era.
Getting the parties to the table to craft a law acceptable to both, or modify the existing law, is better than exchanging gunfire, rockets and bombs.
QUOTE(Mel Copeland @ Nov 16 2004, 02:56 PM)
I think Omar and Heart both have identified a key problem between the Israelis and Palestinians. Omar pointed out that whatever comes out of future endeavours they cannot represent a master-slave relationship, and Heart referring to the Palestinians becoming the Native Americans of the 21st century.
When exploring solutions I think the first step is to address the laws in effect, as to whether they are fair and equitable and supported by the parties, and see if one can get the parties to recognize and obey the law. I think if the world would point out the law and ask why the two parties are not honoring the law it could be embarrasing to both (since I don't think most people have read the law). But this is a portion of the Declaration of Independence by the state of Israel that seems relevant to me:
1.13 The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
1.14 The State of Israel is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representative of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.
The entire document and other supporting and relevant documents are at "Philistia Triiumph thou..."
http://www.maravot.com/Philistia_Triumph_thou.html
It seems to me that addressing the issue is like addressing warring reds and blues in the US. They have appeared to have agreed to sublimate their disputes and succumb to the law of the US, the Constitution. Israel's Declaration of Independence is the Law and it defers to the Torah as its "Constitution." Perhaps a Constitution of Israel may be worth exploring, to see if both sides might be willing to craft something that guarantees equality for all as the above document promised.
Sometimes it can take time to realize the promises of such documents. In our own case, for instance, as Heart did point out, the American Indians were not treated equally as promised in our Declaration and Constitution, but were given equal nation status that nearly led to their extermination. Of course, the Blacks are still attempting to obtain their full recognition and only got it since the Martin Luther King Jr. era.
Getting the parties to the table to craft a law acceptable to both, or modify the existing law, is better than exchanging gunfire, rockets and bombs.
When exploring solutions I think the first step is to address the laws in effect, as to whether they are fair and equitable and supported by the parties, and see if one can get the parties to recognize and obey the law. I think if the world would point out the law and ask why the two parties are not honoring the law it could be embarrasing to both (since I don't think most people have read the law). But this is a portion of the Declaration of Independence by the state of Israel that seems relevant to me:
1.13 The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
1.14 The State of Israel is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representative of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.
The entire document and other supporting and relevant documents are at "Philistia Triiumph thou..."
http://www.maravot.com/Philistia_Triumph_thou.html
It seems to me that addressing the issue is like addressing warring reds and blues in the US. They have appeared to have agreed to sublimate their disputes and succumb to the law of the US, the Constitution. Israel's Declaration of Independence is the Law and it defers to the Torah as its "Constitution." Perhaps a Constitution of Israel may be worth exploring, to see if both sides might be willing to craft something that guarantees equality for all as the above document promised.
Sometimes it can take time to realize the promises of such documents. In our own case, for instance, as Heart did point out, the American Indians were not treated equally as promised in our Declaration and Constitution, but were given equal nation status that nearly led to their extermination. Of course, the Blacks are still attempting to obtain their full recognition and only got it since the Martin Luther King Jr. era.
Getting the parties to the table to craft a law acceptable to both, or modify the existing law, is better than exchanging gunfire, rockets and bombs.
P.S. Two rockets were fired into Israel last night from Lebanon. http://www.maravot.com/Maravot_News.html
QUOTE(Mel Copeland @ Nov 16 2004, 11:56 PM)
I think Omar and Heart both have identified a key problem between the Israelis and Palestinians. Omar pointed out that whatever comes out of future endeavours they cannot represent a master-slave relationship, and Heart referring to the Palestinians becoming the Native Americans of the 21st century.
When exploring solutions I think the first step is to address the laws in effect, as to whether they are fair and equitable and supported by the parties, and see if one can get the parties to recognize and obey the law. I think if the world would point out the law and ask why the two parties are not honoring the law it could be embarrasing to both (since I don't think most people have read the law). But this is a portion of the Declaration of Independence by the state of Israel that seems relevant to me:
1.13 The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
1.14 The State of Israel is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representative of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.
The entire document and other supporting and relevant documents are at "Philistia Triiumph thou..."
http://www.maravot.com/Philistia_Triumph_thou.html
It seems to me that addressing the issue is like addressing warring reds and blues in the US. They have appeared to have agreed to sublimate their disputes and succumb to the law of the US, the Constitution. Israel's Declaration of Independence is the Law and it defers to the Torah as its "Constitution." Perhaps a Constitution of Israel may be worth exploring, to see if both sides might be willing to craft something that guarantees equality for all as the above document promised.
Sometimes it can take time to realize the promises of such documents. In our own case, for instance, as Heart did point out, the American Indians were not treated equally as promised in our Declaration and Constitution, but were given equal nation status that nearly led to their extermination. Of course, the Blacks are still attempting to obtain their full recognition and only got it since the Martin Luther King Jr. era.
Getting the parties to the table to craft a law acceptable to both, or modify the existing law, is better than exchanging gunfire, rockets and bombs.
When exploring solutions I think the first step is to address the laws in effect, as to whether they are fair and equitable and supported by the parties, and see if one can get the parties to recognize and obey the law. I think if the world would point out the law and ask why the two parties are not honoring the law it could be embarrasing to both (since I don't think most people have read the law). But this is a portion of the Declaration of Independence by the state of Israel that seems relevant to me:
1.13 The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
1.14 The State of Israel is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representative of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.
The entire document and other supporting and relevant documents are at "Philistia Triiumph thou..."
http://www.maravot.com/Philistia_Triumph_thou.html
It seems to me that addressing the issue is like addressing warring reds and blues in the US. They have appeared to have agreed to sublimate their disputes and succumb to the law of the US, the Constitution. Israel's Declaration of Independence is the Law and it defers to the Torah as its "Constitution." Perhaps a Constitution of Israel may be worth exploring, to see if both sides might be willing to craft something that guarantees equality for all as the above document promised.
Sometimes it can take time to realize the promises of such documents. In our own case, for instance, as Heart did point out, the American Indians were not treated equally as promised in our Declaration and Constitution, but were given equal nation status that nearly led to their extermination. Of course, the Blacks are still attempting to obtain their full recognition and only got it since the Martin Luther King Jr. era.
Getting the parties to the table to craft a law acceptable to both, or modify the existing law, is better than exchanging gunfire, rockets and bombs.
At the risk of repetition,
The Israeli Declaration of Independence was designed to provide a basis for the State of Israel. That document has been respected and the various people within the State enjoy the rights as expressed below.
QUOTE
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.
However the desires expressed in the following quotation have yet to be realised !
QUOTE
WE EXTEND our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, 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 issue which remains to be resolved is the establishment of 'bonds of cooperation and mutual help' . How that is to come about in a practical manner is an open issue. At present the most talked about idea is the two state model. I think that that model is highly deficient and fails to address most of the fundamental issues. Worse still it will serve to worsen existing problems, if other issues and tiers of government are not addressed properly !
The long and short of it is I think we need a State of Israel for the same reasons as in '48. We also need a State which will give the Palestinians a government of their own identity . However we also need a permanent common governmental framework or umbrella, for dealing with those countrywide issues which are not amenable to the simplistic solution of cutting things in half !
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.