jump to navigation

OPTIONS: ONE, TWO OR ZERO November 6, 2009

Posted by wmmbb in Israel-Palestine.
trackback

There is some talk about the two state solution in Palestine, and some people now are talking about the one state solution, but the policy of the Israeli Government is the continuing zero state solution for the Palestinians.

They are just Arabs who used to live in Palestine. Now many of them don’t. The big problem in for peace in the Middle East is now, and has been the colonialist and the imperialists. As Gandhi observed the Jewish people settled much of Palestine under the guns of the British, who shafted their World War One Arab allies, and have maintained their dominance with the munitions and support of the Americans, who need allies in the region other than corrupt dictatorships and “client” oil shrieks. In the context of the realities of geopolitics the indigenous people can be, as they have been, expropriated and dispossessed. Doh . . . terrorism! The clash of civilizations was always an exaggeration because one side had no pretense to being civilized, that is held a belief combined with a practice of peace, truth and justice.

The events in Germany and Central Europe, and during the course of the Second World War, without making light of the human depravity involved, do not in any way justify what has happened in Palestine, although they do go someway to explaining the determination to hold on to a culture in what was perceived as the homeland of that culture. The problem is compounded in that migration from Eastern Europe is more Russian than ethnically Jewish – if there is such a thing after the centuries of living in Europe, North Africa and other places in the Middle East. The Vatican because of its size is perhaps the only single religion state that can get away with it.

Aside from asking the obvious question as to why would anybody possibly conceive of Mahoud Abbas as a credible person to represent the Palestinian, other than it seems the Washington foreign policy establishment, the BBC reports that the Chief Negotiator, Saeb Erekat holds the view:

Palestinians might have to abandon the goal of an independent state if Israel continues to expand Jewish settlements, the chief Palestinian negotiator said.
At a news conference in the West Bank, Saeb Erekat said it was a “moment of truth” for President Mahmoud Abbas.
He said it might be time for Mr Abbas to “tell the truth” that a two-state solution “is no longer an option”.
But Israel rejects a one-state solution as a demographic time-bomb that would make Jews a minority in the country.
It may be time for President Abbas to “tell his people the truth, that with the continuation of settlement activities, the two-state solution is no longer an option”, Mr Erekat said in Ramallah.

Now that is breakthrough thinking! Ah no. Israel has the zero state solution in mind.

The Gentleman from Ohio had some interesting things to say on the denial by the US House of Reps on the findings of the Goldstone Report, and what is more the Gentleman spoke plainly, via War in Context:

POSTSCRIPT:

Israel was founded on colonial violence beginning in the Nineteenth Century. The violence was an ongoing dispossession of the indigenous people, much like Australia and North America. The state was based on realpolitik, perhaps there is an Prussian influence. At one level the problem is not Israel but the international system. The only way I can think of to get around this problem and set up a new model of how the world works is to establish a form of international democracy, an EU writ large. This would have the added benefits of providing a forum that would focus on global problems, including the climate crisis, an international rule of law and global inequality. If we can apply the principles of peace within our own societies, then it is reasonable to suppose a global democracy might work toward that end. What are the alternatives?

Comments»

No comments yet — be the first.