RSS Feeds
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil,    but because of the people who don't do anything about it    
Occupation magazine - Commentary

Home page  back Print  Send To friend

Citizens in a State-Solution Now
By Beate Zilversmidt
Occupation Magazine
August 31, 2008

On August 16 there was in Haaretz the article of Akiva Eldar based on his
interviewing Sari Nusseibeh*. It turns out that the years-long prominent
Palestinian advocate of the two-states-solution sees time running out and
suggests Palestinians prepare already for a struggle for equal rights in a
one-state framework. Asked by Eldar whether this was an ultimatum, he says
yes.

August 23, Uri Avnery wrote a reaction to the interview** . After
overcoming the first shock - as Nusseibeh after all still believes that
in the present situation the two state solution is the best - Avnery
argues that it is very bad tactics to confront Israel with an ultimatum
and `holding the demographic pistol against the temple of the Israeli
public.`

It is a legitimate discussion among peace activists whether threats,
arousing fear and therefore fueling aggression are tools nevertheless to
be used in some circumstances or not. Of course, if one says it isn`t one
should avoid using it oneself.

Therefore, it was my turn to be shocked reading in the same Avnery article
as a response to Nusseibeh`s threat:

`99.99% of the Jewish population will fight against this tooth and nail.
(...). Ethnic cleansing will become a practical agenda. Even moderate
Israelis will be driven into the arms of the fascist right-wing. All means
of oppression will become acceptable when the Jewish majority adopts the
aim of causing the Arabs to leave the country before they have a chance of
becoming the majority.`

It is as if Avnery says that the tactics of intimidation should not be
used by Palestinian peaceseekers to warn Israelis that time runs out for
two states, but that it can be used by Israeli peaceseekers to warn
Palestinians not to start a struggle for equal rights.

I am sure my fellow Gush Shalom friend Uri Avnery did not intend it this
way. But I am also afraid this wasn`t simply a slip of tongue but a sign
of something deeper: we may have to face inconvenient facts, start a
discussion which can no longer be avoided.

Gush Shalom was founded on the belief - not only that the
two-state-solution is a good compromise, more than that: that it is the
inevitable thing ultimately to happen.

Like socialists have to reinvent themselves after the `victory of
capitalism` so we in Gush Shalom have to ask ourselves where do we go with
our struggle against occupation and oppression now that a fair two-state
solution more and more seems to be a fata morgana.

Our dream was to bring about a compromise between the victor and the
victim in the wars of 1948 and 1967. Palestinians would accept the losses
of 1948 against Israel giving up the gains of 1967. We were never opting
for full justice as justice for the one brings about inevitably new
injustice for the other, and is a recipe for war, not peace. But still, we
believed that a somehow fair compromise was an option, worth to fight for.

Like all fighters one has from time to time to rethink aims and angles.

Our friends the Anarchists Against The Wall have it easy: they are against
all states, whatever their number, and just fight a concrete struggle
against something obviously wrong. The wrong thing being: the wall in
whose name farmers are deprived from their lands. The fact that the
Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem aren`t
citizens in any state, and don`t enjoy therefore civil rights shouldn`t
bother them as Anarchists too much. But for peace activists in the
framework of states this should be of the essence.

I would like to propose therefore, especially to Uri Avnery but not only
to him, to start accepting that the two-state solution, though the best in
the present circumstances, and not yet off the political agenda, can not
be considered anymore as inevitable, definitely not the fair two-states
solution as we believe in. Therefore the old slogans start sounding bleak.
We should start thinking about new formulations.

`Citizens in a State-Solution Now` is my contribution to this renewal of
wording the principles. It means, we insist that all human beings under
our responsibility, also Palestinians, must be citizens in a state and
enjoy full civil rights. How this will take form, in how many states, is
secondary. We have our preference, but since we are not to decide alone we
have to confront our fellow Israelis with the fact: The situation that
Palestinians are under military rule, are not considered citizens, not in
our state, nor in any other, that is the core of the problem. This
situation has to end, in one way or another.

*Akiva Eldar:
There isn`t much time left for peace: Nusseibeh, Haaretz,
Aug.16, 2008 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1011859.html

** Uri Avnery:
The devil`s hoof, Aug.23 2008
ttp://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1219526051
Links to the latest articles in this section

Of Genes and Ministers
Who`s suppressing opposition rallies in Ramallah?
US Condemns Murder of Israelis -- But Never of Palestinians