Print This Post
Jan
7
UPDATE: I’m not the only one finally pressing the question re: do you think in terms of one state or two – read more at News from Syria.
I think it is, even though I think that at least some people who make that reference think to themselves that they are open to a two-state solution.
I’ve been writing about this need to press the debate about the Gaza-Israel conflict into an answer to the question, “One state or two”?” from the beginning, asking occupiers of cyberspace and real life to respond. I’ve gotten just a few direct responses so far, all but one for a two-state solution (one brought up the concept of a binational single state).
Finally, this morning, on WCPN’s Sound of Ideas, which you can listen to here, Nour Chammas, Executive Director, AACESS-Ohio (The Arab American Community Center for Economic and Social Services) said it. He specifically said that he supports a one-state solution and not a two-state solution.
But, long before he said that, he’d already tipped his hand because he used the words and description, as many have before him, of The Occupation. Not the 1967-2005 occupation by Israel of Gaza. Not the 1949-1967 occupation by Egypt of Gaza. Not the British occupation prior to 1949, or any other occupation in all of history.
No. Just The Occupation.
I posited this before and I’m saying it again: when you hear someone describe the current situation as having roots in The Occupation, realize that the next question you must ask is: do you support a one-state or a two-state solution. Because if they support a one-state solution, the next question is: what are your plans for the millions of residents of the entire “Occupied” land?
There are different answers. But this is where the conversation must go:
Is the speaker envisioning an Islamic state free not only of Jews, but of Druze, Christians, Bedouin and any other non-Shariah loving Semitic person?
or
Is the speaker envisioning a secular but binational state?
All of these options are actually ones that are formed already in the minds of people who talk about post-violent conflict options.
But only once the players make it known whether they want a single state or two states, and what those states would look like, can we start to see what the players’ real interests are. And, sadly, the players are not always the residents. That needs to be addressed as well.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:03 pm January 7th, 2009 in Foreign Affairs, Gaza, Israel
Comments
18 Responses to “[updated] Is blaming “the 60 years of occupation” a euphimism for “one-state solution”?”
Leave a Reply
See Jill Run…for Pepper Pike City Council
News Now
Upcoming
Twitter Updates
Jill,
The dilemna here is deciding how far back in history you go in order to find those who are “occupying”. Both historical research and The Old Testament tell us that there were many people who could call this land home throughout history. Who then becomes the people qualified to call it home, and who determines that qualification?
Using such loaded language is disingenuous on Mr. Chammas’ part and far to simplistic an approach. By such thinking, America should be returned to Native Americans, as the rest of us are by his definition “occupiers”.
What a lovely coincidence! Interestingly, many Palestinians who I’ve met who still live in the Occupied land advocate a two-state solution, while refugees want a one-state. And it’s easy to see why:
Those living under occupation want a quick end to it – and a two-state solution is the one on the table right now.
Those living outside want to be able to return – a two-state solution effectively ends their claim on 1948 Palestine.
Sasa – thank you so much for leaving a comment.
I know what I’d love to know is: 1) what the residents there want; 2) what ALL the residents can agree on; 3) will, whatever the residents agree on, be made to last, in peace?
I always think, if people just keep TALKING we can figure it out. I guess what we say and who is doing the talking matters too though, yes?
Stay safe.
And Tim – just because an injustice was in the past, should we forget about it? The Israeli narrative of “facts on the ground” doesn’t wash in international law. There are people who have had their land stolen, and need a solution.
I don’t know about the Native American situation – but I can tell you, Aborigines in Australia are only now starting to regain some of the land that was stolen from them 200 years ago.
Palestinians can wait. Justice will be done – even if it is 140 years away.
Exactly Jill. Unfortunately though, the wishes of the people don’t feature as high up the list of priorities as getting one over on your political opponents, especially if there’s an election on February 6!
Well – the political certainly is a problem. It becomes so difficult to disentangle that – I’ve felt for years, however, that part of the reason why the entanglement of the political, with everything else – religion, military, diplomatic, human rights, etc. – is because of two things 1) Israel and the Palestinians at times benefit from that messy web and 2) so many external forces NEED things to be messy there.
Letting them all be entangled with one another while the rest of us try to get a nation – or two nations – going would be one way of trying to move forward.
The Israeli narrative of “facts on the ground” doesn’t wash in international law. There are people who have had their land stolen, and need a solution.
A lot of people throw terms like international law around without really understanding that it is subject to interpretation.
I am not saying that you did that, just making a remark.
But the reality is that it is not as black and white an issue as some would think. We can argue it in any number of directions.
At the moment one of the biggest problems/challenges is trying to build a foundation of trust to work from.
Shalom Jill,
Serious question: within the realm of International Law, why shouldn’t there be a one-state solution?
B’shalom,
Jeff
I don’t know International Law well enough to know what would prevent it from happening but the key thing is still, what do the residents want, what will they accept, what can they run, peacefully?
I agree Jack, there is no trust at all. The Arabs are divided, we’re fighting ourselves first of all!
Jack, I think the situation is very simple. It’s politicians on both sides (all sides?!) who benefit from the status quo which like to tell us it’s too complicated for our little brains, and they are trying their best to navigate through the muddy waters.
Rubbish.
There’s occupation and 40 years of military rule over millions of people. Border disputes can be sorted out in an hour.
As for the international law, the laws I am referring to are:
-the laws of war (land gained through war can not be annexed – like the Syrian Golan – or held through military occupation – like the West Bank and Gaza)
-UN Security Council resolution 242 (which is binding on all parties and takes the form of law)
I guess I’ll just be an equal opportunity digusted person. I’d be really hard pressed to decide who is the more POS between Hamas and Israel. Somehow I’ve never managed to have a dog in that fight – and I won’t.
Sasa,
It is funny that you say that the Arabs are divided, because I have seen that in person.
I used to work with a couple of Syrians. Interestingly enough one was Muslim and the other was Christian. They had relatively different ideas of how to make things work.
But they agreed on one thing, they despised Palestinians. It was shocking to me to hear what they had to say about them. But that is a different story.
Both of them told me that the only way Israel could survive was to act like an Arab. They spelled that out by saying that Israel needed to be exceedingly brutal or that it would be overcome. I found that to be very depressing.
But let’s focus on 242 for a moment. Let me grab an excerpt: For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
That doesn’t spell out who lives where. It doesn’t delve into the questions of what size the demilitarized zones should be or what other measures should be taken to guarantee the territory and safety of the country or countries as the case may be.
And that is part of the rub.
Jack, 242 does say two important things, first:
“Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
And:
“a just settlement of the refugee problem” (generally considered to be a return of the refugees, or compensation for those who choose not to return – but that’s for another discussion!).
The transfer of settlers into a land occupied by military force is illegal under the Geneva Conventions.
So while UNSCR 242 doesn’t say who should live where, or where the demilitarised zones should lie – it does quite clearly call for an end to occupation.
Ah! That pesky defining of occupation comes back around again, though. Whose definition is to control? The one that says there’s been occupation by myraid non-indigenous peoples since 3000 BC, or are we just going back to 2005, 1967, 1948?
Sorry – this is not facetious – I ask quite seriously. Because when one considers the occupation to have started determines what and who must stop the occupying, yes?
We all live by a legal system. Even if we believe we have a moral right to – for example – take a loaf of bread from a supermarket because we can’t afford it, we are still breaking the law.
Internationally, too, we live by a legal system. If we let certain countries ignore international law, and force others to abide by it, the system breaks down, to the detriment of everyone.
The UN resolutions on the occupied territory are imperfect – they do no justice to the lands occupied in 1948, but does that give Palestinians the right to claim those lands? Legally, no.
And in the same way, if Israelis believe the West Bank was theirs 2000 years ago, can they claim it? Again, legally, no.
@13 Sasa – I appreciate that. That’s part of what I’m trying to separate out, as you may have read by now my most recent comment at your blog/newswire regarding the position of the SSNP and others that a one-state solution is a pan-Syria government for all of the partitioned lands. Again – any light you can shed on the popularity of that concept would be appreciated – I’m extremely unknowledgeable about that perspective.
Yep, just left a comment for you in my place!
It’s basically an archaic pan-Arab notion of pre-nation state (1914) unification, which has little or nothing to do with Palestine/Israel, and a lot to do with post-colonial movements.
I’ve written a bit more here: http://newsfromsyria.com/2009/01/05/the-jewish-problem/#comments
[...] Baila says It’s my first war and I’ll cry if I want to. At Writes Like She Talks Jill asks Is blaming “the 60 years of occupation” a euphimism for “one-state solution”? [...]