THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Monday, October 22, 2007



Nobody it seems, least of all Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, is holding their breath in anticipation of anything meaningful coming from the upcoming ‘peace’ talks between Israel and the Palestinians to take place – or at least planned to take place – in either November or December at Annapolis in the US.

In the latest upset the Israelis have claimed that they have unearthed a plot to kill Israeli Prime Minister Olmert. The Palestinians in turn allege that the Israeli claim is just another ploy by which talks can be delayed or put off. The reality is that the right-wing Israeli Zionists do not want a Palestinian state to exist. They are backed by the convergence of powerfully influential pro-Israeli interests in the US consisting of neoconservatives, Christian Zionists and the right-wing Israeli lobby. Going through the motions of attempting peace talks toward some kind of settlement leading to a Palestinian state is only pandering to American public opinion and the Bush administrations efforts to seek support for such talks in order for it to appear that the US is trying to bring about a settlement to the Middle East crisis in general.

For the Israeli Zionists and their supporters in the US a Palestinian state is most definitely not the endgame they want. The endgame for the Israeli Zionists, the neoconservatives, the Christian Zionists and the Israeli lobby is the creation of a Greater Israel which includes the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and hopefully even south Lebanon up to the Litani River.

The quicker the rest of the world realise that this is the only endgame that the Israeli Zionists want then the quicker the world can begin to demand, via the UN, the only conceivable solution to the Israeli-Palestine problem and that is the one-state solution whereby the Israeli and Palestinian people live freely together in all of the Palestine lands governed by a secular democratic government elected by all of its peoples that operates without favour to either Jews or Arabs based on race and which allows all the freedoms expected of a modern democratic, multicultural and tolerant society.

The alternative is more of the same which will ultimately destroy the Middle East and possibly even our world.


Craig Rowley said...

A single, integrated, binational state of Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians ... and peace. What are the arguments being presented against it again?

Craig Rowley said...

Remember Ehud Barak:

"... that single state will have to be in the spirit of the 21st century: democratic, secular, one-man, one-vote. One-man, one-vote? Remind you of something? Yes. South Africa."

What's he signifying?

Craig Rowley said...

Remember when Ehud Olmert said:

"We don’t have unlimited time. More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against “occupation,” in their parlance, to a struggle for one man, one vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle—and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state."

Worried about the same thing as Barak, eh?

That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle—and ultimately a much more powerful one.

Craig Rowley said...

Recall that just last week Ephraim Sneh claimed that "a nuclear Iran" would pose "a grave threat" to Aliyah and thus "the Zionist dream".

Damian Lataan said...

Craig, the two sides of the Israel-Palestine conundrum are, at the moment, so polarised that it is difficult to imagine that any solution will ever be found. And, by the same virtue, it is difficult to see how any solution could actually work even if a solution was found.

The one-state solution that the Israeli Zionists have in mind is one in which the Palestinian people don’t feature. And, of course, there are elements within the Palestinian population whose idea of a one-state solution is one in which Jews don’t feature. There are extremist elements on both sides that would like to push each other into the sea. Such extremists would be the biggest burden that a binational integrated one-state solution would have to bear. Nonetheless, it is a burden that, if there is to be any solution that is fair at all, the peoples will have to cope with because the alternatives are even less attractive.

The problem with a two-state solution is that there is, first, virtually nothing left of a Palestinian territory to actually create a state out of. What there is left is fragmented to such an extent that, even if it were created, it would be impossible to administer without Israeli involvement – and that’s without even considering what is to become of the Gaza Strip.

The other problem is that the two-state solution will always be on Israeli terms which means forget right of return and forget removal of the settlements. The ‘land for peace’ idea is Chutzpah pure and simple. The Israelis invade and conquer, build settlements and then, when the Palestinians start fighting for their lands back, the Israelis offer bits of what they have taken plus bits of useless land in their own ‘territories’ – territories which they took from the Palestinians in the first place and then tell the world ‘gee, how generous are we?!’.

One of the arguments against the integrated binational one-state model from the Israeli point of view is that they fear domination by the Palestinian Arabs in a democratic system and that there would no longer be a Jewish state or Jewish homeland. Well, there might not be a Jewish state per se, but that doesn’t mean that there can’t be a Jewish ‘homeland’, albeit one shared with Palestinian Arabs who also consider the place a homeland. Such a homeland would simply be spiritual rather than political or ethnic.

The alternative is simply endless wars. In the two-state solution the extremist elements will always be fighting over territory whereas in the integrated binational one-state solution there is no ‘territory’ to fight over; one has title to property or one doesn’t. Race or ethnicity is irrelevant as to who has title.

In the today’s circumstances the integrated binational one-state solution is the only solution.