Israeli settlements buried two-state solution

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23 Mar 2010 15:46:14 GMT
Source: Reuters


By Allyn Fisher-Ilan

JERUSALEM, March 23 (Reuters) - A dovish Israeli expert who predicted Israel's settlement campaign would perpetuate its control of the occupied West Bank said pursuing a two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a "waste of time."

Meron Benvenisti, a Harvard-educated historian known for his study of Israeli building on land it captured in the 1967 war, said he expected Israel's occupation of territory would "continue for a long time" and that peace talks should focus instead on power sharing in Israel and the West Bank.

"The fight for the two-state solution is obsolete," Benvenisti, 76, told a news conference on Tuesday.

The political split in Palestinian loyalties between the Fatah-dominated West Bank and Hamas-controlled Gaza, plus Israel's control of 60 percent of West Bank land, made it unlikely a Palestinian state could soon be founded, he said.

U.S. President Barack Obama's planned talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington were unlikely to yield any breakthrough, Benvenisti added.

Even if Washington succeeds in launching indirect peace, years of deadlock over core issues showed negotiations would not quickly reach an agreement, he said.

NOT MUCH LEFT

With Israel seeking to keep large settlement blocs under any deal, Benvenisti said only 40 percent of West Bank land was actually up for discussion, making Palestinian statehood unviable.

Even Western aid to the Palestinians of an annual $2 billion, which is intended to boost the economy, is really perpetuating Israeli control in the West Bank by funding Palestinian adaptation to the fact of occupation, he added...

read on..
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE62M16A.htm

[kayecy]

1. I have to agree with you, but is a single-state solution realistic?..........n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

2. Is never-ending apartheid? It is certainly more pleasant for Jewish Israelis, but is

that the standard?

[kayecy]

3. Not the standard, but do you think two 100year old combatants can live in peace?........

History doesn't supply many successful examples, does it?....Even the Northern Irish still have problems, as for Muslims in India, Serbs & Bosnians, Tibetans & Chinese..........

[ProgressiveMuslim]

4. They might be able to if Israel stopped the ongoing land theft and provocations.

I think international law should certainly be applied and adhered to. Don't you?

Should Israel be allowed to continue with illegal settlements because they want the land?

Don't you think this intentional illegal activity is a HUGE part of the ongoing enmity between the people?

Your sentiment suggests there is nothing that can be done; I don't think that's farther from the truth!

[kayecy]

5. You are right of course, but...................

You are right of course, but international law is not everything....If the people themselves prefer to live separately, then regrettably, one really should accommodate them.....Now you are going to say that most Palestinians (perhaps not Hamas members) would have no objection to living alongside Israeli-Jews - provided, of course, they were treated equally.

There, however, is the rub....It seems clear that most Israeli-Jews do not want to live alongside Arabs......This is aggravated by their higher earning potential and a feeling that they would be subsidizing lower-educated Arabs, particularly non-working Arab wives.

Add into the mixture the Jewish Shoah angst and you have a recipe for permanent civil war.


So where does that leave my position?

1. International law should be applicable - Unless it is likely to lead to more suffering and conflict.

2. Israel should not be allowed to continue with illegal settlements - I support the 1947 UN partition plan as a reasonable compromise.

3. The illegal land-grab IS a huge part of the enmity - Partition along the lines of the UN plan would resolve most of that.

4. I believe an awful lot can be done - Obamah has started balancing the US position and is supported by Europe...This has never happened before....If only there was a way of encouraging this change of heart, a just peace might be possible.

Personally I dislike the idea of a partition based mainly on racial lines but one must be practical....Here in Cyprus we have had the same problem since 1963, and much as I dislike partition, it really seems the best option for Cyprus and probably for Israel/Palestine.
.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. Separation would be anyone's first choice... except the settlers and their backers

who prefer apartheid. Why are settlers calling the shots?

Why don't average Israelis stand up to this nonsense?

Look at how this map has changed since the partition of 1947. How do you get 2 states out of this??

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WHhL8eiIPtQ/SWZ0xc1dOtI/AAAAAAAAABk/mwJS05VUMIQ/s400/Palestinian+loss+of+land+1946+to+2000.jpg

[kayecy]

12. The settlers are certainly bad news but don't blame only them........

Wasn't it Sharon as housing minister who said after 1967 something like..... "Build wherever you can...What becomes ours stays ours for ever"?....And gave grants to help them do it.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

13. Unlike many who post here, I think the Israeli electorate is responsible.

I don't buy the "the conflict is the result of extremism."

I think this kind of expansions has been part and parcel of the implementation of Zionism in Palestine.

Time to change what "Zionism" means.

[oberliner]

14. A distorted map that misrepresents the history of land transfers

This map is not the territories

A FEW days ago Andrew Sullivan published a rather distorted map that misrepresents the history of land transfers from Palestinian to Jewish control in the territory of Israel and Palestine. It's not clear who initially produced the map, but Mr Sullivan got it from Juan Cole, the Middle East expert, who should have known better. Jeffrey Goldberg strongly objected to the map, but he did a poor job of explaining why the map is so confused and tendentious. Mr Sullivan then responded to Mr Goldberg's objections in a fashion that, because those objections were not well explained, also missed the point.

It's a big mess. Here's the map in question:

Mr Goldberg argued that the problem with this map is that it represents the territory in 1946 under the name "Palestine", implying that there had been a Palestinian state which was then taken over by Israel. But that's not quite the point. The point is that the map fails to distinguish between land that is owned by Jews or Palestinians, and land that is controlled by Jewish or Palestinian political entities.

Take the vast triangular tract of land at the south of the map. That's the Negev desert. Apart from a few small oases, kibbutzes and towns, it's empty wasteland; it isn't owned by anyone. It represents almost half of the territory of Israel/Palestine. In 1946, the map represents it as "Palestinian land". That's silly. In 1949, it has somehow become "Jewish land". That's almost as silly, though Jewish irrigation projects did gradually, over a period of decades, turn an increasing (if still-small) portion of the desert into arable agricultural land claimed by Jewish owners. But the impression the map gives is that in 1947-8, Jews seized that land from Palestinian owners, which is absurd. What happened was that a piece of empty desert which had been under the control of the British Mandate (who got it after the Ottoman Empire fell apart) was awarded to the Jewish state. This is a question of political control, not land ownership.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/03/israel_and_palestine_0

[ProgressiveMuslim]

15. So are you saying since no one "owns" land in the Negev, any Israeli Arab could move there?

Could buy land there? Could build there?

[oberliner]

16. Could Arabs move there when it was "Palestinian land" according to these maps?

Who lived there at that time and who owned that part of land?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

17. Your author misses the point:

Does the map not illustrate control?

Compare the two maps... one of the loss of land, and one of administrative control.






That individual Jews don't "own" the Negev is deceptive. Does that mean Israeli Arabs can move there? Of course not, because the gov't of Israel controls that land in perpetuity, does it not?

[Violet_Crumble]

19. That's a quite a misleading blog post you linked to...

Take the vast triangular tract of land at the south of the map. That's the Negev desert. Apart from a few small oases, kibbutzes and towns, it's empty wasteland; it isn't owned by anyone. It represents almost half of the territory of Israel/Palestine. In 1946, the map represents it as "Palestinian land". That's silly. In 1949, it has somehow become "Jewish land". That's almost as silly, though Jewish irrigation projects did gradually, over a period of decades, turn an increasing (if still-small) portion of the desert into arable agricultural land claimed by Jewish owners. But the impression the map gives is that in 1947-8, Jews seized that land from Palestinian owners, which is absurd.

It's part of Israel, is it not? Whether it's arable land or not has zero to do with that, otherwise the same silly attempt at an argument could be used to claim that most of Australia being 'empty wasteland' means that it's silly to include it on a map as being part of Australia...

All four of the maps that this blogger is whinging about are actually correct.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

26. Wasn't that a piece of work? As if the gov't of Israel doesn't have full control over every centi-

meter of that land!!!

[Violet_Crumble]

27. Yeah, I did see that one as a deliberate attempt to be deceptive n/t

[Chulanowa]

33. Trouble is, it was home for people

It may be a desert, but it had plenty of Arab-Egyptian bedouin living out there. They were a distinct culture from the settled palestinian Arabs, but they were still lumped in as part of the "Arab" population when talks were being held.

Just as the American southwest belonged to the native tribes that dwelled there, the Negev belonged to the Bedouin clans that lived there. No, they did not have a national anthem nor a national constitution (not that israel has one of those, either) but it very certainly was their land.

of course, pretty much everyone involved - Turks, Palestinians, Jewish immigrants, the british - assumed that "nomad" meant "rootless wanderer" and, well, there you go.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. Yes, it's entirely realistic, sadly.

Four questions for you to answer:

1) Can you envisage Israel agreeing willingly to a one-state solution?
2) Can you envisage Israel agreeing willingly to a two-state solution?
3) Can you envisage the rest of the world (i.e the US) forcing Israel to accept a one-state solution?
4) Can you envisage the rest of the world (i.e the US) forcing Israel to accept a two-state solution?

My answers are "no", "no", "no" and "probably not"; I think that the continuation of the status quo is the most likely outcome, but that there's a chance for an imposed two-state solution (a month ago, I didn't think such a chance existed; I have been pleasantly surprised by the Obama administration's recent actions but I still don't think they have the stomach/the votes to turn words into sufficient action).

[sabbat hunter]

9. Personally I think

Israel should pull out of the west bank unilaterally, with the exception of the old city of Jerusalem. Tell the settlers that are there that they must leave, give them compensation for the loss of their houses (illegal or not they did put money in to them) and use force if necessary to get them out, same as they did in Gaza.

At that point it would be up to the Palestinians if they want peace or continued violence and war.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

10. Sabbat hunter, I am with you 100%!

[pelsar]

20. and the litmus test.....

israel pulls back...and just like in gaza, kassams and mortars start flying into israel.

are you going to support our attacks to stop them...using imperfect weapons with imperfect human judgement?


or will the cry of WAR CRIMES....start up again.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

21. Israel and the US engineered that disaster and you damn well know it.

I hate it when you start this nonsense up.

Whatever.

Don't pull out. Lord over an apartheid state forever.

[pelsar]

22. that wasn't the question was it?

whatever imperfect withdrawl happens...it will not satisfy everyone, thats a given....

hamas,hizballa or whatever with whomever the plan is, that iran, the muslim brotherhood, egypt, jordan or Britan, engineer ...and kassams start flying into TA or ben gurion airport....

and your reply will be?

(besides blaming israel and making it clear that israel has no right to stop those attacks...any other options?)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. It should be done within the context of a negotiated settlement.... unlike Gaza!

[pelsar]

24. so big deal...you dont live la la land...

unlike others....you're very familiar with the fact that negotiations, signed peaces of paper in this conflict between parties will hardly stop the next internal assassination, political coup, change of the guard, and all of what that means (you think the PA will suddenly NOT be corrupt?). You think hamas is suddenly going to go away with a flag lowering and raising ceremony?

or anybody you want to blame for bunch of pissed off, foreign fed Palestinians launching some rockets....

do we get the right to stop them or not?
(maybe not as punishment for being such assholes for 40-60years....you tell me)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

25. Dude. YOu can't pull this shit over on me. I know the state of Gaza Strip when Israel pulled out.

Palestinians leaders BEGGED the gov't of Israel to coordinate with them.

Your gov't told them to fuck off.

Are you seriously going to try to pretend that leaving chaos wasn't the goal? What a perfect set-up! Good Zionists like you can now proclaim for the next 50 years -- look what happened when we left Gaza!

... as if anyone with 2 eyeballs and 2 braincells didn't see that coming a mile away.

Pelsar, just drop it. This really pisses me off, because I KNOW you know better, and you damn sure know I KNOW better!

[pelsar]

29. westbank.....we've moved on....what are the real options.....

look around at the arab world...what might actually happen if israel were to pullout now after negotiating with Abbas...hardly a man who has real respect from the Palestinians.

i will note that this subject never gets brought up.....its avoided like the plague because it questions the holy grail of "negotiated settlement" which somehow is supposed to make everybody's agenda from hamas to hizballa, to the settlers, to islamic jihad, al quida (now entering the playground) to suddenly disappear and everybody then joins hands and sings "we are the world".

well.....give me a couple of optional scenarios.....you know some of the real ones......

[maxsolomon]

32. when my aunt gets balls she will be my uncle

so yes, america will support israel DEFENDING itself against hypothetical attacks which have not yet occurred. which has been our policy since the forming of the state.

[shaayecanaan]

35. If Israel withdraws from the West Bank and Gaza

then the issue is resolved. If the Palestinians fire rockets into Israel thereafter I fully accept Israel will have the right to respond with military force.

[kayecy]

11. A very reasonable suggestion but why exclude the old city?......

Unless it is going to be declared an something like an international protectorate I don't see why Israel should be left in possession.

[sabbat hunter]

18. Why shouldn't Israel be left in possession of the old city?

Palestine no real justification to rule over the old city politically. The holy sites are currently overseen by the various religions, let it stay that way.

The UN was supposed to oversee the old city as an international city with the partition in 47, but they abrogated that duty by not defending it against the invading Jordanian forces or taking any real action against Jordan to force them out. It was not supposed to be under Palestinian control under any partition plan. Since the UN long ago abrogated their duty over the old city, I see no reason why politically and spiritually it should not remain status quo.



Under my plan, Palestine can have a capital in East Jerusalem (the new sections) just as Israel has its capital in the western new sections.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. Just Tell The Settlers If They Choose To Stay They Are On Their Own

The problem is the government gave them healthy rewards to move there in the first place. It's a mess.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. Yes, it's entirely realistic. Right does not make might. N.T.

[Recursion]

38. "Realistic"? It's the facts on the ground as they stand NT

[Jefferson23]

8. More Americans need to be made aware of the role the U.S. plays

in the conflict. The polls here would change in favor of Obama pushing with more effort than other previous president to end the insanity.


Document - Israel / OPT: Fueling conflict: Foreign arms supplies to Israel/Gaza

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/012/2009/en/5be86fc2-994e-4eeb-a6e8-3ddf68c28b31/mde150122009en.ht

[ConsAreLiars]

28. The goal has always been one state with two or several surrounded and walled in

Bantustans or reservations.

The "talks" were always a sham and a game, the only objective being more time to put more "facts on the ground." Whether the US was a willing collaborator or just an honest but extraordinarily stupid and easily conned "mediator," well, it's one or the other -- the results are the same.

The US has facilitated this objective and the strategy for many decades, but it only increases the threat and danger to the people in a new nation that once might have chosen peaceful cooperation and mutual benefit with those in the neighborhood it chose to move into.

This chosen course puts the people into a state of fear, makes them "think" with their hind brains dominant and react like cornered animals, and breeds the same sort of authoritarianism that emerged out of the Wiemar Republic and that the Reich Wing in the US is promoting through its fear propaganda machinery.

This path is a fatal one for the people of Israel. The US empire is in terminal decline and its ability to keep Egypt and Jordan in alliance with Israel and fund them all will diminish, and their ability to use torture and police state tactics to suppress the dominant (and even worse) opposition forces will eventually prove inadequate.

There are some who will say, well the US pulled this off successfully against the indigenous populations in that land. Drove them into small enclaves, locked them up, starved them, poisoned them, denied them education and resources, deprived them in every way, and defeated them. Although this might be their model, it did not work in South Africa and the situation Israel is now in is far more similar that of 20th century South Africa that 18th-19th century US.

Anyone who wants a better future for those whose families moved into Palestine and declared a state of Israel, even the rabid crazies, really should move into supporting options like the '67 borders that have at least a chance. The current path is not only evil, unjust, and brutalizing and dehumanizing for those who advocate it, it leads only to more mass slaughters.

(edit to add a little)

[proteus_lives]

30. The settlements have to be removed.

There will be no one-state solution.

[Colmantras]

31. O Jerusalem, Take Heed

This is an interesting opinion by Amitakh Stanford. The only chance for peace is a two state solution. Both the Palestinian state and the Israeli state need to have a seaport and continuous borders. The neighbouring muslim nations should think about granting some land to the Palestinians. However, now we are getting to the crucial part, which is Jerusalem. Jerusalem needs to be either wholly in Palestine or wholly in Israel. A "Berlin Wall" will not work, there would be continued friction and threats of war. Both Israelis and Palestinians are religious, so they should be open to an interesting solution:

http://www.flyingbuffaloes7.net/keluar9.html

Jerusalem is a major sticking point in regard to a two-state solution, which affects not only the parties, but peace in the region. Both sides have long-standing reasons to be inflexible regarding the city. Both sides have long historical, cultural and religious reasons for their intransigence regarding Jerusalem. This has led many people to insist that the two-state solution have a shared Jerusalem. That is, severing Jerusalem in twain, part to one nation and part to another, or granting co-ownership of the city to both nation states. Are either of these proposals wise?

The twentieth century saw what happened when secular powers divided up Berlin into sections. The situation was so bellicose that the Berlin Wall was erected to section off the city. For decades, the Wall divided the people and caused tremendous misery until it was finally demolished.

The same mentality of erecting “Berlin Walls” is very active in modern-day Israel, as is seen by the walled-off sections of the West Bank. Fencing off sections of Berlin did not work, and it should not be encouraged in Jerusalem. Further, if there are national borders running through the city of Jerusalem, it will guarantee that there will be continued friction and bloodshed in the city.

It is understood that neither party wants to relinquish all rights to Jerusalem, but, in reality, to have lasting peace in the area, is there any other choice? I suggest that there is not. Many centuries of conflict support my position. Therefore, in my opinion, Jerusalem should either be wholly within the nation of Israel or wholly within the newly created Palestinian state. To accomplish this, one side or the other would necessarily have to relinquish Jerusalem voluntarily, if it is to be settled amicably. It should be realized that the side that vacates Jerusalem should be amply compensated for it when boundaries for the two newly-formed nation states are drawn.

Clearly, both parties’ claims to Jerusalem are heavily based on religious grounds. If neither side will voluntarily relinquish the city, then, after solemn prayers, a lot should be cast over which nation state will house Jerusalem. Those who sincerely believe in the Divine should accept that the lot will result in the Divine’s will being carried out.

[Recursion]

39. Umm... I don't know that the situation in Berlin was "bellicose"

Ulbricht was just tired of losing several dozen East Berliners every day.

[IndianaGreen]

37. I agree, it is a waste of time. We have a one-state solution now.

The only remaining issue is the nature of that one-state solution.

[depakid]

40. I think that's become abundantly clear- the model we're looking is South Africa