Common
Sense Regarding
The Middle East Conflict
By Roger Tucker
09 March,
2008
Countercurrents.org
In
response to Dan Lieberman's excellent article of May 3rd, 'The
Harsh Reality Of The Middle East Conflict', I would suggest
that we might as well face the fact that there is only one "solution"
that merits the use of that term. The practical argument for the One
State Solution, as he notes, is that there is no viable alternative.
It is not a question of whether the one or two state options is "preferable."
Anyone truly familiar with the situation knows that Israel, as currently
constituted, will not and cannot accept either possibility without
committing political suicide. Although they would happily agree to
some sort of Palestinian entity consisting of scattered and helpless
bantustans, totally dependent on Israel's whims, anything resembling
a coherent, sustainable nation state would have to be imposed on them
by force. And where would that come from? It's simply not going to
happen. A unified, democratic state with equal rights for all would
totally subvert the first principle of Zionism, and as long as Zionists
are comfortably in charge in Israel that's not going to happen either.
Barring either of these two options, we are faced with endless conflict,
the continuing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and, as Mr. Lieberman
suggests, the likelihood of nuclear war.
Let's back up and look at the root of the problem, because if it can't be solved at this basic level then it can't be solved at all. Anything else would be like applying a bandaid to a malignant tumor. Zionism required that a European ethnocentric colony be established by force in the most conceivably hostile place in the world. That was and continues to be the heart of the matter. The world made a horrible mistake by allowing this to happen - how it was allowed to happen is beyond the scope of this article - and that mistake must be rectified. For all our sakes, including Israelis, the "Jewish State" must be wiped off the map, if I may say so. People recoil at that phrase, due to Zionist conditioning, and think it must involve some unthinkable bloodbath (as if what's going on isn't abhorrent enough). It doesn't mean that at all. It simply means that a genuine, pluralistic democracy must be established there. Anyone who is truly "progressive,' or genuinely conservative, or simply pragmatic for that matter, must see that this is simple common sense and that it conforms with all the established norms of the so-called civilized world (as numerous UN resolutions substantiate, all vetoed by the US).
Mr. Lieberman states that proponents of the two-state solution "sense the one-state solution is unacceptable." Unacceptable to whom? Zionists of course. Unfortunately - and this is the crux of the problem - the Left, both in the West and in Israel, remains in the thrall of the Zionist axiom that the Jewish State has a "right to exist." Is that really true? They state it as an axiom, but what does that mean anyway, the right to exist, as if the State of Israel were a "person," a sentient being that we are morally bound to protect? It is just a political arrangement, created and sustained by force and propaganda, with no more inviolable "right to exist" than the current regimes in Burma or North Korea. The "progressives" who bewail the plight of the Palestinians but defend Israel's right to exist should be ashamed of themselves. They are enablers of a toxic political regime that seriously threatens our world.
Those who accept the thesis articulated above might ask how they could help bring about the solution. Well, fortunately we have some good precedents. Let's start with Northern Ireland, the scene of a seemingly intractable conflict between a colonial power possessing overwhelming military and economic superiority, and an indigenous subject population. Over time, the Protestant colonists, mostly the descendants of Scottish veterans of England's military induced to emigrate by grants of land, became, like the Israelis, an irremoveable part of the landscape, fiercely clinging to their heritage of supremacy over the native population whom they had become accustomed to intimidate and treat as sub-human. A protracted resistance eventually achieved something like political parity, though it's still a work in progress. Then, of course, there's the case of South Africa, so familiar to our readers that there's no need to elaborate. It should come as no surprise that some of the strongest support for the Palestinians comes from Ireland and South Africa.
There are a number of reasons why Israel can continue to blithely commit its crimes against humanity, contrary to the world's otherwise universal condemnation of racism, colonialism and genocide, not least of which is America's unwavering and total support. But it needs to be pointed out that Israel's primary victims, the Palestinians, have contributed, in a sense, to their ongoing plight. They have suffered mostly from poor leadership, an inability to market their cause to those who could best render assistance, and a counterproductive strategy. Arafat, as remarkable as he was in many ways, made two fatal mistakes. The first was to demand an independent state, although that is understandable in the context of his time. The other was to rely primarily on violence against a militarily vastly superior enemy. Although the notion of an independent state seemed to make sense early on, it has never really been an option since 1967, and has been totally foreclosed through Israel's relentless construction of its apartheid infrastructure since Ariel Sharon's time in office.
As for violence, the hoary old notion that one has the right of self-defence carries some moral weight, but in practical terms violence makes no sense when it's stones against modern military technology, and a ruthless enemy that has no scruples about terrorizing and murdering civilians, including women and children. There is a much better card to play, as the examples of Ireland and South Africa remind us. In both cases the victim's use of violence served only to increase the paranoia and ferocity of the dominant societies. It was only through arousing the moral condemnation of the outside world, and even more importantly, appealing to the good will of the decent people in the oppressor's society that peace and justice ultimately prevailed.
The model exists and things have already begun moving in the right direction. There is a palpable shift in consciousness taking place, as evidenced by the writings of Walt and Mearshimer, Jimmy Carter's book and subsequent meeting with Hamas, the vastly increased discussion of the One State Solution in just the last two years, the formation of a One Democratic State group in Gaza, the stirrings of demands for equal treatment by the Israeli Arabs exemplified by Asmi Bishara, the recent successes of the Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions movement, the encouraging non-participation and condemnations by political figures, writers and artists in Israel's upcoming 60th Anniversary Celebration, and the shift in Hamas strategy to no longer targeting civilians in its attacks on Israel. But it will take an enormous effort on the part of all of us to carry it through. The viral madness that is Zionism, the most virulent form of fascism in today's world, can only be defeated by the spiritual weapons of wisdom and compassion, wielded by people of good will around the world, and the considerable hard work required to cut through the fog of confusion.
The author is one of the many Jews who takes strong exception to the
crimes of the Zionists being committed in his name. He has a website
devoted to the One State Solution at http://one-state.net
. Any kind of support for the site would be greatly appreciated.
