“The One State Solution” by Elie Elhadj

[Comment by Landis] Increasingly, educated Palestinians and some Arabs are calling for a one state solution to the Jewish-Palestinian problem. I have never given much thought to this because it strikes me as impractical. Jewish Israelis have no reason to want it and the vast majority of Palestinians are nationalists who want a Palestinian state and not one that would surely be dominated by Jews, who are better organized, educated, plugged in, and richer than Palestinians. All the same, Elie Elhadj articulates an important argument.

“Why the Only Solution for Jews and Palestinians is a One State Solution”
by Elie Elhadj, author of The Islamic Shield
January 2009 for Syria Comment

For a durable solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Bible and the Quran must be de-politicized. In political terms, de-politicization means a single secular democratic state for Jews and Palestinians.

De-politicize the Bible and the Quran
The Arab Israeli conflict has become a religious war. Politicizing the Bible’s Genesis 15:18 politicized the Quran. Genesis 15:18 declares: “The Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying, unto thy seed have I given this land from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.”

Defeated in 1948, powerless and humiliated in every war since that time, Arabs took refuge in Islam. They invoked hostile Quranic Verses (such as chapter 2: verse 65, 2:120, 5:51, 5:60, 5:78), recounted purported stories of the Prophet Muhammad’s troubled relationship with the Jewish tribes in Medina (Banu Qurayza, Banu Al-Nadir, and Banu Qainuqa), and drew lessons from the symbolism of substituting Friday for the Sabbath and of changing the direction during prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca. Other Quranic verses urge jihad against Muslims enemies (2:191, 2:193, 8:60, 9:5, 9:29) and promise (2:82) the martyred the delights of paradise; wine (47:15), beautiful women (44:54), silk, brocade, and gold (18:31), etc… Combined, these verses made a jihadist’s career worthwhile. In the hands of jihadist leaders, these verses transformed political frustrations into religious crusades and the jihadists into walking bombs.

For thirteen centuries, however, these were non-issues. Hundreds of thousands of Jews lived harmoniously among Muslims in Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen.

Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, Britain’s first and thus far the only person of Jewish parentage to reach the premiership (1868 and 1874-1880), described in his novel Coningsby the “halcyon centuries” during the golden age of Muslim Spain in which the “children of Ishmael rewarded the children of Israel with equal rights and privileges with themselves.” Disraeli described glowingly how Muslims and Jews alike “built palaces, gardens and fountains; filled equally the highest offices of the state, competed in an extensive and enlightened commerce, and rivaled each other in renowned universities.”

In 1492 the Muslim Ottoman Sultan Bayezid-II (1481-1512) encouraged great numbers of Jews to settle in the Ottoman Empire following their expulsion from Spain and Portugal.

Islam venerates Judaism. Arabs believe they share a common ancestry with the Jewish people going back to the sons of Abraham, Ismail and Ishaq. The Quran praises Abraham as the first Muslim, describing Islam as the Religion of Abraham. The Quranic Chapter 14, with its 52 Verses is named after Abraham and to Joseph the Quran names Chapter 12, with its 111 Verses. Muslim men are allowed to marry Jewish women, without the need to convert them to Islam (the children must be Muslims). Today, Jewish-derived Arabic names like Daoud, Ibrahim, Ishaq, Mousa, Sara, Sulaiman, Yacoub, Yousef, Zakariyya are common in every Arab society.

Politicizing the Bible politicized the Quran. A vexing religious confrontation has been created pushing the moderates among Arab Muslims into orthodoxy and the orthodox into Islamism and Jihadism. The victory of Hamas in the January 25, 2006 parliamentary elections in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as well as the popularity of Islamic Jihad, are reminders that this conflict has been delivering the Muslim masses into the hands of the Islamists. History suggests that this religious war could go on for a20thousand years. Military action alone against the Jihadists will breed more Jihadists. Experience suggests that, like its previous victories, Israel’s latest battle against Hamas in the Gaza strip that started on December 27, 2008 will strengthen jihadism.

