The writer is a senior lecturer at the Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Sussex.
Just one state
The gathering force of the one state solution for Palestine is a mortal threat to Zionist racism, writes Rumy Hasan*
Al Ahram Weekly
20-26 December 2007
On the weekend of 17-18 November, a conference took place in London that I hope and believe will prove a historic event. The reason is that it discussed the one state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Organised by the SOAS Palestine Society and the London One State Group, it was held in the largest hall at SOAS, and was sold out in advance -- an indicator of the thirst for discussion of this vision. For me it was the most inspiring event on Palestine I have ever attended.
On the various platforms were not only Palestinians (from the Diaspora, within Israel, and from the occupied territories) but also, uniquely, Israeli Jews. Following the London conference and a related one in Madrid, a "One State Declaration" was issued 29 November. Most of the signatories, an array of outstanding intellectuals and activists, were at the London conference: Ali Abunimah, Naseer Aruri, Omar Barghouti, Oren Ben-Dor, George Bisharat, Haim Bresheeth, Jonathan Cook, Ghazi Falah, Leila Farsakh, Islah Jad, Joseph Massad, Ilan Pappe, Carlos Prieto del Campo and Nadim Rouhana.
The reason why this conference and the subsequent Declaration may prove historic is that, hitherto, the one state solution has been seen as the Cinderella option and, accordingly, sorely neglected or not taken seriously. For Zionists and most Israelis, it is simply intolerable given that it sounds the death knell of the Jewish state. Given that most Israeli Jews remain firmly wedded to the Zionist state, this solution does not even register on their radar screens. For Palestinians, the national liberation struggle implies
-- by definition -- the creation of a separate homeland and state. Hence, after the recognition by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) of Israel in 1988, and especially after the Oslo agreement of 1993, no nationalist Palestinian leader has shifted away from the two-state solution; a "solution" in which the Palestinians will have, at most, 22 per cent of the land of historic Palestine. Unique in the history of national liberation struggles, the PLO/Fatah abandoned the struggle to liberate the vast majority of the colonised land.
Notwithstanding the enormous and unprecedented difficulty of the task, the politics and methods of the PLO/Fatah have proven, in reality, a betrayal of the liberation struggle, aggravated by a level of corruption also unique in the history of liberation movements. As is now abundantly clear, Abbas is no more than a quisling and his Palestinian Authority the de facto Police Authority (of Israel) in the West Bank. The Israelis can view this as a triumph of Oslo -- as smart colonialists, they wished and got collaborator Palestinians to police the occupation.
It is largely because of Fatah's abandonment of a principled liberation politics, compounded by its utter corruption, that Hamas convincingly won the elections of January 2006; helped by its principled refusal to recognise the state of Israel. But given its Islamist politics (it never abandoned its notorious Charter) it can never offer a politics of liberation and equality that unites forces across the religious, secular, and social spectrum. In sum, the very basis of its politics is a dead end.
What is rarely acknowledged is that the two-state solution is about the institutionalisation of really existing apartheid and the complete domination of the new Palestinian "state" by Israel. To think of this state as a Bantustan is to forget that the South African Bantustans of the 1980s -- and their quisling leaders -- had far more rights and powers than the intended Palestinian Bantustan (or better, "Bantustine"). What should, therefore, be patently evident is that the logic and implications of the two-state path lead inexorably to apartheid and the subjugation of Palestinians.'
Just one state
The gathering force of the one state solution for Palestine is a mortal threat to Zionist racism, writes Rumy Hasan*
Al Ahram Weekly
20-26 December 2007
On the weekend of 17-18 November, a conference took place in London that I hope and believe will prove a historic event. The reason is that it discussed the one state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Organised by the SOAS Palestine Society and the London One State Group, it was held in the largest hall at SOAS, and was sold out in advance -- an indicator of the thirst for discussion of this vision. For me it was the most inspiring event on Palestine I have ever attended.
On the various platforms were not only Palestinians (from the Diaspora, within Israel, and from the occupied territories) but also, uniquely, Israeli Jews. Following the London conference and a related one in Madrid, a "One State Declaration" was issued 29 November. Most of the signatories, an array of outstanding intellectuals and activists, were at the London conference: Ali Abunimah, Naseer Aruri, Omar Barghouti, Oren Ben-Dor, George Bisharat, Haim Bresheeth, Jonathan Cook, Ghazi Falah, Leila Farsakh, Islah Jad, Joseph Massad, Ilan Pappe, Carlos Prieto del Campo and Nadim Rouhana.
The reason why this conference and the subsequent Declaration may prove historic is that, hitherto, the one state solution has been seen as the Cinderella option and, accordingly, sorely neglected or not taken seriously. For Zionists and most Israelis, it is simply intolerable given that it sounds the death knell of the Jewish state. Given that most Israeli Jews remain firmly wedded to the Zionist state, this solution does not even register on their radar screens. For Palestinians, the national liberation struggle implies
-- by definition -- the creation of a separate homeland and state. Hence, after the recognition by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) of Israel in 1988, and especially after the Oslo agreement of 1993, no nationalist Palestinian leader has shifted away from the two-state solution; a "solution" in which the Palestinians will have, at most, 22 per cent of the land of historic Palestine. Unique in the history of national liberation struggles, the PLO/Fatah abandoned the struggle to liberate the vast majority of the colonised land.
Notwithstanding the enormous and unprecedented difficulty of the task, the politics and methods of the PLO/Fatah have proven, in reality, a betrayal of the liberation struggle, aggravated by a level of corruption also unique in the history of liberation movements. As is now abundantly clear, Abbas is no more than a quisling and his Palestinian Authority the de facto Police Authority (of Israel) in the West Bank. The Israelis can view this as a triumph of Oslo -- as smart colonialists, they wished and got collaborator Palestinians to police the occupation.
It is largely because of Fatah's abandonment of a principled liberation politics, compounded by its utter corruption, that Hamas convincingly won the elections of January 2006; helped by its principled refusal to recognise the state of Israel. But given its Islamist politics (it never abandoned its notorious Charter) it can never offer a politics of liberation and equality that unites forces across the religious, secular, and social spectrum. In sum, the very basis of its politics is a dead end.
What is rarely acknowledged is that the two-state solution is about the institutionalisation of really existing apartheid and the complete domination of the new Palestinian "state" by Israel. To think of this state as a Bantustan is to forget that the South African Bantustans of the 1980s -- and their quisling leaders -- had far more rights and powers than the intended Palestinian Bantustan (or better, "Bantustine"). What should, therefore, be patently evident is that the logic and implications of the two-state path lead inexorably to apartheid and the subjugation of Palestinians.'
Lees verder: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/876/op9.htm
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten