Times changing rapidly in the Middle East
|
Times are changing fast in the Middle East. The legal affairs editor at Yediot, Israel’s largest circulation daily, wrote on the weekend that the situation in the West Bank is “apartheid”. One leading American commentator, Time’s Joe Klein, directly challenges Barack Obama to withhold US aid until Israel “comes to understand that Jerusalem must be the capital of both Israel and Palestine, and that if you actually want peace, you don’t build illegal settlement colonies in the Palestinian capital”. The world is tiring of Israeli intransigence. In the context of a stagnated “peace process” and ongoing colonial expansion that makes a two-state solution practically impossible, the Australian Greens have embarked on a tentative and informal but important process to re-assess their current policy on the Israel/Palestine conflict. It currently endorses a two-state equation and “supports the rights of the Palestinian peoples to statehood through the creation of a viable state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel, based on the pre-1967 borders and the right of all peoples in the region to peace.” During last weekend’s national conference in Melbourne, I was invited to address a forum to advocate a one-state solution (with two speakers pushing for maintenance of the status quo). It is a position backed by senior figures in the NSW Greens and I’m told a growing number of Greens members. I argued that a one-state solution was the only just solution to the conflict, removing discrimination against Jews and Palestinians and creating a modern state that grants equal rights to all its citizens; one person for one vote. A Jewish state (or Muslim state, for that matter) is discriminatory by definition. Partition is the cornerstone of a two-state solution, oblivious to facts on the ground that allow 500,000 Jewish settlers to settle illegally on Palestinian land. Such realities cannot be resolved through drawing arbitrary borders. The two-state solution, I stressed, was a failed dream, easy rhetoric in place of sound and moral policy. Alas, many Jews seem unwilling to give up the concept of a racially exclusionary nation that benefits Jews above Palestinians. One other speaker, David Rothfield, a Jew who had lived for many years in Israel, argued that there was strong international consensus for the two-state solution and now wasn’t the time to undergo a re-examination of Greens policy. “The role of the Greens in Australia is to prevent the climate emergency”, he said, “and we have to set priorities for the party.” The other speaker, Sol Salbe, believed that neither the one- nor two-state solutions were likely in the future, but one was even less likely. He argued that the world trend was towards ethnic separation, not united countries. However, he acknowledged the difficulty of separating the two peoples due to the ongoing colonisation project in the West Bank. The group discussion was highly instructive. It was respectful and thoughtful, two attributes often missing in this debate. Furthermore, many speakers were curious about breaking the deadlock of the Middle East. One person said that the Greens were supposed to support pluralism and multiculturalism and “Israel is not either” — the US State Department said last week that Israel is a fundamentally intolerant nation — and “we have to support democracy, therefore a one-state solution is the answer”. Many of the comments followed suit, across gender and generational lines. The positions articulated by the Labor and Liberal parties were barely acknowledged, as in reality they haven’t changed in years. Kevin Rudd will support whatever policies Israel pursues, ignoring its brutality and anti-democratic nature. A key drafter of the original Greens policy said that it was may be time to re-examine the basis for supporting a two-state solution, though he was under no illusion of the traumas ahead if the issue was re-visited. Targeted boycotts against firms complicit in the West Bank occupation were mentioned as a possible way forward for the Greens. One older Jewish woman was in tears explaining the pain and personal abuse she suffered a few years ago during the period of formulating party policy. She urged the status quo to remain. An organiser of the forum, Tad Tietze, said that Australia couldn’t ignore Israel’s Jewish character and its discrimination against non-Jews. Greens policy backs secularism, he argued, “so why do we support an exclusionary Jewish state?” Such thoughts are circulating in Israel, too. Noam Sheizaf, a journalist and blogger in Tel Aviv, wrote last week that fighting over a two-state solution was a fool’s game. True democracy was the goal: “… The Palestinians should simply focus on getting equal rights from the Israeli government. This is one fight Israel will have a really hard time winning — in Europe for sure, but even in the US. Are we going to explain that we need to keep the Arabs as second-rate citizens so we can have a Jewish majority? How is that going to sound to the Jews who took part in the civil rights movement, or to a nation which just elected a black president?” Senior figures in the NSW Greens have pledged to continue the public discussion towards changing party policy and better reflect facts on the ground in the Middle East. Antony Loewenstein is a Sydney journalist and author of My Israel Question and The Blogging Revolution. |
|
|
|
12 Comments
As a Greens member I support a one state solution - not based on race, religion or ethnicity but humanity. Jack Dempsey
It is good to see that the Greens are reassessing their policies, and that one speaker, David Rothfield said , “The role of the Greens in Australia is to prevent the climate emergency”, he said, “and we have to set priorities for the party. For the heavens’ sake, stick to that main issue, dont repel voters by grinding foreign axes.
Similarly, if the Greens sincerely see their first priority as protecting the Greenhouse, they must surrender their blanket hostility to nuclear energy. The main problem is far too important to be denying its main solution.
Funny coincidence? On the day the media is beside itself remembering the Fall of the Wall and the End of Communism, none thought to remind us that there’s a wall been built only recently on the West Bank. Who’s going to start the international campaign to have that one pulled down?
There is something ironic about the separation of these people, in fact as number of things;
1 Both are semitic people 2 Both see themselves as children of Abraham 3 Both have a strict dietry code & do not eat pork 4 Both requiire to be buried as close to death as possible 5 both have special reverence for Friday inreligiious oservance 6 AND both require the circumcision of male children. 7 both have a tradition of covering the head.
