"The egg is hopelessly scrambled"

[shaayecanaan]

<snip>

For Palestinian radicals, the closing of the settlements would be a terrible blow. The smartest Palestinian strategists understand this. “The longer they stay out there, the more Israel will appear to the world to be essentially an apartheid state,” the former Palestinian Authority negotiator Michael Tarazi told me a few years ago. “The settlements mean that the egg is hopelessly scrambled. Basically, it is already one state.”

Good article from the Atlantic. Well worth the read. Unforgiven

[Crunchy Frog]

1. You're going to be called every name in the book for posting this.

Any support for the one state solution is greeted on this board with hysteria. The sad thing is that attacks are directed at posters here, rather than at the people in Israel who are making a one state solution inevitable by making a two state solution impossible.

[shaayecanaan]

2. Aye

from the article:-

'A Palestinian state, of course, might not come to pass. Ziad Abu Zayyad, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority government, is a veteran peace negotiator and one of the few Palestinian leaders who still view a two-state solution as conceivable. “There are only two or three years left,” he said. “If this doesn’t work, then everyone will be arguing for a one-state solution.”'

[Behind the Aegis]

3. Can't destroy Israel militarily? Do it politically.

If you think the Israelis are the only stopping point, then you aren't very familiar with the depths of problems in that area regarding the creation of Palestine.

[shaayecanaan]

4. I prefer to see it as a restoration...

and given that there are no more Turks or Brits, yes, the Israelis are the "only stopping point".

You know, back before the Turks, Brits and so forth, Palestine was quite the place. The English word "gauze" (fine, light cloth used for trimmings, shrouds and veils) comes from the word "Gaza" where it originated.

For centuries, Europe valued Palestinian fabrics, and many period paintings of Jesus and Mary featured either mother or child wrapped in a Palestinian shroud, ironically often inscribed with verses from the Quran. You'd probably be surprised to know how many of your ancestors were buried in Palestine's finest.

Give or take a crusade or two, it was still a glorious town. Yes, she's hardly the city she used to be, but still, Gazans had civilisation at a time when Europeans were still killing each other with sharpened sticks.

[notfullofit]

5. You quoted

"period paintings of Jesus and Mary featured either mother or child wrapped in a Palestinian shroud, ironically often inscribed with verses from the Quran."

That would be rather difficult since the Quran was not written until 600 + years after Jesus was born.

[shaayecanaan]

18. Yes

In chronological order:-

Jesus is born.
Quran is written.
During the Crusades, crusaders bring back to Europe fine Arabic fabrics
Europeans associate the fabrics with high wealth or status
Painters paint pictures of Mary and Jesus, wrapped in said fabrics

All clear?

[Behind the Aegis]

6. It is still destruction of Israel.

You know, back before all those, there were the Jews. But, as they say, times change and the fact is Israel and Israelis are real and to advocate her destruction and the destruction of the Israeli people is disgusting beyond all belief, even if you call it "restoration."

BTW..."gauze" may have been a derivative of the Arabic word for "raw silk." As for Gaza, the "Israeli stopping point" has already been removed, time for the restoration to begin...two years late.

[shaayecanaan]

19. Not really...

Does the prospect of the combined numbers of Hispanic and Black people in America soon outnumbering white people mean the destruction of America?

Zionists in the 1940s were perfectly willing to consider a binational state.

[UndertheOcean]

21. Thank you ! good point !

and I think BTA with evade answering it !

[Behind the Aegis]

25. Do not presume to know what I will or will not do; you seem not to know me well at all.

Perhaps you should stick to worrying about what you will or won't answer.

[hack89]

22. Hispanic and Black people are Americans

they do not represent a threat to American democracy, institutions or values. The same cannot be said of Hamas - their goal is a conservative theocracy. Do you think they will embrace Israel's western values of tolerance and multi-culturism? I don't think so.

It is not about race - it is about differences in fundamental cultural (not moral) values.

[Crunchy Frog]

23. It's my understanding

that there are plenty of Jewish, Israeli citizens, who also want a conservative theocracy. Maybe they should be stripped of their citizenship, especially since so many of them prefer to live outside of Irael proper, in the West Bank. Let everybody there become citizens of a new Palestinian state.

[hack89]

36. Citizens have rights

Palestinians are not and never have been Israeli citizens. I hope you can see the difference.

[shaayecanaan]

29. I imagine that most Haredi are conservative theocrats

and accordingly I would imagine there are probably as many theocrats amongst Israelis as there are amongst Palestinians.

If Israel proper is any indication, the Arabs and Jews there seem to be far better at co-existing than (for example) Indians and Polynesians in Fiji, or Serbs and Croats, etc.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. You really can't see the difference? Why am I not surprised.

Where are African-Americans trying to create a "new" African nation? Are the Hispanics trying to create a "new" Hispanic country? No. Hamas and other Palestinian groups are trying to create a new Arab/Muslim nation, thereby replacing the Jewish nation already in existence. Trying to compare the two are absurd. Newsflash: today is April 30, 2008.

