5.5.06
The division of the land to ensure a jewish majority is Zionism's lifeline
''Reiterating his campaign pledge to determine the country's borders in a fashion "significantly different from the territory currently held by Israel," Olmert stressed that anyone who believes in "complete equality of civil rights between Jews and Arabs must understand that a division of the land, with the goal of ensuring a Jewish majority, is Zionism's lifeline." Olmert also reiterated his pledge to retain the major settlement blocs, a statement that led a Hamas spokesman in the territories to say that "Olmert's clinging to the settlement blocs is a real declaration of war, and we will deal with it via all possible means."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Since March 29th 2006
13 comments:
Olmert's plans reveal that zionism is an old-fashioned ideology in a globalising world. Such a world ought ideally to be without states and borders, and there ought to be equal rights for all citizens.
However, we do not live in such a world. Therefore a two-state solution seems to be the only one possible, but Olmert and Kadima want to determine terms unilaterally. That is clearly unacceptable to the Palestinians.
Cosmic,
In Israel's view, there should be no solution. Zionism is racism as it was implemented and practiced since the beginning. Just look at some zionist comments in my previous posts (The White man's real estate). Clearly, these people dopn't want any solution for the problem, they want total hegemony and the dstruction of the Palestinian people.
I think the one state solution is a good one, it is based on human rights and it will ensure that the two states (if there would be any) are not going to be in war indefinitely or one of them opressing the other.
I am doubtful about the one-state solution. The Palestinians are the underdog, and they'll be second-class citizens in such a state. If they have their own state they have greater chances of defending their own interests.
Cosmic,
I think that it is better to be second class citizen than to live without a country and on the fringe of humanity. At least there you have the chance to fight for your rights without being labeled as a terrorist. Israel made sure, specially after the oslo process that no viable Palestinian state will come to exist in the near future.
sophia,
how would this new one state solution work in your eyes?? i ask this in all seriousness.
How does it's parliment run? what would it's education have in it? How would the military work?? What would you do about immegration??
It's a very different concept from everything else I hear - and I really want to know how your idea would solve the Issues that exist now, and the ones I present above
Oleh,
I think the one state solution will be the easiest one to implement and it takes all actors of the state and the civil society, including people like you, to draw up such a solution. However, time is money and I have to work to earn my living right now but if the Israeli governement and the Israeli society decide to go for such a solution I will be happy to contribute theoretically and practically.
Cheers
Cosmic Duck and Sophia:
I am doubtful about the one-state solution. The Palestinians are the underdog, and they'll be second-class citizens in such a state.
That's what I believe will happen: Palestinians would have really hard time obtaining equal rights in this one-state solution.
At least there you have the chance to fight for your rights without being labeled as a terrorist. Israel made sure, specially after the oslo process that no viable Palestinian state will come to exist in the near future.
As many Palestinians wouldn't accept to be integrated into a Jewish dominated one state, that would cause plenty of resistance activity (terrorism) from within. Jewish proposals for a one-state solution often envisage deportation of any violent, "anti-Zionist" Palestinians, opening the door for the arbitrary removal of any "trouble makers", this is a recipe for disaster. Israel will never relinquish its ambition to be a Jewish state, first and foremost.
The convergence plan has at least the merit of recognising the need to withdraw from most West Bank settlements, which brings closer the prospect of the creation of a Palestinian state.
I believe, sadly, that segregation of the two peoples into a bi-national solution is the only possibility for some kind of peace.
The bi-national solution isn't an easy one: creating territorial contiguity for the Palestinian state, without disrupting Israeli contiguity, is just one of the problems that were discussed in Oslo. Your assertion "Israel made sure..." doesn't do justice to the fact that intransigence existed on both sides.
The one-state solution is a little bit what they tried to do in South Africa. Perhaps it is going to work in this case. But then you have to consider that the South Africans are a lot more secularized. The religious fundamentalisms do not run nearly as deep as in Palestine.
Still, nobody knows what will happen when Mandela dies and his charisma fades gradually away. Palestine does not have a unifying Mandela figure. Nor does it have a sense of unifying statehood. The Israelis have a concept of state that is exclusively Jewish. It is not inclusive. And the Palestinians are - perhaps in response to that - developing their own concept of state that is also exclusive. Therefore it is difficult to envisage any other solution than a two-state solution. A state with a majority of Palestinians would scare the wits out of the Israelis. For a viable state with both peoples to function it would take a lot of trust building on both sides. - And probably a lot of downsizing of religious sentiments too.
Cosmic,
I agree with some aspects of your analysis and disagree on some.
Palestinian society is the most secularized society in the Arab world, even more secular than Israel, Hamas is just a product of years of frustrations and misery and Hamas was running Palestinin civil society while Fatah was busy rerouting the construction and aid money into the pockets of few. Palestine is no Saudi Arabia and no Egypt when it comes to fundamentalism.
My position is a moral position. if you assume that the two states will go on quarelling then citizens with high moral values can impose a one state solution on both sides. I believe in moral values, I believ in peceful resistance and protests to bring down tyranny and I believe in civil society. I don't believe in Politics and Politicians.
In ancient grece, politics used to represent the higher order of morality in a society, it is not the case today. Today Politics has no morality so you have to turn to citizens and individuals.
Also, a one-state solution (bi-national or other) fills the Jews with fear of the demographic nightmare of becoming a minority, which would signal the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
Ironically, this could even lead to a "breed for a majority" population explosion on the Palestinian side with further incentivated mass Jewish immigration by diaspora Jews from around the globe.
Sophia.
I agree with you on your ideal view of politics, and how the citizens of a state (polity) ought to be ruled by their inner convictions and republican values. That is the way to make a secular society work. And you're probably also correct in your view of the Palestinians as rather secularized individuals. That is probably one of the reasons why the reactionary regimes in the ME fear the consequences of a successful outcome of the democratic process they're going through.
What I fear is the ever-present reality, the workings of difficult economic processes, where differences between the two peoples is very big. The Israelis are running a first world economy that is integrated in the Western globalised economy. The Palestinians are not. If you combine them in one state it's difficult to avoid a lot of tensions because of this diverse economic feature. Tensions will arise, and with all the imminent ethnic strife it may lead to clashes - and more worryingly processes of exclusion and marginalisation of the weak citizens.
I think you give the Palestinians a better chance of successful state building if you let them build their own national identity and statehood. Even though I find nationality to be a reactionary ideology in the modern world.
Cosmic,
''Even though I find nationality to be a reactionary ideology in the modern world.''
I agree but I would replace 'nationality' by nationalisms. I think the resurgence of nationalisms and in a way fundamentalisms has to do with the loss of identity which resulted from rapid and massive globalization.
But again this is not the case of Israel. Actually israel is profiting from the resurgence of fundamentalisms because they make its case. Did you notice that during the cartoon row, those who were defending Muslims reactions to offense were jewish groups evrywhere in the world including Israel.
Gert,
''Israel will never relinquish its ambition to be a Jewish state, first and foremost.'' True but then again we are talking here about the state and not about citizens.
I think the picture you are painting of a one state solution is somehow apocalyptic and if I did not know some of your opinions through your blog I may could have believed that the picture was painted by a pro-zionist.
You're right. I actually meant nationalism.
In a way "nationalism" is a poor word in this context. It is perhaps more accurate to say that the key word is some kind of identity derived from a distinct historical heritage. And that goes for both peoples. On top of that come some economic differences that are perhaps more important.
Post a Comment