Unless the Arab Israeli conflict is resolved politically and quickly, Islamism and Jihadism will continue on their march. Avraham Berg, speaker of Israel’s Knesset in 1999-2003 and former chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel, articulated in sobering terms what Israel should do in order to bring peaceful coexistence between the Jewish and Palestinian peoples.

The Bible and the Quran Must be De-politicized

For a durable solution to the Arab Israeli conflict, a single democratic and secular state for Jews and Palestinians needs to evolve. A single state promises a more durable long-term solution than the two-state solution, currently in vogue. The two-state solution is inherently unstable for four reasons:

1. First, demographically, a purely Jewish state is impossible to attain. Had Palestine been uninhabited at the time of Israel’s creation a refugee problem would not have arisen and a purely Jewish state could have been possible. However, around the time of Israel’s creation Palestine was a home to around 1.4 million Palestinian Arabs.

The Zionist dream of creating an exclusive state for the Jewish people in Palestine is unsustainable in the long-term. Presently, 1.4 million Palestinians are estimated to be citizens of Israel, or a quarter of Israel’s Jewish population. Due to their high population growth rates the Palestinian-Israelis will eventually become the majority. The Palestinian-Israelis are in addition to the 4.2 million Palestinians who live under Israel’s occupation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Outside Palestine, 2.6 millions are registered in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, plus 1.5 million scattered worldwide.

Unless the Palestinian-Israelis somehow vanish, Israel’s Jewish population will eventually become the minority and the Palestinian-Israelis the majority; the population growth rate of the Palestinian-Israelis is much greater than that of Israeli Jews. The number of Palestinians in Israel in 1948 was about 150,000. If Israel would allow the future Palestinian-Israeli majority full citizenship rights, they’ll control the government. If Israel subjects the majority to an apartheid regime, the system will eventually unravel. Apartheid regimes have short lives: Witness Rhodesia and South Africa.

2. Secondly, intractable issues stand in the way of a two-state solution: Jerusalem, borders, security for Israel and for Palestine, water rights, settlements, and the refugees’ right-of-return. Since the signing of the Oslo Agreement on September 13, 1993, none of the thorny issues has been resolved. When Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, and Yasser Arafat attempted in July 2000 to tackle these issues at Camp David, the negotiations collapsed, leading to the second intifada and to Hamas’ gains in the 2006 parliamentary elections, which culminated by the take-over by Hamas of the Gaza Strip in June 2007, and Israel’s devastating war against Hamas eighteen months later.

3. Thirdly, even if a miracle patches up a two-state agreement the extremists on both sides would undermine the agreement. The extremists believe that they are divinely ordained to keep-up the struggle until they control the entirety of the land.

4. Fourthly, the Arab masses w ill shun a Zionist state. Judging from Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt (March 26, 1979) and Jordan (October 26, 1994), relations among the Egyptian and Jordanian masses and Israelis failed to develop beyond small diplomatic missions.

Western democratic and secular ideals should inspire the development of a single, democratic, and secular state for Palestinians and Jews. There are three reasons in support of such a development:

1. First, the intractable obstacles that have bedeviled the two-state solution would disappear.

2. Secondly, a single state will commingle Palestinians and Jews into an inseparable mix. The Jewish settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, estimated at about half a million in more than 125 settlements, could become instruments of integration between Palestinians and Jews, not segregation; a mixture of Jews among Arabs as difficult to unscramble as removing the Palestinian Israelis from Israel. A single state would lead the Arab governments to recognize the new state. Muslims everywhere, Arabs especially, would no longer have an excuse to boycott their Jewish “cousins.” Economic, cultural, educational, and social interaction would follow. The two sides would quickly learn=2 0how much they could benefit from one other.

3. Thirdly, a single state solution would allow Arabs and Jews full access to the entirety of Palestine.

The secular democratic one-state solution has been gathering pace. A well attended conference by Arabs and Israelis at London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) was held on November 17-18, 2007 to address the various aspects of this concept.

Arab and Jew Can Live Together in Peace

Around the time of Israel’s creation, more than 850,000 Jews migrated from Arab countries, 600,000 going to Israel. The charge that the Jews migrated because of Arab maltreatment is an unfair political expediency. The migration happened in the course of Israel’s creation. During this period, 531 Palestinian villages were depopulated and 805,000 refugees lost their homes, according to Palestinian sources (650,000 to 700,000 refugees, according to Jewish sources).

Had Zionism adhered to the stipulation in the 1917 Balfour declaration: “Nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,” the Muslim/Jewish conflict would not have developed.

Durable peace and the long-term prosperity of the Jewish people in the Arab World require the genuine welcome of the Arab masses. Smart bombs and nuclear weapons cannot force Arab peoples’ acceptance of a Zionist Israel. The 600,000 Jews, who had lived in Arab countries for centuries and are today a major proportion of Israel’s Jewish population, could become a positive link with the Arab World. They share with the Arab peoples many customs, habits, values, food, music, dance, and, for the older generation, the Arabic language.

Whether it would be a good bargain to exchange a partial and declining Jewish exclusivity in an unstable two-state solution for a durable single state embracing Jews and Muslims is a question Israel’s Jewish people alone can answer.

In provoking the enmity of their age-old Muslim friends, Zionism has disserved the long-term interests of the Jewish people.
Elie Elhadj
* Elhadj is the author of Elie Elhadj, author of The Islamic Shield: Arab Resistance to Democratic and Religious Reforms, and many articles which can be read here:www.daringopinion.com

Comments (79)

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

51. Shai said:


I believe that most Israelis (i.e. more than 50%) could still be convinced to support the agendas that both Sharon and Olmert presented, wanted to implement, and were elected on. But indeed that is unlikely right now, as long as we continue to suffocate Gaza, settle the West Bank, and while there is Hamas on one side, and Fatah on the other. Personally, I’d even prefer a Hamas takeover of the West Bank, only to have a single partner to talk to.

But I’ve always claimed that the Palestinian issue is far more complicated than, say, the Syrian one, and have therefore advocated first resolving that conflict. I still believe that Syria can help us greatly with the Palestinians (as well as with Hezbollah). If we make peace with Syria and Lebanon, I think the general mood will change significantly, and will perhaps create a different basis for consideration of various solutions vis-a-vis the Palestinians. I am not outright dismissing the one-state solution, and neither do I claim the two-state one is easy or at the moment acceptable (to either side). But if Israelis feared the Arabs less than they do today, perhaps we’d be willing to look at the West Bank differently. Though I’m not suggesting this is on the table (it’s not, at least not today), but who says all three large settlement blocks have to remain intact? Who says Israel can’t be forced to accept a different two-state solution, than the Bantustan one we know of? I know of various plans that have been suggested in the past, including ones connecting Gaza to the West Bank, though clearly they are quite ridiculous when you think of the geography at hand.

I agree with you and also with Joe M. – that the one-state solution does seem to remove so many of the existing problems. Joe M. isn’t exaggerating. If Israelis agreed with him, it is almost a matter of a “mere signature”. But you and I both know that today Israeli Jews fear more being under non-Jewish rule, than they do keeping Ariel, Ma’ale Adumim, and Kiryat Arba. Just as Ariel Sharon “suddenly” woke up when his Geography professor buddy from Haifa University showed him an updated demographics map, so too will most Israelis, when the next leader, or the one after, will explain to them why they must opt for a two-state solution, rather than one.

Obama will hopefully end Israeli Apartheid once and for all. What the resulting product will be, whether a one-state or a two-state solution, we have yet to see. But I’m almost positive it won’t be the former. Not in the next 10-20 years.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 20th, 2009, 9:18 pm


52. SimoHurtta said:

If Turkey does not enter the EU it would be more due to the rise of right wing conservatism in Germany: Combination of the CDU and CCU parties in leadership than anything else he Erdogan says.

Turkey has one strong weapon in EU talks. Oil and gas lines.
Turkey may rethink Nabucco if EU talks stall

Without Turkey EU has very slim possibilities to get oil and gas lines which are not under Russian control.

If EU abandons Turkey it will most likely push it nearer the Russia & China camp make Turkey to rethink is Nato the right club for it. It can also cause that Turkey takes a much bigger role among Muslim countries and warms its alliance with Iran. Turkey is the real key player in the region, not Israel.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 12:51 am


53. Joe M. said:

SHAI and Rumyal,

So we all agree that a one-state solution could be accomplished with the stroke of a pen. Good, we are on the same page there.

We have many differences, but strategically, where i differ with you in terms of the one-state v. two-state debate is when you say stuff like this:
“I believe that most Israelis (i.e. more than 50%) could still be convinced to support the agendas that both Sharon and Olmert presented, wanted to implement, and were elected on.”

There are so many problems with this statement, that I don’t know where to begin. But to make things as obvious as possible, I do think that Sharon and Olmert did implement the plan they were elected on, and all the war and destruction is the natural result. Thus, I don’t think it matters whether 50%+ of Israelis support that plan, because we have already seen it and it has been a nightmare. I don’t think those wars and the division among Palestinians and the siege were an accident, but the result of the incompatibility of the israeli view of “peace” and the minimum demands of the Palestinian people. If Israel continues to push for this type of “solution” where they are not willing to accept Palestinian demands for justice, and if Obama tries to enforce some “solution” like this, there will only be more war. It’s as simple as that. Israel’s idea of “peace” is simply incompatible with the minimal Palestinian demands, and it creates more violence and instability.

That said, Rumyal, I do not think it requires Hamas to participate for there to be a one-state solution. Granted, we are years away from any solution now, whether one or two states… So that’s the starting point, both are far off. So the question is what it takes to make a one-state solution (even if a weak one like a bi-national confederation). And I think it only takes two major things. 1) it takes a solid and credible alternative Palestinian voice to demand it. this could come from within Israel, or it could come in the form of a group of establishment Palestinians demanding it (for example, if sari nusseibeh, mustafa barghouthi, a couple major Fatah figures, and even some important international academics) started making this call, then it would naturally gain momentum. Even now, over the last few days, I have seen the NY Times write two stories about the one-state solution (something I never thought I would see in my life). This is a sign that the potential for momentum is there. if there was some form of official embrace, it would only make the momentum all the more powerful.

Let’s not forget how honestly possible these things are. it only took 4 years, from 1988 to 1992 for the PLO to make an official (though inherently flawed) deal with Israel. The same could happen in terms of the one-state solution.

From where i stand, the two-state solution is officially dead. no one believes in it, no one will fight for it, and no one can accept the “solution” that israel is willing to offer. So it is inevitable. Just as the current war(and guaranteed wars to come) was the inevitable result of the failure of the two-state policy. Thus, it’s just a matter of time, and not a particularly long time as well.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 1:12 am


54. Dan said:

Sorry to break it to everyone, but the one state solution is a pipe dream. It’s suggested by people who ignore the right of the Jews to have one country of their own, in which they don’t fear antisemitism or a repeat of the past 2,000 years of history. They may have to fight for their existence where they are now, but at least they’re not doing it as powerless sheep being led to slaughter. And even ignoring moral arguments, there’s no reason for Israelis to accept it when they’re the stronger party. The two state solution would require much less concessions on their part.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 3:20 am


55. norman said:


There are anti discrimination laws in the western countries in housing and employment, does Israel have similar laws ?.

Do you think that Jews around the world should be treated the way Christians and Muslims are treated in Israel or should they be asked to leave these countries and go to settle in Israel.

By the way , I agree with you , I do not see any chance for one state solution at this time . israel should think of a way to pacify the population that live around her and what it is doing will never make her safe , Israel and the Israelis have to show that they care about the Palestinians if it wants them to care about the Jews and the Israelis.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 3:45 am


56. Dan said:

I agree with the need to show more compassion towards the Palestinians.
Regarding the first issue – the answer is yes.
Take a look at the Israeli Antidiscrimination Legal Center website:
For example:
“The Israeli Law strictly prohibits discrimination in Products, Services and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places (The Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law of 2000).”
With respect to gays and lesbians, for example, Israeli law is much more progressive than the US.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 4:08 am


57. Shai said:

Joe M.,

You are wrong. You’re choosing to look at certain things, and conveniently misinterpreting or ignoring others.

You will not convince me, or most in Israel, that when Sharon withdrew from Gaza, long before Hamas clashed with Fatah and took control by force, he already planned its siege. You will not convince me that Olmert was elected to carry out operations like Lebanon 2006 or Gaza 2009. You’re making a convenient assumption that these horrific events are a consequence of these two leaders’ agenda, and you’re dismissing the positive consequences that could have resulted, and perhaps were even intended by both. That you’ve lost any faith in Israeli leaders other than Uri Avneri is more than clear. But that is also your handicap, and it will continue to cloud your analysis of what goes on in Israel.

I don’t know where you get statements like “Thus, I don’t think it matters whether 50%+ of Israelis support that plan, because we have already seen it and it has been a nightmare.” from. But for me, and also for you, it should certainly matter what 50%+ Israelis will support, and what they won’t. To you, only nightmares can come out of Israel. In essence, there’s nothing more to talk to you about. If this is your final conclusion, what’s the point to talk about anything else?

And of course I disagree with your statement: “Israel’s idea of “peace” is simply incompatible with the minimal Palestinian demands, and it creates more violence and instability.” Everything points to the opposite. A number of Palestinian leaders have accepted, on behalf of the Palestinian people, numerous “solutions” that are far less than the one-state solution. If to you, “minimal demands” is the one-state solution, then you’ve just taken yourself out of the equation. Realistically, politically and diplomatically, you’re completely irrelevant. Even if in the end a one-state could take place, your approach is unrealistic, and will not be adopted.

Joe, I don’t wish to continue this argument further. You think “stuff” like mine has so many problems that you “don’t know where to begin”. And I think “stuff” like yours has so many problems, that I no longer wish “to begin”. Let’s leave it at that, shall we?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 4:55 am


58. jad said:

Nice to see you back Shai, I was worried that you left to the moon with the Chinese wihout me…

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 5:50 am


59. Shai said:


Wallahi, believe me I think I can be more useful on the Chinese lunar mission than I can here on SC right now… 🙂 If you get a chance, please meet Rumyal. I haven’t had the pleasure to meet him (yet), but if anyone here represents Israel’s best interests, it’s him.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 6:08 am


60. jad said:

You are useful and a very important person on moon as on earth, SC is not the same without your views and comments (not the lengthy ones) 😉 ….don’t go anywhere and leave us…be honest, was QN good to you?

I’m sure about Rumyal, hopefully will manage to meet.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 6:14 am


61. Shai said:


Thank you for your kind words. Yes, QN was as always very nice to me. Apologies for the lengthy comments… 😉

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 6:23 am


62. jad said:

Did you finish your comment already? That was a first… 🙂
I was bugging you Shai, keep writing..
I better stop…let’s keep SC pages for the serious people to write not socialising as I’m doing now..

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 6:28 am


63. Rumyal said:

Joe M.,

You said:

And I think it only takes two major things. 1) …

What is the second major thing?

I agree with you on the first one. Hamas endorsement may be nonessential. Sari Nusseibeh (that you enjoy discrediting so much) called for annexation in ’87. He was deemed a lunatic and a traitor by the Palestinians at the time. If all Palestinians were so “inconsistent” and “undisciplined” you’d have a 20 year head-start on your struggle by now.

BTW, have you read this book? (Have you written it? 🙂

One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse
by Ali Abunimah


Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 6:36 am


64. Shai said:


I know you were joking. I also have to go do some more useful things… Btw, don’t underestimate the significance this “socializing” aspect can have. To be honest, I’m not sure which contributes more to peace, our “rational, educated” discussions, or our silly “to the moon” ones. And I’m quite serious about that… The former all too often highlight our differences (which is of course ok and necessary), but the latter demonstrates our similarities and helps break down emotional barriers that are at the root of our conflict. If only most people in my country could see what goes on here, on SC.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 6:43 am


65. Qifa Nabki said:


Trust me, Shai is always very welcome at my blog. I serve him coffee and baklawa, and he keeps AIG busy for me.


Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 7:23 am


66. jad said:

I have no doubt of your generosity.
I honestly think that you deserve a trophy for being so tolerant having AIG writing whatever he likes on your website…God be with you..

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 7:38 am


67. Joe M. said:


It’s a simple fact that sari nusseibeh is not popular among other palestinians. But I heard a recent interview with him where he discussed potentially running for mayor of Jerusalem as the beginning of a one-state project. Start a one-state project by making Jerusalem the focal point. And i forget the exact demographics at the moment, but a significant Palestinian vote in the next mayors race could be enough to win (or at least, kick state a major one-state campaign). Of course, like i said, Sari has no popular support among Palestinians because he is too accepting of zionism and too close to Israelis. But even so, he is fairly principled and clean, and makes all his interactions and views known. So i don’t consider him much of a threat to Palestinian nationalism (where Fatah is, as they are working directly for zionism in an underhanded way, and thus splitting the Palestinians in the name of realism).

Just to finish this point, the Arab parties in Israel could be a significant player in a one-state call. As their political status is continuously threatened, and they are finally starting to emerge as a unifying Palestinian voice. azmi bishara has been a strong voice for a one-state solution for some time, and he gained credibility in the eyes of Palestinians when he was kicked out of Israel. But as the Palestinian citizens of Israel are increasingly threatened by zionist nationalism, in reality the zionists are just connecting the dots of a Palestinian arch that has been broken for too long. and those connections could be key in the medium term.

Anyway, the #2 that i forgot to write is that Palestinian rejectionism needs to strengthen. Of course, SHAI is clinching his teeth as he reads this, but Palestinian rejectionism will just legitimize the one-state solution. And that is why i don’t care what the Israelis think, because we are fighting our own struggle. And there is a zero-sum game between the one and two state solutions. So, the more the two-state solution is discredited, the more the one-state solution will gain in popularity. And this can even be done by violent resistance if necessary, because the one-state advocates are not those using violence to promote their cause. And at some point in the near future, when Israel’s occupation is even more deeply entrenched, those at the Council on Foreign Relations and on the oped pages of the major papers will have no choice but to ask, “can democracy work”? And then you will have good old sari nusseibeh there waiting to answer “what other choice do we have?”

The Zionists will reject it. But look at their society, it’s cracks are growing by the day. in you read the comments of yonatan mendel below, which I think are quite accurate of Israel’s condition, their choices are limited:
And at some point, it will just take the voice of someone like the Avraham Burg to push the snowball down the hill.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 7:39 am


68. Joe M. said:

I just wrote a more lengthy comment, but it mysteriously vanished.

so let me just make my point more quickly this time

the #2 that i forgot in the above comment was that I think there needs to be an increase in Palestinian/Arab rejectionism. And this can be accomplished violently or simply with rejectionism. The two state solution is already dead and those how have advocated it for so long are increasingly discredited. So if there is an organized movement to reject the occupation, or even a violent campaign that continues to make clear how the two-state solution is impossible, all that will be left is the one-state solution.

(and SHAI, I am not necessarily advocating violence, but just pointing out that there is likely to be violence for some time yet, and this is a defacto rejection of the current situation, in which the only answer to the question, “can there be peace?” is to answer with a two-state. The violence is tied to the two-state solution, as it is legitimized by seeing the other side as competing nationalisms. While those who advocate the one-state solution will necessarily be free of that type of violence, as it doesn’t make sense to kill the people you want to live with.)

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 8:06 am


69. SimoHurtta said:

You will not convince me, or most in Israel, that when Sharon withdrew from Gaza, long before Hamas clashed with Fatah and took control by force, he already planned its siege. You will not convince me that Olmert was elected to carry out operations like Lebanon 2006 or Gaza 2009. You’re making a convenient assumption that these horrific events are a consequence of these two leaders’ agenda, and you’re dismissing the positive consequences that could have resulted, and perhaps were even intended by both.

Shai Sharon never indented to let Gaza to be an independent region. It was clear to him and his followers that Gaza will stay under Israeli military control.

Every Israeli leader is elected to perform such operations like Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2009 always when Israel wants to do them. And the Israeli public loves those operations. Of course Israel political establishment has clear plans and programs. The reality is that those plans and programs are to dangerous to be published even to the own public. Israel does its best to hide its real aims, which are naturally capturing West Bank and minimizing the Arab population on its area. Publishing such policy would the “Mein Kampf” of Israeli political establishment, but the policy clearly exists. Naturally Israelis, even some of the peace doves, deny it because knowing such “Nazi policy” exist would be to much for any decent human being.

Shai it would be worth for you to listen to a new Noam Chomsky’s lecture about this and other subjects.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 11:12 am


70. Shai said:


I really don’t wish to again get into a useless argument with you. You assumptions about what Israel votes her leaders to do or not do, and the hidden Israeli “Mein Kampf” that cannot be published even to the Israeli public, are rather “amusing” (to use your phraseology).

When you suggest “The reality is that those plans and programs are to dangerous to be published even to the own public.”, I’m beginning to think that perhaps you’re the one working for some Zionist Intelligence Agency. Your information and conclusions are certainly impressive…

Let’s please stop this charade. You and I both know you’re not exactly open to thinking otherwise. Hence, the discussion has ended long ago, hasn’t it?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 12:06 pm


71. SimoHurtta said:

I really don’t wish to again get into a useless argument with you. You assumptions about what Israel votes her leaders to do or not do, and the hidden Israeli “Mein Kampf” that cannot be published even to the Israeli public, are rather “amusing” (to use your phraseology).

Shai what is then your function here to express views if you do not allow others to express counterarguments to your views. You seem to like that Chinese moon rocket style “lightweight talk”, but what is the function of such personal chatting for the larger audience. I could equally exchange comments with Akbar in style “Have you been ice-skating?”. Akbar would answer “There is no ice in Florida”. Who is interested of that discussion?

If you are tired to discuss about Israel,of its problems and its role in Middle East then you should continue your brake. You claim that Israel has no plan, I claim that it has but that plan is to dangerous to put on paper in a public political program.

A quote of John J. Mearsheimer’s latest article in American Conservative

But these are not the real goals of Operation Cast Lead. The actual purpose is connected to Israel’s long-term vision of how it intends to live with millions of Palestinians in its midst. It is part of a broader strategic goal: the creation of a “Greater Israel.” Specifically, Israel’s leaders remain determined to control all of what used to be known as Mandate Palestine, which includes Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinians would have limited autonomy in a handful of disconnected and economically crippled enclaves, one of which is Gaza. Israel would control the borders around them, movement between them, the air above and the water below them.
Arnon Soffer, a prominent Israeli demographer who also advised Sharon, elaborated on what that pressure would look like. “When 2.5 million people live in a closed-off Gaza, it’s going to be a human catastrophe. Those people will become even bigger animals than they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam. The pressure at the border will be awful. It’s going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day.”

Surely you as an Zionist living in Zionist country understand that those strategies and advices described in the quote can not be on paper as a political party’s or government’s program. It would make Hamas look good. But on those strategies has every Israeli government acted.

I’m beginning to think that perhaps you’re the one working for some Zionist Intelligence Agency. Your information and conclusions are certainly impressive…

Well you seem to need more tranquillizers to get over with the Gaza events. Your knowledge and analyses of Israel seem not to be “very impressive”, but who is able to see his/her country real ugly face. I suggest that you listen to that Chomsky’s lecture I linked.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 2:08 pm


72. Shai said:


As I’ve mentioned to you on more than one occasion, you’re the last person I feel a need to explain anything to. If I felt you had even the tiniest inclination to truly listen, or God-forbid change your mind about anything, I might reconsider this. But you’re not here to listen – you’re here to be heard. So keep talking, but to others please. I’m just not interested, sorry. And thank you for the patronizing suggestions on how and what I should talk about on SC. If I feel I need your advice in the future, I’ll know where to reach you.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 2:48 pm


73. Elie Elhadj said:

To all,
1. As SAMI D indicated, a conference on the logic and feasibility of the single-state solution will be held on March 28 and 29, 2009 at the University of Massachusetts in Boston:

2.It has been brought to my attention that a person carrying my name has published in ELAPH a couple of days ago an article in Arabic. I must say that until I was alerted to the ELAPH piece I have never heard of ELAPH. I did not write that article. I’ll certainly try to identify the individual involved.

Elie Elhadj

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 4:22 pm


74. Elie Elhadj said:

To all,
1. As SAMI D indicated above, a conference on the logic and feasibility of the single-state solution will be held on March 28 and 29, 2009 at the University of Massachusetts in Boston:

2. It has been brought to my attention that an individual carrying a name similar to my own has published a couple of days ago in ELAPH an article in Arabic. I must emphasize that I never heard of ELAPH until two days ago, that I have no idea who the author of the ELAPH article is, and that I never published any article in Arabic anywhere. I’ll certainly try to identify the individual involved.

Elie Elhadj

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 4:37 pm


75. Rumyal said:

Joe M.,

The upcoming Bibi term will be a rerun of the Shamir term from the late 80’s. It will be characterized by a declared willingness to negotiate on the basis of allowing some form of self-determination for the Palestinians while at the same time deepening the settlement enterprise. Whomever thinks that the two-state solution is still possible will have new facts on the ground to contend with in 3-4 years from now. While there’ll be a lot of suffering involved, mostly for Palestinians but also for Israelis, the bluntness of Bibi’s and Liberman’s ideology will hasten the realization in world view that the situation in Israel requires a treatment similar to that of SA.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 5:33 pm


76. Peter H said:

In theory, I am sympahetetic to the idea of a binational state, particularly the federation that Joe M talks about. I think it could be a potentially far more solution than a 2-state solution, which has clear flaws (no right of return, a weak & physically divided Palestinian state).

On the other hand, the experience of binational states in practice has been dismal – at best. Look at Lebanon, where the consociational democracy completely broke down in the 1970\’s, and is only tenously holding together now. Look at Cyprus or Yugoslavia, countries that were once extolled as models of multiethnic cooperation in the past. Even Belgium, which has nothing like the history of interethnic violence that Palestine/Israel had experienced, almost fell apart a couple of years ago.

I think it\’s imperative for advocates of a 1-state solution to explain why the problems that have beset binational states elsewhere would be handled in Israel/Palestine.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 21st, 2009, 7:48 pm


77. Joachim Martillo said:

The problem of Zionism does not lie in the politicization of scripture and cannot be solved by a commitment to secularization and depoliticization of the Bible and the Quran.

Before any solution can be discussed, the E. European politics on which Zionism is based must be understood.

E. European Ethnic Ashkenazim imported an extremely vicious dangerous form of ethnic fundamentalism or (in the case of Jabotinskians) ethnic monism to Palestine.

Historically, no path has ever been found to peaceful coexistence with ethnic fundamentalists or ethnic monists.

In addition, the difficulty of negotiating with Zionists is exacerbated by the complexity of political authority with in the Zionist system.

These two hyperlinks explain the issue: Introduction: The Virtual Colonial Motherland as Political Innovation and Peninsulares Versus Criollos.

While the foregoing political analysis is important from the standpoint of developing a more comprehensive understanding both of Zionist history and also of political science in general, economics has rendered obsolete the issue of one state versus two states.

The US and world economies cannot be fixed as long as the Zionist system remains intact. The following two blog entries discuss the problem: Corrupt Jewish Social Networking Rules! and Israel: A Giant Ponzi Scheme.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

February 2nd, 2009, 5:36 pm


78. Karin friedemann said:

I think this analysis is a good start. But, it shrinks from the true moral obligation of Jews: to consider if Islam is, perhaps true. After all, many verses in the Quran are addressed directly to the Children of Israel, the People of the Book, and so on. Clearly this prophet believed he was your prophet. If you rejected him, you may have rejected God, your soul, and all future hope.


Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

February 3rd, 2009, 2:18 am


79. Tal said:

Can someone ask a Palestinian how he calls his people in Arabic?
Or maybe ask him about his collective cultural heritage?
o i know ask him since when people started to see them as a different people from the Arab nation?
answers plzz

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

February 7th, 2010, 3:30 pm


Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

Post a comment