Is Blaming “the 60 Years of Occupation” a Euphemism for “One-State Solution”?
I think it is, even though I think that at least some people who make that reference think to themselves that they are open to a two-state solution.
I’ve been writing about this need to press the debate about the Gaza-Israel conflict into an answer to the question, “One state or two”?” from the beginning, asking occupiers of cyberspace and real life to respond. I’ve gotten just a few direct responses so far, all but one for a two-state solution (one brought up the concept of a bi-national single state).
Finally, this morning, on WCPN’s Sound of Ideas, which you can listen to here, Nour Chammas, Executive Director, AACESS-Ohio (The Arab American Community Center for Economic and Social Services) said it. He specifically said that he supports a one-state solution and not a two-state solution.
But, long before he said that, he’d already tipped his hand because he used the words and description, as many have before him, of The Occupation. Not the 1967-2005 occupation by Israel of Gaza. Not the 1949-1967 occupation by Egypt of Gaza. Not the British occupation prior to 1949, or any other occupation in all of history.
No. Just The Occupation.
I posited this before and I’m saying it again: when you hear someone describe the current situation as having roots in The Occupation, realize that the next question you must ask is: do you support a one-state or a two-state solution. Because if they support a one-state solution, the next question is: what are your plans for the millions of residents of the entire “Occupied” land?
There are different answers. But this is where the conversation must go:
Is the speaker envisioning an Islamic state free not only of Jews, but of Druze, Christians, Bedouin and any other non-Shariah loving Semitic person?
or
Is the speaker envisioning a secular but bi-national state?
All of these options are actually ones that are formed already in the minds of people who talk about post-violent conflict options.
But only once the players make it known whether they want a single state or two states, and what those states would look like, can we start to see what the players’ real interests are. And, sadly, the players are not always the residents. That needs to be addressed as well.
And in case you think I’m a bit kooky about this, I’m actually not the only one pressing the question re: do you think in terms of one state or two – read more at News from Syria. Likewise, article such as this one indicate Hamas’ resolve, even if not that of the rest of the Gaza population, to frame all of its troubles and history to The Occupation:
Exiled Hamas leader Moussa Abou Marzouk said there will be no talks about a permanent cease-fire and that as long as there is an Israeli occupation, there will be resistance.
Marzouk spoke to The Associated Press Wednesday – one day after Egypt and France proposed a plan for ending the fighting in Gaza.
Abu Marzouk said Hamas received proposals from France, Turkey, Syria and Egypt to bring about a cease-fire.
Is there really any doubt that when he says, “Israeli occupation,” he means the last 60 years? And Britain before that? And all the other occupiers before that?
Finally, consider this interesting oped, Hamas has failed, it is time they stepped down,” written by an Abu Dhabi businessman, who also blogs, about how dysfunctional Hamas is. I don’t find it difficult to believe, although I do find the constant writing off of the Arab League, the EU, the GCC unbelievable.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
13 Responses to “Is Blaming “the 60 Years of Occupation” a Euphemism for “One-State Solution”?”
In the old days, it was simple: “Now push them into the sea” when not simply “Kill the Jews!”
Here's a brain-teaser:..
First, The Ten Commandments of the Old Testament, the highest law of the Torah handed by Yahweh Itself:
ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
**
Now this:
“Israeli warplanes continued to pound Hamas targets in Gaza on [FRIDAY] as the world waited to see whether Israel would launch a ground attack.” source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/02/israe…
So, to get this straight, Israelis, in the name of asserting their religious occupation of a land filled with relics that they worship [as replicas of the unfathomable Yahweh] as part of their “faith”, carved from the land itself, like the Wailing Wall, are coveting land in the Gaza Strip and murdering people on the Sabbath.
Hmmm…I'm thinking “conflict of interest”. Anyone else getting that?
Silhouette, isn't the Torah and the Old Testament part of Muslim and Christian teaching too? What's the other aggressors' excuses, around the world? This angle doesn't work for me at all.
That said – are you a one-state or a two state person?
Other aggressors have no excuse either. We're supposed to be behind Israel for their great example of faith. Breaking Four of the Ten Commandments is hardly something to get behind.
I could give a fig about states. I'm more into Devine Law and the shady reasons behind why the Israelites are boldly and blatantly defying it right on the heels of Bushco leaving office..having tried like crazy to get excuses to invade Iran…
Here:
*****
US 'escalates covert Iran missions'
Monday, June 30, 2008 :
US congressional leaders have agreed to a presidential request for up to $400 million in funding for covert operations against Iran, according to a report in the New Yorker magazine.
Previous cross-border operations have included the capture of Iranian security officers and the backing of anti-Tehran armed groups, said the report by Seymour Hersh, the investigative reporter.
The operations have been taking place since last year, the article said.
Bush's request, made through a Presidential Finding document, was approved by US congressional leaders, including Democrats, late last year, the report said.
Cross-border US operations against Iran include seizing members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and taking them across the border to Iraq for interrogation, the report said.
But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which include the CIA, have now been significantly expanded, the New Yorker said, citing current and former officials.
Source: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/06/30/185…
*****
Now do the math as to why we, um excuse me, I mean “Israel” is stirring up crap in the Middle East right on the heels of Bushco leaving office. It isn't hard..just say it with me… “One plus one equals two.”
Jill, I wonder if a third solution might gain traction. Like the status of Native Americans in the US, Gaza and the West Bank could become autonomous, even sovereign, regions, while still being under Israeli law as well. Why would this make sense? First, Israel doesn't “lose” land as their border still includes these regions. Second, Israeli law could prevent the Palestinian authorities from imposing sharia law on the minority populations of those regions.
But, I'm evading your question. Of the two options you present, I think only the two state solution will solve the dilemma. Israel will never enjoy peace in Gaza or the West Bank. Isn't it about time they gave up?
I think it's time The Hague stepped in…
And I'm not alone. Let's try us some war criminals…
Silhouette, your comments suggest more of a puppet role for Israel with the USA as puppet master. As I've pointed out here before, September 11 created for Israel a position of world dominance in the “homeland security” industry. Israel, having prospered greatly during the dot com, era, suffered greatly when the bubble burst. 9/11 was something of a godsend as Israel leveraged the perception that it was constantly at war with Arab terrorists into a multi-billion-dollar industry that pushes security state products all over the world. (“Let us help you. We're the experts at kicking Arab butt.”)
Thus, it is in Israel's commercial interest to keep conflict against “terrorists” in the forefront and on the front page, before cooler heads prevail in Washington. However, there's no excuse for letting Palestinians off the hook. Islamic extremists also have a personal interest in further conflict. I think both sides are grasping for the opportunity to have the last big PR push before Bush, the fear and smear King, slithers out of town.
Can we start with Donald Rumsfeld?
Silhouette – obviously just my opinion, but I read what you express as being a patently and unnecessarily and obstructively narrow interpretation of what's going on. But that's just my opinion.
Green Dreams – I really appreciate the effort at addressing the question – a third possibility isn't unwelcome.
I've been doing even more reading on the one-state, two-state solution options and I've written a lengthy post here about it:
http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/2009/01/08/ga…
But basically, again, depending on how someone frames how they see occupation, how that is going to be “solved” varies, but it also varies with the degree to which a secular state is acceptable. I believe there are a lot of hopeful people – peaceful people – around the world. But I also think there is a lot of rage – much of it justified. Sadly, behaving enraged doesn't do much to solve the cause of the rage in the first place. I feel like that's what we need to focus on.
There is one word that above all else, even terrorism, stands in front of the peace process, saying “No farther!”. That word is settlements.
Jim – I agree with you there. I've always had trouble with them.