[shaayecanaan]

26. Its nothing new...

the Palestinians have always been there.

Whether you like it or not, a country with a 35% ethnic minority (which, lets face it, is a fairly realistic prospect in 50 years) is in all practical senses a binational state. The only consequence of insisting that it remains a Jewish state is that you alienate the growing minority that are non-Jewish. It is like trying to pretend that Czechoslovakia is simply "Czech" or "Slovakia".

To predict that the skies will fall as soon as the Arab population breaks the 50% barrier is delusional. Its not like a company takeover where gaining 51% of the shares entitles you to run the whole firm. Whether Jews number 60% or 51% or 49% it is still a substantial number, and given their economic dominance of the country they are unlikely to ever occupy a subordinate position in Israel, which may well need to be renamed "IsraelandIshmael". Doesnt roll off the tongue, but it has a nice "ebony and ivory" feel to it.

You might not like it, but other than sterilising Arab girls at birth there is not a lot you can do.

[Shaktimaan]

27. That's funny.

It is like trying to pretend that Czechoslovakia is simply "Czech" or "Slovakia".


Last I checked, it was exactly that.
Without Soviet might holding the two nations together Czechoslovakia quickly became the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

[Behind the Aegis]

28. Natural progression is one thing, you, however, are advocating...

...a massive population change all at once. A single nation is nothing more than calling for the destruction of the nation of Israel as it is. Pretend all you want, a single-nation "solution" is nothing more than a political solution to what the Arabs tried, and failed, to do in 1948 and on.

[shaayecanaan]

32. If I were a Palestinian negotiator

right about now, I wouldnt take a Taba style settlement. I might be satisfied with the pre-1967 territories in their entirety. But ultimately, I would be quite content to wait for another 10 or 15 years.

Currently, there is no way that the West Bank and Gaza alone can support their populations as well as the refugees from Lebanon, especially if Israel keeps drawing water from the West Bank aquifer, which it shows every intention of doing. Why agree to a state thats not sustainable and have only yourself to blame when it goes to custard?

Far better to wait for circumstances that better favour you. That is what I am advocating. Let the Arabs keep popping out babies in the Galilee. Eventually the Israelis will have to pull back the 200,000 Jews living in the settlements because they risk being outnumbered at home.

Of course, the Haredi are pretty good at popping out babies as well. The prospect of an Israel that increasingly consists of the poor, the ultra-orthodox, and the Arabs, is not exactly a sure-fire recipe for happy smiles and sunshine. But that is for Israel to resolve. They chose to pick up the poisoned chalice of occupation, let them drink from it.

[Crunchy Frog]

33. Gosh, I'm sure glad I don't live there.

:)

[pelsar]

34. boy are you going to be disappointed....

the israeli arabs are less politicalized in terms of "hating israel"....more solid in their identity as Palestinians, more affluent and educated about democracy, having less babies...dont want to go to any Palestinian state...and are volunteering for national service and the army......

____

thats bad news for those who keep wishing for the demise of israel....sorry to disappoint. And if the Palestinians follow your advice?...another 50-100years of misery?...same kind of advice they've been getting for the last 60 years

[shaayecanaan]

35. having less babies?

They keep saying that, but the babies keep coming. Have a look at this article from Bibi's website two years ago pooh-poohing the idea of an Arab majority in greater Israel:- http://www.netanyahu.org/whatdemprob.html. Laughable in retrospect.

from Wikipedia:-

The median age of Muslim Israelis is 18, while the median age of Jewish Israelis is 30.

Even if Arab birth rates were to fall to parity with Jewish birth rates tomorrow (which they won't), the Arab population will still grow to *at least* 26%, simply by riding out the demographic bump.

the israeli arabs are less politicalized in terms of "hating israel"

I agree. Which makes it all the more harder, doesnt it? The only thing worse than a Wahhabist, extremist Muslim Arab is an assimilated, Hebrew-speaking, dating-your-daughter Arab. Just how the hell are you going to get rid of him?

[pelsar]

37. risk of democracies....

liberal democracies all have risks....thats just one that will have to be taken into account......maybe my daughters kids will marry a druze, a muslim arab.....or even a christian....and maybe by then it will be acceptable

(hows the black/white intermarriage thing going in the US anyway?)

[shaayecanaan]

38. re

and maybe by then it will be acceptable

I doubt it will ever be acceptable. I think thats the attraction.

(hows the black/white intermarriage thing going in the US anyway?)

I wouldnt know, I've never been there. Fairly well, I would think. From what I hear though, Jewish-WASP intermarriage is going absolutely gangbusters.

[notfullofit]

39. The hopeful

next POTUS is a product of inter-racial marriage, so I would venture to say that it is going extremely well here.
I see no problems here with inter-faith marriages either, I know many Jews married to Christians.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

8. Not hardly. It's already been discussed.

If you guys truly believe that Palestinians aren't interested in a settlement, you're certainly welcome to that view.

[Vegasaurus]

9. The people making a two state solution impossible

are the leaders of the Palestinians, like Hamas, and the militants, who promise to continue their resistance until they have rid the middle east of every Jew and taken all of Israel.

They reiiterate again and again how they will not recognize Israel or make peace with her.

Why don't you believe them? They say it nearly every day.

[subsuelo]

10. Stealing land from the native Palestinians might have something to do with it too

How can there be two states when there will at some point be no land left for the natives that were robbed?

[Vegasaurus]

11. The "natives" made bad choices

sixty years ago, and continue to make bad choices.

Every year they continue their resistance, the odds for them are looking worse and worse.

They could have had so much more, had they ever stopped their violence.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Why did you put dit-dits round the word 'native'?

Are you denying that the Palestinian people aren't indigenous to the area? That'd make sense seeing as how a few threads back you put the words 'done to them' in dit-dits when talking about the mistreatment of Palestinians...

[subsuelo]

14. Yes, why in the world would native people robbed of their land possibly resist

Blaming the victim for not allowing themselves to be robbed is not a satisfactory answer, sorry.

[Vegasaurus]

15. They were robbed of their land sixty years ago

Horrible wars and land losses have occurred all throughout history.

This is not the first, last or worst.

And had they had not started wars, there would be no Israeli occupation (only an Egyptian and Jordanian one).

There was no land robbing (unless you are of the camp that thinks that israel itself is an occupation or "robbed land") before 1967, and yet there was no peace either.

Other peoples don't spend a lifetime warring and resisting and living in refugee camps for generations.

They move on, because the alternative is the misery that has enveloped the Palestinians.

[subsuelo]

16. Well, for one, they continue to be robbed to this day

You've seen the regular reports on settlement expansion, I assume?

Anyway look I have a very hard time blaming the victim for not allowing themselves to just be robbed and move on with it. While I'm all for people accepting responsibility for themselves and for individuals to work to improve their lives, it just doesn't make sense to shift blame away from those that are robbing others and on to those who are being robbed from.

It's like saying Iraqis should just accept the American occupation of Iraq and get over it. Would you agree with that logic? Or would you agree with telling Tibetans that it's their own fault for not just allowing China to occupy their country in gleeful acceptance?

How about if someone came and kicked Israelis out, dumping sewage on them and bombing Israeli families in the process - would you blame Israelis in that situation for not just allowing it to happen?

come on.

[Vegasaurus]

17. I hate the settlements

but the Palestinian religious and political leadership assure us all that the violence and resistance has nothing to do with the occupation or settlements at all.

It has to do with Jews and Israel, period.

If people want to complain about the settlements, it's fair.

If people want to advocate the destruction of Israel, either by right of return for four million refugees, or by calling all of Israel occupied (even if it isn't said directly), it isn't a fair discussion.

[azurnoir]

31. once again the total BS about

"others don't live in refugee camps" is repeated. Do I really need to point out the falsity of that statement again, Hmong and Tibetans immediately come to mind.

Then the priceless "had they not started wars" if they had not Israel would have, it is that simple, the original partition did not give either side enough land, the difference was the Arab population was stable and the Israel had thousands of refugees at it doors waiting for entry, Israel needed the land, if you want to deny this then explain why Israel according to you will never give up the land they conquered in 1967 at least the part with water, Gaza is worthless with no above ground water and what is below is polluted. Sinai was given up under great duress, in trade for a peace deal with Egypt that rankles the Israeli right wing to this day and IMHO is the real reason they hate Jimmy Carter.

[Crunchy Frog]

20. Persisting in stealing their land is not necessarily

the most effective or constructive way of dealing with the bad decisions they made 60 years ago. Indeed, the current Israeli policies seem almost deliberately designed to maintain a permanent state of conflict. I wouldn't have believed that Israelis could actually want the conflict to persist, but your own posts have managed to convince me otherwise.

The notion that a people should be continously punished for "bad decisions" that they made 60 years ago, when it's known with certainty that this will provoke more and more violence and conflict, seems rather irrational to me, and I'm still trying to understand what psychologocal depths it could be coming from. I will continue to read your posts in an effort to figure it out.

[pelsar]

30. 60 years ago?..how about today?

shooting rockets randomly everyday over the border is not a "bad decision" of 60 years ago...killing israelis delivering fuel is neither surprising nor is it "new"...nor is it a 'bad decision" of 60 years ago.

its a deliberate decision to kill israelis whenever they can (hamas/IJ..etc) reguardless of what they are doing....havent they made that clear enough?

land for peace, the ideal of oslo was a massive failure for a variety of reasons...but one thing was clear: giving up land does in no way guarantee peace.....and the scenario of gaza brought over to the westbank would be 10x worse for all the parties involved.


the sole reason the Palestinians are being collectively punished is that its impossible to figure out on a daily basis which Palestinian is going to try to kill the israeli employing them and who isnt, or the israeli delivering fuel, or getting their car fixed (and finding a bomb with it....) etc

[subsuelo]

7. "Basically, it is already one state." Yes, one apartheid state.

It is really about time to start recognizing this fact.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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