Jump to content
Soviet.ie | Sóivéid.ie
Sign in to follow this  
Dumbledore

Issues I'm not sure of

Recommended Posts

There are some things that bother me as I don't have a thorough understanding of them. Therefore, I'll ask ye and see if ye can help me. The reason I am posting this on this site is because the contributors know their stuff and, since ye seem to have fixed positions on most issues, I won't fear that asking awkward questions will change anyones opinion.

 

Firstly, the Israeli situation. Could one argue that a two state solution is fair and that the Jews do have a right to the land? After all, Judaism is not merely a religion, it is a culture. The strong sense of nationhood can very much be seen in Ireland too. Do we have more in common with the Israelis than the Palestinians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, the Israeli situation. Could one argue that a two state solution is fair and that the Jews do have a right to the land? After all, Judaism is not merely a religion, it is a culture. The strong sense of nationhood can very much be seen in Ireland too. Do we have more in common with the Israelis than the Palestinians?

 

The similarity between Israel and Ireland that is sometimes linked by Zionists in an attempt to gain solidarity, is the attempt to construct a new cultural identity, with the Gaelic revival and Zionism being compared. The crucial difference is that in Ireland this new cultural identity was done by the indigenous population, and in order to confront occupation by a foreign force. In the Palestinian context it is the Israelis who are the foreign force, and have adopted this new cultural identity to replace the indigenous population. If Irish people were trying to force Irish culture on another country, that would be more akin to what the Israelis are doing, and in those circumstances i would be completely opposed to it. Irish colonists are no better than Jewish ones.

 

Jewish culture, even Zionist culture, is to be welcomed. But that is not the issue, the issue is the ethnic cleansing that Zionist culture has used to elevate it above indigenous Palestinian culture. The only real similarity between the Zionist colonial project and Ireland is that Ireland too has been divided and a colonial racist state is maintained. The similarities with the Israeli state lie with the northern state, and certainly not with Irish nationalism.

 

You also have to remember that a two state solution in Palestine equates to those Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed off their land never being able to return to their homes in likes of Haifa or Jaffa. You still see in Jenin refugee camp the inside walls of some of the houses painted with frescos of the beaches of Haifa. The grim reality for most of these refugees is that this is the only view of the Palestinian coast that they are ever going to see again.

 

A two state solution with the right of return could be seen by some as being acceptable, but this will never be accepted by Israelis. They will never allow Palestinians to return to the Jewish state. They call themselves democrats, and just like the northern statelet, they fear demographics will expose their gerrymandered lies. They are constantly redrawing the borders to ensure that they can say that they are the majority. That was what the withdrawal from Gaza was really about, as suddenly a million Arabs were not being occupied (although being besieged and pounded daily by US/Israel weaponry is hardly any better). If you look at the demographics for the entire Palestine region, including 1948 and 1967 territories, the Arabs have a clear majority and have had for a few years. If you take into account the Palestinians in neighbouring countries in Jordan and Lebanon, the demographics are much clearer. A one state solution exposes this. A two state solution gerrymanders this demographic imperative and creates two sectarian states.

 

Also racist Israeli property laws have already extinguished property rights for all of those who fled or who were forcibly removed during Al Naqba in 1948. When they talk about a two state solution, they mean one main Jewish racist state and a weakened bantustan series of statelets for the Palestinians, and The international community did not accept this in South Africa where the black population were told that they were no longer South African citizens but citizens of the new "homelands", where they were coralled onto crap and divided land. Likewise the International community should not accept this happening in Palestine.

 

Remember too that nobody is saying that the Jews who have come to Palestine over the past decades have to leave, although Palestinians would be within their right to say that those who have settled in the 1948 territory had no right to do so, just as they have the right to say that the West Bank settlers have no right to be there. But that is not being demanded by the Palestinians. A single democratic state, with a sizeable Jewish minority, and with all the protections that minorities deserve, would allow Jews to remain. The only thing that they will have to give up is the right to behave as a majority, when they clearly aren't.

 

This kind of comparison between Ireland and Israel needs to be confronted anywhere it is seen, it is a form of pro-Zionist propaganda and is usually fed with a web of lies and deceipt. Anyone with any understanding of genocide knows that it is the Palestinians and Irish who have a common bond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks men. I would like to say first of all that obviously the government of Israel needs to be seriously reformed, no doubt about that. I am just asking about whether they have a legitimate right to settling there (and not expanding the borders anymore). Could you say that it is the Israelis tat are actually the indigenous people? If the Native Americans tried to take back the land robbed from them by European colonists, I would say they have a point. Could you compare the grievances of Jews to the grievances of Native Americans?

 

I have always been anti-Israel since I learned of how they came to be, but I'm starting to wonder if Zionism is actually kind of understandable (not extremist Zionism, just the belief that the Jews have a right to the land they call home).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks men. I would like to say first of all that obviously the government of Israel needs to be seriously reformed, no doubt about that. I am just asking about whether they have a legitimate right to settling there (and not expanding the borders anymore). Could you say that it is the Israelis tat are actually the indigenous people? If the Native Americans tried to take back the land robbed from them by European colonists, I would say they have a point. Could you compare the grievances of Jews to the grievances of Native Americans?

 

I have always been anti-Israel since I learned of how they came to be, but I'm starting to wonder if Zionism is actually kind of understandable (not extremist Zionism, just the belief that the Jews have a right to the land they call home).

 

The comparison with native americans is not apt. Native americans were robbed of their land by the state of the European settlers, known as the USA. The USA still exists and there is indeed a case for native americans to be given ownership rights of the land.

 

It wasn't the Palestinians who forced the Jews into exile. And after 2000 years, it is unclear how any European Jews have any kind of genetic link to Palestine. Calling the Jews the indigenous population is stretching the definition of the word. If you support the idea that all ethnic groups have some right to return to where their ancestors lived 2000 years ago, you would be supporting huge population shifts. You would in fact be denying 2000 years of history.

 

Palestinians on the other hand have verifiable and concrete claims to the land. While many documents have been destroyed, many families in exile still cling on to their title deeds issued under Ottoman or Mandate law. For Palestinians to be able to return to the land which they actually owned, all you have to deny is the state of Israel.

 

The Israeli state has no right to exist, the settlers have no right to have settled and any right they have to remain is subject to the right of the Palestinians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comparison with native americans is not apt. Native americans were robbed of their land by the state of the European settlers, known as the USA. The USA still exists and there is indeed a case for native americans to be given ownership rights of the land.

 

It wasn't the Palestinians who forced the Jews into exile. And after 2000 years, it is unclear how any European Jews have any kind of genetic link to Palestine. Calling the Jews the indigenous population is stretching the definition of the word. If you support the idea that all ethnic groups have some right to return to where their ancestors lived 2000 years ago, you would be supporting huge population shifts. You would in fact be denying 2000 years of history.

 

Palestinians on the other hand have verifiable and concrete claims to the land. While many documents have been destroyed, many families in exile still cling on to their title deeds issued under Ottoman or Mandate law. For Palestinians to be able to return to the land which they actually owned, all you have to deny is the state of Israel.

 

The Israeli state has no right to exist, the settlers have no right to have settled and any right they have to remain is subject to the right of the Palestinians.

Well, the Israelis had it robbed from them by the Romans. Hypothetically, if the Mexican people end up making up the majority of the population of the US, people who caused no harm to Native Indians, I would still support the right of Native Indians to take back the land that is rightfully theirs.

 

As I said, the Palestinians do not deserve to suffer the way they do. But perhaps a two state solution is fair? I used to think there should be one Palestinian state, full stop. Now, I'm not so sure.

 

Your second paragraph raises a valid point, but I think the case of the Jews is a unique one. 4,000 years ago though, people were essentially nomads where there was no link between land and culture. Now, no matter what happens, the Irish nation will always deserve to have the Gaelic culture practiced on it as long as Gaels exist. Same goes for the Maoris of New Zealand,, Aborigines of Australia etc. Does the Jewish culture not deserve a similar right?

 

Btw I know I sound like a rabid Zionist but I am merely asking the questions that I don't really understand. My apologies if I sound like a rabbi :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until recently, Israel was surrounded by secular, socialist, Arab states, where citizenship was based only on place of birth. In Israel, citizenship is based, not on place of birth, but on religion. Israel was a sectarian state surrounded by secular Arab states. Needless to say, this was a very big embarrassment to the Zionists and the Americans, who wanted to claim that Israel was the only democracy in the Middle East.

 

The simple solution, of course, would have been to make Israel also a secular state. But, how could they do that, since the very purpose of the state was to be a sectarian state - just as the so called "Northern Ireland" was - as Lugh has pointed out. Therefore, the only solution open to the Zionists was to reduce the surrounding secular Arab states to rubble, and replace them with sectarian Sunni or Shia states. The Israelis helped to set up Hamas for this very reason, i.e. to replace the secular PLO.

 

Today, since everyone in the Middle East can be said to be sectarian (except Bashar al-Assad), Israel is spared any embarrassment. Hamas has already accepted the two state logic. Of course they did, as they are sectarian themselves, and, like PSF in Ireland, they love having their little fiefdom, were they cant be challenged by progressive movements.

 

Now, the "two state solution," as in Ireland, follows this sectarian logic, and no other. Lugh has explained it in his outstanding post above. There can never be peace based on a two state solution. There can only be continued domination and violence. Again, we see the complete failure of the GFA to end domination or end violence. Indeed, sectarianism is more chronic in the occupied six counties now than ever.

 

I would recommend that you listen to Col. al-Gaddafi's proposal for a single state solution, based on secularism, at the link below:

 

http://soviet.ie/ind...stine-conflict/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also say that the Jews lived in peace and protection, under secular Arab states. By destroying these secular states, the Zionists and their US backers have made Israel the only place in the Middle East that is relatively safe for a Jew to live. Now, some of might say that this was precisely what the Zionists wanted, i.e. to terrorize all Middle Eastern Jews into relocating to Israel. They have certainly gotten their way, if that that was the plan. This process has led the Jews in Israel to become even more paranoid and aggressive than they already were, as naturally, they don't blame the Zionists for them being run out of Iraq, Afgahanistan, etc., but blame the Muslims.

 

All of this is a precise mirror image of the methods of terror the Nazis used to keep the German people paranoid, aggressive, and thus easily controlled. Many Jews consider that Israel really is the last place they are safe to live, and they must defend it to the death. That their rulers cynically created this scenario never occurs to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some things that bother me as I don't have a thorough understanding of them. Therefore, I'll ask ye and see if ye can help me. The reason I am posting this on this site is because the contributors know their stuff and, since ye seem to have fixed positions on most issues, I won't fear that asking awkward questions will change anyones opinion.

 

Firstly, the Israeli situation. Could one argue that a two state solution is fair and that the Jews do have a right to the land? After all, Judaism is not merely a religion, it is a culture. The strong sense of nationhood can very much be seen in Ireland too. Do we have more in common with the Israelis than the Palestinians?

 

Its always a great site to ak questions I think.

 

In response to your question I would say absolutely not.

The "Jews" cannot claim a land due to their religion. The people of that land may have been jewish in the patist but they are not any more. While religion means nothing the fact of the matter is that most palestinian people are now Islamic. But they are all Palestinian.

Israel is a fabricated state made up by right wing Jews and given to them by the British.

 

Sure a massive section of the Jews living their are from Europe.

 

We have nothing in common with the Israelis. The equivilant would be Pagans coming to Ireland and claiming that our country is theirs because we were originially a Pagan country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until recently, Israel was surrounded by secular, socialist, Arab states, where citizenship was based only on place of birth. In Israel, citizenship is based, not on place of birth, but on religion. Israel was a sectarian state surrounded by secular Arab states. Needless to say, this was a very big embarrassment to the Zionists and the Americans, who wanted to claim that Israel was the only democracy in the Middle East.

 

The simple solution, of course, would have been to make Israel also a secular state. But, how could they do that, since the very purpose of the state was to be a sectarian state - just as the so called "Northern Ireland" was - as Lugh has pointed out. Therefore, the only solution open to the Zionists was to reduce the surrounding secular Arab states to rubble, and replace them with sectarian Sunni or Shia states. The Israelis helped to set up Hamas for this very reason, i.e. to replace the secular PLO.

 

Today, since everyone in the Middle East can be said to be sectarian (except Bashar al-Assad), Israel is spared any embarrassment. Hamas has already accepted the two state logic. Of course they did, as they are sectarian themselves, and, like PSF in Ireland, they love having their little fiefdom, were they cant be challenged by progressive movements.

 

Now, the "two state solution," as in Ireland, follows this sectarian logic, and no other. Lugh has explained it in his outstanding post above. There can never be peace based on a two state solution. There can only be continued domination and violence. Again, we see the complete failure of the GFA to end domination or end violence. Indeed, sectarianism is more chronic in the occupied six counties now than ever.

 

I would recommend that you listen to Col. al-Gaddafi's proposal for a single state solution, based on secularism, at the link below:

 

http://soviet.ie/ind...stine-conflict/

I do see where you're coming from, but, and perhaps it is idealism on my part, but I would be willing to sacrifice peace for what is fundamentally right. So if Zionism has understandable reasoning and logic behind it, then I would support it.

 

Now, I am not for one second arguing that the Israeli state, since its very outset, has not essentially been a terrorist state. I am only questioning whether the political ideology of Zionism is a legitimate one. No matter if the Israeli government becomes a free market, sectarian state or a secular, communist one is irrelevant to the question I am posing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also say that the Jews lived in peace and protection, under secular Arab states. By destroying these secular states, the Zionists and their US backers have made Israel the only place in the Middle East that is relatively safe for a Jew to live. Now, some of might say that this was precisely what the Zionists wanted, i.e. to terrorize all Middle Eastern Jews into relocating to Israel. They have certainly gotten their way, if that that was the plan. This process has led the Jews in Israel to become even more paranoid and aggressive than they already were, as naturally, they don't blame the Zionists for them being run out of Iraq, Afgahanistan, etc., but blame the Muslims.

 

All of this is a precise mirror image of the methods of terror the Nazis used to keep the German people paranoid, aggressive, and thus easily controlled. Many Jews consider that Israel really is the last place they are safe to live, and they must defend it to the death. That their rulers cynically created this scenario never occurs to them.

 

You're bang on here, and many (most?) Zionist leaders have acted shamefully since the foundation of the state. But does Judaism not deserve a state which preserve and promotes their culture and way of life? Leaving out the horrific actions carried out by Zionists (the IRA committed atrocities too), is what they are fighting for a just cause?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its always a great site to ak questions I think.

 

In response to your question I would say absolutely not.

The "Jews" cannot claim a land due to their religion. The people of that land may have been jewish in the patist but they are not any more. While religion means nothing the fact of the matter is that most palestinian people are now Islamic. But they are all Palestinian.

Israel is a fabricated state made up by right wing Jews and given to them by the British.

 

Sure a massive section of the Jews living their are from Europe.

 

We have nothing in common with the Israelis. The equivilant would be Pagans coming to Ireland and claiming that our country is theirs because we were originially a Pagan country.

 

I often used this argument, particularly in real life, to combat pro-Israeli arguments. However, I no longer use it as it is misleading, I believe. If they claimed it purely because of what they think is up in the sky, then that is unacceptable. However, I think it is fair to say that Judaism is not merely a religion, it is a culture. I am a strong believer in maintaining culture, but of course the Palestinians also have their own culture. So who has a right to the land is the question? In which case, is a two state solution the fairest thing to do given the circumstances?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're bang on here, and many (most?) Zionist leaders have acted shamefully since the foundation of the state. But does Judaism not deserve a state which preserve and promotes their culture and way of life? Leaving out the horrific actions carried out by Zionists (the IRA committed atrocities too), is what they are fighting for a just cause?

 

Actually, you have to separate Judaism and Zionism. Orthodox Jews say it is not allowed for the Jews to have a state. Being a Jew is a religion, not a nationality. Its an obscene throwback to the dark ages to set up states based on religion. A united Palestine - Colonel al-Gaddafi wanted to call it Isratine, so that everyone would be included in the name - based on secular principles, would allow Jews to practice their religion and way of life. They have no reason to stop Muslims doing the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, you have to separate Judaism and Zionism. Orthodox Jews say it is not allowed for the Jews to have a state. Being a Jew is a religion, not a nationality. Its an obscene throwback to the dark ages to set up states based on religion. A united Palestine - Colonel al-Gaddafi wanted to call it Isratine, so that everyone would be included in the name - based on secular principles, would allow Jews to practice their religion and way of life. They have no reason to stop Muslims doing the same.

 

Being a Jew may not be a nationality, but being an Israeli is. Much like being a Gael isn't a nationality, being Irish is. How much do they play up the religion aspect as opposed to the cultural part? Do you feel I am exaggerating how much of a distinct culture Judaism actually is?

 

But what is a nationality? According to the Oxford dictionary, it can "an ethnic group forming a part of one or more political nations", while a nation is "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory".

 

So, by the very definition of the words, does Judaism not deserve its own state, as long as its secular and inclusive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a Jew may not be a nationality, but being an Israeli is. Much like being a Gael isn't a nationality, being Irish is. How much do they play up the religion aspect as opposed to the cultural part? Do you feel I am exaggerating how much of a distinct culture Judaism actually is?

 

But what is a nationality? According to the Oxford dictionary, it can "an ethnic group forming a part of one or more political nations", while a nation is "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory".

 

So, by the very definition of the words, does Judaism not deserve its own state, as long as its secular and inclusive?

 

I would say that its a general rule that any state that needs racism or sectarianism to stay in existence really has no good reason to be in existence. Its a contradiction in terms to speak of a secular and inclusive Jewish state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that its a general rule that any state that needs racism or sectarianism to stay in existence really has no good reason to be in existence. Its a contradiction in terms to speak of a secular and inclusive Jewish state.

 

This is the point really that says it all. A two state solution is one which is based on sectarianism and racism, dividing the land up on grounds of ethnicity. A two state solution REQUIRES ethnic cleansing to work. It requires gerrymandering, it requires denying democratic imperative.

 

Its like the Protestants in the North East of Ireland saying that they have a right to their own little statelet because they can draw a border around a part of the country.

 

Practically, the Israelis will also use any two-state solution to ensure that the Palestinian state is not a full state. They have already enforced a Bantustan approach to the Palestinian areas. A two state solution actually means that they must do this. If they were to concede full status to a Palestinian state, then it would undermine their position of dominance.

 

Also, the right of return to the 1948 territories for Palestinians? A two state solution is basically saying that the right of return for Palestinians has gone forever.

 

Anyone wanting to make a case for 2 state solution should address these issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Connolly

This is the point really that says it all. A two state solution is one which is based on sectarianism and racism, dividing the land up on grounds of ethnicity.

 

There is nothing particularly 'new' to doing this. Nation-states in general are most often created upon and gain legitimacy based upon an ethnic or national identity. And land, one way or another within nation-states are usually divided up/controlled by the population who livie within a nation-state. A population who are most often, well, part of the dominant ethnic/national majority.This can be racist and sectarian, but it does not need to be so. No more than any other states.

 

A two state solution REQUIRES ethnic cleansing to work. It requires gerrymandering, it requires denying democratic imperative.

 

In the case of Israel I don think a two state solution requires ethnic cleansing. It is not impossible for the Israeli state to stop building settlements and live relatively harmoniously with a palestinian state. There are many factors at play of course which produce the present situation.

 

As for gerrymandering. In reality, all democratic structures are based upon gerrymandering. The arbitrary construction of populations.

 

Its like the Protestants in the North East of Ireland saying that they have a right to their own little statelet because they can draw a border around a part of the country.

 

Like the Israel-palestine situation there would be many practical difficulties in creating a unionist state in the north. But, from my perspective, who are we to force a 32 county state on a people who dont want it? Particularly when we are talking about a sizable population.

 

People should be free to choose what state they want to be ruled by, if any. So long as they are practicable.

 

Also, the right of return to the 1948 territories for Palestinians? A two state solution is basically saying that the right of return for Palestinians has gone forever.

 

'Rights' to land fade with generations. No way should a palestinian have claim to a piece of land because their great great grandfather owned it over some present day israeli who was born on it.

 

When does this 'right to return' expire?

 

Without an expiry date all thats left is perpetual bitterness and conflict.

 

....................

 

The above are not necessarily my views on the situation by im just putting the arguments forward. I dont have particularly strong views in relation to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing particularly 'new' to doing this. Nation-states in general are most often created upon and gain legitimacy based upon an ethnic or national identity. And land, one way or another within nation-states are usually divided up/controlled by the population who livie within a nation-state. A population who are most often, well, part of the dominant ethnic/national majority.This can be racist and sectarian, but it does not need to be so. No more than any other states.

 

A chara, this was true in ancient times, and probably right up till the 19th century, but, by the end of the 19th century the idea of setting up states based on race or sectarianism had all but gone (except for a few bastions of reaction, such as Ireland.) It was really the Nazis who resurrected the idea in the 20th century, as a reaction to Modernism, and the Jewish state came directly out of that Nazi initiative. This has been a great tragedy for the world, as both Israel and the US have tried to end Israel's exceptional and archaic status by destroying secular states and replacing them with states that are just as sectarian as Israel is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Connolly

A chara, this was true in ancient times, and probably right up till the 19th century, but, by the end of the 19th century the idea of setting up states based on race or sectarianism had all but gone (except for a few bastions of reaction, such as Ireland.) It was really the Nazis who resurrected the idea in the 20th century, as a reaction to Modernism, and the Jewish state came directly out of that Nazi initiative. This has been a great tragedy for the world, as both Israel and the US have tried to end Israel's exceptional and archaic status by destroying secular states and replacing them with states that are just as sectarian as Israel is.

 

It has not all but gone. What we are talking about here is nationalism. A desire, for whatever reason, to establish a nation-state. The Israeli state is the product of a nationalism and a desire of the jewish population to establish and have their own nation-state. South Sudan, the most recent nation-state, was based upon a form of nationalism.

 

It is wrong to say that the Israeli state was created just upon racism. It may have had a part, but so it may have been in the establishment of so many recently formed nation-states. In the case of South sudan we are talking about a sectarian ethnic-religious conflict. With the establishment of the Eritrean state we are talking about an ethnic conflict. With the establishment of the Lithuanian, Estonian, Kahzak states we are talking about an ethnic-religious conflict.

 

But so what?

 

There is nothing particularly exceptional with israel that to say a two state solution would be 'sectarian', 'racist', or 'ethnic'. Thats how most if not all states have been formed. Ethnicity/religion/race/nation are the basis of all states - bar a hypothetical socialists state. But even those who claim to be socialist have been based upon these characteristics, and gained legitimacy from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the desire to create and maintain the Israeli state stems from the desire to create a nation state. The same could be said by the northern Unionist population.

 

The other nationalities that you are talking about have not depended on recent population transfer to create their nation. Those in South Sudan have lived there for generations, as have Eritreans in Eritrea. Israelis came to Israel relatively recently. That is an important difference. If we don't recognise that Unionists have a right to self determination in the 6 counties after hundreds of years, we can hardly give the Zionists an absolute right to live in Palestine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has not all but gone. What we are talking about here is nationalism. A desire, for whatever reason, to establish a nation-state. The Israeli state is the product of a nationalism and a desire of the jewish population to establish and have their own nation-state. South Sudan, the most recent nation-state, was based upon a form of nationalism.

 

It is wrong to say that the Israeli state was created just upon racism. It may have had a part, but so it may have been in the establishment of so many recently formed nation-states. In the case of South sudan we are talking about a sectarian ethnic-religious conflict. With the establishment of the Eritrean state we are talking about an ethnic conflict. With the establishment of the Lithuanian, Estonian, Kahzak states we are talking about an ethnic-religious conflict.

 

But so what?

 

There is nothing particularly exceptional with israel that to say a two state solution would be 'sectarian', 'racist', or 'ethnic'. Thats how most if not all states have been formed. Ethnicity/religion/race/nation are the basis of all states - bar a hypothetical socialists state. But even those who claim to be socialist have been based upon these characteristics, and gained legitimacy from them.

 

Yes, as I said, in recent times, the USA has been busy stirring up sectarian conflicts, such as in Yugoslavia, and sponsoring new states, with borders based on sectarian headcounts. But, for all that, Israel remains exceptional, in that citizenship is based on religion and not place of birth. Croatia, for example, is a state founded on the Catholic religion of most of its population. However, being a Catholic, in any part of the world, does not give you automatic right to citizenship of Croatia. Likewise, any person born in Croatia has the right to citizenship, regardless of their religion or ethnic origin.

 

The two state solution is fundamentally sectarian and apartheid. Its only rational is to allow Israel to maintain its importation of Jews from all corners of the globe - while denying citizenship to those non-Jews born in Israel. At this stage, it would actually be a three state solution, as Gaza has been cut off from the West Bank by illegal Zionist settlements, and by the formation of Hamas (under Israeli direction.) And, as Lugh said above, that is precisely the plan. There is no intention on the part of the Zionists to allow any sort of sustainable Palestinian state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. At this stage, it would actually be a three state solution, as Gaza has been cut off from the West Bank by illegal Zionist settlements, and by the formation of Hamas (under Israeli direction.) And, as Lugh said above, that is precisely the plan. There is no intention on the part of the Zionists to allow any sort of sustainable Palestinian state.

 

It would in effect be a one state solution, with the Palestinian bantustan homelands hardly worthy of the title of a "state". This is why the international community did not accept such a solution in South Africa, and it forms part of the reason why we should reject a so-called two state solution in Palestine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×