10 thoughts on “Akiva Eldar Trashes Israeli “Binational State” – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. Avram Burg recently reiterated his continued support for a two-state approach over a single state.

    The two-state approach is a breathing child, ill. The left is willing to neglect that breathing child, to euthanize it, and then say “I told you so” (just like Paul Krugman’s accurate description of republican campaign strategy).

    1. “A long-overdue constitution could create a state that belongs to all her citizens and in which the government behaves with fairness and equality toward all persons without prejudice based on religion, race or gender. Those are the principles on which Israel was founded and the values that bound Israel and America together in the past. I believe that creating two neighboring states for two peoples that respect one another would be the best solution. However, if our shortsighted leaders miss this opportunity, the same fair and equal principles should be applied to one state for both peoples. ”

      From the NY Times, August 4 op-ed.

      To repeat Avram Burg’s words.

      “I believe that creating two neighboring states for two peoples that respect one another would be the best solution.”

  2. In large measure, the peace process in Northern Ireland was made possible by rampant corruption in the South and the way in which all the freedoms which the Republic had won from the British Empire (at the cost of starting a revolution when Britain was fighting for her life against Imperial Germany, with predictably harsh results), were being surrendered to what amounts to a German Empire.

    Although John Major and Tony Blair have, with different levels of success, sought to claim credit for organizing the peace process, the actual driving force behind it was that the DUP and Sinn Fein discovered a shared visceral loathing for the Euro project which both Major and Blair hold dearest to their hearts. Both men are too insufferable to ever realize this.

    Both parties are determined to govern Northern Ireland more calmly and competently than the current shower of vested interests misgoverning the Republic, and so far they are quite evidently succeeding.

    It may not be many years before Sinn Fein get a united Ireland on terms which the DUP will not object to: namely that Stormont will be seen as a more natural centre for that entity’s government than Dublin, with wall to wall corruption and incompetence kept afloat solely by the willingness of Brussels, Berlin and Washington to keep pouring money and political support into the rancid stew.

    If a United Ireland simply means a broken Republic being allowed to join a prosperous self-governing Ulster for rescue from its own political “elite” and the rubble of the Eurozone, the boys will be too busy laughing to throw bottles, let alone bombs.

    But both Sinn Fein and the DUP are going to have show a lot of resolve: to go on working together, to resist and rout out all corruption -and to be seen to do so at every turn- and to resist any and all attempts to give the EU a role in “promoting peace” or “economic growth”, because you don’t get either from the massaging of vested interests towards a high ideological goal, which is the EU’s only available method in any field.

    It may seem as if there’s no way that any of this is applicable to Israel, but these pages are forever alluding to corruption and vested interests, without ever seeing them as the ROOT problem. My own suspicion is that there is more than enough corruption in Israel and amongst the Palestinian administration, for a cleanup to be a strong unifying cause.

    Just getting your heads down and dealing with the corruption -on all sides- rather than battering your heads against bizarre and perverse political positions, may surprise you by removing the reasons for those political positions being as bizarre and perverse as they are.

    The leeches are fastened onto the artery pumping money from the USA to Israel, and from the arteries pumping money from the Iranians and the Arabs into rival Palestinian factions.

  3. This discussion is (to my thought) quite weird. IMO there will be NO binational state (other than an indefinite continuation the present undemocratic, apartheid arrangement), and will also be no two-states, unless and until the effective pro-apartheid/pro-expulsion political majority in Israel loses power, which (IMO) can occur only when another extremely unlikely event occurs, namely, an international coup against the USA/Israel presumably based on a sudden 45-year late determination to enforce international law (and requiring Israel to remove all settlers and demolish all settlements as (e.g.) demanded-without-teeth in UNSC 465 (1980)..

    It makes no sense to work for two-states (or for binational) EXCEPT by working on strengthening and energizing the international community. IT has started to talk about Syria and Iran. It is high time it returned to talking about Palestine and international law.

    Try to imagine the Palestinian negotiating strength if and when the International community puts the screws to Israel and gives a 6-month or 1-year deadline for removal of all settlers and demolishment of all settlements.

    And consider how much negotiating strength Palestinians have without that essential help. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

  4. It’s impossible for me to overcome the fact that the Balfour Declaration was a negotiated instrument for a people’s land not apartied to the agreement, and it specifically stated, in addition, that the indigenous Palestinians would not be harmed.

    From 1948 and on, the entirety of Israel existence, great and irreparable harm has been done to the indigenous Palestinians. To this day, the harm is denied and/or omitted by even those that consider themselves, “good Zionists”. But the political ideology, in practice, necessitates an ethnic cleansing of land. So, how can there be any good Zionists?

    The ideal of a two-state solution is similarly an illusion. The thought that Israel, obsessed with dominating the region and the world to pursue its sole interests, would draw up an equal Palestinian state for the people it has been horribly damaging for 63 long years without relent is a laughable impossibility. Israel would obsess with controlling their new Palestinian twin, covertly and overtly.

    The only solution is a one-state similar to the unification of South Africa under Nelson Mandela, ending the apartheid there for good. This has already been tried, tested, and holds valid. Israel continues to want to manipulate things to no end, despite having no standing to negotiate in the first place over ILLEGAL winnings.

    Besides, I am holding a scroll here that covenants to Iranians all that land from circa 530 BC. It was written by Cyrus the Great, the one who rebuilt the Second Temple for Judea. The Hebrews of yore, the Cohenite Priests freed from Babylonian captivity, were given a new Zion by Cyrus the Great to serve as an autonomous satrap, or province, of the Iranian empire. The ideal was this: the land would be tolerant to all in it. So, Cyrus the Great may not only be the father of Zionism, but he made it clear: there can only be one-state, and it has to be tolerant to all.

  5. What it boils down to is one state would be too expensive, in many ways, to the Jewish population. It would guarantee security for Jews, but not political control, and political control is what Zionism is about. The problem is that anyone can see that the state of Israel is no longer militarily defensible. Even a modest group like Hezbollah, with a little juice from Pakistan, could utterly decimate several cities. And there may be worse approaching unconventional threats.

    1. What does political control do for Zionism? This control is much vaunted but it only really pays off when it exploits others. Is it this exploitation the basis for political control as an overriding Zionist requirement. Why have a state at all? Political control has not done anything for Judaism except lead it to near ruin. I know — I am one slim step from abandoning the faith of my fathers for centuries, ruling it out for my immediate family and progeny. It is just unbearable to be an American Jew of conscience against the backdrop of Israeli history and the facts of Palestine. Maybe better to not be a Jew. (But, I’m always threatening..and you know those who threaten don’t do it!)

  6. A one state solution is a form of utopianism. It will be just a sucessful as securing individuals rights as Stalin and Mao’s utopias. After all, we have so many great examples of Arab countries in the world today that preserve individual, minority, not to mention women’s rights. However un-immaculate the conception of Israel was (no more than the US, Australia…), and how imperfect it is today, this “cure” will be far worse than the “disease”.

    1. You don’t have an Israel that does very well at preserving individual, minority or women’s rights either. So what are you kvetching about? You expect the Arabs to do a better job than Israel at this?

      I’m afraid the status quo is a disease far more virulent than the one-state “cure” would be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link