Both the extreme left and the extreme right are now calling for a one state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of course the one state solution each seeks is completely different: the left wants yet another Arab state in place of Israel; the right wants a Jewish state that encompasses what is now the West Bank, in place of any Palestinian state. Both are prescriptions for undemocratic disasters and for the ultimate delegitimation of Israel as the democratic nation state of the Jewish people.
I have advocated a two-state solution, based on secure borders for Israel, since the early 1970s, when I debated Noam Chomsky, who was then an advocate of a secular bi-national state. I advocated a version of what was then known as "the Alon Plan," which, in effect, would have annexed portions of the captured territories that were necessary for Israel's security but would have precluded Israeli civilian settlements in other captured areas. This plan was consistent with Security Council Resolution 242, which allowed for some territorial annexation by Israel to achieve secure borders. I did not, and do not now, advocate a return to the indefensible 1967 lines, which reflected nothing more than temporary truce lines following the attack on Israel by the surrounding Arab states in 1948.
Now the hard left wants to eliminate these borders and create one state which would soon become another Arab Muslim state in which Jews would be a minority, while the soft left wants Israel to return all the territory captured in the defensive war of 1967, with mutually agreed acre-for-acre land swaps (to which the Palestinians now seem unwilling to agree).
The hard right, on the other hand, wants Israel to annex and settle the entire West Bank, make it part of Israel, but deny its Arab residents the right to vote and become citizens. (If the hard right position were to grant voting and citizenship to the Arab residents of the West Bank, they would be agreeing with the hard left's position on a "democratic" one state solution that would quickly turn into an undemocratic Muslim state based on Sharia law, as specified in the Palestinian Constitution).
Both one state solutions would end in Israel's delegitimation as the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people. That's why the vast majority of Israelis, as well as every centrist Israeli leader, rejects both the left and right wing versions of the one-state solution.
An Israel that would permanently deny millions of Arab residents the rights of citizenship would become illegitimate not only in the eyes of the international community, but even more important, in the eyes of most Israelis and Israeli supporters around the world. Israel would cease to be a democracy if nearly half of its residents could not vote. Some on the hard right would "solve" this problem by expelling the Arab residents of the West Bank. That too is not a solution that is consistent with democratic values.
In a recent article entitled "Disputing Dershowitz," Martin Sherman tries to make the hard right case against the two state solution. In doing so, he never even addresses the issue of democracy. This is perhaps because he doesn't care whether his "one state" is or is not democratic. But the vast majority of Israelis, and their leaders and supporters, do. But because Sherman doesn't value democracy, he seems willing to impose his undemocratic solution in an undemocratic manner on unwilling Israelis and Palestinians.
He makes the absurd argument that the Palestinians are not a people based on the fact that they don't have a unique language, script, religion, heritage or history. By that standard, the United States should still be part of Great Britain, because the American Colonists, who were being denied full citizenship, also lacked those characteristics. The Palestinians are a people because they regard themselves as such and seek to govern themselves. They will secure self-government, however, only if they come to the bargaining table, with no preconditions, and with the realization that they must accept borders and other conditions that assure Israel's security. They must also realize that they are not coming to the negotiating table in the same bargaining position as the Israelis. The Israelis secured the West Bank after winning a defensive war started by Jordan, in whose place the Palestinians now stand. By demanding preconditions from the Israelis to receive what they claim is their land, the Palestinians remind us what Abba Eban said in 1967 when the Arabs rejected Security Council Resolution 242:
"This was the first war in history which has ended with the victors suing for peace and the vanquished calling for unconditional surrender."
The major reason there is still no two-state solution is the Palestinian unwillingness to accept Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, to acknowledge the need for border adjustments necessary for Israel's security, and to renounce the phony "Right of Return," which is simply another ploy to secure a one-state solution.
The hard right is correct when they point out that there are risks associated with the two-state solution, but the vast majority of Israelis are prepared to accept those risks (reduced by border changes and other security measures) in order to assure a democratic Israel which will remain the legitimate nation-state of the Jewish people.
He is taking a very reasonable position, but I guess advocating for anything other than Israeli surrender isn't good enough for some.
Obviously not.
Think about what this means for second. The displaced Palestinians must unilaterally declare the very legitimacy of their dispossession and expulsion without qualification, so that their nuclear-armed displacers (whose six decades of residency was established through their own "right of return") can "feel secure enough" to want to seek "peace" with them.
That many in Israel feels this same way comes as no surprise to the Palestinians. While it is certainly true that the right-wing parties are more oppressive, what the author fails to understand is that the “dispossesion” has occurred, and continues to occur, regardless of the party in power.
The demand that Palestinians themselves publicly declare and condone such dispossession serves nothing more than to ease the conscience of well-intentioned Zionists. Current attempts to criminalize talk about the Nakba are proof of this, and perhaps even a subconscious admission of guilt by Zionists of the sins of their project.
Again, this is not to say that Israel should not exist, but to point out injustice of requiring the dispossessed to make such a declaration, prior even to making amends to them for their displacement.
Of course, I stopped reading after you destroyed historical knowledge by claiming that a Jewish state never existed in the area. No point in arguing if people can't even accept history, and have to deny history to fit their own distorted narrative. Same goes for Holocaust deniers. Why should I argue with someone who denies written documents, archaeology, geneaologies, scrolls, Hebrew texts, Babylonian texts, Roman texts, etc...?
2) "only if they come to the bargaining table, with no preconditions", "they must accept conditions"
How do you invite someone for negotiations "without preconditions" when your own first precondition is the other party must "accept conditions"? What kinda negotiations are that?
3) "They must also realize that they are not coming to the negotiating table in the same bargaining position as the Israelis." Does Dershowitz want the Palestinians to wash their occupiers' feet or something?
Let's keep this simple: Israel militarily occupies 4 million people who have inalienable rights, which are recognized by the International Community. These are:
1) 1967 borders
2) East Jerusalem as Capital
3) Removal of ALL settlements
4) Return of Refugees.
It is up to Israel to offer a fair bargain and compensation to the Palestinians if they want the Palestinians to give up any of these rights, in part or in full.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1682640.stm
2. Quoting out of context = fail.
3. No, he wants them to accept the fact that they aren't going to get everything they want.
The Palestinians DO NOT have the "right" to ANY LAND.
Everybody should condemn what you just said.
Excellent post.
I would Fan you again if I could.
And a Fav is definitely in order as well.
So, not equal at all, Mr Dershowitz.
The Palestinians have been abused and occupied for over 45 years. The "winners" have an obligation to abide by international law.
NOT demand that the "losers" come to the table with no preconditions, while Netenyahu constantly asks for preconditions: recognize Israel as a Jewish state (racist? and how exactly do you define Jewish? religion? ethnic? cultural? ancestry? can we convert and join the club?) etc.
This is the most reasonable I have heard Mr Dershowitz. And he still is very biased towards Israel - the nation that violates international law, kills 100x Palestinians than the reverse and constantly complains about being the victim.
No, the losers are obligated to make peace or stop whining about being occupied.
"s: recognize Israel as a Jewish state (racist? and how exactly do you define Jewish? religion? ethnic? cultural? ancestry? can we convert and join the club?) etc."
Why don't you ask the Palestinians about their Arab state?
Remind me when the Palestinians demanded that Israel recognise the "Arab state of Palestine" as a precursor to talks.
Thank you.
On a practical level, however, this is not achievable. Arabs have been presented with various partition solutions for the past 90 years -- they've rejected every one of them. Even the Peel partition, which gave them 85% of what they (now) call "historic Palestine".
Given that an agreed 2-state solution is unachievable, Israel is justified in devising & implementing its unilateral solution, aimed at achieving military & demographic security.
This will include:
- Annexing to Israel most of West Bank's Area C; its Arab inhabitants get the choice of applying for full Israeli citizenship or getting financial compensation and resettling in Areas A, B.
- Evacuating all Jewish settlements outside the annexed territory; their inhabitants get the choice of being compensated & resettle in Israel or renounce Israeli citizenship & stay put.
- Phasing out all supply of services to Areas A, B (electricity, fuel, healthcare, etc.) within 3 years; Jordan, Egypt invited to supply these services, if they so desire.
- Crossing from Areas A, B to Jordan controlled by Israel to prevent smuggling of weapons. No crossing into Israel.
Good-bye; good riddance.
After reading the far reaching offer Olmert offered the Palestinians and was refused it seems like there is nothing more Israel can offer the Palestinians. It is in Israel's best interest to seperate themselves from the Palestinians and it will do so unilaterally if the Palestinian rejectionism conitune. At some point in the future Israel would return to the realignment plan the "Hitkansut". Israel will draw its own borders, evict settlements outside the blocs, annex settlement blocs and desired parts of the East Jerusalem municipality and reroute the security barrier. Thus keeping a strong Jewish majoirty on one side of the wall where not a single Palestinian lives under Israeli occupation, and a Palestinian state on the other. Palestinian leaders will get their wish of a Palestinian state on most of the territory they asked for without ending the conflict without ending future demand for the rest of Israel or giving up the right of return.
If then Palestinians wish to enter negotiations for an agreement to end the conflict, they will have to do it from a weaker position where time is on the Israeli side and the demographic time bomb is diffused.
It also demanded that they are not allowed to have an army are not allowed to control their own immigration polcies, ect
To top it all off israel refused to even pruduce a map of the deal they were proposing
It was a joke
Show a link to your claim Palestinians were not allowed to control their own immigration policies please.
Oh and millennia of missed opportunity to build ur state Palestinians
Not the sort of intellectual bravery we're used to from you.
Even though all the world's nations (except the USA, Israel, Pilau and some tiny islands) want Israel to make peace and return the Palestinians' lands.
Secondly many are redundant which only reclaim previous resolutions which are not Unilateral decisions but bilateral which involves other Party's calling for a peace agreement which has been impossible with continued terrorism against Israel. UNSC 242, UNSC338 UN1515, UNSC1850
Third UNSC 250 (calls to Israel to refrain from holding a military Parade..., UNSC 904 Had nothing to do with Israel but a lone wolf, UNSC1322 Sharon's visiting the temple mount, All demonstrate the political buffoonery of the U.N.
Fourth UNSC671 has to do with Iran-Iraq Nothing to do with Israel.
Lasr, you are dreaming about peace there! The palestinians are not interested in a two-state solution, they are seeking to REPLACE Israel with a Muslim state, look at their maps and books, there is NO Israel anywhere to be found in the Mideast, stop kidding yourself.... If there was any interest they would had accepted 1948 Partition plan or setup an independent sovereign state during the 1948-67 period when the Arabs controlled what the palis claim today for a state.....
They reject every opportunity for peace. Why.
Cos the Pal DONT WANT PEACE. They want to build nupalestan on the ashes of a fallen Israel
Wake Up pally
So, no preconditions for them, lots for us.
Oh yes they're Palestianian. They're soooooo special eh?
I rarely agree much with Dershowitz, but that pretty much sums it up.