Qaddafi, Isratine and the one state solution in NYT op-ed
Read it here.
An excerpt:
Assimilation is already a fact of life in Israel. There are more than one million Muslim Arabs in Israel; they possess Israeli nationality and take part in political life with the Jews, forming political parties. On the other side, there are Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Israeli factories depend on Palestinian labor, and goods and services are exchanged. This successful assimilation can be a model for Isratine.
If the present interdependence and the historical fact of Jewish-Palestinian coexistence guide their leaders, and if they can see beyond the horizon of the recent violence and thirst for revenge toward a long-term solution, then these two peoples will come to realize, I hope sooner rather than later, that living under one roof is the only option for a lasting peace.
Now – who has been urging, since this most recent conflict began, that people own up to what solution they want, why and how it would be implemented and function?
And pointing people to articles like this one about how Israel squanders the possibilities it has in the Israeli Arab population?
I know I’m supposed to want a two-state solution, but especially in regard to Israel, I often don’t want what people say I’m supposed to want. The only thing I know I want is for the violence, animosity and acculturation to conflict to end.
Let’s get this discussion of solutions going for goodness sake.
Cross-posted from Writes Like She Talks.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
4 Responses to “Qaddafi, Isratine and the one state solution in NYT op-ed”
You'd do well, instead of listening to men, to listen to Yahweh in your heart instead. It sounds like you have and are on the right course.
Pity Israelites will not do the same.. And here I thought Israel was all about judaism at its core. Silly me. It became immediately apparent, the ruse, when they bombed women and children on the Sabbath. No jew who knew The Ten Commandments would consider such a thing. Anyone calling themself a jew and doing that is doing just that….”calling” themself a jew but not actually being one.
And then of course there was the mandatory break for the US festivities… Do the math..
Sihouette – I'm not sure what your deal is, but here are my thoughts on what you wrote:
1. I don't pronounce or write God's name that way – if you know anything about Judaism, you probably know that. But if you didn't know, now you do.
2. You wrote, “here I thought Israel was all about judaism at its core.” If you think that, then it's no wonder you can't make sense of what's going on. It is precisely because Israel has a large number of secular Jews who are no different than the secular Jews around the world that makes it possible for a one state solution to not be entirely laughable – but it is very very frightening, nonetheless, to Jews around the world who are misunderstood and targeted just because of their ethnicity, culture and religious-affiliation.
3. Your assertion about bombing on the Sabbath? As really oxymoronic as it seems, the absolute prohibition you seem to think exists to such action on Sabbath is based on nothing that I know of in my religion. FYI, did you read about how Rahm Emanual asked about being able to be in Congress on the Saturday when they were dealing with the emergency bailout? He wanted to know if it was ok and his Orthodox rabbi said yes.
4. “mandatory break for the US festivities… Do the math..”?
Whatev.
i was overjoyed to see an op-ed titled “one state solution” on the Times' website today — but then i saw who had written it. one really has to wonder what the Times was doing, letting someone with such a bad reputation in the US write about such a sensible, democratic idea. were they trying to put it out there while discrediting it?
clearly, the conflict in israel-palestine is not about religion, but about ethnic-national colonialism. and unfortunately, unlike with south africa, the obvious solution (democracy and political integration) is likely to be obscured a lot longer by the knee-jerk obeisance of the US media to the concept of the “jewish state.” somehow, a state meant only for one ethnicity is odious in all contexts but this one. but with the two state solution having been ruined by israeli hardliners, US bumblers (clinton, etc), and feckless arab collaborators, this road is being piled with more and more obstacles.
there is another way: for israel to continue killing arabs, as it has done for decades. but these pointless exercises only point out this state's lack of legitimacy. hence, all that is left is for the israeli power structure to do what the whites in south africa did, and begin planning for a single state, with democratic rights for all.
i know, i know — the reaction i get from anyone i tell this to is the predictably cynical “but they hate each other!!” yeah, well, but let me ask you this: is their hate any more than that of white and black south africans for each other in 1990? no. to suggest otherwise is absurd. but leaders recognized reality, and got the job done. and for those who parrot the fact that hamas' charter calls for israel's destruction, i say, so what? the ANC's charter enclosed the statement “one settler, one bullet.” but guess what? it was the ANC that led negotiations.
people will hold on to their cynical notions of human nature up until the moment when there is really no choice. at that moment, hope becomes a tough necessity, not some fluffy irrelevant thing. there is hatred. but it is all a result of a bad situation and, most of all, lack of honest engagement.
Ratbert – I agree with some of what you write but interestingly, I find that I don't agree even with full sentences, just parts. I'm not sure if that says more about me or you or the complexity of the geopolitical web that is that part of the world, but it sure is a place that needs untangling.
A few thoughts:
1. Seeing Qaddafi's name actually made me more curious – but I had a roommate in college who spent many years growing up in Libya while he was in charge too – so – could be more that.
2. I agree about the conflict having more to do with nationalism and colonial history of occupation but I wouldn't discount religion completely – if anything that's become even more a part of it than perhaps it was in the past in part because of developments in both the Arab population AND the Israeli Jewish population.
3. The thing about a state meant for only one ethnicity – I think we have to be careful here – because there can be indigenous populations that are homogenous and thus be a country for one ethnicity. The issue in Israel and Gaza and the West Bank is that you have populations that have been expelled, conquered, returned, expelled again and so on.
4. I think that the hate by some in each of the populations is stronger than that in S. Africa, yes. And I don't think or see why you think that's absurd. What basis do you have for shucking aside what Hamas says about destroying Israel as being mere rhetoric?
5. I've lived there, I've met Israeli Arabs and been to the W. Bank and East Jerusalem. I've never in Gaza. I'd never considered a one state solution before and I understand the concerns by both populations for such a thing, but for me the most enduring solution will only be one in which all parties contribute – and that includes the Arab nations too.