palestine: the united and secular state of rwanda
gabriele corsetti | 16.11.2006 20:44 | Analysis | Palestine | World
Israel/Palestine: the unified democratic state of rwanda?
"The Initiative for One Democratic State in Palestine/Israel aims to change the political organization of the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, basing this on full sovereignty and equality for all the inhabitants and also for the Palestinian refugees since 1948 and their heirs. This is to be done on the basis of one person one vote, and in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and standards of international law. It is proposed that full measures be implemented to enable the Palestinian refugees to return to the homeland and receive lawful restitution and compensation. All the inhabitants should be entitled to purchase, lease and rent land and housing in the entire territory of Palestine/Israel."
This is part of a declaration of intents by some pacifist organization, and I found it today while looking through the web. It is a typical example of a certain kind of discourse on the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, which can be found mainly among progressive, left-wing circles, or in the arab world. I find it vaguely disconcerting. First of all, let me illustrate my position on the well known Israel/Palestine issue: Basically, I believe in granting the arabs living in the territories known as "the West Bank and Gaza" self-determination. Whatever the risks may be for Israel, they have a right to rule themselves. This will also mean that the few hundred thousand israeli settlers living in the region will have to go, since they will not be able to live there without an army to defend them. Tough but unavoidable, and they probably shouldn't have gone there in the first place. I also believe that within Israel, any discrimination against the milion arab-israelis living inside the original borders should cease, and I believe that it will be easier to fight for this aim if and when peace descends on the region.
However, for the time being I do not believe in what many pro-palestinian activists like to call "the creation of a single secular, democratic state in the entire land of Palestine". This is a way of calling for the destruction of Israel and it's replacement with a single state which would include the West Bank and Gaza. I am actually against the existence of states on principle. However, as long as states exist in the rest of the world, and as long as the situation remains as it is in the middle east, I think Israel should not be destroyed. According to it's proponents, "the single state solution" would create a state where no one would be discriminated against, everyone would be able to live where they want and peace would reign. They claim that the existence of a "jewish state" is undemocratic and discriminatory, and it's existence should be ended, to make way for a secular state for all it's citizens. In practice though, in a single state the arabs would quickly become a majority, and the survival of the jewish community there would hardly be assured. There are no "secular and democratic states" in the arab world, and what makes anyone think that a Palestine dominated by an arab majority would be the first one? There is no way of knowing exactly what would happen, but an arab state would probably grant all the descendants of the palestinian refugees of 1948 the "right of return" to Israel. The discendants are now about 3,5-4 milion, and doubling the population of Israel hardly seems possible anymore then doubling england's population does.
The truth is that the 5 milion resident Jews might well find themselves being pushed out by a hostile arab majority, and I do not think that creating milions of new refugees is the right thing to do. In the worst case, the new unified state might even go the way of Bosnia, Lebanon or even Rwanda, with fighting in the streets of TelAviv and widespread massacres.
Many progressive intellectuals in the West seem to find the idea of living with Israel's existence very hard to stomach. They would not even be happy with two democratic and secular states, one with a jewish majority, and one with an arab majority, living side by side. The only thing they can accept is a complete end of Israel in any form (the reasons for this are complex, and I shall not discuss them here). But when I hear western intelectuals calling for a "democratic and secular state" or for a general right of return for all the discendants of palestinian refugees without even giving a moment of thought to the fate of the 5 milion israeli jews (many of whom are originally from other areas of the middle east), I can't help but think that they are not making the conflict easier to solve. Israelis are not going to accept those conditions under any circumstances, and if they are driven to desperation they will be ready to fight harshly, with all the means to do so. On the other hand most israelis could be pushed into favouring a two-state solution (and many of them already do).
Gabriele Corsetti
"The Initiative for One Democratic State in Palestine/Israel aims to change the political organization of the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, basing this on full sovereignty and equality for all the inhabitants and also for the Palestinian refugees since 1948 and their heirs. This is to be done on the basis of one person one vote, and in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and standards of international law. It is proposed that full measures be implemented to enable the Palestinian refugees to return to the homeland and receive lawful restitution and compensation. All the inhabitants should be entitled to purchase, lease and rent land and housing in the entire territory of Palestine/Israel."
This is part of a declaration of intents by some pacifist organization, and I found it today while looking through the web. It is a typical example of a certain kind of discourse on the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, which can be found mainly among progressive, left-wing circles, or in the arab world. I find it vaguely disconcerting. First of all, let me illustrate my position on the well known Israel/Palestine issue: Basically, I believe in granting the arabs living in the territories known as "the West Bank and Gaza" self-determination. Whatever the risks may be for Israel, they have a right to rule themselves. This will also mean that the few hundred thousand israeli settlers living in the region will have to go, since they will not be able to live there without an army to defend them. Tough but unavoidable, and they probably shouldn't have gone there in the first place. I also believe that within Israel, any discrimination against the milion arab-israelis living inside the original borders should cease, and I believe that it will be easier to fight for this aim if and when peace descends on the region.
However, for the time being I do not believe in what many pro-palestinian activists like to call "the creation of a single secular, democratic state in the entire land of Palestine". This is a way of calling for the destruction of Israel and it's replacement with a single state which would include the West Bank and Gaza. I am actually against the existence of states on principle. However, as long as states exist in the rest of the world, and as long as the situation remains as it is in the middle east, I think Israel should not be destroyed. According to it's proponents, "the single state solution" would create a state where no one would be discriminated against, everyone would be able to live where they want and peace would reign. They claim that the existence of a "jewish state" is undemocratic and discriminatory, and it's existence should be ended, to make way for a secular state for all it's citizens. In practice though, in a single state the arabs would quickly become a majority, and the survival of the jewish community there would hardly be assured. There are no "secular and democratic states" in the arab world, and what makes anyone think that a Palestine dominated by an arab majority would be the first one? There is no way of knowing exactly what would happen, but an arab state would probably grant all the descendants of the palestinian refugees of 1948 the "right of return" to Israel. The discendants are now about 3,5-4 milion, and doubling the population of Israel hardly seems possible anymore then doubling england's population does.
The truth is that the 5 milion resident Jews might well find themselves being pushed out by a hostile arab majority, and I do not think that creating milions of new refugees is the right thing to do. In the worst case, the new unified state might even go the way of Bosnia, Lebanon or even Rwanda, with fighting in the streets of TelAviv and widespread massacres.
Many progressive intellectuals in the West seem to find the idea of living with Israel's existence very hard to stomach. They would not even be happy with two democratic and secular states, one with a jewish majority, and one with an arab majority, living side by side. The only thing they can accept is a complete end of Israel in any form (the reasons for this are complex, and I shall not discuss them here). But when I hear western intelectuals calling for a "democratic and secular state" or for a general right of return for all the discendants of palestinian refugees without even giving a moment of thought to the fate of the 5 milion israeli jews (many of whom are originally from other areas of the middle east), I can't help but think that they are not making the conflict easier to solve. Israelis are not going to accept those conditions under any circumstances, and if they are driven to desperation they will be ready to fight harshly, with all the means to do so. On the other hand most israelis could be pushed into favouring a two-state solution (and many of them already do).
Gabriele Corsetti
gabriele corsetti
