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 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 10, 2008 The One-State Illusion: More is LessThe Debate over Israel and PalestineBy MICHAEL NEUMANN The one-state solution is an attractive ideal mistaken for a live option. Most of the arguments for the one-state solution are not arguments about whether it's possible. They are argumentsabout whether the solution is just, and the two-state solution unjust. These arguments establish the obvious. Of course the two-state solution is unjust. It cements Zionist usurpation of Palestinian land. It lets the perpetrators of this usurpation go scott-free, without so much as compensation for their victims. Worst of all, it perpetuates a state based on racial supremacy. Israel's notion of Jewishness, the determinant of who should hold sovereignty, is ultimately a biological. It is based on kinship. In practice, this kinship does not, as in other countries, depend on tracing family lines back to residence in the sovereign state, but simply on closeness to anyone considered 'Jewish' in the racial sense of the term. What then of the one-state solution? I hear it's very just indeed. But what is it, exactly? Apparently it speaks of a society in which Jews and Palestinians enjoy the same democratic rights. One Jew, one vote, one Palestinian, one vote. In at least one respect, this sort of one-state solution is less just than the two-state solution. That's because it leaves 'Jewish property', including the settlements, in place. Some advocates of the one-state solution are explicit about this, though they never seem to mention it when criticizing the two-state solution. Others don't speak of the settlements, or make vague references to adjudication - not a promising way to expel committed fanatics. A just one-state solution has not been proposed by anyone engaged in the one-state-two-state debate. I'm not sure anyone in recent memory, including Hamas, has proposed it. A just solution would essentially repair the injustice done by Zionism. This would require far more than a democratic 'binational' state in Palestine. It would require that the Jews who came as Zionists to Palestine leave, and with them their descendants. (This is not ethnic cleansing; the original Jewish population and their descendants would remain.) Beyond this, it would require that massive compensation, in the billions, be paid to Palestinians who lost their homes and livelihoods. This compensation would have to remedy not only dispossession, primarily a crime against property, but all the deaths and agonies the Palestinians have suffered because of the Zionist project. There would have to be criminal proceedings against thousands of Israelis who have committed human rights violations, and convictions would have to involve further compensatory payments. Israeli firms that profited from and/or supported the occupation would be subject to yet further punitive and compensatory damages. Such a state would right, as much as possible, the wrongs of the Israel/Palestine conflict, but that of course doesn't mean the one state would be a just state. If one-state proponents are really so big on justice, why does it sound as if all we need is a single Palestinian state and justice will be done? Shouldn't we be hearing about justice for poor and the marginalized in this wonderful new future? Does resolving an ethnic conflict somehow ensure economic and social justice for all? Is this too much justice? Either one-staters are as serious about justice as they claim to be, or they're not. If they are, then they should be addressing all types of injustice in Palestine. But if they are willing to sacrifice justice to practicality, then it's time to consider what's practicable and what isn't. The two-state solution, despite some nonsense about the settlers being 'too deeply entrenched', is practicable. If Israel withdraws and the Palestinians get a sovereign state, the settlers will leave in a large hurry, just like the settlers who swore they would die before quitting Gaza. And a two-state solution will indeed leave Palestinians with a sovereign state, because that's what a two-state solution means. It doesn't mean one state and another non-state, and no Palestinian proponent of a two-state solution will settle for less than sovereignty. This is not by any means to say that Israel will agree to a genuinely sovereign Palestinian state. But that's just why the idea that Israel would concede a single state is laughable. It is one thing to vacate the settlements. They represent and benefit a smallish minority of Israelis. For many more Israelis, they are a great big headache. The occupation is expensive; it earns Israel near-universal opprobrium; it requires semi-open borders which constrain security arrangements; above all it requires Israel to spread its forces all over the landscape rather than concentrate them for efficient military operations. The two-state solution is practicable because many Israelis can accept it. A two-state solution doesn't challenge what Israel is all about; indeed that is the moralistic objection to two states. Israel is a Jewish state; it is committed to that. One-staters apparently believe that Israel will give up its reason for existence and at the same time expose itself not to the risk but to the certainty of being 'swamped by Arabs'. This in turn would indicate a willingness to accede to anything an 'Arab' majority might enact, including a full right of return and dispossession of Zionist usurpers. Can anyone seriously imagine this? If it took thousands and lives and many years to get the settlements out of Gaza - not Israel, which is still sovereign there, but only the settlements. How long is it supposed to take before Israel gives up its existence, its rationale, and the security of all its Jewish citizens? Well, never mind the time constraints. Maybe two-staters are too soft, too eager to see that ordinary Palestinians in the occupied territories are freed from their agonies. Suppose, in the leisurely, bloody, starvation-ridden fullness of time, a single state gets implemented. Then we come to the oddest illusion of all: that if you put two antagonistic peoples together in one state, their antagonism will vanish. Why? What issues are resolved? Will Palestinians and Jews cease to compete for state power? Will Israeli Jews, because they have lost their Jewish state, feel disposed to hand over their homes and businesses as well? Does binationalism turn men into angels? Recent history suggests otherwise. The binational state that bears closest comparison with Palestine is Lebanon,where many Palestinians now live. Even subtracting the toll exacted by Israeli invasions, the