Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumAIPAC, Israel, and the Hypocritical Claim of Backing a Two-State Solution
by Peter Beinart Mar 5, 2012 4:45 AM EST
It was a big weekend for Israel conferences. In Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its annual policy conference. At Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, a 27-year-old student from the Gaza Strip named Ahmed Moor organized a conference on the “one-state solution”: the idea that the Jewish state of Israel should be replaced with one ostensibly secular, binational state encompassing Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.
Barack Obama attended the AIPAC conference, along with dozens if not hundreds of members of Congress. Moor’s conference, by contrast, was a political leper. Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown urged Harvard to cancel it. Prominent Harvard donors reportedly threatened to cancel gifts. Harvard’s president expressed her “deep concern” about the event; the Kennedy School’s dean declared himself “deeply disappointed.”
What makes the AIPAC conference so laudable and its Kennedy School cousin so revolting? On the surface, the answer is obvious: AIPAC believes in two states, while Moor’s allies believe in one. Sounds like a reasonable distinction, especially if you—like me—believe in a democratic Jewish state alongside a democratic Palestinian one. And indeed, on its homepage, AIPAC endorses something similar: “a negotiated two-state solution—a Jewish state of Israel and a demilitarized Palestinian state.”
But the closer you look, the blurrier the distinction between the two conferences becomes. According to David Ellwood, the Kennedy School’s dean, not all the speakers at Moor’s conference actually support one state. And a peek at the AIPAC roster suggests that not all its speakers support two states. On Tuesday morning, for instance, AIPAC will hear from Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, who declared last November, “All the people that live in the West Bank are Israelis. There are not Palestinians. There is no Palestinian. This is Israeli land.” Certainly sounds like a one-state perspective to me.
MORE...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/05/aipac-israel-and-the-hypocritical-claim-of-backing-a-two-state-solution.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)One just has to take one look at a map to realize that it is impossible. It might have been decades ago.
Israel, as the stronger party in the conflict, was in the position to implement a two-state solution. They could have, essentially, for a long time throughout the last century have said "this is yours, this is ours, live with it.". They failed to do so.
What happens now is a slow creep towards a one-state solution, that no one will officially call that, right up until the point where a large number of people without autonomy or citizen's rights are living on "Israel soil". At some point they will gain citizen's rights. It may well take a few more decades though.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... they probably shouldn't have held out for unlimited right of return, a Jew-free Jerusalem and indefensible Israeli borders.
It isn't Israeli power that prevents a Palestinian State, it's this insane fantasy the Arab Leadership has peddled (and the Palestinian People have bought) that if they just hold out long enough, all the Jews will just disappear and leave all their infrastructure behind.
I really hate to see what's left of their homeland dreams when and if they EVER learn that isn't going to happen.
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)Neither group will ever have state that is free of the other.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... has isn't asking for an Arab-free state, has NEVER asked for an Arab-free state, and currently has an Arab population of over 20%. Palestinians, on the other hand, are demanding a Jew-free state for themselves.
See the difference?
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)Since there is, as you say, an Arab population of 20% in Israel, that idea never went into effect. Nor will it ever. That is what I am saying. Furthermore, there simply isn't the territory for an independent Palestinean state today. Bottom line: Jews aren't going away. Arabs aren't either.
shira
(30,109 posts)The map looks almost identical now as it did when Oslo started back in the early to mid 90's. Israel decided not to build any new settlements from about 1995 onward. That was a goodwill gesture b/c Oslo never called for that. Israel has built within settlement blocks, but still maps from almost 20 years ago compared to now look virtually the same.
The claim about settlements eating up significantly more land since Oslo or the mid 90's is propaganda. Hardly anything has changed since Barak and his cabinet accepted the Clinton Initiatives of 2000. Whatever change that has occured since is so miniscule as to have zero effect WRT land and swaps.
Ask yourself why the "desperate" Palestinian leadership decided to respond to the Clinton Initiatives without offering a decent counter-proposal in return. Their response was Intifada 2. If they felt the Clinton Parameters was a raw deal, they should have made clear what they could live with.
In fact, Arafat later said he regretted turning down the Clinton Parameters...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/22/israel
The settlements and occupation could have been over and done with 11 years ago. There could be 2 states right now. It's not Israel's fault that isn't so. Understand that Hamas and the PLO believe they will eventually win everything with the rest of the Arab world behind them. They won't give up. That's why they keep rejecting offers without countering with anything reasonable.
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)All I am saying is that I do not believe there ever will be two states.
shira
(30,109 posts)In the posts above, you attributed all the blame to Israel and zero blame to the Palestinian side.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)There will be much gnashing of teeth over these statements, but I don't see how anything you've said can actually be contradicted.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)I'd say most of it is easily contradicted. Especially the part about this having being entirely within Israel's control. Until the late 80's no one would have thought that a two state solution like this would have made sense. Remember, up until then all of these Palestinians in the west bank were citizens of an entirely separate country. Israel could have given the west bank to them, sure, but then it would just belong to Jordan since that WAS their state up until then.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)a two-state solution. Even you should be admitting they were wrong to do that, since the price of Arab recognition of Israel always HAD to be Palestinian state comprising the West Bank and Gaza.
shira
(30,109 posts)What, pray tell, could Israel give the PLO back then for peace? They weren't even at peace with Jordan then.
Be clear.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)the Palestinians were Jordanian citizens in name only as they were under Israeli military control
in 1988 Jordan 'gave' the Palestinians the West Bank and took their Jordanian citizenship albeit should be noted that almost 1/2 of Jordans current citizens are Palestinian
also on November 15 1988 the UNGA declared Palestine a state
now as to your question Israel could have done this itself but chose not to, and rather began its efforts 'settle' the West Bank by populating it with Israeli citizens, and to more specific mostly if not entirely Israeli Jews
shira
(30,109 posts)...to Palestinians back in the mid 80's? Jordan didn't renounce claims to the West Bank until the late 80's. It's not that Palestinians were Jordanian citizens. That wasn't the problem. Israel would have had to make peace with Jordan first, otherwise if the Palestinians and Israelis did make a deal at that time, Jordan wouldn't have necessarily renounced all claims to the land. You're also assuming Arafat back then wouldn't be adamant about RoR and other key issues that would have resulted in what we've seen since Oslo.
Tell you what. Find for me evidence Jordan would have gone along with a Palestinian state in the West Bank and were calling for such prior to 1988. Show me where they were trying to broker a peace deal alongside the Palestinians, and that they were serious about it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And it wasn't like it was ONLY the PLO who wanted a Palestinian state. EVERY Palestinian wanted one. Not a one would ever have settled for Begin's insulting proposal of "autonomy"
which, of course, would have given Palestine about as much autonomy as China gives Tibet).
The point is...the Israeli government is being totally hypocritical when it attacks people for opposing a two-state solution...given that that government itself opposed such a solution and equated support for it to support for the destruction of Israel right up to Oslo.
Jesse Jackson was driven out of politics for supporting what Netanyahu claims to support now(but actually doesn't, since you CAN'T support a two-state solution AND keep expanding settlements).
shira
(30,109 posts)...is for the occupation to end. That the Palestinians wouldn't have to make peace. So with that "freedom" under Jordanian rule, peace would come.........never?
What about the fact that the PLO wanted what was INSIDE the green lines? Remember, Jordan had just kicked the PLO out of Jordan due to Black September before the PLO ended up in Lebanon. They weren't getting along so well. What makes you think Jordan wanted a destablizing Palestinian state across their borders? At least with Israel in control of the WB, Jordan knew they were safe, so long as they didn't stir up shit and send terrorists over the border to go up against the IDF.
Look at Sadat's example. He came to Israel, and announced very clearly before the Knesset that he wanted peace, and the Israelis jumped at the opportunity. Get it? Israel wants peace. They also jumped at Jordan's commitment to peace in 1994. Arafat would have never done that back in the mid 80's.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)"Jordan is Palestine" has been discredited for decades now. Give it a rest.
shira
(30,109 posts)...and completely tore your argument to shreds. You realize that and responded back with a typical kneejerk strawman.
Join reality. Your arguments here are ridiculous.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)She brought up the fact that Israel wasn't even at peace with Jordan in the mid 80s and back then Jordan still claimed the west bank AND its inhabitants as Jordanian. So what could Israel have given them to make peace with? What land? Not the west bank... it would have merely been reclaimed by Jordan. And what Palestinians was Israel supposed to make this two state solution FOR, exactly? The Gazans... and, who?... Palestinians living abroad? Because the west bank's inhabitants ALREADY belonged to an existing state. And the non-Jordanian Palestinians weren't demanding the west bank anyway, they wanted land that was inside of the green line back then.
Face it. There was no deal to be made.
shira
(30,109 posts)holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Wait, he wasn't driven out of politics because of
a) Two Presidential campaigns that were abysmal failures?
b) Being a pro-life Democrat?
c) Hymietown and saying that Jews ran the Nixon White House?
d) The only elected position he could ever win was the unpaid position of "Shadow Senator" for DC (apparently that's a thing)?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(blowing a 17-point lead by refusing to fight back against smear campaigns, as Dukakis did and had no excuse for doing, IS an abysmal failure...especially since we were told, over and over again "it HAS to be Dukakis...he's ELECTABLE" all through 1988).
And The "Hymietown" thing was just one meaningless word spoken by a tired guy at the end of the day. IT's trivial compared to Lyndon Johnson having to be taught how to say "Negro" I doubt Jesse actually said the Nixon thing). Furthermore, the "Hymietown" thing(which he shouldn't have said but which isn't that big a deal compared to what black people have had to endure from the white politicians they've supported over the years)was infinitesmally unimportant compared to Reagan's insistence on bullying the Senate into approving the sale of the AWACS surveillance planes to the Saudis...planes the Saudis used almost certainly, we can assume, to surveill Israeli defense installations).
Jesse's position on the I/P dispute was for two states...the position everybody, INCLUDING the Israelis, knew was the only realistic solution, yet it was the position that the Israeli government demonized as "anti-Israel" and the position that Israeli apologists insisted at the time was tantamount to antisemitism. They KNEW they were wrong to do that, and they did it anyway. It makes the currently stated Israeli government support for a two-state solution completely cynical and bogus. They should have accepted the need for two-states from the start, since they always knew it was going to be impossible to get peace and recognition from the Arab world without it.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it is becoming a dimmer hope as time goes on the population of Jewish settlements has grown from 1993(Oslo) 111,600 to 2009 304,569
This page was last modified on 5 March 2012 at 02:48.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#Demographics
taking this into account along with Israels inability/unwillingness to 'evacuate' settlements we are left to wonder. In reading though this thread I see Oslo being spoken of as though it was meant as a permanent land division, it was not, we also see the misleading claim of no new settlements but that does not take into account the growth of outposts nor does it explain the nearly 3 fold population increase in the population of Jewish settlers who are now nibbling away at area B
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=461439
given these factors along with other I have not listed here time is running out
shira
(30,109 posts)Olmert's 2008 offer included land swaps, 100% of the land area to Palestinians that existed prior to 1967, and contiguous land. What the hell makes you think things have changed so much since then?\
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)perhaps you've dug up something new?
but here is what we already know
Olmert himself said that Abbas did not refuse the offer
The current Israeli government said Israel was not willing to give up that much land
Netanyahu said he would not honor any deal that Olmert struck with the Palestinians
and finally part of that deal was that Hamas had to be removed from power prior to any part of it being implimented
did I miss anything?
shira
(30,109 posts)And of course, Abbas never attempted to publicize a reasonable counteroffer in response.
Also, why shouldn't Hamas have been removed prior to its implementation? I thought you were for a PEACEFUL 2 state solution. Are you? Or are you just for Israel ending the occupation, and nothing more than that?
See, in another post you asked why the Palestinian state needs to be demilitarized. But now you seem to be saying Hamas' removal isn't necessary. That Hamas "maybe" taking over a militarized Palestine is only a future prediction and nothing else. But it looks like now you would have been FOR that WRT Gaza.
Seriously, what kind of 2 state peace deal do you envision?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Peace Now, or Never
According to my offer, the territorial dispute would be solved by establishing a Palestinian state on territory equivalent in size to the pre-1967 West Bank and Gaza Strip with mutually agreed-upon land swaps that take into account the new realities on the ground.
The city of Jerusalem would be shared. Its Jewish areas would be the capital of Israel and its Arab neighborhoods would become the Palestinian capital. Neither side would declare sovereignty over the city’s holy places; they would be administered jointly with the assistance of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United States.
The Palestinian refugee problem would be addressed within the framework of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. The new Palestinian state would become the home of all the Palestinian refugees just as the state of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. Israel would, however, be prepared to absorb a small number of refugees on humanitarian grounds.
<snip>
These parameters were never formally rejected by Mr. Abbas, and they should be put on the table again today. Both Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu must then make brave and difficult decisions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/opinion/Olmert-peace-now-or-never.html
as to Hamas - they would if elections were held, be voted out of office
shira
(30,109 posts)So if the offer was somewhat appealing to Abbas, why not counter with something and try bridging the gaps? The offer was in October 2008. He never met with Olmert again to discuss it. Right now, Abbas could make clear to all what other things he wants, but we both know damned well he won't, don't we?
And who cares whether Hamas is voted out? They're like Hezbollah in that they simply will not demilitarize themselves, whether voted in or not, they won't allow the PA to rule over them & get payback for the 2007 coup.
Who do you think you're kidding?
You're blaming Israel for not wanting Hamas fully militarized with anything they want brought in?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and elections were held a few months later which resulted in Netanyahu being PM
Hamas is not Hezbollah no matter how much you wish it and allowing a future Palestinian state a military is no different from allowing Egypt, Jordan or Lebanon a military
shira
(30,109 posts)...by stopping the Jew hating/murderous incitement in the West Bank. Abbas could then make a request to do the same as Sadat did while addressing the Israeli Knesset for the world to see, especially within the territories (in Arabic preferably, while subtitled into other languages like hebrew and english). Start advocating for genuine peace and tolerance. Denounce Hamas, etc. He'd have the Israeli population eating out of the palms of his hands.
There's simply no way Netanyahu would have been voted in. Livni had more votes and would have arguably had many more if Abbas had committed himself to closing a reasonable.
I never said Hamas was Hezbollah, but they are the same WRT wanting to rule rather than be ruled. They're both extreme terrorist organizations committed to evil and will not hand their guns over without a fight.
You also totally ignored what I wrote in my last post before yours about your own contradictions WRT Hamas. You don't think it's fair Hamas would have to be dethroned and demilitarized before a peace deal is cut. But you also say you want peace. You can't have both, so cut the shit. Egypt and Jordan proved they were committed to ending all violence against Israelis. Hamas has not. When they come to their senses and also talk about real peace, then you'll have a better argument. But now, not so much.
I realize you must blame and delegitimize Israel every chance you get, but putting all the blame on Israel and none on the Palestinians is ridiculous.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)as to the rest of your huffing and puffing my mention of the caveat concerning Hamas was to show how truly empty the whole thing was it was noise words nothing more hardly a "contradiction" as you claim as to the Palestinian having a military my point stands it would not be Hamas military just as IDF is not Likud's military, it seems you simply can not or will not wrap your head around the concept of Palestinians as a legitimate nation, nor around any concept except your rather self serving limited vision
shira
(30,109 posts)And anyone who believes that if the PLO brings heavy weaponry into Gaza and that, as a result, Hamas will be tamed by that, isn't fooling anyone but themselves. I don't think you realize or want to admit how much Hamas and the PLO hate each other.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)you despite claiming otherwise are against a Palestinian state at least in the foreseeable future, what criteria would the Palestinians have to meet in order to get your 'blessings'?
shira
(30,109 posts)...who could care less whether peace happens or not after a land trade.
Tell me, how will the PLO take back control of Gaza w/o provoking a very bloody civil war? You see what's happened in Syria and Libya, right? What makes you think Hamas will put down their guns? Do you think that's necessary before a peace deal?