Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Jan
8
Yesterday, on WCPN’s Sound of Ideas, Nour Chammas, Executive Director, AACESS-Ohio (The Arab American Community Center for Economic and Social Services – that link might be old, or Mr. Chammas is new – he’s not listed yet) said that he supports a one-state solution. As I wrote, I had not, until then, heard anyone who was representing a organization enunciate, in the press, a one-state solution. And, as I wrote, this is where I believe we need to be starting the discussion because it is this haggle over one-state or two, and what they would look like, that really is at the core of the conflicts. So it should be what we argue about – the violence is truly without value other than to obliterate one another.
So, because of my theory about how, if you say that the conflict is the result of forever and a day occupation, then you’re most likely a one-state solution kind of person, I wanted to learn more about Mr. Chammas – to better understand his reasoning for a one-state solution.
What I learned was completely new to me – and I don’t know if I’m just naive or if there is purposeful obfuscation of the concept of a one-state solution that also gives rise to why I’ve heard people say that a one-state solution is a means to eliminate not just Israel but the Jews.
Where’d I get that?
Well, apparently, to some, like people who subscribe to ideologies like that of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (read this post and fascinating comment thread to understand more about the SSNP – there is a Nour who comments there, but I do not know if its Nour Chammas or not; hattip Syria News Wire for the link), a one-state solution means, basically, the unification/reunification of Lebanon, Israel, Gaza, West Bank, Jordan, the Sinai and Syria.
Yeah. No. That’s not what I think of when I hear a one-state solution, and it’s not even what people whom I’ve been following on a Syrian news blog seem to believe. But this is a very new area of thinking to me, the one-state all Syria-all the time concept and I have no handle on how prominent it is.
So, again, where’s this all coming form? It started with finding some writings attributed to Mr. Chammas’ name in a discussion about the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, a party that, according to Wikipedia, is:
..a nationalist political party in Syria and Lebanon. It advocates the establishment of a Greater Syrian national state, including present Syria, Lebanon, the Hatay Province of Turkey, Israel, the Palestinian territories, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, Cyprus, Jordan, Iraq, and Kuwait.[1]
I’d never heard of this party or its goal – clearly, a one-state solution, but not the same as this one-state solution – which I always thought was what people meant.
NB: The online discussions I found are from ten years ago. I have no idea who the people are and have not verified that the writings are those of the same Mr. Chammas, but he went to UC San Diego and the writings are from a Nour Chammas with an email at UCSD) and whether these individuals continue to maintain these ideas. Again, the value is in understanding what people have in mind when they say, “one-state solution.”
Here’s the group’s English language site. In the forum, you can find a couple of responses by Mr. Chammas that reveal more about this concept of unification or reunification of several territories around Syria, though again, I must restate that this writing is from ten years ago – so I have no idea 1) if it is the same Mr. Chammas, though it looks likely, or 2) whether Mr. Chammas still is active with SSNP or 3) currently holds these precise beliefs, but the wording gives a sense relevant to the idea of a one-state solution that isn’t anything like what I think most people think of when speaking of a one-state solution:
When we speak of Syria, we do not, in any regard, mean the government of Hafez Al-Assad, nor do we even imply what is today the Syrian Arab Republic. When we refe[sic] to Syria, we refer to all of Natural Syria, which includes Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, and what is today the Syrian Arab Republic (Al-Sham). This area constitutes a single socio-economic unity known as Syria.
Palestine refers to Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and the Sinai.
Second, Mr. Chammas wrote and had published this column for a college paper in 4/2001. In part:
These facts [he goes through a historical review, going back to 3000 BC, of who has lived in Israel over the centuries], however, were completely ignored when the British government decided to give its support to the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. This led to a policy of mass Jewish immigrations to Palestine, organized by political Zionists, in an attempt to change the demography of the land and justify their illegitimate creation of the state of Israel.
Nevertheless, in 1947, the Jews only made up 25 percent of the population of Palestine and owned less than 7 percent of the land, when the United Nations partition proposal awarded them 54 percent of the country, including the best lands. In 1948, however, the Jews declared an independent state after seizing 78 percent of Palestine and driving out most of the Palestinian population through a process of violence, including some of the most gruesome massacres, such as that committed in Deir Yasin. Nineteen years later, in 1967, Israel expanded its borders as it occupied the regions of Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza, again causing the flight of Palestinian civilians, exacerbating the refugee problem.
Since its creation, Israel has followed a consistent policy of land dispossession, house demolition and settlement building. In addition, its brutal occupation has included acts of murder, rape, torture and maiming of civilians.
For this reason, although many find it hard to comprehend, the Palestinians find little pleasure living under Zionist occupation, and it is on these facts that we base our opposition to Zionism. Our position on this issue, along with our continued struggle for justice, is not based on hatred for anyone, but rather on love for our people, as well as our deep and genuine belief in human rights. In accordance with this position, we declare that the right to struggle is the right to advance, and thus, we shall never surrender this right to those who, on the one hand, preach to us about peace, and, on the other hand, prepare for war.
Now – I can understand what Mr. Chammas has described and how it is that he finds this perspective to be the one that should govern behavior. But clearly, when, on WCPN, he says that he prefers a one-state solution, there was no follow up but I bet that’s because the host and other guest thought what I thought – which is the one-state solution of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank under one government, not the unification of Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Gaza, West Bank and the Sinai. And Mr. Chammas didn’t specify which one-state solution he was intending – so we don’t know for sure.
The beliefs that Mr. Chammas (who was born in Lebanon but has lived in the U.S. since he was age nine) holds regarding the illegitimacy of occupation since 3000 BC (as written in the college paper column) may echo some people who support a one-state solution, but I have no idea how many people or how many people who want what the SSNP appears to want. I’m looking into that.
Anyone who can clear some of this up re: which is the more predominant one-state solution when we use that phrase, please pipe in. Again, I think, when it’s being stated by someone as their preference, they know exactly what they mean – but if it’s this larger pan-Syrian concept, I feel quite confident that many people do not envision that, particularly non-Semitic natives or travelers or individuals who haven’t studied the Middle East.
My concern? Any obfuscation could give rise to horrific misunderstandings: convincing well-intentioned peace activists who plead the Palestinian or Israeli cause that one-state is the answer, when in fact those individuals had no clue that the one-state was the pan-Syrian concept.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:57 am January 8th, 2009 in Culture, Debates, Foreign Affairs, Gaza, Israel, Jewish, middle east, Politics
Comments
3 Responses to “Gaza, Israel: Who you callin’ one state?”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
Jill
I will start with Ref:
http://www.jillmillerzimon.com/jill.html
Being an American Jew which Flag would you Serve, The American Flag or the Israeli Flag?
Please Note that I am a Christian and I do not see myself serving the Vatican Flag as I do not see or hear any Christian calling for the support of the Vatican state in preference to hie/her National Flag.
Can you Kindly Explain why Jews are the Only Religious Group who Link their Religious Beliefs to a State Called Israel while they hold different Nationalities throughout the world?
Another Question:
If a Conflict of interest rises between the US and the State of Israel, where would the US Jewish Community side, The US or Israel?
Thank you
AHMAD AOWN
P.S: Don’t be fooled by My AHMAD Name, I am a Christian.
[...] Gateway Pundit offered Surprise– Iranian Regime Repeating “Banned Weapons” Hoax. At Writes Like She Talks- Gaza, Israel: Who you callin’ one state? [...]
Jill
Are My questions “Above” being Researched?
or ,,,,
Your Silence is a another way of admitting that they are right?
or ,,,,
you are trying to avoid exposure..
Thanks anyway