The One-State Solution: By MUAMMAR QADDAFI

[Uzybone]

I guess this goes here. I never thought I'd see Qaddafi as a moderate. It reads like a hell of a dream though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22qaddafi.html?_r=1&hp

Tripoli, Libya

THE shocking level of the last wave of Israeli-Palestinian violence, which ended with this weekend’s cease-fire, reminds us why a final resolution to the so-called Middle East crisis is so important. It is vital not just to break this cycle of destruction and injustice, but also to deny the religious extremists in the region who feed on the conflict an excuse to advance their own causes.

But everywhere one looks, among the speeches and the desperate diplomacy, there is no real way forward. A just and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians is possible, but it lies in the history of the people of this conflicted land, and not in the tired rhetoric of partition and two-state solutions.

Jews and Muslims are cousins descended from Abraham. Throughout the centuries both faced cruel persecution and often found refuge with one another. Arabs sheltered Jews and protected them after maltreatment at the hands of the Romans and their expulsion from Spain in the Middle Ages.

The history of Israel/Palestine is not remarkable by regional standards — a country inhabited by different peoples, with rule passing among many tribes, nations and ethnic groups; a country that has withstood many wars and waves of peoples from all directions. This is why it gets so complicated when members of either party claims the right to assert that it is their land.

The basis for the modern State of Israel is the persecution of the Jewish people, which is undeniable. The Jews have been held captive, massacred, disadvantaged in every possible fashion by the Egyptians, the Romans, the English, the Russians, the Babylonians, the Canaanites and, most recently, the Germans under Hitler. The Jewish people want and deserve their homeland.

But the Palestinians too have a history of persecution, and they view the coastal towns of Haifa, Acre, Jaffa and others as the land of their forefathers, passed from generation to generation, until only a short time ago.

A two-state solution will create an unacceptable security threat to Israel. An armed Arab state, presumably in the West Bank, would give Israel less than 10 miles of strategic depth at its narrowest point. Further, a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would do little to resolve the problem of refugees. Any situation that keeps the majority of Palestinians in refugee camps and does not offer a solution within the historical borders of Israel/Palestine is not a solution at all.

In absolute terms, the two movements must remain in perpetual war or a compromise must be reached. The compromise is one state for all, an “Isratine” that would allow the people in each party to feel that they live in all of the disputed land and they are not deprived of any one part of it.

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.

[Idealism]

1. Qaddafi isn't half as bad as Mubarak, why is it surprising?

He frequently pushed for a Pan-Arab league, of unity in the Arab world, and things of that nature.

[Chulanowa]

2. It certainly feels odd to agree with the guy

But I've been saying the only solution is a single state since '99 or so. There's just no other way.

[cali]

5. In the best of all possible worlds, a one state solution

would be the best thing. This is not the best of all possible worlds. There is simply no way that Israel would agree to it. Even the majority of Palestinians don't want a one state solution. And seriously, how do you see this being achieved? What are the measures that you'd advise be taken to achieve it?

A one state solution is even less feasible than a 2 state solution

[LeftishBrit]

12. I agree...

and in any case I wouldn't consider Qadhaffi as an authority on anything to do with peace or human rights.

[Chulanowa]

30. Yeah, it'll be hard

But then ask yourself - could it be any harder than a two-state solution? A solution that nobody wanted back in 1948 (the Jewish side had been promised the entire expanse of the Palestinian Mandate, while the Arab side saw that they were getting a raw deal), a solution that has been the core cause of sixty years of violence, death, and tyranny? A solution that we are still no closer to cementing?

As for the measures... I'm unsure. I cook for the elderly, I'm not a world-class diplomat :) However I'm certain there's a way. I'm also certain that the fact that it'll be difficult is no reason to not try. Basically you - and the others who have told me that "it'll be too hard" - are saying that you prefer the status quo to the idea of even attempting to find a new way. Not trying to dis you or anything, that's just how it ends up looking.

Anything has to be better than sixty years of violence over a concept that failed in 1948.

[cali]

88. No, I'm not arguing for the status quo, and please don't put words in my mouth

And perhaps my knowledge of history helps me understand why it's not feasible. You're certain there's a way, but have no idea what it could be. I'm telling you flat out, that you can't force something on people that they're opposed to.

You see Israel as a failed idea, one you'd like to do away with. I see Israel as a reality and I prefer, as Pema Chodron says, to "start where you are".

[Shaktimaan]

8. I have a question.

Exactly how do you think that this would benefit Israel?

Meaning, what would Israel's incentive be to do this?

[Chulanowa]

29. That's pretty easy

Safety. A single-state solution is the best chance Israel has to be safe. Please take a look at the West Bank and Gaza. These places cannot sustain themselves. They do not have the ecological resources to maintain their current populations for long - Gaza has almost no resources to speak of, while at least the West Bank has a source of water - though how long that lasts with a growing population in all three states drawing off the Sea of Galilee and Jordan River is debatable.

An independent Palestine would fail - and it was designed to fail (refer to the UN partition plan maps to see the evidence of this). Israel would still be flanked by impoverished people who I think will still be really unhappy with their neighbor. For its part, Israel will probably end up bringing violence to the border to keep illegal immigrants out. In short, an independent Palestine results in a failed Arab state and a continuation of the violence between the two parties.

A single-state solution would start off rocky, and jump-starting discussion of it - since the leaderships of both parties have had the two-state solution hammered into their heads since they were young men - will be difficult as well. But in the long run it's the best way for Israelis to see peace and for Palestinians to see prosperity.

[cali]

31. uh, no.

Israel would simply not exist under a one state solution. Not as a culturally Jewish state. And no, Palestine was not designed to fail from the beginning. There is no evidence of that. And it did have the necessary resources. I refer you back to the map. It's true Gaza has few resources but those problems are not insurmountable in a two state solution with access between the WB and Gaza. Furthermore, when you speak of the water resources, that's about consumption in the region, and there would be no fewer people consuming in a single state than in two states. No one is seriously proposing three states.

How do you successfully and peacefully blend two very different cultures with a grave history of enmity? You can't do it by force. That much is certain.

Alas, saying a single state would start off rocky, is a dramatic understatement. The only way to arrive at a single state is for there to be initially two states. After a few decades, a single state might be possible.

[Chulanowa]

36. Let me ask you this

What is it exactly, that makes Jews the only people on earth who deserve a culturally and ethnically exclusive state? Do you offer the same grant to white (or black) separatists? How about the pan-Arabists who want to ensure the "cultural purity" of their own nations? I'm sorry, I reject the notion of ethnic nationalism entirely, for any people. Its practice has never been beneficial, either to the people in the privileged class, or to those among the untermensch. Integration is the key to a healthy nation.

Even in a two-state solution, Israel's future as a cleanly defined "Jewish" state is dubious. Israel's being pulled out of the 1930's eugenicist movement kicking and screaming, but steadily, even without full integration of its Arab population and satellites.

And the plain truth is... the cultures are not that different. Contrary to what Daniel Pipes has been telling us, this is not a "clash of civilizations" - it's a scuffle for land. The "grave history of enmity" as you put it, has been a period of eighty years or so. Nothing to sneeze at, but in light of many other conflicts, it's nothing. It's certainly not the "thousands of years!" that some claim.

And no, you can't do it by force. On that we can agree. However, I don't think two states would be a precursor to a single state. Once borders are drawn, they tend to stay there. I don't feel I was understating - there would be a period of violence as groups on both sides try to break up the agreement. I don't think it'll be the catastrophic scale that you claim, however. I think it'll be more like a few years of the current terrorism level - low-intensity but frequent, gradually fading as the agreement takes hold.

Okay, I might be rather naive on that last part - both sides just love giving terrorists exactly the reaction they hope for, after all.

[cali]

37. hey, what do you think Saudi Arabia is? It's culturally Arab and religiously, Muslim.

And there are dozens more examples. Where on earth do you get the bizarro idea that the Jews are the only people on earth who "deserve" (or have) their own state? Strange and rather out of touch statement, as well as being demonstrably false.

Furthermore, the rest of your post is largely nonsense. Israel isn't a purely Jewish state. 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab. And though there's far too much discrimination, Israel does not have codified discrimination- not in Israel proper. The occupation, which is thoroughly reprehensible is another story.

And yes, the cultures are different, though they certainly have commonalities. There is a strong European influence in Israeli culture that is certainly not as present in Palestinian culture. And the religious differences are also present. And sorry, I don't read Pipes. Never have. Never will. History is my preference.

And yes, you are rather naive if you think one state can be achieved without massive shedding of blood.

[Chulanowa]

39. Saudi Arabia. Great example

Please, grace me with the sea of wonders upon which Saudi Arabia floats, flowing from its "purity". Don't worry, I'll give you several hours to think of something beneficial Saudi Arabia gains from this. You'll need it.

Like I said, I'm strictly opposed to ideas of "national purity". It's ludicrous and as history has shown, dangerous.

I didn't say they were the same culture. Just that they're very similar. A random Israeli and a random Palestinian probably have more in common culturally than you or I do, for perspective. There's friction there of course, but it's not the cause of the fighting - the cause of the fighting is, as I said, an argument over land.

Finally, I still don't buy into the "massive shedding of blood" thing. I meant I was likely being naive in my estimation of both sides' ability to not flip out and break off the agreement in the event of some dicksmack trying to bust it up. Though I can he wrong on that. There's been some promise - such as Hamas, of all groups, appearing to actually put effort forth to hold its part of the June 19 agreement. It's a step. And since the one-state idea is a protracted solution, there may be time for many more such steps.

Hell, persuing a one-state solution might actually result in hte best chance at two viable states, who knows? :lol:

[cali]

41. You asked a question

"What is it exactly, that makes Jews the only people on earth who deserve a culturally and ethnically exclusive state?". I simply pointed out that the premise of said question wasn't founded in reality. Now you're moving the goal posts. I made no claim about Saudi Arabia being good... or bad. And it's hardly just SA that's a nation rooted in cultural/religious identity. there are dozens of countries- from Great Britain to Bhutan that are rooted in a cultural/religious identity. In fact, most nations are.

There is no "national purity" in Israel. That should be obvious as 20 percent of Israel's population is Arab. In other words, a far greater percentage of Israel's population is minority than Great Britain's.

[Chulanowa]

44. I was continuing the discussion, not moving goalposts

However this was your point:

"Israel would simply not exist under a one state solution. Not as a culturally Jewish state."

My response is simply... So what? Is there some huge need that there absolutely, at all costs, MUST be a state definable as "culturally Jewish"? It's well and good that there is one, but I see no more reason to try to preserve it for all eternity any more than I see the same need for, say, Saudi Arabia or Bhutan. If the dynamic of the state changes, then it changes. I'll shed no more tears if Israel's dynamic changes than I shed over the change of the United States from a purely Anglo-Protestant nation to the misshapen but lovable mutant nation we now are.

I'm aware of the Arab population of Israel. Are they actually part of Israel, or do they just happen to live within the borders? You can't make claims that said population makes Israel multicultural, when Israel, both officially and unofficially, makes every effort to prevent Arab involvement in anything beyond menial labor.

[Boojatta]

46. Can you explain what you mean when you use the words "well" and "good"?

Is there some huge need that there absolutely, at all costs, MUST be a state definable as "culturally Jewish"? It's well and good that there is one, but I see no more reason to try to preserve it for all eternity any more than I see the same need for, say, Saudi Arabia or Bhutan.

If I'm not mistaken, you wrote the following earlier in this thread:

I'm sorry, I reject the notion of ethnic nationalism entirely, for any people.

Is there an important detail that prevents your two statements from being in conflict with each other? Perhaps they are in conflict with each other and this thread records some changes in your views?

[Chulanowa]

54. Matter of fact there is

I can oppose the concept without, say for instance, demanding an immediate dissolution of the state following that concept. Israel exists, whetehr I think hte concept behind it is politically or ethically sound. There's no reason to come at it with torches and pitforks. But there's also no reason to scrape one's fingers raw trying to preserve the idea, either.

[Boojatta]

74. "There's no reason to come at it with torches and pitchforks."

If it's well and good that there exists a country that is "culturally Jewish", then how did the idea of coming at it with torches and pitchforks arise?

[cali]

47. oh please.

There are Arabs in every part of Israeli public life. Not enough to be sure, but there are Arab professors and lawyers and politicians and doctors, etc, etc. If Israel is making every effort to to keep Arabs relegated to menial labor, how did that happen? Yes, of course, more- much more- needs to be done in Israel to ensure that Arab citizens are not so discriminated against, but you're engaging in hyperbole.

Your initial point was that Israel was exceptional. As I pointed out, it's not particularly exceptional on the issue in question.

And Jewish Israelis seem to feel a need for a Jewish state. I'd say that their sentiments are more germane to the issue than yours- or mine.

[Chulanowa]

56. And there were African American doctors, teachers, and lawyers as well

Doesn't mean the machine of the state welcomed them, encouraged them, or did anything to include them.

Jewish Israelis also want peace, as do Arab Palestinians... As well as Arab Israelis and Jewish Palestinians. History shows that you cannot have one tribe dominating a multitribal territory without there being conflict. Iraelis can have one or the other in this situation, but they're trying to push against the facts of human history if they think they can have both.

[pelsar]

73. are you that ignorant?....

when Israel, both officially and unofficially, makes every effort to prevent Arab involvement in anything beyond menial labor.

arab israelis are judges (supreme court), doctors, lawyers, etc......it seems just about every one of your posts that i read has some new nonsense about israel and the arabs...

even funnier, coming from you writing about the closeness of the Palestinians and israeli cultures....... understanding about cultures is not really your strong point.
and this:

History shows that you cannot have one tribe dominating a multitribal territory without there being conflict....

so tell me when do the American indians start fighting back?...or the american koreans, american mexicans?........pehaps you prefer lebanons example of multiculturalism....

[Idealism]

52. Arab Israeli's are treated much like African Americans in the US were before the 1970s

Segregated schools, second-class citizenship, less rights, etc. There is quite a lot of discrimination for a democratic society, although people like to draw comparisons to the region calling it a paradise among theocracies. Since when is that a good argument? Democracy should be democracy, no matter where the state is located. Just because your neighbors are oppressive dictators who have a horrid human rights record, doesn't mean you get let off the hook because you have a less horrendous record.

[Vegasaurus]

48. Jews were dhimmi in Arab countries long before Zionism

so this conflict is far deeper than a "scuffle for land".

I think you are failing to grasp some basic facts in this conflict.

[Chulanowa]

59. Ah, dhimmitude

It's not exactly the sort of thing that Ms. Coulter and Mr. Pipes wish you to think, Vegasaurus. And while you obsess over what's going on in the entire span of land stretching from Morocco to Bangladesh and all the wretched subhuman scum you believes inhabits those lands, we're talking about Israel and Palestine and the situation that evolved out of the conquest of Palestine by hte British following 1917.

Please keep up.

[Vegasaurus]

50. If you "reject ethnic nationalism"

than you can start with the 22 Muslim nations that allow no Jews (kicked them all out and stole all their land and homes 60 or more years ago).

They discriminate against non-Muslims.

So, is only the "privileged class" of Muslims allowed?

They can persecute others of different ethnicities or religions, but you screech at Israel, which has ONE and a HALF MILLION ARAB MUSLIMS living there?

[Chulanowa]

58. Any more words you want to put in my mouth?

No? What, used up that limited vocabulary of yours?

For your information, I also reject ethnic nationalism from these states as well. I do not think Arab Muslims have any more inherent right to a "pure" state than European Jews do. It's an idiotic concept no matter where you go .

So why my focus on Israel here? Well, if you haven't noticed, look there at the top, right under the site header. It says "Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine »" so I try to stick to those two areas. Also worth mention is that at least the expelled Jews had somewhere to go.

On that note... how exactly do Israelis tend to treat their immigrant Jewish population, Vegasaurus? I've never been, but what I read doesn't paint a rosy picture.

[Shaktimaan]

65. Well, aren't MOST states based on a specific ethnic or

cultural nationalism? Being Jewish is the national equivalent of being Japanese or Italian or Nepali or whatever. Are you opposed to all of the different countries that are also nation-states, like France and Denmark, or are you only opposed to it in Israel's case?

Even in a two-state solution, Israel's future as a cleanly defined "Jewish" state is dubious. Israel's being pulled out of the 1930's eugenicist movement kicking and screaming, but steadily, even without full integration of its Arab population and satellites.


Eugenics? Seriously?

Why is it that 95% of all states are some form of ethnic nation-state but only Israel is singled out as practicing eugenics because of it?

[Ken Burch]

63. The "history of enmity" only goes back to the 20th Century.

Prior to that Arabs and Jews in Palestine more or less peacefully coexisted. And it's still an open question as to whether the North African Arab countries would have expelled the Mizrahi(a decision THEY still need to apologize for, since it cost them a tremendous chance to take the moral advantage)were it not for the Palestinian expulsions caused by Plan Dalet.

The "Jews and Arabs were ALWAYS enemies" meme has been thoroughly discredited by, among others, the Israeli "New Historians" such as Tom Segev. It's time to stop repeating it, cali.

[cali]

66. It goes back several generations.

And that's a long time- plenty of time for such enmity to harden, particularly given the circumstances. Prior to that Jews and Arabs lived together, though often uneasily, and persecution of Jews in Muslim countries was hardly unknown prior to the 20th century.

[Ken Burch]

71. Jews were given MUCH better treatment in Arab countries than in "Christian" Europe.

There was never an Arab equivalent of Auschwitz.

The myth that "it's all those evil Jew-hating Arabs fault" has got to be put to rest.

[Lithos]

76. Too broad of a statement

Pogroms happened in both Christian and Muslim countries with treatment of Jews. However, a more correct statement is that the treatment of Jews have varied widely throughout history in both Christian and Muslim countries.

L-

[Shaktimaan]

79. That's not much of a basline you've got there.

So there was never an Arab Auschwitz? Big deal. That's not saying much.

There was a Palestinian leader who was firmly allied with Hitler... that may be close enough. Besides, the whole point is that the Arabs didn't hate the Jews until they began demanding self-determination and equal rights. Do you really look at that and say, "Oh, well it's the Jew's fault for trying to liberate themselves. No one really tried exterminating them across the entire middle east until this one section started trying to rule themselves!"

That doesn't float very well, dude.

[Shaktimaan]

78. Excuse me for not writing back sooner...

but I felt that your post brought up some common misperceptions about the conflict that I felt needed to be addressed.

I think your heart's in the right place. You are genuinely seeking the most equitable, peaceful, long-term solution to the conflict that's available considering the circumstances. I have a lot of respect for that. Many people who're involved in this forum have long ago chosen sides and spend their time defending the interests of one entity over the other. But I think you aren't like that. You're just looking for an answer and you are going with your gut as to what you think the best solution is... even if it isn't popular or politically feasible. Before I give my criticism I want to state for the record that I DO admire that. It's always good to get a fresh take on the conflict from someone who is relatively new to learning about it.

That said, I think that your solution is fatally flawed in a few serious ways. The problem with having a strong opinion about this conflict, especially in regards to offering a solution, is that there is always someone out there who understands the situation far, far better than you do who has already considered and rejected it for reasons that never occurred to you. And this is a seriously complex conflict. I've made it my hobby to learn about for the past 5 years or so; I've read around 20 book from both sides of the divide, countless articles and until recently was living with a left-wing Israeli woman who frequently entertained my relentless questioning. So, I'm certainly no expert, but I'm not exactly a novice either. I say this because it can be easy to fall into the neophyte trap of assuming that all of the leaders over there are crazy and are thus unable to see the situation clearly for what it is, as they are blinded by ideology. While ideology plays a role in all policy, the previous statement is far from the truth. You will never meet a shrewder, more intelligent bunch of policy wonks than you will in Mid-Eastern politics. Especially when it comes to Israel. In fact, the Israeli public is among the most educated, up-to-speed civilian population regarding politics that exist in the world today. (You should see what it's like trying to get into college there.) And it should say something to you that no one, (really, NO ONE) in Israel thinks that your idea would offer them anything but trouble. This includes the ARAB POPULATION of Israel as well. None of them want what you're selling. And there's a very good reason for it.

Simply, it would absolutely not make Israel safer. And the price that you are asking Israel to pay, for this amazingly long-shot of a gamble, is their sovereignty, their nationality and their very reason for existing. The whole point of Israel is to have a Jewish state so that they can defend themselves without having to rely on other people's goodwill for their safety. This has always proven to be a bad bet for the Jewish people. Right now they have this. And basically it has worked out entirely in their favor. They have always been able to successfully defend themselves thus far. But after opening up their state to the entire Palestinian population they would lose their ethnic self-determination. So the future would be entirely unknown.

Now, you think that it would eventually work out better for everyone to do this. But history tells us otherwise. The single state was the original plan. The two state solution was eventually agreed upon by almost the whole world as better because the single state idea was so unbelievably bloody. You think that nothing could be worse than what's been going on lately? You have no idea then... during the war of independence Israel alone lost fully 1% of their whole population. Think about that for a second. (And forget about what the Arabs lost. Far more.)

In short, you THINK that it MIGHT be better for Israel to accept a single state because otherwise there would be nearly-constant war. What you don't understand is that near constant war is far preferable to the Israelis than opening their borders to their enemy. And I don't blame them for a second. It is much, much, much less of a risk for them. Both in the long and short term.

Now, if you truly think that Palestine would end up as a failed state before it has even been formed, them I'd say that you have very little faith in the Palestinian people to make their own state. I don't blame you, I don't have any faith in them either. But it isn't because it's impossible to make a successful state there. The settlers in Gaza were making plenty of money for themselves by exporting produce. In fact, all of Israel was essentially a poor ultra-third-world country before Zionism. The Zionists were able to turn it into what it is today despite its near-total lack of resources and almost constant war. While the Palestinians have not been able to do much despite having the support of basically the whole world... why would Israel want to bring a far poorer country that's in the middle of a civil war with ITSELF into their own successful state? They wouldn't.

If your idea had any real merit then it would have at least SOME support within Israel. But it doesn't at all. No support. Zero. Not even among the Arabs. That alone should tell you that your reasoning is flawed. Because if it was truly the best thing to do for Israel then there would be some substantial movement within Israel to back it up. Basically, I fail to see how two nationalities that have thus far failed to even co-exist as neighbors would be better served by being forced to somehow live together in a single society. It would be like asking India and Pakistan to merge in order to solve the Kashmir crisis. It is nothing short of lunacy.

If two neighbors deeply hate each other then why would you ever think of trying to solve the problem by making them share a house?

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whosinpower]

93. Shaktimmon, you have given me allot to think about

But, to say that there is zero support for something like this within Israel is not quite true. I got the idea from a former Knesset member - who was exiled because of his beliefs, and his points within the knesset that Arab Israeli's are not given equal rights.

I have read your missive carefully, for you wrote it carefully. You state that "The whole point of Israel is to have a Jewish state so that they can defend themselves without having to rely on other people's goodwill for their safety."

Let me ask you this then - if peace were to break out in the middle east, between the palistinians and Israel - long term sustainable peace with both neighbors recognizing the rights of the other, working out some type of solution to the land equation, and both committed to the goodwill of the other - would that not negate the very foundation of which Israel was founded on? This is of course, hypothetical in the extreme, but it is interesting to see where this leads, strictly from an academic viewpoint. Try to think about this carefully, and objectively with neither side gaining advantage.

And finally, if two neighbors deeply hate each other - by what means does a person envision them eventually solving their longstanding and deeply rooted issues. Walls? Checkpoints? Seperation? Does that lessen the hatred? Really? I suggest that those issues would never ever be resolved under this situation - and perhaps, as you say, the whole point of Israel is to defend itself without having to rely on the goodwill of others - then another way to think of this, is to defend itself without consequence of others - and then the walls, checkpoints and seperation would make sense - but it would never lead to peace. I suppose for those who have the biggest army - this is the desire, constant war being preferable as you suggest to the alternative, but it can never lead to sustainable realistic safety. Only by generating some form or type of goodwill from others and giving it back in equitable terms, can real safety be enjoyed by the population.

You see - I try to find a way PAST the hatred, so grandmothers do not need to be proud that their grandsons will martyr themselves - that they can, someday be proud that their grandsons participate in something that is greater than their narrow hatred. That Israeli's can be proud that their nation is more than what it was founded on.

[dtotire]

24. Qaddafi has advocated this for some time

Also, there are advocates for this with both Palestinians and Israelis.(Only a few). There would be equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis, they would be free to live wherever they wanted to. It may be impractical at this time. Eventually, in 50 years or so, it might be practical. Initially, there would be free trade between the two entities.

[chucktaylor]

3. Seing your life flash before your eyes in 1986 and being invisible and mute for 17 years

changes a man. He had a "come to God" moment. MAYBE.

[oberliner]

4. Gadhafi says US should seek peace with bin Laden

WASHINGTON: Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has a seemingly unthinkable suggestion for new U.S. President Barack Obama: give Osama bin Laden a chance to make peace.

Gadhafi, who is known for outspoken comments, told an audience of Georgetown University students by videoconference Wednesday that bin Laden has shown signs that he is open to dialogue. He recommended that Obama seek an opening with the terrorist leader who is considered enemy number one in the United States for ordering the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

"I think Osama bin Laden is a person who can be given a chance," he said in Arabic through an interpreter. "Maybe he wants peace."

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/01/21/america/NA-US-Libya.php

[oberliner]

6. If Jews did not accept a one-state solution, he said they could move to Hawaii

If Jews did not accept a one-state solution, he said they could move to Hawaii, Alaska or an island in the Pacific. "They could live peacefully in an isolated setting."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3660191,00.html

[Shaktimaan]

7. This is a very funny article.

He spends the beginning of it validating the need for Zionism and Jewish self-determination. (Conveniently leaving out his own country's role in necessitating that need, especially his own personal actions that finally destroyed Libya's Jewish community entirely.)

Then he suggests that Israel should nevertheless cease to be a Jewish state, essentially extinguishing Zionism despite the need for it that he had just explained.

Part of the reason he gave for one state was the deplorable conditions of the refugee camps that Qaddafi himself helped ensure that many Palestinians still live in.

He rejects the two state solution on the assumption that the two nations would be too close to each other to provide security for Israel, suggesting that it would be much more secure to allow the very people that Israel supposedly needs security from to emigrate. He makes no mention of how well this worked out when it was originally attempted.

He claims that it is an injustice for Jews from abroad to be able to immigrate to Israel when Palestinian refugees from there are not allowed to return. But he does not offer a better solution that the Jews fleeing Libya, having been stripped of all their belongings, could have availed themselves of.

It is good to learn that should the single state not work out in the end Qaddafi recommends that the Jews move somewhere else that they can be more isolated. He must truly have the Israelis' best interests at heart. What a good man.

[Mosby]

23. Thanks for the summary. nt

[aranthus]

9. Why do people post this stuff?

It's a total non-starter by someone with zero credibility.

[Vegasaurus]

10. The idea that anyone would listen to anything from one of the world's most ruthless dictators

Libya's track record in human rights is probably the worst in the world (or among the worst)

He has no credibility on anything.

[Uzybone]

13. Ask the NYTimes

[aranthus]

14. Okay, I'll rephrase the question.

Why does the New York Times print this stuff? Second question. Just because the New York Times prints this, does that mean that it's worthy to post?

[Uzybone]

15. Both good questions

I cant speak for the Times, I was surprised to see Qaddaffi being printed there becasue he has always seemed to be one of the worst of the worst.

I posted it because its out there in mainstream discussion. You may not agree with its newsworthiness, but I think that is pretty undeniable.

[DogPoundPup]

16. If Israel ignores the U.N. laws on weapons use and U.N. regulations ,

then should the world ignore the U.N. laws that created Israel?

[cali]

17. That's just silliness.

and to understate it, unlikely.

[aranthus]

19. There is no UN law that created Israel.

The UN does not make law. The UN General Assembly (which passed the Partition Resolution) has no power at all. More to the point, the argument for one state is not about Israel "violating the law," nor is it about bringing peace to the region. It's the same old tract about destroying the Jewish state so that it can be replaced by an Arab/Muslim state. The more you people bring up the one state idea (it's not at all a solution), the more you convince Israelis, Jews, and reasonable people of good faith that it's the Arab side that is still the problem.

[Shaktimaan]

28. Well, it is not as if the many states ever did

recognize Israel as a legitimate state. Certainly there were enough nations out there who refused to abide by the UN resolution that proposed partitioning Palestine back in 47. But there isn't particularly anything wrong with their doing that, it's their right to do so.

Nations aren't created by decree anyway... or at least they don't remain states by decree alone. Nations have to legitimize themselves on their own. If they fail to do so then they either fail to be born, like Kurdistan, split up into two or more smaller states, like Pakistan, or just pretty much disappear, (usually by getting absorbed into another, stronger state), like Western Sahara. Israel became a state because it was conceived of, then built and defended by the Israelis.

Also, there are no UN "laws" or "regulations" on weapons use for Israel to ignore. Not sure what you're thinking of.

[GoesTo11]

11. I can't imagine life for Jews under Hamas rule

[Chulanowa]

32. I can't imagine life for Arabs under Likud

Y'know, the party that demands there be absolutely no possibility of an Arab state west of the Jordan as part of its platform?

However, I don't think in a unified state either Hamas or Likud would be able to drum up the numbers to win a seat, much less rule. Well. Likud might get a seat or two.

[Shaktimaan]

64. You can't?

It's a matter of historical record. You can look it up. What was it like for Arabs living under Bibi?

You're equating it with Jews living under Hamas but there really no moral equivalency there. The easiest way to tell is the fact that Arabs do live in Israel as citizens with full rights under the law. While there are no Jewish inhabitants of the Palestinian nation at all.

[burythehatchet]

72. there is a load

of doo doo between your ears.

[Shaktimaan]

75. you think so, genius?

How come?

Let me guess, you think Likud is at least as bad, if not worse, for Israeli Arabs as Hamas would be for Jewish citizens living under their rule in Palestine?

[shira]

77. yes, that's exactly what they believe

their ignorance is only exceeded by their arrogance

[Shaktimaan]

80. eh, just look at his icon...

He's a Met's fan. So right away you can tell he's a schmuck.
Whatever he's posted is nothing but further confirmation of the inevitable.

It's sad really. I try not to think too much about it.

[burythehatchet]

84. Hey I just wrote a book, its the basis of my religion and it includes a real estate

deed to your house. Don't turn the utilities off.

[burythehatchet]

83. Hint: How to determine when you are debating someone who doesn't have a pot to piss in

Their argument as always, always, based on a hypothetical calamity that would occur in some bizarre construct that fits with their ossified thought process.

Tick tick, Dumbo.

[Shaktimaan]

85. I can't tell...

if your comment is meant to refer to goesto11, shira, yourself or Qaddafi. I'm going to assume that it wasn't directed towards myself because I wasn't discussing anything hypothetical, (except for your opinion... do you consider your own opinion a calamity?)

Seeing as how the original article was about a hypothetical calamity that would only occur in some bizarre construct that fits with Qaddafi's ossified thought process, I'm not sure why you have some kind of problem with someone, (me? you? who knows?) discussing it. Unless your argument was directed at Qaddafi, in which case it would at least make sense. But I have a feeling you weren't talking about him. (Or yourself, but as I said, who can tell?)

And, um... "tick tick" to you too.

:crazy:

[cali]

18. I never get any responses to this:

How could a one state solution be achieved without hundreds of thousands of deaths ensuing from a very bloody war? And if it were achieved b force, what would the point be? How could a peaceful, secular state arise out of that?

[aranthus]

20. Nor will you.

I don't believe that the one staters are really interested in peace. What's sad is that the continued posting of ideas like this detracts from the assertion of the Palestinians' real grievances, aspirations and needs, which have to be met for there to be peace.

[cali]

21. well, I actually think people of good will believe in the one state solution

I just don't think they really think it through. They seem to envision this great state where Palestinians and Jewish Israelis live harmoniously under a secular government, but they don't seem able to tackle with how you get there.

[aranthus]

22. There probably are people of good will who believe in it., and to them I apologize,

but Quadafy is not one of them. And the people who do believe in it have not, as you point out, thought it through, so they can't answer your question either.

[whosinpower]

25. I am one of those people

And you can call me naive if you choose - that is your perogative.

I believe that all men are created equal, and should be granted equal rights under the law. If a person were to take that statement to heart, then the state of Israel has some issues that must be brought to the light of day and dealt with.

I do not believe that the powers currently in control of the Israeli politick want a viable two state solution - and the simple proof of that is the disputed settlements in the West bank, and the land allowances to and from these enclaves. So - one has to come to the conclusion that Israel's long term strategy is to have it all - Gaza and the West Bank.
I say - give it to them - all of it - BUT......in exchange for this land gift, allow all palistinians living and existing there FULL rights and privilages afforded to every citizen of Israel - jewish or not. I do not believe in special status for any religious group. Special status leads to alienation, envy, anger and mistrust. Tear down the walls seperating farmers from their land, military checkpoints, stop targeted assasinations. Terrorist activities can and should be dealt with - but as a police investigation, with charges, a court and imprisonment if guilty - not a military targeted assasination - that does not work if peace is the goal.

So - would there be a rebellion? Perhaps. America had to deal with its own civil war - and came out better, more united and stronger than ever - even with regional differences that some said could never be reconciled.

Israel grows into a modern secular state, not destroyed, but morphed into something that is more than what it had envisioned for itself, it would account all peoples living there, their religious beliefs, their homes, their work, their lifestyle. And, in doing so, concentrates on the commonalities of the people there, instead of the differences.

It is time to put away childish pettiness and state that jews have the right to exist, as do palistinians, and only by working together will they ever see the sweet light of peace. Seperation will never allow peace to occur. I am sure there are many on both sides of the wall that would disagree with me - but that is how I now feel.

[aranthus]

26. Here's one of the biggest problems with your view.

The Jews are not merely a religious group. Jews are a nation, and have been so for several thousand years already. Nations are by nature separate cultural entities. That's why there's a separate Germany and France. Do the French have special status in France? Of course they do. Their culture predominates. A state is merely the governing apparatus of a national culture. So a big problem with a one state solution is figuring out which culture is going to rule the country. Is it going to be the Jews or the Arabs? Only one can rule. That's why a one state solution can never work. There are two nations that each want to rule their own affairs, and you can't (with very few if any exception) have a state run by two cultures at the same time. There is no more reason to force the Jews and Arabs to live in the same state than there is to force France and Germany to unify.

The reality of the Arab/Israeli dispute is that the Arab side wants to do away with the Jews sovereignty and the Jews don't want to give it up. Arguing for one state is simply a way of sugar coating the Arab call for Israel's destruction. The Israelis aren't going to fall for that. Thinking people shouldn't either.

[Chulanowa]

33. Interesting take.

Are you one of those people who bitches and moans when you hear telephone menu options spoken in Spanish, too? "Only one may rule" my brown ass.

[whosinpower]

45. You simplify the issue

I offer a compromise that, as a result, eliminates the possibility of any future palistinian state, while, at the same time, offers more land for Israel - in exchange for full citizenship of palistinians living in Gaza and the West bank with full rights and freedoms afforded any Israeli of Jewish descent.

Your objection, then comes down to not allowing the same rights and freedoms to every citizen there because it might change the heritage of Israel. Yes, it would, but that does not mean the destruction of Israel - it allows it to grow, evolve and develop. It gives palistinians a real chance at making something with their lives, instead of blowing themselves up.

I am not forcing anything. I offer an alternative to the two state solution, which, in my mind is a dead end with no long term sustainability and viability of the two fighting over a few acres of land. One side claiming the other wants to destroy it, and the other in abject poverty, despair, and alienation. One side armed with militants, and the other expanding its land by the use of illegal settlements. This is the result of all the two state talk - perhaps an alternative should be floated, discussed and debated.

[aranthus]

69. No, you are not thinking this through.

You, say, "I offer a compromise that, as a result, eliminates the possibility of any future palistinian state," but this is not true. The reality is that you would be creating a Palestinian state (because it would be majority Palestinian), while destroying the Jewish state of Israel. You admit that Israel would no longer be Jewish, but that it does not mean the destruction of Israel. That doesn't make sense. The state might be called Israel, but it would be the Jewish state anymore. Imagine if 100 million Chinese, all still loyal to the PRC moved to France and took over. They might even still call it France, but it wouldn't be France. My problem with that is not that it would allow for equal rights. My problem is that it would destroy the national rights of the Jews to a country of their own. They would end up a minority in an Arab state. How many Arab states are there that have equal rights for minorities? Your "solution" is for the Jews to surrender and throw themselves on the Arabs' mercy. Why would they do that?

[whosinpower]

92. So, what you are saying then

Is that the sentence

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men and women are created equal."

Is fallacy? And then you justify this stance because Arab states do not recognize minorities as they should. Sometimes the way forward is to show the world, and the Arab states of another way. They will follow your example IF the example proves to be successful. Just take a look at the success of America - a mishmash of many different ethnicities coming forward to pursue their dreams - it did not matter what religion you were, what ethnicity, the overall rights of the many outweighed the rights of the select few.

I just did a search on population numbers for the palistinians living in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem - in 2007 - that number stands at 3.76 million souls.

At the same time, in Israel, population of jewish heritage stands at 5.45 million, 1.4 Arabs and 310 000 others.

So, by your standard, equal rights for almost half the population is unrealistic because the other half might have to recognize they cannot exist in a vacuum.

I'm sorry. Even though I am not American, I have such admiration for how America evolved into what it is today with a patchwork of many different peoples from many different lands - that the whole idea that one group deserves special status over another - I find that just not right, regardless of who that group is.

[sellitman]

87. Best reply of all!!!!!!

You nail it.


:toast:

[cali]

27. Thanks for the response

I don't necessarily think you're naive, but I don't think you've addressed the issues I brought up in the post I wrote about wanting people to explain how one secular state can be achieved. You refer glancingly to the American Civil War, but you neglect to mention that Americans at that time had far more in common in the way of a shared history than do Palestinians and Israeli Jews. You also glance over the horrific price that was paid to preserve the Union. And this isn't about preserving a union, it's about creating one. I'd assume that you aren't OK with the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives just to create one state.

And how would one ensure that the state is secular? How could that be done without an occupying army?

The enmity and hate that has been built up for decades will take time to dissipate. You can't force it.

Let me ask you one more thing: Do you believe that the one state solution should be imposed by force? Because clearly, at this time, and for the foreseeable future, that's the only way it could be attempted.

[Chulanowa]

34. You would perhaps prefer two warring religious states?

I'm not going to buy into your "hundreds of thousands of deaths" stuff here. While I do think there will be violence at first, I don't think it could be any worse than what we've already seen from the two-state plan. A full-out civil war is rather unlikely - Palestinians lack the manpower, and according to Israel's supporters, Israel is very restrained militarily ;)

Both Israel and the West Bank leadership are rather secular already. Hamas is Islamist, but they're only able to get the support they do as a result of the division and violence, and would likely never again sniff a leadership role in this scenario. Secularism would be a bit of a walk, but when we have three major religions arm-wrestling over leadership without civil war, the ultimate answer is a secular state that allows for freedom of religion. It's one of those things that has to be developed rather than demanded.

And no, I wouldn't have it done by force, but by diplomacy and negotiations. This would require several other nations - The US, Britain, and Egypt at the least - to consider the single-state solution an option, and present it as such.

[cali]

38. gad. take a look at the Israeli armed forces. Now take a look at

the sentiments of Israelis about a single state. Combine the two. Do you actually think that if some entity or entities tried to force Israel into becoming a single state with Palestinians on the WB, they wouldn't employ the full might of their military? And obviously, Israel isn't going to move toward a single state willingly- not in the foreseeable future, at any rate. I don't think Israel is restrained in its use of force, whatever anyone else thinks.

Secularism among Palestinians has understandably been fading for decades and decades. It's unlikely to make a comeback anytime soon.

Pie in the sky is nice, but it's ultimately a silly thing to pin your hopes on.

[Chulanowa]

40. Who's talking about force?

So far it's just you.

How do we know Israel will be utterly unreceptive to an idea which no one has tried before? Of course people are going to be skeptical about something that still has that new idea smell.

I think it's a bit cynical to say that secularism is unlikely to make a comeback among Palestinians... Fact is, the West Bank is already rather secular. Gaza is only dominated by Islamists because of its situation - it's the "any port in a storm" mentality. Is an Islamist organization the only one running the hospitals and distributing food? Well then allah u akbar, give me my bag of flour, right?

BOTH solutions are pie in the sky, Cali. It's just that one of them has obviously failed and no one's willing to try the other because it might involve, y'know, actual effort. One hallmark of the Israeli-Arab conflict is that ultimately, the only people who have shown any degree of give-a-fuck are the Israelis and Palestinians themselves. Apathy abounds in the Arab world, and Western Europe and the US put on a nice floor show while doing nothing of value.

[cali]

42. It's been discussed for years and years.

It's not by any stretch of the imagination a new idea. How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

And the reason I don't think secularism will come back any time quickly is because of the "port in the storm" mentality.

And yeah, I agree that any solution is pretty unlikely at this point, but I do have some hope that a two state solution is at least a possibility now with President Obama. And just because something's failed before doesn't de facto mean that in another iteration it can't succeed. I see George Mitchell's appointment and President Obama's leadership as a tiny glimmer of hope.

[Chulanowa]

43. But never seriously

Every scrap of focus has been on the two-state model. A model that was designed to fail. Again, please look at the idea put forth for two states in 1947. Note who gets what resources. Also for comparison, note the fate of other British holdings released in this manner. Each and every one of them was intentionally set up to be a timebomb, from Sudan to the Indian subcontinent. Israel-Palestine is just another in a rather large group. The idea of giving a single-state solution a serious look is rather new for most people.

Want to strip Hamas' power and thus restore the chance for Gaza to move to Secularism? It's not going to happen by shooting - Israel's latest adventure was dipshittery at its finest. Again, integration and cooperation becomes the key.

I'm not saying we should totally scrap the two-state solution as an option (though if we did I seriously doubt anyone would notice). Just that the single-state one needs to be presented as a viable alternative. It's going to take a lot of work either way, which as I said, isn't something that many nations are willing to put forth. I also have little hope for a bisected, fratricidal nation with no real resources who's under constant military pressure will emerge as anything resembling a viable state.

[Vegasaurus]

49. If you think a single state model is not DESIGNED TO FAIL

you are living in an alternate reality.

The single state model has been "presented as an option" and soundly rejected.

The Israelis have nothing whatsoever to gain from it, and they are not voluntarily turning their country into a 23rd Muslim dominated nation.

The only way that there would ever be a single state is by a show of force, where the Arabs win, aided by other countries.

But it will never unfold that way politically or diplomatically, only militarily.

And the Israelis would defend their nation with any weaponry possible, and I think that would include nukes.

[whosinpower]

51. The model I presented was such

That Israel would gain legitimacy and soveriegnty of all of Gaza and the West Bank -in exchange for full rights, citizenship of the palistinians living there - with equal rights afforded to any Israeli citizen, regardless of his/her religion, or ethnicity, or regional birthplace.

That the state or future state of Palistine would never exist.

And you tell me that Israel has nothing to gain from this????? I think they gain allot. Firstly, they gain legitimacy of land they have coveted given the illegal settlements. Secondly, the threat of a future state of Palistine is eliminated. Thirdly, this constrains the right of return to only those living within Gaza and the West Bank.

With a common agreement with both parties - the state would be run as a secular state, focusing and expanding on common ground and finding common causes from which to govern. Palistinians are afforded a voice, a vote, a chance to work, participate within society, pay taxes.

[The Magistrate]

53. A Waste Of Breath, Sir: This Is Never Going To Happen

[Idealism]

55. Power vs. Morality

Or in other words, realism vs. idealism.

He is describing an ideal situation, but this ongoing conflict is made up of less than ideal circumstances. Obviously there needs to be common ground found. I often struggle with the idea of what Israel could gain from the Palestinians. Peace isn't particularly good for the way Israel runs itself (high defense budgets, military salaries, emphasis on service). What could they offer Israel other than moral high ground for their concessions?

[The Magistrate]

57. Power Will Have Its Due, Sir

What the Jews if Israel want is a state that embodies the Jewish nation, as France does the French, Poland the Poles, and so on around the world. They have at present the military power to maintain this, and will not leave it go save through the utter overthrow of that military power.

There is not much to worry about in the way of dire consequences to peace. Military expenditure is dead economic weight; the pursuits of peaceable ventures are much more profitable. Basically, what the Arab Palestinians must offer is acceptance Israel exists, and is not to be assailed by any level of violence.

"There is no instance of a state benefiting from prolonged warfare."

[Idealism]

61. Hypothetically speaking

If Israel were to agree to the API, thereby normalizing relations with all 22 members of the Arab league, garnering full recognition from them, and ensuring a lasting peace in the region, how would the US justify the flow of USAID to them? Seeing as how all the Foreign assistance given to Israel is for military purposes only, how would any country rationalize sending them billions of dollars per year, when a long-term peace agreement has been reached? That would have far-reaching affects on Israel's militaristic ideology, I would think.

I strongly agree with you and Mr. Jefferson, that any country involved in lasting war does their citizens no benefit, but the citizens don't run the country. Politicians and transnational corporations do. Which is why I don't think that Israels ruling class would welcome peace, although their citizens would most likely think different.

I believe the direct quote to be: "No country benefits from engaging in a state of perpetual war"

[The Magistrate]

62. The Aid Would Likely Lapse, Sir: There Would Be No Need For It

Nor would there be need for the military expenditure it supports.

The cessation of hostility from without would have the greatest effect on Israeli society; the 'militaristic ideology' stems from many decades of genuine violent threat. Cessation of hostilities against Israel would also remove the 'ideology of struggle' from Arab Palestinian society, doubtless with much beneficial effect on the state of that people. The odd thing is that if there were two states existing peaceably side-by-side on the feasible boundaries all can see, each would derive considerable benefit from co-operation with the other in the economic sphere, to the point that something approaching a loose federation could well be achieved in time.

Translations from Chinese can vary considerably: the various translations of the same Confucian and Taoist works on my shelves often bear only the faintest resemblance to one another.

[Chulanowa]

60. Ah, interesting

Nukes, you say? Is that sort of like saying "you can't fire me, I quit!"? And I really must say, I find it intriguing how you prefer the idea of Israel annihilating itself in a nuclear holocaust - choice of word intentional - rather than concede that hey, maybe Zionism wasn't such a hot idea.

Are you one of those "Final Days" Christain types? You know the kind that contend there must be an Israel, so all the Jews can be there and get killed so Jesus can come back? Because every post I see from you utterly seethes with contempt, not just for Muslims in general - not unusual in these parts - but also for the people of Israel as well. it's like you love the idea of Israel, but you wouldn't mind if a couple fucking million of them dropped dead if it proves you right about something.

[Vegasaurus]

67. Nice try

You obviously don't know any Israelis.

They aren't giving up their country.

That's the bottom line.

Perhaps you really should do a little reading on the topic and educate yourself.

[whosinpower]

68. Wow - interesting

I never knew that Israeli's and palistinians had so much in common. They would even resort to blowing themselves up in before giving up their land......

As you say - that is the bottom line.

There are more and more similarities that you point out - thanks for that.

[shaayecanaan]

86. The South Africans had nukes as well.

nt

[whosinpower]

35. Well, this does not necessarily require an occupying army

What it does require is leadership within both factions of a common vision, of seeking common ground from which to build a sustainable society for all people living there.

It also requires both sides compromising some closely held convictions, but I believe that at the end of the day, palistinians and Israeli's have more in common than they care to admit to themselves or each other. Both peoples have been subject to manipulations by power brokers in the past without consequence of personal civilian sacrifices. Both peoples want to live there. Both peoples want their children to grow up in an atmosphere of peace, security and prosperity. Both peoples have been persecuted. The Jewish before, and most horrifically at the time of the Holocaust - which we, in our silence, enabled. And then as a salve to our complicity we granted them their own nation without regard for those who were living there - whomever that was.

Can you force a one state solution? No. Can you force a two state solution? That has not worked out either. And the emnity and hate that has been built up for decades will never cease within walls that seperate them. Never - and the cost of lives is unfathomable - you cannot put a number on a war that never ends.

Some would suggest that this idea would mean the destruction of Israel -and I disagree. Cultures and society cannot survive in a vacuum, trapped in time by the constraints that bind the society from growing and evolving. And once freed from the constraints that force each other to focus on the differences of each society will allow those cultures to flourish, grow and prosper. But to try to maintain some semblence of a society locked away behind walls because any change would mean the destruction of Israel's heritage is an end game with no future. Israel's heritage and history would grow and be inclusive rather than exclusive.

No outside force could ram this into place. It has to come within the walls of the Knesset and within the Palistinian Authority. And I am not suggesting that Israel invade, occupy and permanently claim the West Bank and Gaza. I am suggesting something rather different - an alternative to the two state solution. You ask how one would ensure that the state be secular - with laws, rules and governance that both would have input on, with both sides agreeing to a common ideal that both are entitled to exist.

[shira]

70. it's bad when the NYT

is circulating propaganda from tyrants like Gaddafi who advocate for the destruction of Israel.

[iconicgnom]

82. geez, did you really have to post that! n/t

[cali]

89. Avnery on the one state solution

<snip>

The idea of One Joint State was old when I was a boy. It flourished in the 30s of the last century. But it went bankrupt. The idea of the Two State solution grew in the soil of the new reality.

If I may be permitted to make a personal remark: I am not a historian. I was alive when it happened. I am an eye witness, an ear witness, a feeling witness. As a soldier in the 1948 war, as the editor of a news magazine for 40 years, as a Knesset member for 10 years, as an activist of Gush Shalom - I have seen the events from different angles. My hand is on the public pulse.

THERE ARE three questions concerning the One State idea: (1) Is it at all possible? (2) If it is possible - is it good? (3) Will it bring a just peace?

AS TO the first question, my absolutely unequivocal answer is: No, it is not possible.

Anyone connected with the Israeli-Jewish public knows that its innermost desire is the existence of a state with a Jewish majority. A state where the Jews are masters of their fate. That desire trumps all other aims, even the desire for a state in All of Eretz-Israel.

One can talk about One State from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, a bi-national or non-national state - in practice what it means is the dismantling of the State of Israel. The negation of all the nation-building that has been carried out by five generations. That must be said clearly, without mumbling and equivocation, and that's what the public - the Jewish, and certainly the Palestinian - quite rightly thinks it is. What we are talking about is the dismantling of the State of Israel.

<snip>

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1178916307

This is from 12/5/07

[LeftishBrit]

90. Good article!

[Vegasaurus]

91. On this one, Avnery has it absolutely right

A one state solution is absolutely unequivocably impossible.