I've changed my mind about a two-state solution

[Violet_Crumble]

Israel's Palestinian settlements are now too extensive to make division of the land practical. Instead, it must be shared

Mehdi Hasan
guardian.co.uk
Thursday 31 December 2009 12.30 GMT

OK, I admit it. I was wrong. How could I have bought into all that idealistic nonsense at the start of the decade, about the prospects for Middle East peace? Why did I foolishly assume that Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat had shattered taboos at Camp David in the summer of 2000? And why did I want so desperately to believe the two sides when they claimed, at Taba, in January 2001, that "significant progress had been made" and they had "never been closer to agreement"?

Perhaps the heady optimism of the 90s had seduced me. That was the decade of hope; of the Madrid conference, the Oslo accords and the historic handshake on the White House lawn. During his first stint as Israeli prime minister in the late 90s, even uber-hawk Binyamin Netanyahu agreed to territorial withdrawals at the Wye River summit.

That was then, this is now. Palestinians and Israelis remain locked in conflict. Netanyahu has returned to office, 10 years on, speaking only of a demilitarised Palestinian state and refusing even to consider allowing East Jerusalem as its capital. His far-right foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who lives in an illegal West Bank settlement, has long been opposed to meaningful peace talks with the Palestinians. A decade that began with Bill Clinton bringing together Arafat and Barak to attempt to conclude the Oslo process, at Camp David, has ended with Barack Obama unable to persuade the government of Netanyahu and Lieberman to agree to a partial settlement freeze. On Monday, the Israeli housing ministry announced plans to build nearly 700 new apartments in occupied East Jerusalem.

It is time to acknowledge that the peace process, as we know it, is dead. There is no longer a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Why? Because, as Virginia Tulley wrote in the London Review of Books, "the conditions for an independent Palestinian state have been killed off by the inexorable and irreversible advance of the settlements". Or, to borrow an analogy from Palestinian lawyer Michael Tarazi: "It's like you and I are negotiating over a piece of pizza. How much of the pizza do I get? And how much do you get? And while we are negotiating it, you are eating it."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/31/goodbye-noughties-two-state-solution

[thereismore]

1. Hardliner Avigdor Lieberman. Any relationship? nt

[TheWraith]

3. To Joe Lieberman, you mean? No. nt

[thereismore]

2. A sober assessment. Israel has been taking for so long, however. It is difficult

to imagine that a spoiled, belligerent child will ever learn to share.

[damntexdem]

4. Given that Isreali hardliners have rendered a two-state solution so untenable ...

how will they render equal rights in one state? Aren't they more likely to opt for continuation of apartheid, or for genocide? Where can optimism be drawn for a one-state solution?

No, I don't have an answer, just the questions.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

5. Point of correction: it's not "hardliners." EVERY Israeli gov't since 1967 has expanded

settlements in the WB. This is not a right-wing phenom. It's a Zionist phenom.

[LeftishBrit]

6. I can't see either Israeli or Palestinian hardliners making this work

Long-term civil war would result. If they can't manage two states, they certainly can't manage one at this stage - at best, it would be like Lebanon.

Maybe one day - but at present, two states is the only possible solution.

Somebody bang Netanyahu's, Lieberman's, Haniyeh's, Meshaal's, and if necessary Abbas's heads together until they come up with a solution!

[Violet_Crumble]

8. The thing I that I agree with the OP that it's no longer a solution...

Israel has gone out of its way to ensure that it isn't, what with the way it insists on expanding settlements and playing the Facts On The Ground game...

[azurnoir]

12. Agreed

But just who in your opinion has the "moral high-ground" to do that?

[LeftishBrit]

13. It's not so much who has the moral high ground in this case. as who has influence on both sides

Which in practice means that either America or the UN or both needs to get tough with BOTH sides. Since in the past, America has tended automatically to side with/use Israel, and the UN automatically to side against it, this requires some changes.

[shira]

28. that would include getting tough with 3rd parties like Iran as well, good luck with that one

Iran has great influence on Hamas and Hizbullah and will not abide by any 2 state solution.

Don't underestimate Iran's influence on Fatah as well.....if Fatah doesn't play along with Iran and pretend to be as tough and nasty as Hamas, they stand to lose while Hamas gains. And then there's influence from Saudi Arabia, Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood, ... this goes WAY beyond Israel and Palestine.

So who really has the power to influence all parties here?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. It's getting very offensive how you broadbrush those who support the Palestinian cause...

As with those who identify as supporters of Israel, there's a multitude of stances and it's not like you make out where they all think the same way. I know of quite a few people who support one binational and democratic state with equal rights for all citizens, and for you to call them bigoted scum and equate them with extremist settlers who openly advocate ethnic cleansing is offensive and not true at all. It's the terms *democratic* , *binational* and *equal rights* that should tip you off to the blatantly obvious fact that they don't want the removal/destruction/or subjugation of anyone, and the comments you've made in this post are every bit as ridiculous as those who insist that Israel and its fanbase are supporters of genocide....

[Behind the Aegis]

20. Learn the use of quotes or "dits" as you call them.

BTW....stop trying to speak for me, you do a PISS POOR job!

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Thanks for yr concern but I manage just fine...

btw, replying to yr post isn't speaking for you. I've pointed out how stupid it is to broadbrush pro-Palestinian supporters the way you did.

[Behind the Aegis]

23. And, I have pointed out how you are speaking for me.

This means, saying things I didn't say...

ETA...PS...noticed you left out one group...bias on your part? Never?! :rofl:

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Pointing out you broadbrushed people is not speaking for you...

The only person in this thread who has broadbrushed people is you, bta. Any chance that you might want to address what I said in my initial response to you? Y'know, the bit where you said that really ugly and untrue stuff about everyone who supports a single binational state?

[Behind the Aegis]

25. Damn, I "eta" after you posted.

Anyway, you are wrong, as usual, but I don't expect flowers or an apology. Again, learn the use of quotes.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

27. or the bogus 2-state that includes full RoR, as this author wrote about in 2001

meaning one Palestinian state in the territories, and another Palestinian majority state within the green line.

He's always been for 2 states, both Palestinian....or one state that's majority Arab/Palestinian.

Ain't it cool being a pro-Palestinian troll, faux peace activist? :)

[shira]

7. this article is BS.....Olmert just offered in 2008 a better deal than Barak did in 2000

Settlements still take up less than 2% of W.Bank land, just as they did in 2000 around a decade ago. It's a bald-faced lie to claim that settlements are expanding well beyond the area allocated for settlements the past 15 years.

The author should demand reasons for Abbas rejecting Olmert's offer from 2008, and he's full of shit to say he's changed his mind. It's more likely he was never really for 2 states in the first place.

ETA
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mehdihasan1.html

That article by the same author shows in 2001 he was for full right of return, meaning he has been a one-state advocate all along.

What a lying POS.

The OP is a piece of drek that has no business being on a liberal board.

[Mosby]

9. This is DU

not a liberal board. So I guess it's OK here.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. DU is a board for liberals...

I don't know where you get the idea it isn't. Unless yr talking about the way a few supporters of the occupation who are bigoted against Arabs and Muslims are allowed to continue posting here?

[shira]

11. true that

[Kurska]

15. Oh boy civil war.

Lets declare peace impossible and start marching towards that, idiot.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. That is a desirable result for many.

Short of an all out war against Israel, there is only way now in which to destroy it: one-state. There are many "pro-Palestinians" that have no desire for peace, only the destruction of Israel, their true mission. It is the only way they can now perceive to rid the Middle East of Jews, or at least control them.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Since when have you become spokesperson for 'many "pro-Palestinians"'?

What a totally ridiculous and ugly thing to claim that many supporters of Palestinian self-determination want to rid the Middle East of Jews. Coming to the conclusion that a two-state solution is no longer possible thanks to Israel continuing to expand settlements is not a conclusion that's antisemitic at all. Yr way of thinking means that you must think that extremist settlers and those 'supporters' of Israel that are opposed to a Palestinian state are also antisemitic...

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

45. The best way to destroy Israel is to keep doing what the Israeli government IS DOING

Continuing to build the illegal settlements. Continuing to take every inch of West Bank land that is of any value. Continuing to do everything possible to make a Palestinian state impossible. Continuing with the arrogant project of "creating facts on the ground".

Those who don't want Israel to be destroyed have an obligation to do everything possible to make a REAL two-state solution happen. That includes a permanent settlment freeze, dismantlement NOW of as many settlements as possible, and compensation to the people of the West Bank for all that's been taken from them.

Nobody in the current Israeli political leadership can honestly say that they are working towards a two-state solution. All those leaders of the various parties(with the possible exception of Meretz, which is out of the game at the moment for not being sufficiently zealous in the defense of collective punishment)are focused solely on CRUSHING the Palestinians. Not just Fatah, not just Hamas, but ALL Palestinians. All it's about is "winning". Even though "winning" on the battlefield is no longer of any use, since the Palestinian people will never accept an end of the conflict that is, essentially, surrender on Likudnik terms.

Those who want the two-state solution have an obligation to give up being hawks, since the hawk parties have never really wanted it.

[Ken Burch]

46. It's bullshit to equate support of a one-state solution with support of a Judenrein Middle East

Palestinians are not, and never have been, the moral equivalent of Nazis. And it's certainly absurd to imply that the large and growing number of Jewish supporters of a one-state solution would want that. Obviously, they want those who identify as "Israeli" to stay. They just want it to treat Palestinians as equals and to stop stealing its land.


(And, as a point of clarification, I don't support the one-state model myself. At this point, neither community is ready for it. But its wrong to equate support of it with a desire to drive all Jews out of the lands of the Mandate. It isn't, and it never has been.)

[Violet_Crumble]

17. No, that's not what the guy wrote at all...

I think you need to reread the article...

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. is it still plausible that the majority of the nearly half-million settlers in the West Bank

and East Jerusalem, along with the infrastructure that supports them, will be removed so that a viable and genuinely contiguous and genuinely independent Palestinian state - the two-state solution - is even physically possible? Is it realistic given the on-the-ground realities and the realities of Israeli politics and how it actually works - given the clout held by the settlers - now close to half a million of them. Without this removal there will be a disjointed series of disconnected cantons - not a viable two-state solution.

I supported the two-state solution since the early 80's because it appeared plausible and possible. But is it still plausible and possible?

I don't know. I will say, that some of the most vehement supporters of Palestinian solidarity, ranging from Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Shlomo Sand, and Uri Avnery still strongly maintain that it is not only possible - it is the only realistic approach and that this is no time to waist effort advocating the one-state solution - and that doing so is counterproductive. But are they right?

I honestly and sincerely don't know. But it is a legitimate question to ponder.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. I really don't know at what point it gets to the point of no return...

...but it's become very clear that Israel has no intention of removing settlements and is busy creating more and more facts on the ground. While I support one binational, democratic state on an idealistic level as being the fairest solution, I'm aware that currently the majority of Palestinians and Israelis support a two-state solution, and the pragmatist side of me wins out and supports that while there's majority support from both populations for it.

I have gotten very cynical about the cries of supporting a two-state solution, given that some of those supporters are not supporting Israel returning to the green line or removing any settlements, but are supporting a broken up series of bantustans where there is no semblance of an independent and sovereign state at all...

[Behind the Aegis]

31. "contiguous "

How can a Palestinian state be contiguous? Did you forget Gaza? Does it have to be "contiguous?"

What about a land-swap?

The only "one state" solution is to continue war and would eventually involve the destruction of Israel. Is that the real desire?

[shira]

32. they're still claiming "bantustans" given what Olmert just proposed in 2008 in this very map

http://www.haaretz.com/hasite/images/iht_daily/D171209/olmertmap.pdf

which BTW proves that the author's point in the OP is complete bullshit.

oh yeah, remember that both trolls will not be able to 'see' the link to this map, so do with this info as you will.....but it is funny when they trot out the propaganda map which shows the W.Bank as a buch of islands in a sea of settlements. Gotta love the 'peaceful' and 'progressive' Hamas propaganda here peddled at the DU.

[azurnoir]

50. "They". "trolls" just whom do you mean Shira?

now I have used the term "truthiness troll" to describe the kind of poster who will create a diversionary or OT subthread on one point plucked from a post and IMO falsely claimed was stated as fact is that the kind of troll you mean?

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. I agree that a land swap for some areas close to the green line in exchange for a

Gaza corridor would probably be a good idea in the two-state solution.

As it stands now - the settlements and their infrastructure would dissect the West Bank into multiple cantons and largely dissect East Jerusalem from the West Bank,

So, a certain amount of land swap would be rational. But independence and continuity would still require the removal of the vast majority of settlers - I cannot imagine achieving that any other way - under the two-state solution.

As long as the two-state solution is the consensus of the Palestinians, the international community and the solidarity movements - I will support it. But it remains a legitimate question to ask if it is plausible and possible.

I admit that a binational state where respective communities manage their own affairs - under the umbrella of a single democratic state for all of its citizens sounds like an utopian dream at this point in time. But if the two-state solution is or becomes completely implausible - the binational solution may become the only pragmatic option left.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/728a69d4-12b1-11dc-a475-000b5df10621,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F728a69d4-12b1-11dc-a475-000b5df10621.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2Fdiscuss%2Fdu

There are approximately 450,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, (*now closer to 500,000) including East Jerusalem. According to B'tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights, " the built-up area of the settlements in the West Bank covers 1.7 percent of the West Bank, the settlements control 41.9 percent of the entire West Bank".*

http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp

full PDF map:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/Settlements_Map_Eng.pdf

"“ there is no Palestinian state, even though the Israelis speak of one.” Instead, he said, “there will be a settler state and a Palestinian built-up area, divided into three sectors, cut by fingers of Israeli settlement and connected only by narrow roads."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/world/middleeast/11road.html?_r=12&pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=22948d4799a34065&ex=1187496000&emc=eta1&oref

[shira]

34. LOL...and there it is! The bogus map of bantustans and cantons! Right on cue!!!

Hey Doug, get with the program! Olmert just proposed this map last year...
http://www.haaretz.com/hasite/images/iht_daily/D171209/olmertmap.pdf

Who created your map?

The cartoon network?

[Ken Burch]

47. There'd be a corridor.

What was clearly MEANT was that the West Bank portion of the state would have to be contiguous. This isn't that much to ask. The settlements are not only an injustice to the Palestinians, they're a danger to the democratic character of Israel, as they inculcate a religious/fascist message which is a threat to Israeli democracy, and they are a physical danger to the other Israelis who, as IDF troops, must defend the settlers when they provoke violent confrontations(often through land theft)with the Palestinians.

There's no sane reason for anyone who identifies as "pro-Israel" to defend the West Bank/East Jerusalem settlements. They bring nothing positive to Israel in their existence and through their continued illegal expansion.

[Taitertots]

35. The one state solution is pure fantasy

There are two groups of people with mutually exclusive goals. Islamic government and Jewish government.

Right of return is a similar fantasy. Who is going to return, almost all the people from the original exodus died years ago. So it should be called the right to invade, or the right to enter. After all, anyone under 60 wasn't even alive at the time.

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. actually polls show that only a very tiny percentage of Palestinians support an Islamic state

here is one poll - it is a little bit dated - but similar findings of a variety of polls report much the same:

Some believe that a two-state formula is the favored solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict, while others believe that historic Palestine can't be divided and thus the favored solution is a bi-national state on all of Palestine where Palestinians and Israelis enjoy equal representation and rights. Which of these solutions do you prefer?

Two-state solution: an Israeli state and a Palestinian state
51.1

Bi-national state on all of historic Palestine with equal rights and equal representation
30.0%

One Palestinian state
9.8%

No solution
5.4%

Islamic state
2.3%

Others
0.5%

Don't know / No answer
0.9%

.

Source: Jerusalem Media & Communication Center
Methodology: Interviews with 1,199 adults in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, conducted from Aug. 16 to Aug. 20, 2007. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/more_palestinians_favour_two_state_solution

[Taitertots]

37. Strange that Gaza elects Hamas

And hezbollah has strong support in the west bank.

For a people supposedly against Islamic governments they sure can't get enough of that radical islam.

[azurnoir]

38. I think you may need to check those facts

Hezbollah is in Lebanon not the WB, and Gaza did not elect Hamas as its ruling party

[Taitertots]

42. I had to edit that

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. Hezbollah is in Lebanon. Fatah - secularist national party is the dominant party in the West Bank

It is clear that most people who voted for Hamas do not support an Islamic state - there was lot of frustration with the situation and with Fatah for a number of reasons -

[Taitertots]

43. I edited that

Hamas is an Islamic organization. I'm pretty sure the name means they are an islamic revolutionary group. People who don't want an islamic government don't vote for a group whose name explicitly states they for an islamic government.

[Douglas Carpenter]

44. Hamas presented a viable opposition to Fatah

People where utterly frustrated at the lack of progress as well as the corruption within Fatah which was also seen as having become distant from the common people. Also Hamas had and still has a large network of schools, clinics and social services.

Not long ago, Islamist parties were small and marginal. In those days, not so long ago, secular leftist parties - many distinctly pro-Soviet channeled the frustration of the completely downtrodden and oppressed and other wise voiceless.

With the failure of Marxist parties to put together something viable - Islamist parties have frequently become the channel of frustration.

But just as most people who supported Communist Parties - which were particularly strong among the Palestinian Christian minority - did not want to actually live under Soviet style Communism in a Communist state - many of those who support Islamist parties have no desire to live under a strict Islamist state. They are supporting a voice for their frustrations - one that also runs an extensive network of schools, clinics and social services. Again the evidence shows that support for an actual Islamist state in Palestine is still small and marginal.

[Taitertots]

48. Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Were they an alternative because they had strong support or did they get strong suport because they were a viable alternative?

The strongest evidence remain. They had a poll of everyone, it is called an election.

[LeftishBrit]

40. The West Bank doesn't have an Islamic government...

and certainly not Hezbollah - that's in Lebanon.

[Taitertots]

41. Yeah, I messed that up

I was being rushed and had to finish that very quickly.

My intention was to emphasize the poplar support for islamic extremism in the region.

[aranthus]

49. Has anyone found a public statement by Hasan in favor of the two state solution?

I was just wondering if he really had changed his mind or if this was just an affectation.

[azurnoir]

51. Medhi Hasan does not much comment about Palestine

as he is a Pakistani-Brit but while I have not seen him declare loudly that he was in favor of a 2 state solution at least one of his recent articles would seem to indicate that

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2009/08/palestinian-mandela-gandhi

also if your genuinely interested in Mr Hasan's views you can find them here

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/mehdihasan

[aranthus]

52. I agree. That's why I asked the question.

If it had been someone else, I probably would have assumed that they really didn't want a two state solution in the first place. From the writings of Hasan that I have seen, that isn't necessarily him. However, as you point out, it's not a big subject for him either.