One State solution

[Ostrinski]

What are some points to make and sources to use in argument for a one state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in a paper? Thanks

[Comrade Jandar]

It depends on whether on not you will be arguing within a bourgeois framework since its a paper for school.

[Ostrinski]

Yes, I would be arguing for the dismantlement of the Zionist regime and reunification of the Palestinian area into a secular democratic bourgeois republic.

[l'Enfermé]

Doesn't Chomsky write a lot on the matter, from a left-liberal-Anarchist perspective?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm pretty sure that this was the position of Moshé Machover (of Matzpen) and George Habash (of the PFLP). You could investigate what their views were on this topic...

[Ostrinski]

I think Q is an enthuisast of Machover's book. I'll probably contact him about it.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

A two-state solution would simply perpetuate Zionist occupation and reward them for their crimes.

[cynicles]

Doesn't Chomsky write a lot on the matter, from a left-liberal-Anarchist perspective?
Chomsky is opposed to the one-state solution because he says it doesn't have a global concensus and therefore shouldn't be tried, considered or promoted.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Chomsky is opposed to the one-state solution because he says it doesn't have a global concensus and therefore shouldn't be tried, considered or promoted.

I just don't see how it can be logically implemented without decades of an unreasonable amount of reconciliation.

[Ostrinski]

Chomsky is opposed to the one-state solution because he says it doesn't have a global concensus and therefore shouldn't be tried, considered or promoted.Bleh. Probably the result of his close association with Finklestein. What a dunce.

[Ostrinski]

I just don't see how it can be logically implemented without decades of an unreasonable amount of reconciliation.It starts with an initiative of the Israeli people to deprive Zionism of its popular support and a sense of solidarity among the Palestinian and Israeli people. Call me naive but I think the Palestinians resent repression and violence from the Zionist state rather than having to share there land with people of a different faith.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

It starts with an initiative of the Israeli people to deprive Zionism of its popular support and a sense of solidarity among the Palestinian and Israeli people. Call me naive but I think the Palestinians resent repression and violence from the Zionist state rather than having to share there land with people of a different faith.

You need to acknowledge the scars in the Jewish psyche. No matter how leftist Israel's roots are, the state is mostly seen as the last stand of the Jewish people. After centuries of oppression culminating with one of most blood thirsty and sophisticated mass murders the world has ever seen, Many Israeli's would rather die than lose their "homeland" to a group that they have been indoctrinated into believing wishes to drive them into the sea (and which has had groups who actually say the same thing.) Israel fought a war of survival numerous times, and it has a religion that at one time condoned the utter annihilation of its competitors to a point where it has become technically canon. Believing that the majority of citizens would just drop everything and willingly dissolve their sovereignty over "the promised land" is not completely reasonable.

edit: And let's not forget how inconvenient it would be for America if its only true ally in the region suddenly became a democracy with an arab majority

[hatzel]

edit: And let's not forget how inconvenient it would be for America if its only true ally in the region suddenly became a democracy with an arab majority

Israel already has an Arab majority. In fact it's had an Arab majority for almost all of its existence...

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Israel already has an Arab majority. In fact it's had an Arab majority for almost all of its existence...

I'm not taking into account exiles and those in the occupied territories/Gaze/West Bank who can't vote

[hatzel]

I'm not taking into account exiles and those in the occupied territories/Gaze/West Bank who can't vote

Nor am I. I'm only counting citizens of the State of Israel, the kinds of people who live in Tel Aviv and Haifa, places like that...

[Caj]

Do have a source for that hatzel? I keep reading that only 20% of Israel's population is Arab.

[cynicles]

You need to acknowledge the scars in the Jewish psyche. No matter how leftist Israel's roots are, the state is mostly seen as the last stand of the Jewish people. After centuries of oppression culminating with one of most blood thirsty and sophisticated mass murders the world has ever seen, Many Israeli's would rather die than lose their "homeland" to a group that they have been indoctrinated into believing wishes to drive them into the sea (and which has had groups who actually say the same thing.) Israel fought a war of survival numerous times, and it has a religion that at one time condoned the utter annihilation of its competitors to a point where it has become technically canon. Believing that the majority of citizens would just drop everything and willingly dissolve their sovereignty over "the promised land" is not completely reasonable.

edit: And let's not forget how inconvenient it would be for America if its only true ally in the region suddenly became a democracy with an arab majority
I gotta say that jewish psyche crap doesn't logically fly with me in the case of Israel since Zionism has throguhout history relied on anti-semites to keep it afloat. If there was ever any real push to snuff out anti-semitism and increase the security of the jewish people it would involve not having rabbis coming out and making excuses for Reverend Falwell when he vomits up some crap about the anti-christ being a jew.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I gotta say that jewish psyche crap doesn't logically fly with me in the case of Israel since Zionism has throguhout history relied on anti-semites to keep it afloat. If there was ever any real push to snuff out anti-semitism and increase the security of the jewish people it would involve not having rabbis coming out and making excuses for Reverend Falwell when he vomits up some crap about the anti-christ being a jew.

Modern day Zionism is the opposite of wanting to kick the jews out. It's elevating the Jews to an elevated status of deserving something due to a shared religious past and old crimes committed against them

[hatzel]

@Caj~20% are non-Jewish Arabs. Include the Arabs who just so happen to be Jewish and you're well over 50%. Of course they're only a majority in a numeric sense; sociologically they remain a minority.

@OP Judith Butler and Yehouda Shenhav are both well-known supporters of such a proposal. They might be worth citing, each giving their own unique slant on it, and coming from a Jewish perspective (thereby fighting off any allegation of one-sidedness or casual disregard for the fate of the Jewish people in their various guises)

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

@Caj~20% are non-Jewish Arabs. Include the Arabs who just so happen to be Jewish and you're well over 50%. Of course they're only a majority in a numeric sense; sociologically they remain a minority.

@OP Judith Butler and Yehouda Shenhav are both well-known supporters of such a proposal. They might be worth citing, each giving their own unique slant on it, and coming from a Jewish perspective (thereby fighting off any allegation of one-sidedness or casual disregard for the fate of the Jewish people in their various guises)


1. How well over

2. So Non European Jews almost completely support the Palestinian position and would be willing to dissolve the state? (doubt it)

[cynicles]

Modern day Zionism is the opposite of wanting to kick the jews out. It's elevating the Jews to an elevated status of deserving something due to a shared religious past and old crimes committed against them
You mean the shared religious past where the Catholic church butcher and chase jews out of Spain? So far the only thing these guys have 'elevated' jews to are a cheep tool to be used to justify empire for capitalists(you criticized Israel?>!>!> HITLERS!!!) or as part of some sick apocalyptic fantasy that evangelicals have where a third of the jews get wiped out. All the while many of these Zionists still spew antisemitic garbage to this day and have excuses made for them. Like the most recent example of Rupert Murdoch and his comment about 'the jewish media', not a pepp from the ADL, and Falwell's comment about the anti-christ being jewish actually garnared statements of defense from a majour rabbi. Wanna say something anti-semitic and get away with it kids? Just make sure you support Israel!

[Lucretia]

Some books on this issue: http://www.amazon.com/One-Country-Proposal-Israeli-Palestinian-Impasse/dp/0805086668/ and http://www.amazon.com/The-One-State-Solution-Breakthrough-Israeli-Palestinian/dp/0472034499/

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

You mean the shared religious past where the Catholic church butcher and chase jews out of Spain? So far the only thing these guys have 'elevated' jews to are a cheep tool to be used to justify empire for capitalists(you criticized Israel?>!>!> HITLERS!!!) or as part of some sick apocalyptic fantasy that evangelicals have where a third of the jews get wiped out. All the while many of these Zionists still spew antisemitic garbage to this day and have excuses made for them. Like the most recent example of Rupert Murdoch and his comment about 'the jewish media', not a pepp from the ADL, and Falwell's comment about the anti-christ being jewish actually garnared statements of defense from a majour rabbi. Wanna say something anti-semitic and get away with it kids? Just make sure you support Israel!

1. You know conservatives don't give a shit about history

2. The state of Israel wasn't created as a capitalist plot to establish a beachhead in the region

3. If we're going by the literalist views on eschatology believed in by evangelicals, the anti-christ being a jew isn't doctrinally unsound. Jesus was a jew, so it makes sense that evil incarnate would be of the same group inorder to be seen as the jewish messiah and get a seat on the temple mount (any new jewish messiah not Jesus=antichrist)

[hatzel]

he wasnt

Not to get into a totally unnecessary theological discussion here, but do you feel like explaining this deviation from received wisdom?

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

he wasnt

Either A) He didn't exist but still fits into history as the symbol of the only apocalyptic jewish movement (there were alot) to survive and expand B) was born to a Jewess, followed Jewish customs and eventually grew up to become the most renowned jewish heretic of all time or C) Was God's only begotten son etc etc

Either way, he's depicted as a Jew

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

he was muslim

Eh...no...

I don't think a leftist website is the best place to debate our respective religious backgrounds. But...no...

(And for the sake of the argument, if Isa was alive in the time before the birth of Mohammed, wouldn't all the faithful Jews of the period be technically Muslim?)

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

maybe they became,muslim,christian etc..may be 'isa' was samaritan ..

The line between Jewish people and the jewish religion is a hard thing to grasp, especially back in 0 AD ( sorry don't know Muslim calendar) when the great exile hadn't happened yet (ignore Babylon and Assyria)

[Ostrinski]

Jesus was rastafarian. How else do you explain the hippie appeal?

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

jesus was rastafarian. How else do you explain the hippie appeal?

Silence heathen! (proceeds to impale you with the spear of destiny)

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

lol..i'll ignore russia,maroc etc also

Are you referring to the lost tribes pseudo history or did you not know that the jews have been exiled more than once?

[Q]

I'm pretty sure that this was the position of Moshé Machover (of Matzpen) and George Habash (of the PFLP). You could investigate what their views were on this topic...


I think Q is an enthuisast of Machover's book. I'll probably contact him about it.

Actually, Moshé's position (and that of the former Matzpen group) is that both a one-state and two-state solution in an of themselves are non-sensical. Israel is a far too strong hegemon within the confines of Israel and the Occupied Territories to be questioned directly.

What Moshé and Matzpen are/were arguing was that a regional solution was needed: The unification of the Arab nation. This is, in Moshé's recent book, frequently referred to as a "Socialist Union of Mashreq" (that is, the Arab East, including Egypt), of which the Palestinians are a national part anyway.

The basic formula is then to create a federal republic, or union, in which the Hebrews, Kurdish and South-Sudanese national minorities form an autonomous part. This both ensures the so much needed unity to let this region flourish and a right of self-determination of self-aware nationalities.

Such unity would furthermore cripple the Israeli Zionist state, as it is highly dependent on the imperial hegemon for its survival. Israel is acting as a guard dog for US interests and gets a free hand for its political agenda in return. But with a genuine Arab unity, this position would become redundant as Israel could no longer play divide and rule tactics to keep itself on top. This would then act as a way to defeat the ruling Zionist ideology that still has so many Hebrews under its spell.

[Os Cangaceiros]

So a USSR in the middle east?

[Q]

So a USSR in the middle east?

If you would insist on the comparison, I guess, yes.

[cynicles]

1. You know conservatives don't give a shit about history

2. The state of Israel wasn't created as a capitalist plot to establish a beachhead in the region

3. If we're going by the literalist views on eschatology believed in by evangelicals, the anti-christ being a jew isn't doctrinally unsound. Jesus was a jew, so it makes sense that evil incarnate would be of the same group inorder to be seen as the jewish messiah and get a seat on the temple mount (any new jewish messiah not Jesus=antichrist)
1. Your point?
2. It was created as an imperial outpost for France and Britain and later served the US. Zionist leaders even gaves speeches about how Israel would serve as guardians of oil for the empires and some other shit.
3. Literalist eschatology is irrelevant, this is about what Falwell said and how he was defended by majour jewish leaders who should have been denouncing him for that garbage and instead defended him because he supports Israel.

[Devrim]

Actually, Moshé's position (and that of the former Matzpen group) is that both a one-state and two-state solution in an of themselves are non-sensical. Israel is a far too strong hegemon within the confines of Israel and the Occupied Territories to be questioned directly

Neither the one state or the two states 'solutions' are solutions in any sense of the word. If the situation weren't so tragic, it would be comical to watch the left arguing over exactly which type of state they would prefer to see not come into being. Surely it must be clear to everyone that the Palestinian national movement has no chance of winning, and that there will not be either a one state or two state solution.

In this sense Moshé is right when he argues that the solution does not lie in Palestine/Israel, but actually lies in the wider region (and as communists we would say beyond). The problem is that his solution has as little connection to reality either.

Perhaps back at the start of the 1960's the idea of a unified Arab state was still in the air, but today even the Arab nationalists have forgotten about it. How do they imagine that this state will come about.

The real horror of the situation in Palestine is that there is no visible solution, and that within the current world order there is nothing foreseeable beyond continued barbarism.

Socialists envisage another solution which is intrinsically based on the working class, and ultimately world revolution.


The basic formula is then to create a federal republic, or union, in which the Hebrews, Kurdish and South-Sudanese national minorities form an autonomous part.

I think that the overwhelming majority of Kurds would be terrified by the idea of being part of an Arab superstate.

Devrim

[Q]

Perhaps back at the start of the 1960's the idea of a unified Arab state was still in the air, but today even the Arab nationalists have forgotten about it.
I'm not sure about that. The Arab Spring (or, as it has been called in the region more frequently, the Arab "Awakening") was a clear indication that the idea of a wider Arab awareness still very much lingers on. But, contrary to the 1950's, the masses didn't look upon the ruling elites for unification, on the contrary. It takes time for such awareness to spread among the working class and for this we need a political mass organisation that educates, agitates and organises our class.


The real horror of the situation in Palestine is that there is no visible solution, and that within the current world order there is nothing foreseeable beyond continued barbarism.
That currently seems the case, yes.


Socialists envisage another solution which is intrinsically based on the working class, and ultimately world revolution.
Obviously.


I think that the overwhelming majority of Kurds would be terrified by the idea of being part of an Arab superstate.
The point is that unity is voluntary and that can only happen when minority rights are guaranteed. Hence my comments on a federal republic or union.

[Devrim]

I'm not sure about that. The Arab Spring (or, as it has been called in the region more frequently, the Arab "Awakening") was a clear indication that the idea of a wider Arab awareness still very much lingers on. But, contrary to the 1950's, the masses didn't look upon the ruling elites for unification, on the contrary. It takes time for such awareness to spread among the working class and for this we need a political mass organisation that educates, agitates and organises our class.

I don't think the idea of an 'Arab super state' in the way you seem to envisage it could have any thing to do with the interests of the working class. It would essentially be a nationalist project whereas the communist project stand is directly antagonistic to building national unity and opposes it with class unity. A nationalistic movement for an 'Arab super state' within the working class would be an abandonment of class interests.


The point is that unity is voluntary and that can only happen when minority rights are guaranteed. Hence my comments on a federal republic or union.

I would suggest that there is no way that Kurds would support any voluntary union with an 'Arab super state'.

Devrim

[Q]

I don't think the idea of an 'Arab super state' in the way you seem to envisage it could have any thing to do with the interests of the working class. It would essentially be a nationalist project whereas the communist project stand is directly antagonistic to building national unity and opposes it with class unity. A nationalistic movement for an 'Arab super state' within the working class would be an abandonment of class interests.
I disagree. History shows that the ruling elites (Nasser being the most famous example) are incapable of genuine Arab unification. Thus, this task falls onto the working class and, as such, Arab unification can only happen via a proletarian revolution and establishing a proletarian political hegemony, a workers democratic republic.

How this equals abandoning class interests is beyond me.


I would suggest that there is no way that Kurds would support any voluntary union with an 'Arab super state'.

If they insist on being independent, then who are we to oppose? I'd argue against separation though as we need the biggest class unity in this region and, indeed, strive for global unity to be able to fully leave behind all remnants of the old capitalist society.

[Grenzer]

How this equals abandoning class interests is beyond me.

You seem to be forgetting that for some folks, a good outcome will always be considered the enemy of the best of all possible outcomes.

Obviously not an approach that will result in much at the end of the day, but there it is.

A world republic would be the best of all possible outcomes, and that needs to be the end goal, but that's not something will instantly happen overnight. It seems to be undeniable that there are certain projects that can be a powerful stepping stone in that direction. I am not saying that we can "reform" things into a world republic, but rather that there are certain things that can be transitional to that.

Ideally, we would have a world communist party. That should remain a goal for us, but it's pure fantasy to believe that, given the present circumstances, it's an achievable goal in the forseeable future. A European Communist Party, on the other hand, is something that is more achievable and would be a good stepping stone in the direction of a world communist party. The objection that a European Communist Party would somehow be an obstacle to the creation of a global communist party because it falls short of the immediate establishment of the global party is absurd and an example of the worst sort of sophistry.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Would it be possible to create a multi-cultural "superstate" including Israelis, Arabs, Alawites, Kurds, Maronite Christians, and Assyrians or would that devolve into another Yugoslavia? Clearly any "superstate" has to be secular and multi-cultural, an "Arab superstate" would by definition not be palatable to Jews and Kurds as they are excluded by its very terms.

[Grenzer]

Well such a state could only come about through proletarian revolution which supersedes such materially insignificant differences as religion and culture. Not to downplay the hold culture has on the working class, but I think the very act of revolution is in defiance of the bourgeoisie's hegemony in this sense. Such a state could only be a transitory entity on the road to global proletarian dictatorship in any case as the revolution would have to expand to extinguish global capitalism in short order or simply degenerate into the same mess we saw in Russia.

I'm not sure Yugoslavia is an appropriate analogy since it was never(in my view at least) a proletarian dictatorship of any kind.

In what sense would Jews and Kurds be excluded? The proletarian dictatorship is exercised by all workers, irrespective of nationality.

[GoddessCleoLover]

To my mind a socialist/DotP superstate in the Middle East would not be ethnically "Arab" by definition. I am not an economic determinist, though, and any Middle Eastern socialist superstate would have to zealously defend minority rights, even IMO to the point of eschewing "Arabness" in favor of proletarian internationalism. Otherwise, Kurds and Jews would likely refuse and resist any Arab superstate. Ethnic majorities must renounce majoritarian privileges in volatile areas such as the Middle East.

[Q]

To my mind a socialist/DotP superstate in the Middle East would not be ethnically "Arab" by definition. I am not an economic determinist, though, and any Middle Eastern socialist superstate would have to zealously defend minority rights, even IMO to the point of eschewing "Arabness" in favor of proletarian internationalism. Otherwise, Kurds and Jews would likely refuse and resist any Arab superstate. Ethnic majorities must renounce majoritarian privileges in volatile areas such as the Middle East.

This was the reason I was talking of a federal republic in earlier posts. Machover talked about a "union". In the end we mean the same thing: Voluntary unity of the working class, by respecting the right of self-determination.

On an aside: "Jews" is somewhat of a misnomer, as it could refer to any Jew in the world. As a matter of fact, Zionist ideology is founded on the premise that Israel is indeed the home nation of world Jewry. So "Jews" is a confusing term on multiple levels.

The term "Hebrews" is much more specific, because despite all efforts by the Zionists to revive Hebrew as the language of world Jewry, it has only taken root within Israel and as such formed an national awareness over the years.

"Israelian" could also be tolerated, although it would include the many Palestinians ("Israeli Arabs") living inside Israel and therefore create a new confusion.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Hebrews might indeed be the best term to use, but I don't see how Hebrews and Kurds could be expected to participate in a federal republic or "union" that defined itself as "Arab". If the Arabs insisted upon defining the state as Arabic, then it would seem that Hebrews and Kurds would almost certainly opt out. Perhaps that would lead to a Middle Eastern confederation including Arabic republics, Turkey and Hebrew and Kurdish states, associated but not under any one central authority?

[Q]

Hebrews might indeed be the best term to use, but I don't see how Hebrews and Kurds could be expected to participate in a federal republic or "union" that defined itself as "Arab". If the Arabs insisted upon defining the state as Arabic, then it would seem that Hebrews and Kurds would almost certainly opt out. Perhaps that would lead to a Middle Eastern confederation including Arabic republics, Turkey and Hebrew and Kurdish states, associated but not under any one central authority?

Maybe, maybe not. The point is not to wander too far off into crystal ball territory, but to pose a concrete programme of workers unity and working class political hegemony.

[Red Commissar]

I'm not sure if this is useful for what you are writing, but it could make for an interesting or humorous anecdote. Old Momo when he was still alive wrote (or at least someone wrote for him) his take on a one state proposal.

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

January 22, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
The One-State Solution
By MUAMMAR QADDAFI

Tripoli, Libya

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.

Muammar Qaddafi is the leader of Libya.

I don't agree with Qaddafi's take on it of course but still always good to introduce as many sources as you can into a paper or at least use it as a way to tell who ever is grading that you really dug into archives here.

[Ostrinski]

Would the isolation that a two state solution would impose make a good argument?

[Devrim]

I disagree. History shows that the ruling elites (Nasser being the most famous example) are incapable of genuine Arab unification. Thus, this task falls onto the working class and, as such, Arab unification can only happen via a proletarian revolution and establishing a proletarian political hegemony, a workers democratic republic.

The question this raises is whether there is anything progressive today in the demands of the bourgeois revolution. Certainly it is very clear today that the ruling Arab elites are completely incapable of bringing about 'genuine Arab unification'. Why do you think that it falls to the working class to bring it about though?


How this equals abandoning class interests is beyond me.

The reason I would say that it equates with abandoning class interests is that I believe that the formation of an ethnic state has nothing to do with the interests of the working class in anyway. For all the talk of a 'workers' democratic republic', it is a bourgeois project in its entirety.


Maybe, maybe not. The point is not to wander too far off into crystal ball territory, but to pose a concrete programme of workers unity and working class political hegemony.

Your solution is as much in crystal ball territory as any other. Empty slogans, and this is exactly what this is are not a 'concrete programme of workers unity and working class political hegemony'. The most powerful sections of the working class in the region are those in Egypt, Iran, and Turkey. Why are those left out apart from to fit in with your particular version of crystal ball gazing.

Devrim