do you support a two state solution?

[Guerrilla22]

Most of you will probaly say yes, however under what terms? What should be done about the Jerusalem dilema?

http://www.chomsky.info/audionvideo.htm

Did anyone else watch Chomsky's debate with Alan Dershowitz at Harvard? I recommend watching it.

[jaster]

yes i do support a two state solution, i also support the institution of UN resolution 242, the return of israel to pre-67 boundries, and yes return the golan to the syrians. as for jurasalem a cant honestly say, although i do thing as it is a holy city to the three main religions( christiantity, judaisim, and islam) it be turned into a non-partisan state, kind like vatican city

[jaster]

oh,sorry, no i dident see the debate but i did see chomsky speak at gonzaga university in spokane washington, he's a genius

[Loknar]

Good debate, I'd say Chomsky's opponent won. Though I did like how Chomsky would just shut up and allow his opponenet to make an ass of him self from time to time.

[Guerrilla22]

The honest truth is it was a close debate. Some aspects where hard to follow because they kept quoting abscure sources. Dershowitz kept coming with the same recycled argument that the Palestinians are responsible for the break down of the Camp David Accord, citing its there own fault for not having a state. However he failed to mention that the creation of a Palestinian state was never on the table for negociations at camp david.

[Elect Marx]

I cannot currently load the audio but I fail to see how a state change can ever resolve a class/social status based conflict.

[Guerrilla22]

In order for the Palestinian situation to improve, obviously Israeli troops need to withdraw from Palestine. If there was a Palestinian state they could start building there own infrastructure and create jobs. Of course this could only happen with the help from more well to do states in the area.

Israel constantly uses the fact that Palestine is not reckognized as a state to defend their occupation, citing that they are not occupying another soveriegn state,

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 15 2005, 08:04 AM
I cannot currently load the audio but I fail to see how a state change can ever resolve a class/social status based conflict.
The establishment of a Palestinian state would remove an obstacle for both Israeli and Palestinian communist movements. The resolution of the conflict is a step on the road to socialism, not an aim in itself.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+Dec 15 2005, 04:15 PM--> (Guerrilla22 @ Dec 15 2005, 04:15 PM) Israel constantly uses the fact that Palestine is not reckognized as a state to defend their occupation, citing that they are not occupying another soveriegn state, [/b]
That's just the thing though, it is an excuse. The US used an excuse to invade Iraq, even though it was and I don't see how this reform would help for certain.


ComradeOm
The establishment of a Palestinian state would remove an obstacle for both Israeli and Palestinian communist movements. The resolution of the conflict is a step on the road to socialism, not an aim in itself.

That is an incomplete answer though. You didn't say how this new state would resolve any conflict. States can fight too and that is generally called war; this being similar to occupation.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I support a one-state solution where the state is secular and has equal rights. A two state arrangement that would be fair for palistinas could only come if the Palistinains won somehow. Otherwise the two-state solution only means "a state of war and a state of seige"; it means what we have now, Israel gets to militarilly intervene in the other state whenever it wants.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 06:31 PM
I support a one-state solution where the state is secular and has equal rights. A two state arrangement that would be fair for palistinas could only come if the Palistinains won somehow. Otherwise the two-state solution only means "a state of war and a state of seige"; it means what we have now, Israel gets to militarilly intervene in the other state whenever it wants.
Exactly; dividing into states really won't help us. As long as we must have a state, why make them separate? If we want any reforms it would be for the basic human rights of the Palestinians and I don't recall the last time establishing a state did that.

That said, something more significant needs to happen to empower the oppressed, as reforms tend to not stand against military force.

[Guerrilla22]

I fail to see how haivng one state ( a Palestinian state) is plausible. Israel is not going away. The Palestinians cannot live under Israeli rule.

[ComradeOm]

A one state solution will just bind the Palestinians and Israelis together in an uncomfortable and unhappy marriage. The divisions within the proletariat of this new state will hamper their development. It is inevitable that the Palestinian and Israeli proletariat will impact on each other, their history and proximity dictates that, but the two state solution allows each worker movement to develop on its own while removing nationalism from the equation.

[Luís Henrique]

One State, a secular one, with equal rights for people regardless of religion.

A separate "Palestinian State" would be, in fact, a bantustan.

Luís Henrique

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+Dec 16 2005, 08:50 AM--> (Luís Henrique @ Dec 16 2005, 08:50 AM) One State, a secular one, with equal rights for people regardless of religion.

A separate "Palestinian State" would be, in fact, a bantustan. [/b]
Exactly; any rights they seek to protect would simply be taken by force. Unless we are capable of protecting this state, it won't help and if we are capable of protecting it, why make a state? Why not a leftist coalition?


Originally posted by [email protected]
A one state solution will just bind the Palestinians and Israelis together in an uncomfortable and unhappy marriage.

That is what they need, to be able to function together; not to hide conflict. I am not saying "just get along." I'm saying that the human rights infractions need to stop! Separate states won't help a hell of a lot. This is reminiscent of segregation to me; it really will only cover up the conflict but one group of people will be second-class citizens either way and dividing them just makes an easier target.


The divisions within the proletariat of this new state will hamper their development. It is inevitable that the Palestinian and Israeli proletariat will impact on each other, their history and proximity dictates that, but the two state solution allows each worker movement to develop on its own while removing nationalism from the equation.

How so? Having their "own" states would seem to foster more nationalism, worsening the problem. Oppressed people don't need the false security of a state, they need basic human rights.


Guerrilla22
I fail to see how haivng one state ( a Palestinian state) is plausible. Israel is not going away. The Palestinians cannot live under Israeli rule.

That seems quite irrelivant to me. Even if they had a state; what assures that Isriel has to recognize thier authority? Even more problematic, what are we representing as leftists advocating more (inevitably corrupt) hierarchical systems?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 01:01 AM
I fail to see how haivng one state ( a Palestinian state) is plausible. Israel is not going away. The Palestinians cannot live under Israeli rule.
Nobody suggested Israel "go away." Israel and Palestine should become one state, with both parties involved in the decision making and Palestinians granted the right of return.

[ComradeOm]

That is what they need, to be able to function together; not to hide conflict. I am not saying "just get along." I'm saying that the human rights infractions need to stop! Separate states won't help a hell of a lot. This is reminiscent of segregation to me; it really will only cover up the conflict but one group of people will be second-class citizens either way and dividing them just makes an easier target.
I’d much rather segregate the two than have them in constant conflict. That way the Palestinian and Israeli workers can get on with their own struggles without having to worry about each other. In a single state they will continue to be played off each other as they are now.


How so? Having their "own" states would seem to foster more nationalism, worsening the problem. Oppressed people don't need the false security of a state, they need basic human rights.
As opposed to the nationalism they’re subject to now? Or the nationalism and racism that would result from a single state? Infighting communities are even more disruptive to workers progress than infighting states.

[FleasTheLemur]

We should turn Israel into a parking lot and turn Saudi Arabia into the world's largest amusement park, with Iraq and Iran becoming the worlds largest water park. :lol:

You know I kid though. ...and we know that this issue involves religion and the very fundies views behind it. So, in short, we're dealing with religion. What we need is a progressive religious enlightenment and make 'land' not matter.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by black banner black gun+Dec 17 2005, 11:35 AM--> (black banner black gun @ Dec 17 2005, 11:35 AM)
[email protected] 16 2005, 01:01 AM
I fail to see how haivng one state ( a Palestinian state) is plausible. Israel is not going away. The Palestinians cannot live under Israeli rule.
Nobody suggested Israel "go away." Israel and Palestine should become one state, with both parties involved in the decision making and Palestinians granted the right of return. [/b]

And in actual reality...
The Israeli's would dominate the government of this one state. The palestinians don't want to continue living under Israeli domination. Sure one big state were everyone respects each other's rights and has an equal say would be nice, but its completely unrealistic.

[bcbm]

The Israeli's would dominate the government of this one state.

They would be completely outnumbered. And a two-state solution would mean domination as well, which is why a one state solution is preferable, in my opinion, since they will need to work out their problems instead of just fighting.

[Guerrilla22]

Despite being outnumbered, Israel would never accept this. The Arab Israelis are second class citizens, it would be no different for the Palestinians. If the Palestinians had their own state they would retain the right to their own self determinaion, be it Israel respect their sovereign territory.

[VonClausewitz]

Perhaps the (I think it was) United Nations should intervene to clean up the mess it made last time it played political geography in the middle east ?

Expecting the Israelis to just go away is plain daft, and expecting the descendents of the biblical philistines is just as ridiculous, these peoples are probably as old as Egypts. A two-state solution would be the only feasible solution, as way back in the mists of time it existed that way, before the borders were ever really drawn in a very solid way.

Two-states, with all the 'holy' cities appropriated for either side dependant on need would possibly solve things, though it would take an enormous ammount of anti-ego from Sharon, and if outside coercion was used, a hell of a lot of either fortitude on Israel's part or political cleverness (eg) the UN's to stop everyone crying anti-semetism.

[Guerrilla22]

I agree that a two state solution is the plausible method avaible, however Israel tends to give the finger to the UN anytime the UN tries to intervene in something israel is involved in. The only outside influence Israel respects is the US, who must do more than simply express their wishes for a Palestinian state and pressure Israel to allow it to happen.

[Shredder]

I support a zero state solution.

[dakewlguy]

well it wont happen for a long time now, the Likud replacement for Sharon is certain to be far more hawkish, Gaza could even be resettled.

[dannie]

well, if that two state solution solves the problems to a good extend and most of all, stop the killing, i'm not going to nag about it, however, i feel a bit like, shut the fuck up guys, make one country and learn to live with each other.
Maybe they could look at the belgian model of organisation, it has a shitload of problems but if that is what needs to be done, ... well, so be it

maybe this is a chance to install a worker ran country

[PRC-UTE]

No. It would end the Palestinian right of return that is a fundamental part of creating any peaceful solution in Palestine.

[Zingu]

No State.

[Hiero]

I am for one state solution. Though not a reconciliation as some are proposing. The one state solution is the result of the oppressor nation being overthrown by the oppressed nation.

The is no such a state as Israel, it is a settler nation that has to be overthrown. The new state would be a state lead by the Palestinians. They would have to deport or send back alot of Israel settlers that have settled there in the last 50 or so years or what ever year period is realistic.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 05:48 AM
I support a zero state solution.
No kidding.

I find it quite odd that many young leftists become completely entangled in this nonsense.

Why should anyone really care if two power structures derived from and driven by religious rhetoric fight over land simply because it was "chosen" by "god"?

Both societies share political agendas so completely steeped in religion that it really should not matter to the party who actually controls that particular piece of annoyingly hot sand.

Perhaps a better alternative would be to let these primative societies whack each other out as long as possible.

Just because it's considered "revolution" does not mean it's our revolution.

[YKTMX]

I support the creation of one state called Palestine in the land now known as Israel, with democratic and religious rights for all citizens.

The continued existence of the Zionist entity, with its racist political structure and Imperialist military basis, is not viable.