Hussein Ibish on the Fantasy World of One-Staters

[oberliner]

Excerpt:

There are two fundamental flaws with pro-Palestinian strategic thinking that focuses on the idea of abandoning two states and going for a single state. The first is the question of feasibility, and it's hard to argue with that. Obviously anyone who is familiar with this sees the difficulty, and I would be the first to say that success is not assured by any means. Even a two-state agreement looks, at the moment, like something of a long shot. The difference between the two-state solution and everything else is that yes, it's a long shot, but it would work. And if we could conceivably get it, if we did get it, it would solve the conflict.

The fundamental argument that the one-staters seem to be making, which is that we can't possibly get Israel to end the occupation and relinquish their control of the 22 percent of Palestine (the West Bank and Gaza) but we will inevitably succeed in getting them to relinquish one hundred percent of the territory under their control. This is a problem of logic. The second thing is that once you've realized this, obviously what you've done is set yourself the task of convincing Jewish Israelis to voluntarily do this. The idea of coercing the Israelis into this through military force is absurd, and it could only really be done through voluntary persuasion. What the one-staters argue, actually, is that they don't have to do that. What they're going to do, they say, is bring the Israelis to their knees.

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/hussein_ibish_on_the_fantasy_w.php

[aranthus]

1. Ibish makes some good points.

While there must certainly be a broad spectrum of reasons why people are one staters, I suspect that many of them are simply people who never wanted a two state solution in the first place, and are merely looking for plausible deni-ability to support their goal of Israel's destruction.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aranthus]

3. The settlements were there for years before the PLO decided to talk

I'm not saying they aren't now a factor, but get some perspective. And talking about bombing, "the evil settlements out of existence," will not build bridges or credibility.

[Jim Sagle]

5. Delete your pseud out of existence, and you might get to a halfway civilized I/P folder.

[The Magistrate]

4. Mr. Ibish, Sir, Presents A Very Sound Analysis: Thank You for Sharing This

Always a pleasure to read a clear and cogent thinker.

[Mosby]

6. Excerpt from his book

5) One-state rhetoric harms the Palestinian national interest

The one-state agenda largely emerges from and plays exceptionally well in academia where abstract arguments – removed from power equations, feasibility and other concerns that characterize goal-oriented constituencies – are most appealing. The one-state agenda
is particularly beguiling because it offers Palestinian activists and their allies on campuses the best of both worlds: an opportunity to adopt what appears to be an absolutely moral stance, urging legal and political equality without regard to religion or ethnicity, coupled with a vehicle for maximalist Palestinian nationalism, attempting to regain through the ballot box what has been lost on the battlefield and reverse the consequences of the 1948 war. For those who do not wish to compromise with Israel
or Zionism in any meaningful sense, the one-state agenda provides an attractive platform for stridency that can be readily defended as simply a call for equality. One of the more vocal one-state advocates, Assad AbuKhalil, has made the slogan “no peace with Zionism” (sometimes adding, for emphasis, the word “ever”) a regular feature of his blog, and that certainly seems to sum up much of the attitude towards Israeli nationalism to be found in one-state rhetoric.

These attitudes make a great deal of one-state advocacy extremely counterproductive for Palestinian interests because they reinforce Israeli fears that Palestinian ambitions go far beyond liberation of the occupied territories and that they are, in fact, really intent on the elimination of Israel. They play into the hands of those on the Israeli right who argue that the occupation is not the issue driving the Palestinian national movement,and that Palestinians cannot and will not reconcile themselves to living in peace alongside Israel. These arguments, however disingenuous on the part of the right-wing Zionists who make them, and the real fears
that many ordinary Israelis and their supporters may have regarding Palestinian intentions, are among the greatest psychological and political barriers to the realization of an agreement to end the occupation and the conflict. As long as Israelis are able to convince themselves that the occupation is self-defensive, and that ending the occupation opens the door to existential threats to the Israeli state, opposition to a viable peace agreement must remain a highly potent force on the Israeli political scene. In this sense, a great deal of one-state rhetoric does significant harm to Palestinian national interests.

Given the fact that the one-state agenda has not been adopted by any political party or movement among Israelis or Palestinians, its advocates also are liberated from the necessity of taking responsibility for any actions by really existing political actors. perating strictly at the level of intellectual abstraction, one-state advocates move within a theoretical political space and are unencumbered by the behavior of any political party or grouping. They can, and often do, oppose all actions and positions
taken by really existing political formations both in Israel and among the Palestinians. No doubt this makes such rhetoric all the more appealing in some parts of the academic world and for some activists, but it only emphasizes the extent to which the one-state agenda remains removed from the realities of Israeli and Palestinian political discourse and the relationship between the two societies. For these reasons and more, onestate rhetoric is comforting, ostensibly moral and ethical (although in many cases there is an obvious latent content that is far less lofty), and sheltered from the distasteful realities of actual political conduct.

http://www.americantaskforce.org/in_media/pr/2009/08/28/1251432000

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. The one-state solution is pure fantasy, as is the two-state solution.

It is very tempting to assume that since there is a problem, there must be a solution.

However, there is no realistic chance either of Palestinians being allowed to vote for an Israeli government, or of Israel allowing the foundation of a viable Palestinian state.

And, without one of those two things happening, it's hard to see any end to the violence.

Israel will continue to remain prosperous but to exist on a constant war-time footing; the Palestinians will continue to remain impoverished, occupied and oppressed. Not "unless"; not "if"; sadly, that is what *is* going to happen.

[The Magistrate]

8. There Is Much To What You Say, Sir

A depressing prospect, but the most likely future. As you say, not every problem has a solution....

"Most problems begin as solutions."

[bstender]

9. only as long as US citizens support it

Israel will never make peace as you say, but the Project is wholly dependent upon continued billions and veto power from the USA. The media in the USA has steadfastly painted it as a war between "noble people" vs. "evil crazies" thus securing political cover. but the truth is slowly dawning, people are openly questioning this like never before. Now since the USA no longer holds the invincible economic power it had only a short 9 years ago, (largely due to the Iraq project, ironically) and with a little more pressure from within, will be forced to get out of the way.

that *is* what is going to happen. count on it like the sun rising.

[cali]

10. no, it's really not. Israel's existence is not wholly dependent on U.S. aid

and sorry, your crystal ball is about as accurate as any other woo woo prediction.

[bstender]

11. i wish we could test that theory