The one state solution is the only real solution. Anything else will variations onthe theme of armed camps in all its forms. As Pablo Casals said on his 85th birthday “the situation is hopeless, we must take the next step” A one state solutionis the only real next step.
Israel does not allow a separate state for the Palestinians because they do not regard the Palestinians as their equal. So Palestinians can only have inferior and subservient status in a one-state solution. At the moment, Netanyahu wants and is getting an apartheid one-state. His final aim is a one-state without any Palestinians. That is why Israel is described as a “fundamentally intolerant nation”. The two-state solution can be achieved if America withdrew all its financial and military aid to Israel. Australia voted against the Goldstone Report at the UN. Kevin Rudd, the man who would not tolerate any form of violence against women (declared after the attack on a female Labor MP), has no qualm in protecting Israel from an investigation into its violent acts against the children and women of Gaza. The Greens and the Coalition were completely silent, as usual.
The one State solution always worked before…Jews are great citizens of any country they choose to live…they’re the first real practising multi cultural global State…and the Zionist zealots have ruined it ..for all Jews & Muslims.
They’ve regressed Judaism towards what it has become, a nation state death-wish…
I never realized that a solution to the grim intractable problems of the Middle East is so evidently simple vis-à-vis a single state solution. Is this a revival of the secular democratic state which got a run in the 70’s and 80’s? I was puzzled by the logic for such a state as being a suitable solution then and I am now even more puzzled, however the concept of a secular democratic state in this part of the Middle-East so readily lends itself to humour which is greatly needed as the situation in the Middle-East is normally so grim. At that earlier time Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc. were not on the radar, so the secular bit will now be a tougher ask than when the idea was first floated. But all is not lost. Significant elements on both sides seem to be in agreement that a one state solution is ideal. The Likud and its followers believe in a one state solution (they may have scaled down their ambitions to include the territories east of the Jordan river) while Hamas has its own version that encompass the entire disputed region. Now I believe commentators such as Mr Lowenstein has sufficient credibility for at least one side, that he could be usefully involved in negotiations to convince Hamas to embrace a power sharing arrangement with Netanyahu and Lieberman. I will do my utmost to do likewise, with my admittedly little influence, to convince the other party to freeze the settlements etc.. However, in light of the well documented difficulties Hamas has had reconciling with their Palestinian authority colleagues in their dispute (as attested by the number of deaths, imprisonment and the use of torture in their internecine war), I find it hard to believe, not even a Lowenstein harangue, could convince them (if they survived) to sit down with the Zionist enemy. As a prelude to reconciliation it would be a good start towards a secular solution if he could convince Hamas to disown their charter and to reject Sharia Law. It would also help the climate of reconciliation if Hamas could be convinced to stop with the missiles and maybe tone down the anti-semitic rhetoric a bit.
MR,
I will more easily believe the first half of your letter after you retract the final couple of lines, re sharia law, missiles and so forth. What are you proposing do do in respect of Israelli land grabs and abuse of superiour force? And are you willing to give it your best shot despite the success or otherwise of those who would soften the edges of the Hamas image?
It seems Palestinians, after millennia of living in their homeland, have nowhere to go. But Jews have already had their autonomous Jewish republic of Birobidjan- the size of Switzerland. Cooler climate, plenty of water and friendly neighbourhood. It looks more like God’s generosity in ‘giving to conquer’ a Promised Land. It is a bit older than the State of Israel too, and far from the pesky Arabs. How many states do Jews need?
John,
Absolutely willing to give my best shot! The current Israeli government’s settlement policies need to be condemned as they are totally counterproductive to any possible realistic solutions (immaterial of the number of states). As for the disproportionate use of force by Israel it should be similarly condemned. However, it must be noted that the relative lack of missile attacks from Gaza recently, has led to a consequent lack of disproportionate use of force by Israel for the same period. Similarly the disproportionate use of force by Israel against Hezbollah and the inhabitants of Southern Lebanon ceased when the Katyushas stopped arriving in northern Israel. I guess these must be just co-incidences.
The point I have been trying to make is the proponents of a single state solution who seem to be viewing the conflict from only one perspective, have expectations bordering on the absurd, of parties like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Irrespective of the image of Hamas, just ask Hamas if they support a secular democratic pluralist state.
Rena,
I am glad you mentioned the state of Birobidjan that was setup by Stalin as a solution to his Jewish problem. According to Google the current Jewish population is approximately 5,000 out of 75,000 total inhabitants. It seems this state may have limited appeal to Jews. There seems to be no evidence of a rush of Jewish immigrants into Birobidjan. In fact many Jews of European extraction have emigrated as far as possible from Europe.
But you are right that there are so many states where Jews are in the majority that the single state solution would just mean one less (unlike the miniscule number of Islamic states). If the solution to the Middle-East involves returning the Jews to Europe (forgetting about the majority of Israelis who fled Arab countries) then we would expect the peoples of Poland, Russia, Germany and other European countries to give them their traditional welcome (hopefully not of the Kielce pogrom style).
As I always say there are many beautiful Arabic and Jewish folks in this world.
Also, the west is profoundly ignorant about the uncertain land laws in Israel, not least for lack of written constitution. That’s a real problem for simple justice amongst little people, so yes it is aparthied, backed by nuclear arsenal against interfering neighbours or traditional allies.
A (Jewish) colleague was saying about how enjoyable their visit to Israel was. I couldn’t help thinking - which one. Not the West Bank or Gaza, for sure.
We have significant ethnic affinities in this western city of Sydney, without too much mayhem, so why not there?