carnage there has exceeded by orders of magnitude that of the entire Israel/Palestine conflict. The most encouraging examples of binational states, Belgium and Czechoslovakia, are now dissolved or on the brink of dissolution. Then there is, or was, Yugoslavia. Is there such warmth between Israeli Jews and Palestinians that we may expect a better outcome there than in these countries? The fact is that a single state guarantees nothing. Notoriously, the democratic process does not ensure that the will of the majority really prevails. Dominant economic groups know how to confuse, divide and conquer. They may well, through a mixture or bribery and manipulation, remain dominant - why, in this day and age, does this need saying? In Palestine, the dominant economic group is composed of Israeli Jews. They may well push for further expansion of the settlements. This expansion may well be reinforced by a repressive binational state apparatus with a permanent presence all over the occupied territories - where, in the name of justice, no square inch will be retained for exclusively Palestinian use. Yes, there will be 'Arabs' in Haifa and Tel Aviv, just as there are today. There will also be Jews in Nablus, Jenin, and Ramallah, as well as everywhere else they can buy land from distressed Palestinians. This does not necessarily make for a love-feast. It is no good promising that all the nice stuff will come later. How? Presumably a single state is supposed to bring justice, not after mass slaughter, but after elections. Really? Will millions of Jews just leave if a majority says they should? Will they agree to crushing compensatory payments? Will they also agree to be sued or imprisoned for exercising what they consider their rights to self-determination and even survival? If not, if the one-staters actually are thinking of a bloodbath, they should let us know, and tell us why they think a bloodbath will really bring justice to the Palestinians. Against all this, one-staters keep repeating that a single state is just. If appeals to justice were enough to get the Israelis to abolish Israel, there would never have been a problem in the first place. Perhaps that is why the most recent expression of one-state ideology, The One State declaration, does not answer a single one of the hard questions the one state solution raises. For example, most Palestinian property in Israel is now occupied by Jews, who firmly believe they have a right to their homes. Will these people be expelled, or not? Another example: will the settlers be kicked out of their settlements? Will they be disarmed? by what army? Will Zionists be expelled from the armed forces? how? Not a whisper of an answer is to be found. Instead we get generalities.(Seehttp://www.counterpunch.org/onestate.html) Perhaps this is why neither Fatah nor Hamas, who together must represent roughly 100% of the Palestinians in the occupied territories, have no time for binationalism. That dispossessed Palestinians have a right of return is beyond obvious. It it equally obvious that we should all love one another and gather all the poor and oppressed into our bosom. What is less obvious is what should be done about it. It is said that the two-state solution renounces the right of return. This confuses the solution itself with the words that may accompany it. Indeed any agreement establishing a Palestinian state might involve the Palestinian representatives asserting such a renunciation. Both morals and historical realities put any such assertions in proper perspective. Morally, the right of return is not some contractual entitlement, like a royalty agreement, that you can just renounce, any more than you can just renounce your right to free speech. If you have it, it stays with you. Besides, the Palestinian leaders cannot on their own initiative annul the rights of the Palestinians themselves. Most important, in the real world, verbal renunciations don't stand up to changing power relations. For now, Israel will not honor a Palestinian right of return; to 'demand' it is the emptiest of gestures. That right will be honored only if the Palestinians become powerful enough to enforce it. If or when that happens, that some leaders verbally renounced the right will count for nothing. The Palestinians will be free to say: this was never our will; this was a renunciation obtained under duress; those who renounced it should not have done so. Or, more simply: we may have renounced that right, but now things our different. Right or no right, we want to go back to our homes, and we will apply pressure to return. History is full of paper renunciations that, when times change, lose every iota of their force. The longing for a single state is all too understandable, but the single-state ideology is not. It places a reliance on good will and moral argument that to me is literally incomprehensible. Perhaps this veneer of optimism covers an unwillingness to recognize that violence, justified or not, has brought results - the evacuation of the Gaza settlements and Israel's willingness to contemplate more evacuations. Moral appeals, on the other hand, have brought nothing whatever. Thousands of Palestinians suffered, sacrificed, even died for a sovereign Palestinian state. The two state solution offers that state on terms the Israelis might conceivably be induced to accept. There is no chance at all they willaccept a single state that gives the Palestinians anything remotely like their rights. In the name of realism, one-state ideologues abandon the goal of Palestinian sovereignty to pursue an illusion: that the Israels will give all of Palestine to the Palestinians, yet inhabit all of Palestine as well. If others fight for a smaller but genuinely Palestinian state, they are called sellouts, collaborators, or cowards. Should this have any effect, it will be to fragment the Palestinians and get them not more, but less. Editors’ note: Neumann’s article appeared in our CounterPunch newletter earlier this year, and provoked lively reactions from our readers. Starting with Kathy Christison’s Tuesday, we will be featuring three responses through next Thursday. AC / JSC . Michael Neumann is a professor of philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, Canada. Professor Neumann's views are not to be taken as those of his university. His book What's Left: Radical Politics and the Radical Psyche has just been republished by Broadview Press. He contributed the essay, "What is Anti-Semitism", to CounterPunch's book, The Politics of Anti-Semitism. His latest book is The Case Against Israel. He can be reached at: mneumann@trentu.ca
![]()
|
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 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |