A SINGLE STATE SOLUTION
The Hasbara Apparat Revealed
I thought there might be some interest in the following exchange that took place between two members of the One Democratic State mailing list. The first person discovered some talking points posted to an Israel Lobby website. The second member, just as a fun exercize, followed that by posting point by point refutations. Here it is:
I came upon a site the other day... There are 15 "Points" and for each, a series of "Counterpoints" are offered (the site seems to be designed mostly for college students to use before going to a pro-Palestinian lecture/rally and to give them "points to make" Questions are also offered.) Here is what they offer for the "One State Solution" which falls under the section entitled "Anti-Israel Suggested Solutions to the Conflict" Please note that very often the "Supporting Evidence" is opinion or incomplete.
POINT 9: "[T]he only real solution is a single-state solution...." Jews should not be concerned about the prospect of living in a majority-Palestinian state dominated by the likes of the PA and Hamas. These organizations are not anti-Semitic, do not want to destroy Jews or the Jewish character of Israel, and will grant religious freedom and freedom of worship to Jews. In short they do not pose a threat to Jews.
COUNTERPOINT: There are no legal, historic, geographic or moral grounds on which to advance a one state solution. A single-state solution is not a solution. It is simply a continuation of the 1948 War through demographics instead of militarism-imperial conquest by another means. It would pave the way for Palestinians to dominate demographically and destroy the Jewish character and the purpose of the state itself. No legal or historical precedent justifies imposing one national group upon another in order to eliminate its national movement and character.
COUNTERPOINT: A one-state solution would be asking Israel, a UN nation state for over 50 years, to eliminate itself.
Supporting Evidence: There is no historical precedent for coercing groups with different political, religious or ethnic identities to form into one nation. Creating new national borders to separate hostile groups has been the accepted solution.
Supporting Evidence: In 1947, just months before the UN's recommendation on partitioning Palestine, India had accepted a partition plan to separate hostile Muslims and Hindus. Pakistan was carved out of India with a population exchange of 14 million people.
Supporting Evidence: In the former Yugoslavia, five separate states were carved out to separate warring ethnic and religious groups in 1991 -1992 despite their small size and historic unity.
Supporting Evidence: Political hostilities and an inconclusive war led Korea to be divided into two separate, internationally recognized countries, North Korea and South Korea. People are reintroducing this issue right now.
COUNTERPOINT: A one-state solution would be unjust. It would deny the right of self-determination to both the Palestinian and Jewish national movements. It would result in one of these peoples becoming a minority in the other's nation. This is a recipe for conflict, not for justice or peace.
COUNTERPOINT: A one state solution would have to be based on the agreement of the separate states and on shared national objectives. At the current time, this would be impossible.
Supporting Evidence: Palestinian leaders have reiterated for the last 80 years that Zionism is not a legitimate national movement and that a central Zionist objective-a safe haven for Jews in their ancient homeland-is racist and unacceptable.
Supporting Evidence: Israel has a highly developed political and economic system. In their 10 years of self-rule, the Palestinians have demonstrated that they don't share these aspirations. Israel cannot be asked to sacrifice its own values because some Palestinians want to undo the effects of the 1948 War and of international agreements dating back to 1917.
COUNTERPOINT: With a one-state solution, Jews would once again be a minority in a hostile state. It is Arab states that impose an official religion and persecute other religious groups, especially Christians and Jews.
Supporting Evidence: The Arab states in the Middle East all established Islam as their official religion and have "very serious issues of religious restrictions, discrimination, persecution….lack of tolerance and pluralism…[and] impose significant legal obstacles to religious freedom, contrary to the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Steven J. Coffey, US Principal Deputy Assistant of State in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations May 1, 1997.
Supporting Evidence: Because of persecution, "Throughout the entire Middle East, once significant Christian communities have shrunk to a miniscule portion of their former robust selves. In 50 years they may well be extinct…2 million [fled] in the last 20 years alone." Professors Jonathan Adelman and Agota Kuperman, 2002
Supporting Evidence: In Saudi Arabia, "the government prohibits the public practice of other religions;" in Egypt, "religious practices that conflict with Islamic law are prohibited" and "Christians cower[ed] in fear of violence from Islamic militants and systematic human rights violations by Egypt…." In Iran, "the printing of Christian literature is illegal, converts from Islam are liable to be killed and most evangelical churches must function underground." American Department of State First Annual Report on International Religious Freedom and Professor Jonathan Adelman and Agota Kuperman.
Supporting Evidence: Persecution and violence forced the over one million Jews who had lived in the Middle East for millennia to flee between 1947 and 1967. Only a small and dwindling fraction of them-33,200-remain.
COUNTERPOINT: Three-fourths of Palestinians and Israelis don't want a one-state solution, according to recent polls. Such a solution would have to be imposed against their will, a clear violation of the right to self-determination.
Supporting Evidence: In a poll of 40,000 people conducted by OneVoice, a peace group, in April and May 2004, "[t]he most significant finding was that among the 23,000 Palestinians and 17,000 Israelis queried, about 76 percent on each side endorsed the two-state concept - a Palestinian state existing beside a Jewish state, "each recognizing the other as such, both democratic and respecting human rights, including minority rights.'" AP May 26 2004
What follows are the point by point refutations: [RT]
COUNTERPOINT: There are no legal, historic, geographic or moral grounds on which to advance a one state solution. A single-state solution is not a solution. It is simply a continuation of the 1948 War through demographics instead of militarism-imperial conquest by another means. It would pave the way for Palestinians to dominate demographically and destroy the Jewish character and the purpose of the state itself. No legal or historical precedent justifies imposing one national group upon another in order to eliminate its national movement and character. REFUTE: On geographic grounds, never before in human history has the land of Canaan been as carved up as it is today, throughout history- the pre-biblical and biblical periods, the Roman period, Persian period, Arab period, Ottoman period, and European period this land has been a unified entity. Even considering the separate biblical kingdoms of Judah and Samaria, they never installed giant walls and armed checkpoints to demarcate their separation, there was at least freedom of movement. On Moral grounds, the original founders and advocates of Zionism, followed by a continual stream of advocates who could easily be considered the inheritors of Zionist ethics and morals have advocated a unified state with equal rights for all its residents. They based their one-state stances on the belief that segregation, persecution and narrow-minded nationalism are completely contradictory to Jewish values and beliefs and that such institutions would damage if not destroy Jewish cultural, spiritual and political life. On historical grounds. Sometimes dire situations call for new ideas, revolutionary solutions, and the very process of making history where no historical precedent exists. When the struggle to universally abolish slavery made its whirlwind tour across the planet, to Europe, South America, The Caribbean, North America and Africa never before in history had the institution of slavery been so thoroughly and utterly eliminated; there was no historical precedent to do this, but for the advancement of humanity, it had to happen. Just because there exists no exact historical precedent to unify Israel and Palestine does not mean it cannot or should not be pursued. We recognize the virgin soil we tread upon in advocating the one-state solution, but we are lead by clear values of universal human worth and rights, that the only way forward for all humanity is not to divide itself up in to nothing, but to grow closer in mutual respect and cooperation. COUNTERPOINT: A one-state solution would be asking Israel, a UN nation state for over 50 years, to eliminate itself. REFUTE: Did not the United Nations force the Republic of China (Taiwan), a founding member, to relinquish its seat to the People’s Republic of China? And you speak of elimination of a state as elimination of a people, this is incorrect. The Jewish people in their long history are the witnesses to the rise of fall of many empires and states, yet they and the descendants of those states still exist. States are artificial entities representing a group of people, and often times people have overthrown or changed those states, the unified state will still represent and be made up of the people of Israel, but will also include the Palestinians. Supporting Evidence: There is no historical precedent for coercing groups with different political, religious or ethnic identities to form into one nation. Creating new national borders to separate hostile groups has been the accepted solution. Refute: There are 3 clear examples which speak otherwise, Switzerland, South Africa, and the United States. Switzerland formally united in 1848 after a long history of religious, political, and national conflict between its founding cantons. South Africa had a long history of conflict before it formally united and became democratic, from the various European settlers fighting one another while oppressing the native Africans, to the violent conflict of the Apartheid era. Even the terrorist groups of the Apartheid era have completely integrated with the South African Military and political establishment. The United States is an immigrant nation made of people from every corner of the globe, people who are vastly different from one another and might fight each other in other places. The U.S. fought a civil war to maintain its unity, even though the southern territories disagreed with the values of the North. Unity with internal change was the accepted solution, not a separation which solved none of the problems advocating separation. Supporting Evidence: In 1947, just months before the UN's recommendation on partitioning Palestine, India had accepted a partition plan to separate hostile Muslims and Hindus. Pakistan was carved out of India with a population exchange of 14 million people. REFUTE: While seeming like the easiest solution to India’s religious problem, it solved nothing. India and Pakistan have been in an almost perpetual state of war from the day of their separation. The highest road to solving the tensions created by Imperial Britain’s policy of divide and rule would have been to follow Gandhi’s advice of active and widespread reconciliation of the troubled groups. Supporting Evidence: In the former Yugoslavia, five separate states were carved out to separate warring ethnic and religious groups in 1991 -1992 despite their small size and historic unity. REFUTE: Ask any former Yugoslavian (who isn’t an ultranationalist) who is old enough to remember which way was better, unity or division, and most will gladly reminisce the times of unity as better than the times of division. Yugoslavia fell apart because all political power was centralized in the head of state. When Tito was in power Yugoslavia held together because this was his wish. When Milosevic, the ultranationalist Serb became leader he used his power to enforce Serbian supremacy over all other Yugoslavian peoples, causing the nation to crumble. In this case democracy, power sharing, and equality from the beginning of the Union was the issue at hand. Supporting Evidence: Political hostilities and an inconclusive war led Korea to be divided into two separate, internationally recognized countries, North Korea and South Korea. People are reintroducing this issue right now. REFUTE: The division of Korea is artificial, North and South Korea share the same language, history and cultural heritage. Korea has a long history of imperial domination by the Chinese and Japanese, culminating at the end of the Second World War with the USSR controlling the north and the USA the south. The following Korean War was not a result of inner-Korean hostility but of political wrangling by the Cold War superpowers. Although no one wishes to see Korean unity under Kim Jung il’s regime, most Koreans hope for a day when their peninsula is united. COUNTERPOINT: A one-state solution would be unjust. It would deny the right of self-determination to both the Palestinian and Jewish national movements. It would result in one of these peoples becoming a minority in the other's nation. This is a recipe for conflict, not for justice or peace. REFUTE: On the Contrary, the One-State Solution can enable the self-determination of the Palestinian and Jewish groups. The Goal of the Palestinians is to be citizens in their own land, to have all the same rights and responsibilities afforded to their Jewish brethren, and to live in freedom and peace. The Goal of the Israeli Jews is to continue living and prospering in the holy land, to maintain and build their own unique culture and way of life and to exist as a sanctuary and spiritual center for the Jews of the world. The spirit of the One-State movement is and must be specific about this; the Unified state must and will constitutionally protect the goals and rights of the Jews and Palestinians as the goals and foundation of the nation; with the proper spirit of fairness, mutual legitimacy, mutual dependency and cooperative government these goals can be achieved within a shared context. COUNTERPOINT: A one state solution would have to be based on the agreement of the separate states and on shared national objectives. At the current time, this would be impossible. REFUTE: The only reason this seems impossible is because it has yet to be fully pursued. The Israelis and Palestinians share many national objectives such as peace, economic stability and progress, environmental issues, and a mutual belief in and desire for democracy to name a few. There are also many organizations whose sole mission is to increase and maintain Israeli/Palestinian communication. Supporting Evidence: Palestinian leaders have reiterated for the last 80 years that Zionism is not a legitimate national movement and that a central Zionist objective-a safe haven for Jews in their ancient homeland-is racist and unacceptable. REFUTE: Although I cannot speak for the Palestinian leaders, the general Palestinian consensus is not against a Jewish homeland or sanctuary, but against the concept of a pure Jewish state, the Jewish domination over all aspects of society. The preferred arrangement would be a neutral public sphere where all people may fulfill their cultural and religious pursuits and not favoritism of one group over all others. This is difficult to understand for many as Israel allows all people their freedom of religion and association in its Jewish State. The contention really arises from the concept and theory of a necessary Jewish majority. Many Jews fear that without numerical supremacy that will gradually assimilate into the majority culture or have their existence threatened by a violent hostile majority. In order to prevent this in Israel, they have refused to grant citizenship and equal rights to the vast majority of non-Jews who were forcibly evacuated in 1948 or living within Israel’s post-1967 borders. This is not the desire of the millions of non-Jews native to this land, many who can trace their roots for centuries, who desire to be citizens of their own nation and live free, peaceful, and democratic lives, regardless of what the Jewish people fear. The majority of Palestinians would be happy to share the land with the Jews, either in a one or two state scenario, but they want to have their legitimate rights respected too. Supporting Evidence: Israel has a highly developed political and economic system. In their 10 years of self-rule, the Palestinians have demonstrated that they don't share these aspirations. Israel cannot be asked to sacrifice its own values because some Palestinians want to undo the effects of the 1948 War and of international agreements dating back to 1917. REFUTE: The bulk of economic difficulties faced by the Palestinians from 1994 were caused by the frequent if not complete closures of border crossings. The economies of Israel and Palestine are extremely intertwined; the Palestinians, being weaker economically and developmentally than the Israelis supplied the workforce to the more advanced Israeli economy. When the Palestinians and their cheap labor were cut off from the Israeli economy as a result of terror attacks, the Palestinian economy crumbled. Meanwhile the Israelis replaced the Palestinian laborers with workers from abroad. The Palestinian political system, while certainly beset with serious corruption problems, was never able to overcome the regular interruptions and intrusions of the Israeli military and its curfews. Palestinian government offices were taken over or destroyed; its leaders were imprisoned or put on house arrest, and communication links cut-off. In the one-state context, one is reminded of the axiom “don’t fix it unless it’s broken.” Although Israel’s government is growing more wrought with economic and political corruption, it still has a strong tradition of parliamentary democracy, as well as a healthy economy. Such traditions would continue in a unified state, but with the inclusion of the former-Palestinians. Fixing the economic woes of the Palestinian territories may be similar to the reform of Eastern-Bloc nations but infinitely smoother as the Palestinian as well as Israeli economies will be able to reach their full potential in peace and integration and move away from corruption. COUNTERPOINT: With a one-state solution, Jews would once again be a minority in a hostile state. It is Arab states that impose an official religion and persecute other religious groups, especially Christians and Jews. REFUTE: Although it is in the hands of the mothers and fathers of any group to determine population size and growth, in the beginning of the Union the Jews will definitely be the majority, even if refugees are allowed to return. And who is to say how many Jews reluctant to come during the violence will be willing to immigrate in peaceful times? Either way if the people will politically vote on ethnic lines then the Jewish majority will have the majority necessary to pass laws further guaranteeing their position and exist within the nation. This nation will not be a Jewish, Christian, Islamic, European, or Arab state; it will be a multicultural international state. Although many Arabs may call the nation part of the Arab world, it has a history and disposition unique only to itself as the center and crossroads between east and west. To claim it as only unique to one’s specific group is to belittle the land and commit an exclusionary offense both the Jews and Palestinians are well experienced with. Supporting Evidence: The Arab states in the Middle East all established Islam as their official religion and have "very serious issues of religious restrictions, discrimination, persecution….lack of tolerance and pluralism…[and] impose significant legal obstacles to religious freedom, contrary to the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Steven J. Coffey, US Principal Deputy Assistant of State in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations May 1, 1997. Supporting Evidence: Because of persecution, "Throughout the entire Middle East, once significant Christian communities have shrunk to a miniscule portion of their former robust selves. In 50 years they may well be extinct…2 million [fled] in the last 20 years alone." Professors Jonathan Adelman and Agota Kuperman, 2002 Supporting Evidence: In Saudi Arabia, "the government prohibits the public practice of other religions;" in Egypt, "religious practices that conflict with Islamic law are prohibited" and "Christians cower[ed] in fear of violence from Islamic militants and systematic human rights violations by Egypt…." In Iran, "the printing of Christian literature is illegal, converts from Islam are liable to be killed and most evangelical churches must function underground." American Department of State First Annual Report on International Religious Freedom and Professor Jonathan Adelman and Agota Kuperman. Supporting Evidence: Persecution and violence forced the over one million Jews who had lived in the Middle East for millennia to flee between 1947 and 1967. Only a small and dwindling fraction of them-33,200-remain. REFUTE: It is very true that the Arab states in the Middle East have a horrid record regarding human rights, and their patronization of and negative influence on the Palestinian people is a serious problem, the violence of these states is so often exported into the Palestinian struggle. It is also important to remember the history behind these states- of the Ottoman Empire, their subsequent control by European Imperialists and the establishment of puppet governments which were either overthrown or continue to exist. The British support of the Wahhabi Saudi family over the Hejaz kingdom irreparably sent the Arabian Peninsula and the periphery into an era of religious fundamentalism completely at odds with democratic rights. The French and American refusal to allow or support the establishment of a pan-Arab parliament in Damascus had widespread repercussions, preventing the expansion of democratic groups and turning the Arab populace towards a more native political form, Islamic theocracy. The United States and Great Britain sent Iran into its current spiral to Theocracy by overthrowing the secular, democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. Soviet support kept Syria secular, but it still has problems with democratic reform. More often then not, opportunities for progress were ruined by paranoid and arrogant leaders in the west. The mixture of religion and government, any religion with any government is bad for the nation and bad for the faith. The unified nation will not allow this mixture and the multicultural, multiethnic, and diverse religious environment will prevent any usurpation of power by one group over all others. COUNTERPOINT: Three-fourths of Palestinians and Israelis don't want a one-state solution, according to recent polls. Such a solution would have to be imposed against their will, a clear violation of the right to self-determination. Supporting Evidence: In a poll of 40,000 people conducted by OneVoice, a peace group, in April and May 2004, "[t]he most significant finding was that among the 23,000 Palestinians and 17,000 Israelis queried, about 76 percent on each side endorsed the two-state concept - a Palestinian state existing beside a Jewish state, "each recognizing the other as such, both democratic and respecting human rights, including minority rights.'" AP May 26 2004 REFUTE: This is quite understandable as the one-state alternative is quite vague and misunderstood at this time, it does not exist as a clearly defined possibility in the mind of many Israeli and Palestinians. For some it may have a positive yet distant and utopian connotation. For some it may have a frighteningly negative connotation of either complete Israeli or Arab domination over a unified territory. So it is the goal of the individuals and organizations that support the one state solution to clarify and advocate this concept as the only viable solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem, based upon the conclusion many are reaching that the two-state solution, however positive, will not and cannot work. As a result we are building the ideas and spirit behind the only other option, a new unified nation, enshrining the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of all Israeli and Palestinian people. As the one-state movement continues to grow and clarify its positions to the Israelis and Palestinians, as it becomes more widely known and understood, and if the two-state solution continues to falter, the statistics regarding one vs. two states will most likely grow in the direction of a one-state preference.