It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Israel Palestine: One-State Debate Explodes Myth About the Zionist Left

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Israel Palestine: One-State Debate Explodes Myth About the Zionist Left


www.globalresearch.ca

A fascinating debate is entering Israel’s political mainstream on a once-taboo subject: the establishment of a single state as a resolution of the conflict, one in which Jews and Palestinians might potentially live as equal citizens. Surprisingly, those advocating such a solution are to be found chiefly on Israel’s political right.

The debate, which challenges the current orthodoxy of a two-state future, is rapidly exploding traditional conceptions about the Zionist right and left.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Finally some (somewhat) uplifting news regarding this issue! It looks like some Israeli's are starting to identify (or at least remember) the fundamental flaw in their government's position. It will be extremely interesting to follow this debate and see how much traction it can gain in both the public's mind as well as that of the main power holders in Israel and the US. Perhaps we may finally have a truly peaceful and fair resolution on the horizon. It will be interesting to see all the anti-peace advocates in both Israel and the US come out of the woodworks to try to quash this should it gain mass appeal. It will also be interesting to see all the "controlled opposition" on the Israeli left exposed for the anti-peace/pro-ethnic cleansing positions which many of their leaders, at least, currently hold. Let us hope Netanyahu cannot quash the resurgence of this position as he did the Oslo accords (as he himself claims)!

www.globalresearch.ca
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
If the way they currently treat the Palestinians is any example, who in effect are already in the State of Israel already since the Israelis occupy the Palestinian territories, then I cannot see how this could ever come to pass.

The IDF spends it's time shooting at Palestinians, bulldozing their homes and denying them water and other commodities including electricity.

If this one state solution was to come about you can bet that the Palestinians would be very second class citizens. One very good reason that this will never come to pass is because within a very short space of time the Palestinian population would pass the Israeli population and then the outcome of elections would definitely go against all that Israel stands for and would be the end of the State of Israel since a majority Palestinian electorate could vote for Sharia law and an Islamic state. If they were not given the vote then they would never go for that solution.

Much as it would be nice to see the area settled this is not the way it is going to happen.

[edit on 21/7/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


not really, put in a constitution which means both parties have to represented equaly and must be ruled by secular law.
just because one out numbers another doesnt mean they can enforce sharia or instatute it, so that in its self is a poor argument for a one state solution.

on topic, i think a one state solution is what they need
Israel occupy almost all of palestine and they dont want to let go of those areas.
palestinians want their land back .

so both win, israel has the econemy as well as all the money it can get from the us just with a phone call.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by illusive man
 


The Palestinians are not going to get their land back under a one State solution because the Israeli settlements will still continue to expand into the areas occupied by the Palestinians, the military will continue to declare areas as testing grounds and the water would still be diverted for Israeli needs. In fact the only area of land that would be freed up is that which is currently in use for the defensive walls.


put in a constitution which means both parties have to represented equaly and must be ruled by secular law


And you really consider they would go for that? (The Israelis) Never. It would mean they could not do any of the above. In addition how could that ever work? There would always be an impasse on any controversial legislation or action and nothing would get done. Even in a coalition there has to be a majority.

You should also realise that the Promised Land extends way beyond what is currently the State of Israel including the occupied territories. The hard-line elements are not going to rest until they get those areas as well.



[edit on 21/7/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by dangerouslogic
 


They won't even talk to Palestinians face to face, how can they make one state to live in>?

You can't make one state with both people, without making agreements, since both people have different ideologies.

Treaties and agreements make peace, but they first have to directly see each other, and stop acting like teenage GOTHICS.

[runs to room, jumps on bed]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Uhhh what a slap in the face, Palestinians want their own state, Israel is violating International law by not allowing this....Simple, i mean honestly, adding yet another layer of unneeded complexity to the situation with this little 'debate' is bloody ridiculous.....just get off their feckin land!


[edit on 21-7-2010 by Solomons]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Just as pressure is beginning to bear down on the Israeli government to begin meaning measures leading to a two state solution - we get further obfuscation.
Now don`t get me wrong .....
Its a beautiful glowing ideal to have both peoples merge into a harmonious collective, working feverousily together to right the wrongs of the past and build a new country ......but !!!!!
These people have some serious issues with one another......

The most practical solution is to give Palestinians their sovereignty .


I`ll leave the last word to Norman Finkelstein

The two-state solution is practicable because many Israelis can accept it. A two-state solution doesn’t challenge what Israel is all about; indeed that is the moralistic objection to two states.

Israel is a Jewish state; it is committed to that.
One-staters apparently believe that Israel will give up its reason for existence and at the same time expose itself not to the risk but to the certainty of being ’swamped by Arabs’. This in turn would indicate a willingness to accede to anything an ‘Arab’ majority might enact, including a full right of return and dispossession of Zionist usurpers.

Can anyone seriously imagine this?

If it took thousands and lives and many years to get the settlements out of Gaza - not Israel, which is still sovereign there, but only the settlements. How long is it supposed to take before Israel gives up its existence, its rationale, and the security of all its Jewish citizens?


Will bi-nationalism lead to peace ?


Suppose, in the leisurely, bloody, starvation-ridden fullness of time, a single state gets implemented. Then we come to the oddest illusion of all: that if you put two antagonistic peoples together in one state, their antagonism will vanish.

Why? What issues are resolved? Will Palestinians and Jews cease to compete for state power? will Israeli Jews, because they have lost their Jewish state, feel disposed to hand over their homes and businesses as well? Does binationalism turn men into angels?

Norman Finkelstein



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I agree with many of the sentiments above and apologize for seeming "overly optimistic" (if in fact that is something one should have to apologize for). I suppose I am just happy to see something other than the status quo being talked about within Israel. Even if such a position does not offer a truly viable solution, at least it serves to elevate the terms of debate to some extent (if nothing else, such a position at least recognizes that Palestinians are deserving of some basic rights and have some legitimate claims/concerns). Even if this is just another "doomed to failure" option, at least its a step forward from the currently dominant views in Israel. One must learn to crawl before one can walk, no?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
Uhhh what a slap in the face, Palestinians want their own state, Israel is violating International law by not allowing this....Simple, i mean honestly, adding yet another layer of unneeded complexity to the situation with this little 'debate' is bloody ridiculous.....just get off their feckin land!


[edit on 21-7-2010 by Solomons]


Yeah so they can be part of a racists apartheid, good for the Palastinians hey, woowho!

It's insulting to think that people see the Israeli one state solution as anything but a corporate takeover. They wont be controlling their destiny, Kharzarian Jews will be.

These Israelis are mocking humanity!

It's always been Israels intention to hammer the living crap out of a race - to ensure the world sees it nessesary to absorb them into to Israel.

Consider if they lived next to anyone else they likely would have prospered far more than they have been allowed. If this had happened there would be little problem today.

[edit on 21/7/10 by Caveat Lector]

[edit on 21/7/10 by Caveat Lector]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dangerouslogic
 


Adding more options at the present time, when there is a concerted attempt to draw both parties together to discuss the two state solution ..... is like

Bringing a staving man to dinner and spending hours debating whether you are going to treat him to the beef or the salmon.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by dangerouslogic
 


Now why don't I trust this!!

What's in it for the Zionists?

Maybe they are looking to find a way of achieving their goal (completely take all Palestinian land and kill all Palestinians) via a different route to circumvent all the negative world opinion which is coming their way in boatloads!

So, Plan B, agree to a one-state solution, take control of the whole terrirory, keep the Palestinians in ghettos, then we can get on with building the temple, at the same time we can create minor uprisings to fabricate a reason for killing them all gradually, and hey presto - one state (Israel), and one nationality (Israeli) and the temple (Jewish).

Is gut, nicht war.

ISRAEL UBER ALLES.





[edit on 21-7-2010 by wcitizen]

[edit on 21-7-2010 by wcitizen]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Caveat Lector
 


Yes, and had they EVER wanted peace, they could have HELPED Palestine to prosper - you know, especially with the billions of AMERICAN TAXPAYERS' MONEY they receive from US each year.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by dangerouslogic
 


The trouble with that is that any debate wil only ever really take place as a hollywood-style fiction fabricated for the MSM, and even then with in the proscribed limits imposed by the Zionists.

The only real debate which is going on - and it's not even a debate, just strategy meetings - is about absorbing all Palestinian land and wiping out all Palestinians.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by UmbraSumus
 


I suppose, if you want to look at it that way.

But I think we would both agree that those currently in power in Israel have a fundamental lack of respect for and understanding of the basic human rights and political concerns of the Palestinians. At this point, do we really believe that we are anywhere near finally realizing an agreeable peace, whether it be 1, 2 or 10 states? To me, it seems that things are regressing rather than progressing. From my perspective, the Israeli government needs to at least accept that Palestinians are humans too and deserving of the same rights and security as Israelis before there will be any hope of any fair solution. From my perspective, any idea for a solution which brings the notion of the Palestinians' rights back into the debate is preferrable to the currently dominant paradigm.

Using your analogy of someone being invited over for dinner, it seems to me that the current debate in the kitchen is closer to whether they should outright kill the guest or just let them eat the crumbs that fall off the table. Any option which doesn't involve simply killing them off is undeniably preferable, if for no other reason than that it can be worked with (perhaps tomorrow we can argue for a seat at the table, and so on). One can't argue with the business end of a gun after all.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dangerouslogic
 


I think there are many in Israel who would `tolerate` the present situation , were it not for the bad press and occasional international condemnation .
For the price of the occasional projectile, lacking a guidance system , being fired in the direction of Jewish settlers ...... Israelis get to keep what they have taken by means of force. Just waiting out the Palestinians ......


Israel has many Arms manufacturers , both state owned - such as - Israel Aircraft Industries( IAI) , Israeli Military Industries (IMI), National Armaments Development Authority (Rafael) and private sector companies Elbit Systems etc etc.

Conflict + Fear = money

The Industrial military complex is capable of still making healthy profits even during a depressed global market.
Defence budgets keep growing .



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
A Two-State Solution is still the way to go in my opinion. But there is still the issue of how the independent states will be divided. You have one group saying the land is Israel's land, another group saying the land is the Palestinians'. Once you pick a side, the idea becomes unfair because you are agreeing that one side gets what they want most without regard for the other side's wishes.

One has to remember that both Israelis and Palestinians are made up mostly of innocent people who just want to live in peace and security. If this conflict is ever to be resolved, concessions from both sides will need to be agreed upon.

[edit on 21/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


No, the law is very clear on what is Palestinian land and what is Israeli land. The vast majority of the world agrees that pre june 1967 borders with east Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital is what the two state solution should be. Hamas have stated they will accept this, it is only America, Israel and a few other countries that reject it.

[edit on 22-7-2010 by Solomons]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
What about the Wars that took place between 1967 and 1993, though? Haven't those contributed to the controversy about land division?

[edit on 23/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
What about the Wars that took place between 1967 and 1993, though? Haven't those contributed to the controversy about land division?

[edit on 23/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]



No, the Settlement expansions has.

And it is still continuing, and it is illegal, and the occupation is illegal.

Stop confusing the problem, that is why we still haven't found a solution, because people like you don't understand the problem.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join