Tea Party congressman Joe Walsh proposes one-state solution

[Puppycow]

WALSH: Myth of a two-state solution (Joe Walsh in The Washington Times)

The only viable solution for the Middle East is a one-state solution: one contiguous Israeli state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. There will not and cannot be lasting peace in the Middle East until then.
. . .
This solution is the best for everyone, especially the Palestinians. They will trade their two corrupt and inept governments and societies for a stable, free and prosperous one. Those Palestinians who wish to may leave their Fatah- and Hamas-created slums and move to the original Palestinian state: Jordan. The British Mandate for Palestine created Jordan as the country for the Palestinians. That is the only justification for its creation. Even now, 75 percent of its population is of Palestinian descent. Those Palestinians who remain behind in Israel will maintain limited voting power but will be awarded all the economic and civil rights of Israeli citizens. They will be free to raise families, start businesses and live in peace, all of which are impossible under current Arab rule.

It's interesting to see a Tea Party congressman propose a one-state solution given all of the outrage on the right and the pro-Israel left a couple months ago when Harvard hosted a conference to discuss a one-state solution for Israel-Palestine:

Goldberg: Anti-Israel One-State Plan Gets Harvard Outlet (Jeffrey Goldberg on Bloomberg)

This group argues for the “one-state solution,” the merging of the Palestinian and Jewish populations between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea into a single political entity. It is an entirely unworkable and offensive idea, but because it is couched in the language of equality and human rights, rather than murder and anti-Semitism, it has gained currency in certain not-entirely-marginal circles.

Harvard's Anti-Israel Hate Fest Demands Scrutiny (Alan Dershowitz in Newsmax)

Let there be no doubt that the call for a single state solution is a euphemism for ending the existence of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. The major proponents of this ruse acknowledge—indeed proclaim—that this is their true goal. Tony Judt, who was the academic godfather of the "one state" ploy, saw it as an alternative to Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, which he believed was a mistake. Many of those speaking at the Harvard conference are on record opposing the existence of Israel. Leon Wieseltier was right when he observed that the one state gambit is not “the alternative for Israel. It is the alternative to Israel.”

The "one state" solution failed in the former Yugoslavia. It failed in India. And it would fail in the Mid East. That's why most Palestinians and nearly all Israelis are against it. They favor a two state solution, as does most of the rest of the world.

Harvard’s Anti-Israel “One State Conference” (Emily Schrader on The College Fix)

Freedom of speech and critical examination of new ideas should be a staple of the American university – but Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government didn’t get it quite right at its recent One State Conference, which focused on solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the creation of one democratic state for Palestinians and Israelis (in which Jews would be the minority), a move that would bring about the end of the Jewish state of Israel as we know it.

The stated goal of the conference was “to educate ourselves and others about the possible contours of a one-state solution and the challenges that stand in the way of its realization,” which sounds like a perfectly reasonable topic for academic discussion. But with a plethora of anti-Israel speakers on hand (Ilan Pappe, Diana Buttu, Susan Akram and Ali Abunimah) and nobody representing an alternative viewpoint, the conference was weak on critical examination – and strong on demonizing Israel.

Even Harvard Kennedy School Dean David Ellwood issued a statement in advance, distancing his school from the conference and expressing disappointment with the one-sided nature of the invited speakers. “Without the balance of divergent views that characterize the most enriching discussions, the credibility and intellectual value of any event is open to question,” Ellwood explained.

And he was not alone. Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown also issued a statement, condemning the conference and requesting that Harvard cancel it, due to “dangerous thinking that gives comfort to Israel’s enemies… Harvard has a right to do it, but that doesn’t make it right to do it.”

So is proposing a one-state solution is now acceptable again, since it's being proposed by the right?

I'd like to hear more details about exactly what rights former Palestinians would have in the new state. What does Walsh mean by "limited voting power"? Would former Palestinians get half a vote? A quarter vote? And what does "all the economic and civil rights of Israeli citizens" really mean? Is the right to vote not a civil right? Is the right to move anywhere within the borders of the country that other citizens allowed included? It appears to me that the proposal is for a one-state-two-class solution, i.e., one state but two classes of citizenship. Already there is some pushback from the left on this, but I'm interested to hear what pro-Israel people think of the idea, and what they will say about the man who proposed it (will words like "hate" and "anti-Semitism" be used?).

 

[Cleon]

Yeah, one state's ok as long as Palestinians have "limited voting power." Obviously, granting full equality would be anti-Semitic and an endorsement of terrorism.

 

[WildCat]

So is proposing a one-state solution is now acceptable again, since it's being proposed by the right?

One state run by Palestinians which will deny Jews rights - Harvard conference.

One state run by Jews which will deny rights to Arabs - Joe Walsh.

Both are idiotic ideas.

 

[Puppycow]

Both are idiotic ideas.

Fair enough. That's what I think too.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

His comments on Jordan are just too cute. The Palestinians are treated like crap there just like the other Arab League nations. The Jordanians view Palestinians as a demographic threat. They consider themselves Jordanians and not Palestinians.

Because the Palestinians pose a demographic threat to the Jordanians, hundreds of thousands of them living in Jordan will lose their status as Jordanian citizens.

The Jordanian government, according to sources in Amman, has even decided to revoke the Jordanian citizenship of Palestinian Authority leaders, including Mahmoud Abbas.

King Abdullah this week dispatched a high level delegation to Ramallah to discuss the new measures against the Palestinians with the Palestinian leadership. Headed by Jordan's interior minister, the delegation informed the Palestinians that the kingdom would not be able to help the Palestinians who fled from Syria.

King Abdullah is so worried about the talk, mainly in Israel, about the need to establish a Palestinian state in Jordan that he has just instructed his government to come up with a new electoral law that would keep Palestinians away from parliament and most government institutions altogether.

Linky.

I like how his "one-state solution" is just Israel taking over the Palestinian territories, but letting the Palestinians stay with second class citizenship. If you thought cries about "apartheid" were bad now...

I didn't see anything about the right to return in there. Are all the refugees going to be suddenly accepted in Arab nations when Israel completely takes over?

I'm kinda going to miss Joe in a few months. It is kinda nice to see my congressman making news, even if he never really says anything particularly sane.

 

[Virus]

He's got a point. The Palestinians were better off under Israeli rule than under their own.

You're not supposed to say that though.

 

[angrysoba]

He's got a point. The Palestinians were better off under Israeli rule than under their own.

You're not supposed to say that though.

He doesn't really have a point. The choice is leave your homeland or become a second-class citizen. Or what you might call a dhimmi.

 

[Puppycow]

He doesn't really have a point. The choice is leave your homeland or become a second-class citizen. Or what you might call a dhimmi.

According to Tsukasa Buddha's link, they would be second-class citizens in Jordan too.

Or any other neighboring country now that I think of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians_in_Lebanon

Palestinians in Lebanon refers to the Palestinian refugees who fled to Lebanon during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, the 1967 war, and the expulsion of the Palestinans from Jordan following the events of Black September and their descendants.

Estimates of the size of the Palestinian population range from 260,000 to 400,000.[1] Human Rights Watch estimates 300,000 as of 2011.[2]

The community does not have Lebanese citizenship, is legally barred from owning property or legally barred form entering a list of desirable occupations.[3] Employment requires a government-issued work permit, and, according to the New York Times, although "Lebanon hands out and renews hundreds of thousands of work permits every year to people from Africa, Asia and other Arab countries... until now, only a handful have been given" to Palestinians.[1]

Syria is in civil war. Palestinians have had to flee from there.

Egypt?
http://rsq.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/2-3/531.short

Egyptian policy towards the estimated 50,000–70,000 Palestinians residing on its territory has resulted in depriving them of basic rights. Practice belies the apparent commitment to help them preserve their Palestinian identity. Consistent denial of rights has eroded, not bolstered, Palestinian identity. Palestinians remain excluded from the international assistance regime in place elsewhere in the region. The welcome that Nasser gave to dispossessed Arab brethren has turned into suspicion of unwelcome foreigners. State policies, security surveillance, and intimidation by the media have forced Palestinians to hide or suppress their identity. The Palestinian community is seen as a threat to Egypt’s stability despite the fact that they constitute a mere 0.1 per cent of the population. Thousands of vulnerable young Palestinians are “illegal” despite having been born in Egypt.

So there isn't any choice that doesn't involve second-class citizenship, unless there's a two-state solution.

 

[angrysoba]

According to Tsukasa Buddha's link, they would be second-class citizens in Jordan too.

Oh, yeah. Jordan has been stripping Palestinians of Jordanian nationality for some time.

Muhannad Haddad grew up here, went to school here, got a job in a bank here and traveled to foreign countries with a passport from here. Then one day the authorities said he was no longer Jordanian, and with that one stroke they took away his citizenship and compromised his ability to travel, study, work, seek health care, buy property or even drive.

There's a nice bit of sophistry involved:

The authorities effectively told him they were doing it for his own good. They said that like thousands of other Jordanians of Palestinian descent, he was being stripped of his citizenship to preserve his right to someday return to the occupied West Bank or East Jerusalem.

“They gave me a paper that said, ‘You are now Palestinian,’ ” he said, recalling the day three years ago that his life changed.

In a report titled “Stateless Again,” issued last month, Human Rights Watch said that 2,700 people in Jordan lost their citizenship from 2004 to 2008, and that at least another 200,000 remained vulnerable, largely those who moved abroad at some point in search of work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/world/middleeast/14jordan.html?pagewanted=all

ETA: So the choice is to leave and become stateless. Or become a dhimmi.

 

[WildCat]

According to Tsukasa Buddha's link, they would be second-class citizens in Jordan too.

Or any other neighboring country now that I think of it.

Who cares? There's no Jews involved in those countries.

 

[davefoc]

Three solutions:
1. Unified Israel that includes west bank and Gaza Strip. Current Jewish government retains control through limitations on Palestinian voting rights, expulsion of Palestinian and/or Palestinian incentivized emigration

2. Unified Israel with all inhabitants having equal rights.

3. Two state solution.

It might seem that the two state solution is the only solution that is both viable and fair but the idea is much more difficult to implement than it might seem at first. This is a map of the west bank as it exists today: http://www.btselem.org/download/settlements_map_eng.pdf

It is very hard to imagine any scenario that makes the removal of Jewish settlements a viable option. The Jewish settlement movement wanted to make a two state solution impossible and it looks to me like they have succeeded. Seeing what happens in the long term to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict would be interesting but I don't expect to live that long. Right now I don't see any way the situation ends without massive violence, but maybe there is a way that isn't apparent to me.

I believe the mess was largely created by the US. Exactly why remains something of a mystery to me, but it seems like various political factions came together in the US to subsidize and support the creation of this mess and even today the political power of the movement to support the expansion of Israel and the subjugation of the Palestinians is startling.

I think the pro expansion Israeli lobby in the US and the pro expansion movement in Israel may have won already and Joe Walsh is just a little ahead of the curve when it comes to declaring victory and consolidating Israel's gains.

 

[portlandatheist]

One state run by Palestinians which will deny Jews rights - Harvard conference.

One state run by Jews which will deny rights to Arabs - Joe Walsh.

Both are idiotic ideas.

I totally agree. It doesn't make any sense at all to discuss the possibility of a single state solution that doesn't include full citizen rights for all parties, freedom of movement and no "separate but equal" policies. Its either a two state solution or a one state solution with full citizenship of both Jews and Arabs.

The one state solution seems wildly unpopular and untenable at the moment.

 

[Bikewer]

I listen to NPR's The World all the time, and if there's an over-riding fear among the Israeli's it's that Israel will not continue to exist as a "Jewish" state.
Bringing the Palestinians in under an equal-rights standpoint would effectively end that; they are afraid even now of the Israeli/Arab faction's involvement in politics.

Such a proposition seems utterly pie-in-the-sky.

 

[Cleon]

I listen to NPR's The World all the time, and if there's an over-riding fear among the Israeli's it's that Israel will not continue to exist as a "Jewish" state.
Bringing the Palestinians in under an equal-rights standpoint would effectively end that; they are afraid even now of the Israeli/Arab faction's involvement in politics.

It's what Israelis call the "demographics problem." Arabs, both Israeli citizens and those in the OT, are out-breeding Israelis. So, in order to "preserve the nature of the Jewish state" they have to either curb Arab population growth (and tell me that's not a creepy-sounding euphemism) or give the Palestinians a state that will preserve a long-term Jewish majority within Israeli borders.

The problem with the former is that it's impossible without human rights abuses that the rest of the world would simply find unacceptable. The problem with the latter is that expansions of settlements and outposts have made a Palestinian state geographically untenable. Palestinians won't accept a "state" that is little more than isolated bantustans, and the Israeli right wing won't accept a large-scale dismantlement of settlements.

The result of this is that while a one-state solution might look "pie in the sky," it's starting to look a lot more likely than a two-state solution.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Three solutions:
1. Unified Israel that includes west bank and Gaza Strip. Current Jewish government retains control through limitations on Palestinian voting rights, expulsion of Palestinian and/or Palestinian incentivized emigration

2. Unified Israel with all inhabitants having equal rights.

3. Two state solution.

It might seem that the two state solution is the only solution that is both viable and fair but the idea is much more difficult to implement than it might seem at first. This is a map of the west bank as it exists today: http://www.btselem.org/download/settlements_map_eng.pdf

It is very hard to imagine any scenario that makes the removal of Jewish settlements a viable option. The Jewish settlement movement wanted to make a two state solution impossible and it looks to me like they have succeeded. Seeing what happens in the long term to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict would be interesting but I don't expect to live that long. Right now I don't see any way the situation ends without massive violence, but maybe there is a way that isn't apparent to me.

I believe the mess was largely created by the US. Exactly why remains something of a mystery to me, but it seems like various political factions came together in the US to subsidize and support the creation of this mess and even today the political power of the movement to support the expansion of Israel and the subjugation of the Palestinians is startling.

I think the pro expansion Israeli lobby in the US and the pro expansion movement in Israel may have won already and Joe Walsh is just a little ahead of the curve when it comes to declaring victory and consolidating Israel's gains.

The Israeli settlements and the Arab League's "protection of Palestinian identities" are moves so politically savvy that I almost want to applaud them, if it weren't for the fact that they are for the opposite of peace.

 

[Puppycow]

The Israeli settlements and the Arab League's "protection of Palestinian identities" are moves so politically savvy that I almost want to applaud them, if it weren't for the fact that they are for the opposite of peace.

Savvy in what sense?

 

[shemp]

Joe Walsh? He should have stuck to music.

 

[angrysoba]

Savvy in what sense?

They both make a just peace treasonous.

Anyone who gives up land is a sell-out, a traitor, a collaborator deserving scorn and death.

That was quite savvy. If you're not a rejectionist then you support the other side.

etc... etc...

 

[mortimer]

The result of this is that while a one-state solution might look "pie in the sky," it's starting to look a lot more likely than a two-state solution.

How so? Israel won't let it happen, as the Jews would soon be completely out of power, which contradicts the very reason for Israel's existence in the first place. And Israel has both the conventional and nuclear power to keep a one-state solution from happening, no matter the international pressure, if they so desire. Please provide a scenario where Israel accepts a one-state solution peacefully.

 

[Virus]

One state solution? Think Lebanon but worse.