palestinian-israeli unification movement?

[danyboy27]

does anyone know if such thing exist?

[¿Que?]

I think they used to. It was called the one state solution. More than that I don't know.

[redmist]

There is a one state solution and a 2 state solution, Israel will not accept either.

The one state solution would mean the Zionists wouldn't be able to maintain their Jewish state. With the Palestinians given full rights and citizenship the demographics of Israel would change (that demographic timebomb the Zionists have feared since Ben-Gurions time would "explode"), especially due to the fact Palestinian birth rates are generally higher than the Zionists. The Jewish state wouldn't survive.

Zionists wouldn't favour a 2 state solution either. Firstly who would decide the terms set for the state? Would they be allowed an army for example? I doubt it. Apart from that, if you divide the land, Israel would suffer a water shortage fairly quickly. The majority of aquifers than currently provide Israel with water are in the West Bank. Israel wouldn't be able to steal the water if Palestine were to become a truly independent state, so they would have to negotiate for it and I don't think that would be easy. It would be safe to say the Palestinians wouldn't sell water to Israel in any case. Added to that the fact Israel will most likely continue it's Judaization policies, I'm not sure how sustainable the country would be? Another problem Israel would face would be the fact that roughly 1 in 5 of the population of Israel are Palestinians. Again going back to the demographic timebomb, it would explode in the Zionists faces generally, only this time on a smaller area of land.

My own opinion is that if any so called solution gets put in place it will probably be a two state solution but on Israeli terms, essentially it would just be a farce. The international community would assume the occupation will be over and lay off Israel while they will probably continue their systematic genocide of the Palestinian people for the Greater Israel.

[Red Commissar]

does anyone know if such thing exist?

If it does it's not too popular. Only the most radical elements from both societies put faith in a unified state where Arabs and Jews live together as brothers. Most of them have largely settled for living apart. Hamas for instance won't accept an Israeli state, while the nuts in Israel wants to make the whole thing only a Jewish state.

Honestly the last I've ever heard of this is when Qadaffi was asked on his opinion on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and he gave that as his solution.

[danyboy27]

There is a one state solution and a 2 state solution, Israel will not accept either.

The one state solution would mean the Zionists wouldn't be able to maintain their Jewish state. With the Palestinians given full rights and citizenship the demographics of Israel would change (that demographic timebomb the Zionists have feared since Ben-Gurions time would "explode"), especially due to the fact Palestinian birth rates are generally higher than the Zionists. The Jewish state wouldn't survive.

Zionists wouldn't favour a 2 state solution either. Firstly who would decide the terms set for the state? Would they be allowed an army for example? I doubt it. Apart from that, if you divide the land, Israel would suffer a water shortage fairly quickly. The majority of aquifers than currently provide Israel with water are in the West Bank. Israel wouldn't be able to steal the water if Palestine were to become a truly independent state, so they would have to negotiate for it and I don't think that would be easy. It would be safe to say the Palestinians wouldn't sell water to Israel in any case. Added to that the fact Israel will most likely continue it's Judaization policies, I'm not sure how sustainable the country would be? Another problem Israel would face would be the fact that roughly 1 in 5 of the population of Israel are Palestinians. Again going back to the demographic timebomb, it would explode in the Zionists faces generally, only this time on a smaller area of land.

My own opinion is that if any so called solution gets put in place it will probably be a two state solution but on Israeli terms, essentially it would just be a farce. The international community would assume the occupation will be over and lay off Israel while they will probably continue their systematic genocide of the Palestinian people for the Greater Israel.

the one state solution have way more potential i think than the imaginary takeover of israel by the palestinian militia.

i mean, lets face it, the israeli military can and will bomb the palestinian forever, the only way to make them stop is for the palestinian to strenghten the bond with the israeli working class, and for the israeli working class to be sensibilized about the ordeal the palestinian are living daly.

that it.
(expecting many bad rep and a possible restriction, but seriously, fuck it.)

[gorillafuck]

If it does it's not too popular. Only the most radical elements from both societies put faith in a unified state where Arabs and Jews live together as brothers. Most of them have largely settled for living apart. Hamas for instance won't accept an Israeli state, while the nuts in Israel wants to make the whole thing only a Jewish state.
How is not accepting an Israeli state different from a one state solution?

[bricolage]

i mean, lets face it, the israeli military can and will bomb the palestinian forever, the only way to make them stop is for the palestinian to strenghten the bond with the israeli working class, and for the israeli working class to be sensibilized about the ordeal the palestinian are living daly.

I think there is also the demographic issue to consider, the Palestinian population in increasing at a much faster rate than the Israeli population, when the former completely outnumbers the latter and especially in regards to the growing Arab population within Israel, it will become a naked form of minority rule, effectively openly apartheid (notwithstanding relatively fair accusation of apartheid rule in the present). With its foundation on liberal democratic discourse I'm not sure how long Israel would be able to sustain such a form of rule, especially in the international sphere and its politicians are aware of this. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/03/barak-apartheid-palestine-peace)

[Red Commissar]

How is not accepting an Israeli state different from a one state solution?

Generally when I hear "One-State" solution I think of the two living in peace. Of course the two would like their own state, exclusive to their respective groups, but I think in this regard the "one-state" solution refers to a country where the two are living together as equals, and not as an exclusive ethnic state.

Qadaffi's "stance", for instance,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saif_Islam_Qaddafi_Isratin_proposal


The Gaddafi Isratin proposal is a proposal to permanently resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict through a secular, federalist, republican one-state solution, which was first articulated by Saif al-Islam Muammar al-Gaddafi, the son of Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya, at the Chatham House in London and later adopted by Muammar al-Gaddafi himself.

Its main points are:

* Creation of a binational Jewish-Arab state called the "Federal Republic of the Holy Land";
* Partition of the state into 5 administrative regions, with Jerusalem as a city-state;
* Return of all Palestinian refugees;
* Supervision by the United Nations of free and fair elections on the first and second occasions;
* Removal of weapons of mass destruction from the state; and
* Recognition of the state by the Arab League.

Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi's proposal was eventually incorporated in Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi's White Book of May 8, 2003, which serves as his official guide to address the Arab-Israeli conflict and how to solve it. Despite the suggestion of "Federal Republic of the Holy Land" as the name of this hypothetical new state, the name Isratin (Hebrew: יִשְׂרָטִין‎, Yisratin; Arabic: إسراطين‎, Isrātin), a portmanteau of the names "Israel" and "Falastin" (Palestine in Arabic and Hebrew) - variously spelled in English as "Isratine" or "Israteen" and sometimes rendered "Israstine" - has been used as a "working title" for the notion of a single state in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with Arab and Jewish inhabitants of all three having citizenship and equal rights in the combined entity.

Muammar al-Gaddafi again championed the "Isratin proposal" in an op-ed article for the New York Times as the "only option" for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The timing of the article approximately coincided with the inauguration of Barack Obama as President of the U.S. and with the cease-fire that apparently marked the end of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. Gaddafi has argued that this solution would avoid the partitioning of West Bank into Arab and Jewish zones, with buffer zones between them.And if you want to see his op-ed on the issue,

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22qaddafi.html



THE shocking level of the last wave of Israeli-Palestinian violence, which ended with this weekend’s cease-fire, reminds us why a final resolution to the so-called Middle East crisis is so important. It is vital not just to break this cycle of destruction and injustice, but also to deny the religious extremists in the region who feed on the conflict an excuse to advance their own causes.

But everywhere one looks, among the speeches and the desperate diplomacy, there is no real way forward. A just and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians is possible, but it lies in the history of the people of this conflicted land, and not in the tired rhetoric of partition and two-state solutions.

Although it’s hard to realize after the horrors we’ve just witnessed, the state of war between the Jews and Palestinians has not always existed. In fact, many of the divisions between Jews and Palestinians are recent ones. The very name “Palestine” was commonly used to describe the whole area, even by the Jews who lived there, until 1948, when the name “Israel” came into use.

Jews and Muslims are cousins descended from Abraham. Throughout the centuries both faced cruel persecution and often found refuge with one another. Arabs sheltered Jews and protected them after maltreatment at the hands of the Romans and their expulsion from Spain in the Middle Ages.

The history of Israel/Palestine is not remarkable by regional standards — a country inhabited by different peoples, with rule passing among many tribes, nations and ethnic groups; a country that has withstood many wars and waves of peoples from all directions. This is why it gets so complicated when members of either party claims the right to assert that it is their land.

The basis for the modern State of Israel is the persecution of the Jewish people, which is undeniable. The Jews have been held captive, massacred, disadvantaged in every possible fashion by the Egyptians, the Romans, the English, the Russians, the Babylonians, the Canaanites and, most recently, the Germans under Hitler. The Jewish people want and deserve their homeland.

But the Palestinians too have a history of persecution, and they view the coastal towns of Haifa, Acre, Jaffa and others as the land of their forefathers, passed from generation to generation, until only a short time ago.

Thus the Palestinians believe that what is now called Israel forms part of their nation, even were they to secure the West Bank and Gaza. And the Jews believe that the West Bank is Samaria and Judea, part of their homeland, even if a Palestinian state were established there. Now, as Gaza still smolders, calls for a two-state solution or partition persist. But neither will work.

A two-state solution will create an unacceptable security threat to Israel. An armed Arab state, presumably in the West Bank, would give Israel less than 10 miles of strategic depth at its narrowest point. Further, a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would do little to resolve the problem of refugees. Any situation that keeps the majority of Palestinians in refugee camps and does not offer a solution within the historical borders of Israel/Palestine is not a solution at all.

For the same reasons, the older idea of partition of the West Bank into Jewish and Arab areas, with buffer zones between them, won’t work. The Palestinian-held areas could not accommodate all of the refugees, and buffer zones symbolize exclusion and breed tension. Israelis and Palestinians have also become increasingly intertwined, economically and politically.

In absolute terms, the two movements must remain in perpetual war or a compromise must be reached. The compromise is one state for all, an “Isratine” that would allow the people in each party to feel that they live in all of the disputed land and they are not deprived of any one part of it.

A key prerequisite for peace is the right of return for Palestinian refugees to the homes their families left behind in 1948. It is an injustice that Jews who were not originally inhabitants of Palestine, nor were their ancestors, can move in from abroad while Palestinians who were displaced only a relatively short time ago should not be so permitted.

It is a fact that Palestinians inhabited the land and owned farms and homes there until recently, fleeing in fear of violence at the hands of Jews after 1948 — violence that did not occur, but rumors of which led to a mass exodus. It is important to note that the Jews did not forcibly expel Palestinians. They were never “un-welcomed.” Yet only the full territories of Isratine can accommodate all the refugees and bring about the justice that is key to peace.

Assimilation is already a fact of life in Israel. There are more than one million Muslim Arabs in Israel; they possess Israeli nationality and take part in political life with the Jews, forming political parties. On the other side, there are Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Israeli factories depend on Palestinian labor, and goods and services are exchanged. This successful assimilation can be a model for Isratine.

If the present interdependence and the historical fact of Jewish-Palestinian coexistence guide their leaders, and if they can see beyond the horizon of the recent violence and thirst for revenge toward a long-term solution, then these two peoples will come to realize, I hope sooner rather than later, that living under one roof is the only option for a lasting peace.I am just pointing out that at the present, with Netanyahu's right-wing nationalist pricks in power and reducing the Palestinians to a state of Apartheid, and Hamas's own position on the issue, it's unlikely this sort of one-state solution would gain any traction.

[danyboy27]

i am no fan of kadafi but this is a wonderful idea

[Dr Mindbender]

what would you call such a country anyway? Its got no chance if they cant agree on such basics.

The reason the zionists wont accept such a solution is that they want a jewish state, otherwise it would defeat the purpose of there being an Israel in the first place.

[danyboy27]

what would you call such a country anyway? Its got no chance if they cant agree on such basics.

The reason the zionists wont accept such a solution is that they want a jewish state, otherwise it would defeat the purpose of there being an Israel in the first place.

so, basicly what left? a complete takeover by either the palestinian or the israeli, that is more likely end up with more death and violence, another freaking bloodshed that gonna comtinue for another 40 year?

[Yehuda Stern]

There used to be a pan-Semitic group in Israel, Uri Avnery was a member. I don't know much about them - I would suppose the latter gave up on the idea once he returned to being a left Zionist (he had a more radical period, in which he collaborated somewhat with Uri Davies, first and only Jewish member of Fatah).

DannyBoy, a Palestinian state need not mean nationalist violence, although like any revolution it might be forced to become violent. It doesn't mean throwing the Jews to the sea like hysterical Zionists claim, and like you seem to believe. The continuing existence of Israel, on the other, means the daily death, immiseration and oppression of Palestinians.

[danyboy27]

DannyBoy, a Palestinian state need not mean nationalist violence, although like any revolution it might be forced to become violent. It doesn't mean throwing the Jews to the sea like hysterical Zionists claim, and like you seem to believe. The continuing existence of Israel, on the other, means the daily death, immiseration and oppression of Palestinians.
with all the death and misery the palestinian received from the israeli military might, lets me have some doubt about that.

Some people here compare it to the apparteid, but the shit the palestinian have and had to endure is WAY more cruel and evil than the black south african had to endure in the past.

A violent takeover would necessarly result into mass violence toward the jewish population, just like the soviet troops had their payback in the early day of the soviet occupation of some part of germany.

that why i think that a gradual unification and solidification of bond between the working class of both side is something people should look forward.

the real ennemy on both side is the rulling class and the power they have on their own population.

[JacobVardy]

does anyone know if such thing exist?

A group calling itself the Israeli Palestinian Confederation is organising elections for December 12, 2012. Their proposal sounds like a weak version of Qadaffi's. The group sounds like bourguise liberals and i can't see it working. Hopefull Yehuda will know more about them

http://ipc.ibcnet.com/faq.aspx

[freepalestine]

does anyone know if such thing exist?it's the only way.and it's a matter of when.until that time more people are going to be killed and more hardships and oppression on both sides..

[chegitz guevara]

Eventually the Arab population in Israel will be the majority, even without annexing the territories. Israel knows this, and actually wants a one and a half state solution, creating a rump Palestinian state, to which they can then append highly Arab parts of Israel ... with the exception of Old Jerusalem.