By Ted Belman (In response to Hasan’s article Just One State.)
In my article, The War on Zionism, I decry the smear that Zionism is racism. It is a national liberation movement.
Having said that I want to address the arguments in Just one State. While I also am against the two-state solution it is for a different reason. It is not workable nor achievable.
For some time now I have understood that if we reject the two-state solution then we will have to fight against Hasan’s one-state solution. Accordingly the battlefield of ideas will shift and we must be prepared for it.
In my article above noted I argue
-
“But the bottom line is that the Arabs want Palestine to replace Israel. This goal is reiterated by all boycott movements, by the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) and Muslim Student Association (MSA), by Iran when it calls for Israel to be “wiped off the map”, by the PA which publishes books with maps showing Palestine in place of Israel, by Hamas and by many UN agencies and NGO’s.
“The endorsement of the two-state solution is a sham for western consumption. The demand for a “just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194?, otherwise known as the right of return, vitiates any recognition of the two-state solution because it effectively is intended to destroy the state of Israel.”
Thus I disagree with Hasan’s argument that Fatah has abandoned “principled liberation politics”. In fact his article proves my point that all those parties mentioned by me including the PA want the destruction of Israel. It also proves my contention that Abbas won’t make a peace agreement with Israel because of the scorn, derision and death that would accrue to him. Hasan writes, “As is now abundantly clear, Abbas is no more than a quisling and his Palestinian Authority the de facto Police Authority (of Israel) in the West Bank.” and “The overwhelming answer given at the one state conference and in the Declaration is that the latter (full liberation) is far more preferable as it is the only just solution.” The rejection of Israel on an emotional and intellectual basis is so strong among among the Arabs, that to believe that Abbas is willing to be a traitor to the cause is pure folly.
He rightly acknowledges though “For Zionists and most Israelis, it is simply intolerable given that it sounds the death knell of the Jewish state.”
So where does this leave us? The “liberation struggle” is about undoing the creation of the State of Israel, wiping it off the face of the map so to speak. Nowhere does Hasan respect the right of the Jewish people to have a state of their own. Were this conceded, then other substitutes for the two-state plan or for his One-state Plan must be entertained.
Hasan writes, “Therefore, the key question is whether it is preferable for Palestinians to forego “national” liberation of one- fifth of the land in favour of full democratic rights and equality (including the right of refugees to return) in a unitary state.” The key question for Israelis is
-
“Is it better to settle for 80% of the land necessitating the abandonment of the biblical heartland and 100,000 Israeli settlers or to claim ownership on all of it?”
Hasan supports his one-state plan with lofty ideals of democracy, equality and secularism yet nowhere in the Arab world does such a state exist.
I am reminded of a cartoon that derided our former Prime Minister when his administration was shown to be extremely corrupt. At that time his government decided that Canada would condition its aid to African countries on the relative absence of corruption. The cartoon depicted the PM talking to an African leader who on hearing the new rules said “you first”.
This is not a Israel/Palestinian conflict, much as the Arabs want to characterize it, so. It is a Jew/Arab conflict and has been for 100 years. When the Balfour Declaration was made, all the lands in the ME were part of the Ottoman Empire. From the Jewish perspective 22 Arab states were created and there is no need for a 23rd one. The area of members of the Arab League covers around 14 million square km. Israel, including Judea and Samaria has less than one half of one percent of this. Why do the Arabs begrudge Israel this minute parcel of land. Where is their generosity? Where is their sense of proportion and fairness.
While some Arabs at the time were indigenous to the lands described as Palestine, many if not most emigrated in the Twentieth Century from Syria and Jordan. After the creation of Israel, Arab countries forced about 800,000 Jews to leave their home countries leaving all their property behind. For the most part Israel absorbed these refugees. Would that the Arab States have done likewise.
No doubt “The one state liberation movement, in conjunction with the campaign for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel, has the potential to bring to bear substantial pressure on Israel and its supporters.” But Israel will not succumb to such pressure. Israel will proceed to enforce a made in Israel solution for the betterment of all Palestinians living there. Hasan’s solution merely brings more suffering to them including those in refugee camps. What cares he or them, so long as Israel is destroyed.
So, if the PA openly abandoned the two=state solution in favour of Hasan’s one-state solution, it is far from certain that the US would support either version he offers for a one-state solution. It may well opt for Israel’s version of a one-state solution which will be decidedly Jewish.
To bring this about, Israel must be smart about it.
