Carter: Israel wants bi-national state

[Scurrilous]

Ex-President Carter slams ongoing settlement expansion in Washington Post op-ed; 'A more likely alternative to present debacle is one state, which is obviously the goal of Israeli leaders who insist on colonizing the West Bank,' he writes

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3772448,00.html

<snip>

"The Israeli government is continuing to expend West Bank settlement in the aims of forgoing the two-state vision and prompting the establishment of one bi-national state, former President Jimmy Carter charged Saturday in an op-ed for the Washington Post.

"A more likely alternative to the present debacle is one state, which is obviously the goal of Israeli leaders who insist on colonizing the West Bank and East Jerusalem," Carter wrote in his piece. "A majority of the Palestinian leaders with whom we met are seriously considering acceptance of one state, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea."

"By renouncing the dream of an independent Palestine, they would become fellow citizens with their Jewish neighbors and then demand equal rights within a democracy," the former president added. "In this nonviolent civil rights struggle, their examples would be Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela."

<snip>

"Turning his attention to the situation in Gaza, Carter characterized the Strip as a "walled-in ghetto inhabited by 1.6 million Palestinians."

"Israel prevents any cement, lumber, seeds, fertilizer and hundreds of other needed materials from entering through Gaza's gates," he wrote. "Gazans cannot produce their own food nor repair schools, hospitals, business establishments or the 50,000 homes that were destroyed or heavily damaged by Israel's assault last January."

[leveymg]

1. Geez, do the Palestinians get 3/5 of a vote or what?

Maybe they can choose their classification: "black", "white", "coloured", and "Indian".

Of course, they'll also be subject to the one-child rule. Right?

Of course, The Wall stays, as do the settlements and the Bantustans.

Yes, that one-state solution might be acceptable to Likud and the right bloc parties.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. That's pretty much the point Mr Carter is making...

He says that the single-state would be one where Palestinians would have to fight for equal rights as citizens. It most definately wouldn't be a democracy, but everything done by the Israeli govt and settlers is leading to what Mr Carter describes becoming a reality because in the end it's the only option left...

[Jim Sagle]

2. Jimmeh's blowin' it out his ass as usual.

[Violet_Crumble]

3. What did he say that you think is incorrect?

Or did you just say that for no particular reason?

[Jim Sagle]

5. Start with the thread title. And it goes downhill from there.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. There's nothing incorrect about the article title...

If you read the article you'd see that the actions of Israel is what's going to lead to one state....

[Jim Sagle]

10. BS.

[shira]

6. who's fooled by this statement by Carter?

Written recently by a member of B'tselem regarding the settlements:

"The built-up areas of the settlements constitute less than 2 percent of the land in the West Bank (1.7 percent). However, the non built-up areas within the municipal boundaries of the settlements are three times as large (5.1 percent) most of which is already planned for construction. In addition, the settlements control another 35 percent of the land in the West Bank, which is under the jurisdiction of six Jewish regional councils (i.e., local government entities that provide services for their member settlements). This 35 percent is not yet planned for construction, but constitutes land reserves for the future expansion of the settlements."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/Israeli_Settlements.html

This threat of one-state due to settlement expansion is nothing but hot air - as last year's proposal by Olmert to Abbas proves:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast

What an irresponsible statement by Carter - I wonder if he ever articulated an opinion on Olmert's Annapolis offer of 2008.

There's no threat that settlements will soon torpedo any chance of 2-states.

[oberliner]

7. A two-state solution is clearly preferable and has been embraced at the grass roots.

This is Carter's actual point in the Op-ed he wrote.

This article you've posted is a bizarre truncation and re-arranging of his original piece to change the focus of it.

Not sure why you would post the Ynet "article about the article" instead of Carter's actual article which can be found here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/04/AR2009090402968.html

Final sentence:

The best alternative for the future is a negotiated peace agreement, so that the example of Wadi Fukin and Tzur Hadassah can prevail along a peaceful border between two sovereign nations.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. His actual point was made in the article Scurrilous posted...

Though thanks for posting Carter's article as well. I'm not sure what's wrong with the article Scurrilous posted as it hasn't changed the focus. Nowhere in the ynet article did it make out that Carter doesn't support a two-state solution. He's saying the same thing in both articles - that the Israeli govt and the settlers by their actions are creating their 'facts on the ground' which will end up being a one-state solution. Nowhere did he say he favours that sort of state or a binational, democratic one....

[oberliner]

11. I disagree - and I'm really surprised that you feel that way

It is very surprising that you would think that and I wholeheartedly disagree.

The article that the poster chose to post here is a YNet hatchet job that deliberately excludes the paragraphs that contain the main thrust of Carter’s position as stated in his Op Ed piece and highlights only those paragraphs that would rile up some Israelis (specifically YNet readers). The title of the article chosen by YNet reframes Carter’s article in such a way as to put the focus where YNet wants it to be.

This piece is so clearly manipulated by YNet whose goal appears to be to give some red meat to those who would wish to demonize Carter as being anti-Israel by taking an Op-Ed piece he wrote and omitting all of his comments that speak positively about the actions of some ordinary Israelis.

Not only are those paragraphs left out but also the ones in which he extols the virtues of the two-state solution and encourages work towards that end, which naturally follows from his concerns about actions by the Israeli government that are making this goal more difficult to achieve. (YNet chooses to include his “concern” paragraphs while excluding his “vision” paragraphs).

I am very genuinely surprised that you do not share my frustration with what YNet has done with President Carter’s article here. It seems to me to quite clearly (and quite deliberately) highlight one of the points of his article (i.e. that the Israeli government is taking actions that make the two-state solution difficult) while ignoring the other point of his article (that the grass roots of Israelis and Palestinians want the two state solution and that is a desirable goal that everyone should be striving towards). YNet chooses all the paragraphs that address the former and none of the paragraphs that address the latter. If you look at the YNet article and the original piece by President Carter I think you will see what I mean.

I think that one ought to read Carter’s actual piece on its own free from YNet’s little games and manipulations that try to make it out to be something that it is not (which some YNet writers and editors have a tendency to do with op ed articles that they disagree with).

[shira]

12. I disagree for reasons stated in #6 - how is the settlement situation any worse now than 15 years...

...ago (the start of Oslo) or 9 years ago (Barak's offer) when the built-up settlement areas now are not significantly greater than they were then - as if time is running out on 2-states due to great expansion and buildup the past decade or so in the OPT? How is Carter's fear-mongering any different than the fear-mongering tactics of some rightwing ideologues?

[oberliner]

15. Well I was talking more about the way YNet played with the original article

I don't think it accurately represents what President Carter was saying (at least not fully).

With respect to your questions, I think as time goes on, the settlers become more and more entrenched and their sense of entitlement only grows stronger. Especially with the current Netanyahu-led government which seems very keen on keeping the settler population happy, in spite of the impact this may have on Israel's relationship with the US and Europe.

I don't know that I would say "time is running out" necessarily, and I certainly don't think the settlement situation is the only obstacle to peace - there are plenty of obstacles on the Palestinian side of the equation as well; I do believe, however, that the climate as it looks now is not at all conducive to reaching any kind of two-state solution that would be acceptable to all parties concerned.

But, who knows what the future holds - things can sometimes change in an instance and political leaders can do things that one does not expect.

[LeftishBrit]

19. Great post; I agree

[bemildred]

13. I agree with Oberliner.

Carter has several points, but most of all he is issuing a warning. I don't think Ynet quite knows what to do with it, but they manage to dissemble what he has to say. I expect we will have a good deal more of questioning of his "facts". Denial is not just a river in Egypt as they say, "and time will tell just who has failed, and who's been left behind" to quote Mr Dylan.

[oberliner]

14. Time will tell just who has fell

I know it's not grammatically correct, but I'm pretty sure that's the lyric.

In any event, regarding President Carter's analysis, I get the sense that the obstacles to peace are growing rather than shrinking. He focuses in his piece on the settlements and the attitude of the Israeli government with respect to their continued growth and expansion, but I think that the intra-Palestinian disharmony is also playing a large role in making any kind of negotiated agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians an increasingly distant dream for those of us (including, of course, President Carter himself) who long for a resolution to the conflict that results in two-states living side by side at peace with one another.

[bemildred]

16. Verbal clarity was not always Dylan's strong point.

And worrying about such things is not one of mine. A cursory search for lyrics seems to agree with you. I used to listen to that a lot after my first divorce.
:thumbsup:

Palestinian disharmony is a factor, but one ought not ignore the disharmony on the other sided either, which is actually a lot more dangerous to Israel's future chances IMHO. Carter references that obliquely with his comments about Palestinian-Israeli cooperation to resist illegal settler activities. Pelsar has commented from time to time about the jaundiced view non-settler Israelis take of the preferential treatment settlers and other privileged sectors of the population get. Most importantly, the rule of law seems very weak in Israel, as it is here in the USA, the powerful and privileged do as they choose and often get away with it, and that is a very bad thing.

[oberliner]

17. Agree with everything you say here

Especially about Dylan's verbal clarity!

[oberliner]

18. Carter: Palestinians seriously weighing one-state solution

That's the headline that Ha'aretz ran for their article about the same piece.

It is worth noting the different spin each newspaper decided to take with President Carter's Op-Ed - at least with their choice of headline.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1112702.html