There is a the fundamental problem that exists in the region with a lack of equal opportunity for both Arabs and Jews. If the Palestinian people are provided with an opportunity to a sovereign state of their own without occupation, they would have reason to elect a party responsible to govern their land and deal with its social infrastructure, which would ultimately outweigh their reasons to "resist occupation" or react to what they believe is the denial of their human rights.
Israelis already have an independently established state, yet it still remains very volatile. This dilemma would naturally be dissolved when the Palestinian people no longer have a reason to react, which therefore means resistance groups like Hamas would cease to exist since there would be nothing to "resist". This would be Israel's best opportunity to defeat their counter-parts in the Gaza Strip.
The question is, how can equal opportunity be established? The following points would provide the best solution:
1. Right of return for all Palestinians refugees, including those who originally lived within the current Israeli borders becoming Israeli citizens. That involves most of the 4.5 million displaced people having the opportunity to rebuild their homes if they were originally demolished.
2. Implementing pure democracy in a two-state scenario, without racial discrimination, meaning that a majority vote for any political body to govern Israel and the new Palestine. That includes the possibility of an Arab President ruling Israel if that is what the people's majority want. The same would obviously be implemented for the new Palestine if a Jew wanted to run for elections with the backing of the majority. The very definition of apartheid is the minority ruling the majority based on race or religion.
3. No boundary redrawing to take into account any settlements, because all have been deemed illegitimate by International Law. Palestinian citizenship would be required for those settlers, and the land would remain part of the new Palestine. The pre-1967 borders are already a large concession considering that it is probably more realistic to implement something similar to the UN Partition Plan of 1947 based on populous, however most Palestinians are already willing to accept the armistice green lines.
4. Equal opportunity in both Palestine and Israel to establish a defense force for their respective states, just like any other sovereign state. Weapons can be supplied to both states regardless of who supplies them so long as they are legal. (Probably meaning the confiscation of grad rockets... and of course adhering to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as confiscation of white-phosphorous chemical weapons). Every peaceful country has the right to defend its sovereignty.
These elements would naturally dissolve organisations like Hamas and any other radical group when freedom of opportunity and free elections are given to the people. Reactionists would cease to exist when people believe they have a chance to live a normal life.
A good first step would be an immediate halt to any new construction of settlements in Palestinian territory since they are not "defensive strategies" nor are they provoked reactions. You can't negotiate slices of a pizza if one person is already eating from it.
The above points would define the inalienable rights for the Palestinian people (UN Resolution 3236), and would naturally define the inalienable rights for the Israeli people.
Regarding these points, in order for justice to prevail there has to be a like-for-like. One of the following options would then be required:
Obviously that means that the Jews no longer get what they want with regards to their traditional prophecies of a "Promised Land", so the former solution would most likely be more practical to them. That ultimately means they would have to oblige to a full withdrawal of the settlers camped within the Palestinian territories to fit the millions of displaced refugees into the relatively smaller patches of Arab land.
The problem with this is that a full withdrawal of settlers has not been a popular concept in the Jewish quarter, and that is the source of the dilemma when peace talks and negotiations fail.
The current situation clearly shows that ancient traditions cannot be forced into the region regardless of the overwhelming population, especially when those traditions do not cater for the interests of the multicultural society that undeniably exist in the region. It has evidently resulted in the pushing out of Arabs, with a further pushing out because of the illegal settlements and the current situation gives very little option for a lasting stability in the region; hence why there is a growing number of reactionists.
Arabs are asked not to look at past acts of systematic deportation and genocide so that there can be a viable solution moving forward, yet Israelis tend to look to the past when considering their own "Promised Land" which only sees fit to benefit their own Jewish interests.
If cultures and beliefs can provide open-minded approaches towards equal opportunity for humanity in general and not for one race it would definitely be possible to have a scenario where both can co-exists, just as it did centuries ago.
Israelis already have an independently established state, yet it still remains very volatile. This dilemma would naturally be dissolved when the Palestinian people no longer have a reason to react, which therefore means resistance groups like Hamas would cease to exist since there would be nothing to "resist". This would be Israel's best opportunity to defeat their counter-parts in the Gaza Strip.
The question is, how can equal opportunity be established? The following points would provide the best solution:
1. Right of return for all Palestinians refugees, including those who originally lived within the current Israeli borders becoming Israeli citizens. That involves most of the 4.5 million displaced people having the opportunity to rebuild their homes if they were originally demolished.
2. Implementing pure democracy in a two-state scenario, without racial discrimination, meaning that a majority vote for any political body to govern Israel and the new Palestine. That includes the possibility of an Arab President ruling Israel if that is what the people's majority want. The same would obviously be implemented for the new Palestine if a Jew wanted to run for elections with the backing of the majority. The very definition of apartheid is the minority ruling the majority based on race or religion.
3. No boundary redrawing to take into account any settlements, because all have been deemed illegitimate by International Law. Palestinian citizenship would be required for those settlers, and the land would remain part of the new Palestine. The pre-1967 borders are already a large concession considering that it is probably more realistic to implement something similar to the UN Partition Plan of 1947 based on populous, however most Palestinians are already willing to accept the armistice green lines.
4. Equal opportunity in both Palestine and Israel to establish a defense force for their respective states, just like any other sovereign state. Weapons can be supplied to both states regardless of who supplies them so long as they are legal. (Probably meaning the confiscation of grad rockets... and of course adhering to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as confiscation of white-phosphorous chemical weapons). Every peaceful country has the right to defend its sovereignty.
These elements would naturally dissolve organisations like Hamas and any other radical group when freedom of opportunity and free elections are given to the people. Reactionists would cease to exist when people believe they have a chance to live a normal life.
A good first step would be an immediate halt to any new construction of settlements in Palestinian territory since they are not "defensive strategies" nor are they provoked reactions. You can't negotiate slices of a pizza if one person is already eating from it.
The above points would define the inalienable rights for the Palestinian people (UN Resolution 3236), and would naturally define the inalienable rights for the Israeli people.
Regarding these points, in order for justice to prevail there has to be a like-for-like. One of the following options would then be required:
- A full withdrawal of settlers back to Israel and the millions of Palestinian refugees squeezed into West-bank, Gaza strip and East-Jerusalem.
- Otherwise the Palestinian refugees should be returned back to their own lands even if they fall within Israeli borders at least as citizens of Israel. This would mean that Israeli settlers could stay in Palestinian land as citizens of the new Palestine.
Obviously that means that the Jews no longer get what they want with regards to their traditional prophecies of a "Promised Land", so the former solution would most likely be more practical to them. That ultimately means they would have to oblige to a full withdrawal of the settlers camped within the Palestinian territories to fit the millions of displaced refugees into the relatively smaller patches of Arab land.
The problem with this is that a full withdrawal of settlers has not been a popular concept in the Jewish quarter, and that is the source of the dilemma when peace talks and negotiations fail.
The current situation clearly shows that ancient traditions cannot be forced into the region regardless of the overwhelming population, especially when those traditions do not cater for the interests of the multicultural society that undeniably exist in the region. It has evidently resulted in the pushing out of Arabs, with a further pushing out because of the illegal settlements and the current situation gives very little option for a lasting stability in the region; hence why there is a growing number of reactionists.
Arabs are asked not to look at past acts of systematic deportation and genocide so that there can be a viable solution moving forward, yet Israelis tend to look to the past when considering their own "Promised Land" which only sees fit to benefit their own Jewish interests.
If cultures and beliefs can provide open-minded approaches towards equal opportunity for humanity in general and not for one race it would definitely be possible to have a scenario where both can co-exists, just as it did centuries ago.
What about the possibility of a single-state where all Israel and occupied Palestine are one state:
ReplyDelete1. The Refugees could return to their homes.
2. There is only one state, everyone has the same rights, and there is one election for all.
3. The settlements don't have to be dismantled since they fall within the new single state, so Jews who have been living on the illegal settlements don't have to suffer the same upheavals that the Palestinians suffered during the Nakba. The Settlements however would no longer be Jewish-only settlements.
4. Since they are part of the same state, the Arabs and the Jews will both defend it. Threats of "wiping out Israel" or "occupying Palestine" become obsolete since the fate of Arabs and Jews are both entwined, the defence of the state becomes in the interest of all.
The culture of resistance to occupation would cease to exist and along with it, the militant extremism.
Maybe someone should point out that Jews converted and became Christians, and then some converted and became Muslims. The Jews who were "promised the holy land" have Muslims and Christians as their desendants today, who both believe and follow Moses, so would both have the same biblical ties to the land.
Jews, Christians and Muslims have the same ancestors who would have been promised the holy land.
Fantastic idea, I never even thought about the settlements potentially being mutli-cultured.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately these days the one state solution has become a "threat" to Israel rather than a potential option. How Ironic that one true perfection in the solution for peace becomes their threat.
The reason is because they want a Jewish only state. Racism rings true.
The irony is that the "identity" in the politics of identity is not as clear-cut as zealots on both sides imagine. I am an ashkenazi Jew of the Levite tribe. I am of European appearance. In genetic tests on a mixed sample of 1,000 people, 49% of ashkenazi levites had more genes in common with central and east European non-Jews than with other Jews. This gives some support to the historic evidence that many of us are the descendents of an historic East European nation, the Khazars, whose King converted his subjects to Judaism to avoid participating in wars between Christianity and Islam. Possibly my ancestors were never in the middle east at all. Therefore that deluded racist maniac Hitler was exterminating his own European "cousins" together with the more historical Jews when he murdered my grandparents, uncles and aunts. Conversely, there is no evidence that all Jews left Palestine after the destruction of the second temple - so where are they now Shlom Sands hypothesises that Mohammed's take-over of Palestine resulted in the Palestinian Jews converting to Islam (willingly or unwillingly). In that case, today's "Palestinians" would be descendents of the Jews whose land is being occupied by a mixture of other Jews and the descendents of non-Jewish converts to Judaism. Isn't this enough to make you a Humanist, thereby adopting the only real identity that we all have? It is for me! Palestinians and Israelis who realise this could lead the way for a better future for all. Forward to a democratic, secular, antiracist state where freedom of religion (and of no religion) are protected in the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteBrilliantly said. In fact there never were border lines until the British Empire carved up the entire Middle East with man-made lines. That, along with the decades of inter-racial mixing, as well as the reality when we delve even further back, that "Jews" and "Arabs" never really existed at one time, being decendents of one man, means there are pointless arguments on whos Promised Land it belongs to and who was there first. We all own the land and there is so much space to allow people to live without being trampled on.
ReplyDelete