home / subscribe / donate / tower / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events / faq
The New Print Edition of CounterPunch, Only for Our Newsletter Subscribers! Why Wall St is Betting Millions on Obama In part 2 of her investigation, market veteran Pam Martens traces the money big Wall Street players are sluicing into Obama's war chest and exactly why they are investing big-time in the "campaign for change". Plus more on the "No federal lobbyists on my team" fraud. You've heard about the plutonium-powered spy transmitters the CIA tasked climbers to haul up 25,000 feet to the high peaks of the Himalayas? What happened to the one they lost and to the men who carried them? Peter Lee gives CounterPunchers the full amazing story. Get your copy today by subscribing online or calling 1-800-840-3683 Contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! CounterPunch books and gear make great holiday presents.
Order CounterPunch By Email For Only $35 a Year !
|
Today's Stories March 11, 2008 Paul Craig Roberts Ed O'Loughlin Ramzy Baroud Kathy Christison China Hand John Joslin Mike Averko Ben Rosenfeld Thierry Paquot March 10, 2008 Uri Avnery Col. Dan Smith R.F. Blader Michael Neumann Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman James J. Brittain Missy Comley Beattie March 8-9, 2008 Weekend Edition JoAnn Wypijewski Mike Whitney Peter Morici Ralph Nader Jonathan Cook Steve Niva Bill and Kathy Christison Hervé Do Alto and Franck Poupeau Eric Walberg Scott Johnson Mark Scaramella Bill Clinton Poet's Basement Website of the Weekend March 7, 2008 Patrick Cockburn Robin Blackburn Saul Landau Binoy Kampmark Chris Floyd Andy Worthington Will Potter Eric Walberg March 6, 2008 Vincent Navarro Forrest Hylton Peter Morici George Ciccariello-Maher John Ross Jacob Hornberger Paul Watson Dan Bacher Website of the Day
March 5, 2008 Cockburn /
St. Clair Joanne Mariner Fidel Castro Christopher
Brauchli Steven Sherman Dave Lindorff James Murren Adam Engel Website of Day
March 4, 2008 Wajahat Ali William Blum Bill Quigley Ralph Nader Patrick Irelan James J. Brittain
/ Norman Solomon Jacob Hornberger Andy Worthington Mike Averko Website of the Day
March 3, 2008 Jennifer Loewenstein Alan Farago Richard Gott Wajahat Ali Paul Craig Roberts Robert Weissman Uri Avnery Martha Rosenberg Eva Liddell Michael Donnelly Website of the Day
March 1 / 2, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Paul Craig
Roberts Kathleen and Bill Christison Nelson P. Valdés Christopher Brauchli Ron Jacobs John Ross Robert Fantina Robert Weissman Mohammed Omer Remi Kanazi Bob Jackson Richard Rhames Franklin Lamb Rannie Amiri David Michael
Green Conn Hallinan Faheem Hussain Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
February 29, 2008 Matt Gonzalez Jonathan Cook Joshua Frank Anthony DiMaggio Linn Washington, Jr. Binoy Kampmark Robert Bryce Sonja Karkar Dave Lindorff Website of
the Day
February 28, 2008 Patrick Cockburn Fred Gardner Michael Levitin William S.
Lind David Macaray Stephen Fleischman George Wuerthner Laura Carlsen Carl Finamore Michael Dickinson Website of the Day
February 27, 2008 David Rosen Vijay Prashad Harvey Wasserman Andy Worthington Wajahat Ali Peter Morici Stephen Philion Michael Donnelly Erica Rosenberg / Website of
the Day
February 26, 2008 Debbie Nathan Alan Dershowitz
Harvey Wasserman Michael Colby Gary Leupp David Orchard Martha Rosenberg Fran Shor Serge Halimi Global Balkans Website of
the Day
February 25, 2008 Roger Morris Anthony DiMaggio Ralph Nader Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Peter Morici Dave Lindorff Saul Landau
/ Heather Gray Robert Weitzel John Halle Website of the Day
Alexander Cockburn Paul Craig
Roberts Wajahat Ali Ralph Nader Jürgen
Vsych Fidel Castro Andy Worthington David Macaray Jeremy Scahill David Krieger Ron Jacobs Michael Garrity Brian McKenna Missy Beattie Fred Gardner Boris Kagarlitsky Mike Ferner Dan Bacher Christopher
Ketcham Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
February 22, 2008 Mike Whitney Jason Hribal Liaquat Ali Khan Joshua Frank Dave Lindorff Liliana Segura Robert Fantina Yifat Susskind Norm Kent Website of
the Day February 21, 2008 Saul Landau Elizabeth Schulte Helen Redmond Benjamin Dangl Michael Levitin Liam Leonard Patrick Irelan Linn Cohen-Cole Michael Simmons CounterPunch
News Service Website of the Day
February 20, 2008 Paul Craig
Roberts Paul Krassner Fawzia Afzal-Khan Farzana Versey Allan Nairn John V. Whitbeck Niranjan Ramakrishnan Steve Eckardt Lee Sustar Mike Ferner Website of the Day
February 19, 2008 Uri Avnery Paul Craig
Roberts Gary Leupp Fidel Castro David Macaray Reza Fiyouzat Valerie Morse Walter Brasch Website of the Day
February 18, 2008 Wajahat Ali Diana Johnstone Paul Craig Roberts Andy Worthington Debbie Nathan Anthony DiMaggio Bill Simpich Eva Liddell Christopher Brauchli Stephen Soldz Johann Rossouw Website of
the Day
February 16 / 17, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Ralph Nader David Macaray William J.
Peace Ron Jacobs Diane Christian Alan Maass Ramzy Baroud Michael Donnelly Cpt. Paul Watson James L. Secor Eve Bachrach Nikolas Kozloff Stephen Gowans Missy Beattie David Michael
Green Wajahat Ali Poets' Basement Website of the Day
February 15, 2008 George Szamuely Patrick Cockburn Wajahat Ali Mike Whitney Alan Farago Chris Genovali Jacob Hornberger Dave Lindorff Website of the Day
February 14, 2008 Kathleen and
Bill Christison Mike Whitney Clancy Sigal George Wuerthner Peter Morici John Ross Allan Nairn Rannie Amiri Niranjan Ramakrishnan Donna Volatile Seth Sandronsky Website of
the Day
February 13, 2008 Nikolas Kozloff Alan Farago Christina Kasica Vicente Navarro Hall Greenland Lee Sustar David Macaray Roderick Frazier
Nash Patrick Irelan Anthony Papa Carl Finamore Website of
the Day
February 12, 2008 Frank J. Menetrez Paul Craig
Roberts Dr. Trudy Bond Andy Worthington Col. Dan Smith Ronnie Cummins Ralph Nader John V. Walsh Dave Lindorff Michael Donnelly Ron Jacobs Ben Tripp Website of the Day
February 11, 2008 Cockburn /
St. Clair Wajahat Ali Ray McGovern Allan Nairn Uri Avnery Chris Floyd Martha Rosenberg Stephen Fleischman Marc Lamont Hill Liliana Segura Peter Morici Christopher
Brauchli Website of the Day
February 8 / 10, 2008 Paul Craig
Roberts Patrick Cockburn Mike Whitney Anthony DiMaggio Andy Worthington Linn Cohen-Cole Firmin DeBrabander Cpt. Paul Watson Kenneth S. Pope Jacob G. Hornberger Robert Bryce P. Sainath Allan Nairn Fred Gardner
/ Andrew Wimmer Robert Fantina David Michael Green Kevin Zeese Peter Morici Chris Driscoll Prairie Miller Poets Basement
February 7, 2008 Patrick Cockburn Bill Christison David Anderson Ron Jacobs Nikolas Kozloff Jane Rockefeller Andy Worthington
![]()
![]()
Subscribe Online
|
March 11, 2008 One State or Two?The Debate Over Israel and PalestineBy KATHY CHRISTISON Editors’ note: On Monday we ran Michael Neumann’s argument against the so-called “one state” solution for Israel and Palestine. This is the first of three replies. AC / JSC. Michael Neumann makes a strong case in the last issue of CounterPunch against a single Palestinian-Jewish state as the solution for the conflict in Israel-Palestine. But there are critical flaws in his argument. Neumann correctly condemns the two-state solution as unjust because it “cements Zionist usurpation of Palestinian land,” perpetuating the existence of Israel as “a state based on racial supremacy.” But he finds the one-state alternative to this racist two-state solution to be simply impractical. And why? Essentially because Israelis – these same Israelis whom he accuses of racism, land theft, and dispossession of the Palestinians – couldn’t conceivably accept it. The notion, he says, “that Israel would concede a single state is laughable. … There is no chance at all they will accept a single state that gives the Palestinians anything remotely like their rights.” Apparently, this is the bottom line: if Israel opposes the idea of a single state, then a single state simply must be an impossible dream, not worth mentioning and certainly not worth struggling for. The case Neumann puts forth is ultimately an argument for the notion that might makes right. Israel has the power to impose its will and the power to avoid unpleasant concessions, and so one state in which Israel would “give up the reason for its existence” is unthinkable. I find it sometimes difficult to navigate Neumann’s logic. He asserts that the two-state solution “is practicable” because “many Israelis can accept it”. That old argument again: that if it’s okay with Israel, it should be okay for the Palestinians. Furthermore, he says, a two-state solution is “practicable” because the Jewish settlers in the West Bank will leave voluntarily if Israel withdraws and the territory is given over to a sovereign Palestinian state. Neumann rightly makes it clear that anything less than a real, fully sovereign Palestinian state would be unacceptable. But then he brings his own dream of two states crashing down by asserting that Israel will not “by any means … agree to a genuinely sovereign Palestinian state”. Exactly. This is precisely why advocates of one state are pushing for this alternative. Neumann, on the contrary, sees this Israeli intransigence as a major reason for disdaining a one-state solution, the idea being that if Israel will not agree to give the Palestinians rights in a separate state, it will certainly not relinquish its own status as an exclusivist Jewish state by allowing Palestinians equal rights with Jews in a single state. This is, indeed, a persuasive argument – the best in Neumann’s arsenal – but it does not take account of possibilities that are themselves practicable in the eyes of many serious analysts. Few foresaw, for instance, that white South Africans would willingly give up their racial supremacy, end the apartheid system, and turn over their fate to a huge majority of blacks. Nor did many foresee the breakup of the Soviet Union. There are other inconsistencies. For instance, in arguing that a two-state solution is practicable because Jewish settlers would readily leave any territory from which Israel withdrew, Neumann uses as an example the Gaza settlers, who he says left “in a large hurry” when Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005. Yet a few paragraphs later, when he is trying to demonstrate how difficult it would be to induce Israel to give up its Jewishness, he makes the evacuation of settlers from Gaza seem a much more serious problem: in this instance, he muses on how difficult it would be for Israel to relinquish its very raison d’etre, when merely getting the settlements out of Gaza “took thousands of lives and many years.” Neumann is more correct in his second formulation about the Gaza settlers: they definitely did not leave in a large hurry but had to be removed bodily and with great trouble. Neither would most of the West Bank settlers be easy to remove, even if Israel relinquished control, as Neumann believes. Indeed, the fate of the approximately 450,000 settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is by far the most intractable problem facing any peacemaker. The huge numbers of religious zealots, who have moved to West Bank settlements because they believe they are fulfilling a divine mandate, would not under any circumstances “leave in a large hurry,” any more than the less zealous Gaza settlers did. But the monumental problem of the settlers confronts the framers of a true two-state solution every bit as much as it does those who envision a single state. (The reference to a true two-state solution means, as Neumann himself makes clear, establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state, not a “non-state” truncated by the continued presence of large blocs of Israeli settlements.) Neumann dismisses any suggestion that the settlers and their settlements could be incorporated into a single state, and does not appear to recognize that leaving the settlers in place would equally undermine a two-state solution. Neumann frequently overstates the difficulties involved in achieving a single state and appears to believe that anything short of his notion of absolute justice is actually unjust and unacceptable. A “just solution,” he contends, would have to repair the injustice done to Palestinians by Zionism. Fair enough, but he seems to go to unnecessary lengths by requiring as a condition of true justice that Jews who came to Palestine as Zionists, along with their descendants, would have to leave. True justice would also require that Israeli Jews relinquish all homes and property that once belonged to Palestinians. One-state advocates do not go this far – which, in fact, is the particular beauty of the one-state solution as it is being advocated: there might be, and indeed should be, a truth and reconciliation commission, as in South Africa, to rectify the worst injustices, but advocates of a single state are not vindictive or bloodthirsty and do not demand that injustice be inflicted on the Jews of Israel. The effort to rectify injustices committed against Palestinians – including repatriating those who wish to return, paying compensation for property destroyed or expropriated, and arranging for resettlement and compensation for those refugees who choose not to return to Palestine – would be a massive task, necessitating careful attention to millions of individual cases, as well as land redistribution and huge compensatory payments. A single state would not, as Neumann points out, be the democratic paradise that its framers would like – certainly not immediately, and perhaps never. “Notoriously,” he says, “the democratic process does not ensure that the will of the majority really prevails. Dominant economic groups know how to confuse, divide and conquer,” and the dominant economic group now and into the future is Jewish. It is impossible to argue with this premise, but if Neumann thinks this reality would be different in any two-state situation, he is whistling in the dark. Even in a decent, fully sovereign Palestinian state, the economy would be heavily dependent on Israel: the state would be almost totally landlocked (except for Gaza, whose coastline would be under Israeli scrutiny, if not control), it would be surrounded on three sides by Israel, and it would be dependent on open borders for, among many other things, imports and exports, free movement between the West Bank and Gaza, and labor opportunities for Palestinians inside Israel. Israel will dominate, and could easily strangle, the economy of a separate Palestinian state. In a single state, Palestinians would at least have some say in regulating the state’s economy, its commerce and investment, its international relations. Not perfect, but more nearly so than any foreseeable two-state scenario. There are other problems with Neumann’s argument. He dismisses totally the possibility that two antagonistic people could ever live together in anything like harmony, and ignores any comparison with countries where this has worked with some measure of success, such as South Africa and Northern Ireland, and uses flawed models to demonstrate that the one-state idea is not workable. He exhibits some misunderstanding of Palestinian politics and political sentiment when he contends that Fatah and Hamas together represent “roughly 100 per cent” of Palestinians in the occupied territories. In fact, there is a large and growing independent trend among Palestinians dissatisfied with both factions and eager for political alternatives. Probably most disturbing is Neumann’s dismissal of any concept of justice as a reason for attempting to find an alternative solution. He mocks one-state advocates for being too visionary about the justice that a single state would embody. The one-state solution, by his lights, is an impossible dream, and not too well thought out or just in any case. Likewise, despite his greater advocacy of two states and his belief that this would give the Palestinians a “genuinely Palestinian state,” he makes it clear that this solution is not really likely either and to his mind is also unjust because it leaves Zionism untouched. Neumann is no Zionist and, unlike those soft Zionists who want an end to the Israeli occupation but oppose the one-state solution, seems to have no particular desire to preserve Israel’s existence as an exclusivist Jewish state. He is totally condemnatory, in fact, of Zionism’s unjust, racist nature. Neither, apparently, is he particularly sold on the notion that Palestinians and the advocates of one state are inherently any more moral or just: he raises the suggestion that one-staters might actually intend a bloodbath against Jews and asserts that these advocates treat any Palestinians still working for two states as “sellouts, collaborators, or cowards.”This is quite untrue. The Fatah leadership of the Palestinian Authority is frequently labeled collaborationist, but this is not because it supports two states, but because it cooperates with Israel in economically strangling Gaza, scuttling Hamas despite its victory in democratic elections, failing to oppose Israel’s settlement program, and so on. Neumann’s dismissal of any notion that Israelis will ever be able to do justice to the Palestinians, as whites in South Africa finally did to blacks, is unsettling. He obviously gives no credence to the substantial upsurge in probing discussion of the nature of Zionism and its uncertain future among Israelis and diaspora Jews. He apparently sees no redeeming qualities in Israelis, no possibility of Israelis submitting to a South Africa-style truth and reconciliation process, no possibility even that over the longer term Zionism will implode from the sheer weight of its injustice and the pressure of demographic realities. His pessimism is understandable. It is obviously much more difficult to imagine militant religious zealots among Israeli settlers listening to moral appeals about the injustice they have inflicted on Palestinians than it ever was to imagine white racists in South Africa giving up their sinecures and their power. But it is just as difficult to imagine those religious zealots conceding anything to a separate Palestinian state. Which makes the two-state solution just as impracticable and unlikely as one state. And since we are all advocating the near impossible, why not advocate the more just impossibility? If we discard justice, one wonders where we are left with respect to other critical issues. What use, for instance, is there in ending Israel’s occupation at all? If we care only about practicality and not justice, there is no particular reason for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. Bush likes the occupation; all the Democratic presidential candidates and even more so the Republican candidates like it; Israel, of course, loves it. The same question applies to other issues. What except the promise of justice fueled past struggles against oppressive but seemingly immovable systems? Justice may ultimately be the only, or at least the primary, reason for pursuing any political cause. For this reason, discussion and advocacy of all alternative solutions to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict must continue. Kathleen Christison is a former CIA political analyst and has worked on Middle East issues for 35 years. She is the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession. She can be reached at kathy.bill.christison@comcast.net.
![]()
|
How the Press Led the US into War ![]() Buy End Times Now! CounterPunch Books of the Crossroads: HOW THE IRISH INVENTED SLANG By Daniel Cassidy AMERICAN BOOK AWARD! ![]() Click Here to Buy! Click Here for Dates & Venues Michael Neumann's Devastating Rebuttal of Alan Dershowitz ![]() Click Here to Buy! Saul Landau's Bush and Botox World with a Foreword by Gore Vidal ![]() Click Here to Order! How They Made a Killing on the War on Terrorism ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() The Occupation by Patrick Cockburn ![]() ![]() ![]() Humanitarian Imperialism By Jean Bricmont ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() CITY BEAUTIFUL By Tennessee Reed ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |