====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Ian Pace wrote: > Surely the biggest question for a single state is what its immigration (and > thus 'right of return') policy would be? An extension of the current Jewish > Right of Return to all those of Palestinian origin (however that is defined) > as well? I think the more far-sighted Zionists have figured out that they can continue to run the show even if every Palestinian scattered across the planet returns. Political power flows from economic power, something that seems lost on the single state theorists. Even though he is for a two state solution, another chimera, Michael Neumann gets to the heart of the problem in responding to Jeff Halper and Virginia Tilley, single state advocates: http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann05152007.html And how does this work in the snake oil one-state solution? Here the sales pitch gets murky. In Israel, Jewish property holders either keep what they have, or the disputes continue as they have since before Israel's foundation--it isn't clear. In the occupied territories, though, the settlers get a sweet deal: Jews in the occupied territories simply keep what they have. Am I kidding? Here we have Jeff Halper, justly celebrated for his Committee against House Demolitions, writing around 2003: "Israeli Jews wishing to live in the settlements could continue to do so under Palestinian sovereignty (which would permit the settlements to be integrated, of course), but would lose their role as extensions of Israeli control by remaining Israeli citizens. " [A Middle Eastern Confederation: A Regional 'two-Stage' Approach To The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict . A working paper by Jeff Halper, written around 2003)] Here he is again, writing in The Kansas City Jewish Chronicle on November 24, 2006: "The two-state solution is dead. Israel killed it (as Begin charged Sharon with doing back in 1977). The settlement enterprise has gone beyond the point of no return." And Virginia Tilley agrees: "...Israel must admit its Muslim and Christian population as citizens and then grapple with the ensuing tough work of pluralist democracy like the rest of us. "This was the hard-won South African solution, where the state now represents everybody. Seventeen languages and differing historical narratives are recognized and dignified. Whites have retained their property and wealth, while black Africans are rising rapidly to join the middle and upper classes. "...that we presently have a one-state solution--Israel's apartheid version--allows us to affirm a different one: a unified secular-democratic state, in which everyone is equal in dignity and rights, and where the Jewish and Palestinian national homes can share the land as they should." Note the glowing "Whites have retained their property and wealth". I gather that, come Tilley's revolution, Palestinians and Israelis will be equal in their right to stare at what was once a Palestinian home. This will be very good because it will 'recognize and dignify different historical narratives'. The more you look at claims about the settlements, the more suspicious you grow. Sure, the settlement enterprize has gone beyond the point of no return, and sure the settlements are there to stay. It's just that the settlers aren't: their buildings would house Palestinians quite as well as Jews. Is it impossible to get the settlers to give up their settlements? Not at all. If the Israeli army withdraws, the Palestinians would have no difficulty persuading the settlers it was time to leave. The Algerians did the same with settlers much more deeply rooted than in Palestine. If it's so impossible, why did it already happen--why did Israeli troops make it happen--in Gaza? It's impossible to get rid of the settlers only if the Israeli government supports them, that is, only if it's impossible to get the Israeli government to stop supporting them. But if that's impossible, how, is it possible that Israeli government will give up something far dearer to it--its home turf, its own existence, and the existence of a Jewish state, at the very least within 1948 borders? How are the settlements a tougher nut to crack than the state of Israel itself? What's the point of this one-state solution? If the settlements are something to be legitimated, why not say the same--as Tilley hints--of all Israeli land claims, everywhere in Palestine? Entrenching the settlements means a great big pat on the back for the very worst, least conciliatory, most violent political forces in Israel, the spoilt, fanatic racial supremacists who conceived the settler movement and made it into the formidable force it is today. It confirms that their strategy worked. Do Halper and Tilley really think this is a formula for peace? "Peace in our time", perhaps. If only one could think that Tilley and Halper had been dishonest in stating their positions. Far from it; they have been very straightforward, if not very clear. The interplay between muddled idealism and muddled practicality makes for quite a comedy of errors. Having two states isn't good enough for these people; they want justice. To get justice, they confirm the worst of the usurpers in their usurpation--not only of land, but of scarce resources. Apparently the Palestinians will clutch citizenship papers to their breasts and be happy in the dusty leavings of what was once their land. Meanwhile the settler movement and their allies will be free to pursue their project of 'redeeming' Palestine, and it will all be ok, because it will happen within the confines of a single secular state.. Humpty Dumpty couldn't have got it more ass-backwards. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
