One-state awakening (wants Geneva, okw/single-state w/ regional autonomy)

[papau]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/370673.html

One-state awakening

By Peter Hirschberg
<snip>

His own history certainly makes for textbook Zionist reading. But something has happened to Daniel Gavron. The momentous ideological shift he has experienced since the start of the intifada is not immediately evident when you read his latest book, "The Other Side of Despair: Jews and Arabs in the Promised Land" (Rowman & Littlefield), which appeared in bookshops in mid-November. The first chapter lays out the historical background to the Middle East conflict, with the next six providing an engaging, if not novel, attempt to understand the violence through the deftly woven portraits of 16 Israelis and Palestinians. These include Eliav, Nasser Eddin Nashashibi, an elder of one of the dominant Palestinian clans, former finance minister Avraham "Beiga" Shohat, Palestinian civil rights lawyer Jonathan Kuttab, as well as Palestinian militants, Jewish settlers, bereaved parents on both sides, and Israel Defense Forces soldiers, one of whom refused to serve in the territories. But these chapters contain only a few vague hints of the heretical conclusion - for a life-long, traditional Zionist, that is - that Gavron has reached and which he presents to his unsuspecting readers in the book's eighth and final chapter: After 55 years of Jewish sovereignty, the time has come to dissolve the Jewish state and establish, in its place, a single Israeli-Palestinian state. <snip>

The penalty for succumbing to the settlers' single-minded pursuit of Greater Israel, Gavron writes, is the dissolution of the Jewish state. "Many Israelis, and other Jews, will argue that historic justice demands a Jewish state. They will insist that, particularly after centuries of horrendous Jewish suffering culminating in the Holocaust, there should be one place on Earth where the Jews can exercise their natural right to sovereignty. They are absolutely right, but, unfortunately, given the choice between sovereignty and land, we chose land. We have manifestly preferred settlement in the whole Land of Israel to a state of Israel in part of the land. It is irrelevant that the settlers are a small minority. The rest of us have permitted them to do what they wanted." <snip>


On the issue of citizenship, Gavron offers Jews and Palestinians a trade-off: Jews will agree to annul the Law of Return and Palestinians will forgo their insistence on the right of return. Anyone who wants to become a citizen of the new state will have to undergo a naturalization process akin to that in other Western countries.Hebrew, Arabic and English - "the language in which most Israeli-Palestinian dialogues are held," writes Gavron - can all be official languages. Since Israel and Palestine will both be mutually unacceptable names for the new country, he proposes the "state of Jerusalem," "Yerushalayim" in Hebrew, "Ursalim al-Kuds" in Arabic.

Finally, Gavron suggests a governing structure that would allow maximum ethnic, religious, cultural and educational autonomy for the communities that will comprise the state of Jerusalem. "Apart from the Muslim Arabs and the secular Jews, this autonomy can be granted to communities, such as the ultra-Orthodox Jews with their special requirements. It will also solve the problems of the various Christian communities in the country. These include the Arab Christians, the significant number of Christians who have arrived from the former Soviet Union in the past decade, and the large community of foreign workers who have come in the same period." <snip>

[Resistance]

1. Thanks for posting

There is alot here that I disagree with Gavron on, but, for one, he is absolutely right on when he says "put up or shut up. If you want a two-state solution, then let's go ahead and do it." I really like that quote.

I think he is flatly wrong about several items (such as believing that Palestinians started the violence of the 2nd intifada -- the facts disprove this), and frankly it seems that he harbors a bit of mild racism (when he says they (Palestinians) are far more democratic than any other Arabs), but then again, I can see that he shouldn't be too faulted for being blinded by nationalism and other fears; many of us are, and besides, you can tell this guy seeks a just solution for everyone involved.

I do think several conclusions here are worth very serious consideration. For one, he says "If we create a society in which there are equal rights, democracy, the chance for education and for creativity and self-expression, there's absolutely no reason why a very reasonable, enlightened society won't emerge here." To that I say, Bravo! What a truly progressive outlook. Also, he wants to "ensure full human rights for everybody" -- that's great.

I am glad to hear of people like this, who reject the barbarism of today and really seek just solutions for all. I propose to throw out the current planners, team this guy up with a Palestinian moderate (Hanan Ashrawi maybe?) and let them work out the details.

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. The binational fantasy

Every other day someone posts something that says, "Wow, let's make one state." We debate it a bit and the world moves on.

A binational state is a fantasy -- and not a very good one.

As for, "put up or shut up." "If the Palestinians want to stop terror, then let's go ahead and do it."

[Resistance]

3. yeah what an idealist dream huh

All that people working for a better world stuff, is really for the birds. Let's just move on from a silly fantasy.

By the way, you forgot to add (as usual): If the Israelis want to stop terror, then let's go ahead and do it.

[bemildred]

4. The NY Times reports that it's real enough to

cause some turbulence within Likud:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=38643

[Lithos]

5. Locking

Per I/P guidelines:

# The subject heading for threads must contain the title of the source article. The only exception is when you must shorten long titles or to make the subject of the article more clear.
# Editorializations and comments are to be saved for the Message body and must be separate and distinct from the text of the article.

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground