A Discourse on the One-State Solution: Palestine-Israel

> 1) why did one state approach failed when it was proposed by the
> "other side"? What were EXACTLY the problems. Not in general words,
> please.

Dave Kersting <dakersting [at] earthlink.net> replies:

I don't think anyone will answer that question.
In reality, the Zionist side has never had any solution in mind, except a ONE-STATE entirely dominated by Zionists.
The "two-state" nonsense has been a sham – ever since the first discussions of the UN Partition Plan – to keep naïve Palestinians and
peace activists boondoggled in endless negotiations and negotiations about negotiations.

It is utterly ridiculous for anyone to keep talking up a "two-state" solution, even NOW, after all the disaster such talk has brought in the
past ten years, or thirty years, or sixty years – each time-frame is its own disaster. A two-state “compromise” is OBVIOUSLY a sham; no
freedom fighter or progressive who WOKE UP today can expect good results by adopting a RACIST position, in "compromise" with Zionism.
Does anyone really think the Zionists will stop systematically murdering children and committing ethnic-cleansing, if WE ARE NICE TO THEM?
Zionism – with its internal dynamics that reward and cultivate “creators of facts,” like Sharon – is STUCK in its rampage.

The best hedge against it is an international community that is properly aroused against the most overt campaign of hideous
ethnic-cleansing ever to be placed before the eyes of the world. We are supposed to know that such policies are FUTILE – certainly in the long
run – and the world needs sustainable answers NOW.

Yet Palestinian leaders have not yet BEGUN to phrase their cause in the time-honored language (of the US Civil Rights Movement, for
example): INTEGRATION, EQUALITY, AND PEACE, VERSUS ETHNIC-SUPREMACY, PERPETUAL ETHNIC-CLEANSING, AND ETERNAL CONFLICT.
Everyone has been WAY TOO BOONDOGGLED, according to Zionist plan, in the hopeless, complex abstractions of “two-state” versus
“one-state” and “right of return” versus Israel’s “right to exist,” and so on.

> 2) where is any kind of positive approach for one state originating
> from Palestinians?

Palestinian leaders – whether grass-roots OR Palestinian Authority – have been painfully slow in adopting the MODERN LANGUAGE of
equality and human rights versus Israel's OVERT ethnic-supremacy.
There is persistent confusion on many of the points which Nizar clarifies in his responses below.

The human rights of Palestinian families to return to what's left of their homes cannot be cancelled by anyone, and HISTORY shows that
peace cannot arrive, for anyone, as long as those human rights are violently denied.

We, and the world, are stuck with that fact, and we must find a way to accommodate it. To abandon the right of return is to reverse every
decent standard and everything we are supposed to have learned, the hard way, about state-racism.

And “right of return” must mean “with FULL citizenship rights.” Thus it AUTOMATICALLY sets a course toward the END of Jewish supremacy
in Palestine (or the “Jewish character” of Israel) – that is, toward an ultimate ONE-STATE solution. The sooner we start saying so, the better.

As to “strategy,” rather than promote complex schemes, based on subtle speculations, it is infinitely better to pursue basic justice, as
directly as possible, and develop the mechanisms that most efficiently enable that goal.

The Palestinian Authority made no mistake when it recognized Israel's right to exist – but that CANNOT mean “right to exist AS A JEWISH
STATE.” In other words, the human rights of Palestinians must be honored through REFORMS of Israeli policies. This also happens to present
a gradual and benign countenance, which gets people USED TO the simultaneous ideas that Israel is secure, Palestinian rights must be
honored, equality is coming, along with peace.
Palestinians, Israelis who want peace, and everyone else who is interested in world peace, must begin talking about REFORMING Israel’s
immigration policies, so that residence, property, and full citizenship rights in Israel start being weighed on the basis of human rights and
international law – rather than the current, brazenly racist and violent system: “Jewish,” yes; non-“Jewish,” no.

The great power of that approach is that it RINGS TRUE to every liberal or modern or leftist or progressive consciousness, and it is the most
simple reflection of US Constitutional values – extremely accessible to average US voters and taxpayers. It is the ONLY approach against
which the Zionist argument collapses instantly.
The reason this argument has this power is that it really IS the plain, moral approach.

Simultaneous with that overdue talk of REFORMING Israel’s violently racist immigration policies, and supported by the power of that
argument, Palestinian autonomy must proceed toward statehood as fast as possible, in those territories deemed “occupied.”
There is no need to OPPOSE a preliminary “two-state” scenario, but it must never stifle our demands for reform of Israel’s immigration
policies.
This is the only plan that offers a reasonable certainty that Palestinian demands will really be satisfied – thus ending the motives for
“terrorism.” It is a plan the other side can trust. It also permits compromise in the form of GRADUAL and systematic steps.
The only plan that can work would also propose that Jewish settlements, falling under legitimate Palestinian Authority, would be integrated,
not destroyed. The offer should be that no one is evicted from the settlements on the basis of their ethnicity. Jewish “pioneers” willing to live
as equals with others in the settlements could be welcomed. Those who demand Jewish supremacy would have to look elsewhere.

This way, the Palestinians could ASSERT their hold on the moral high ground.

And, none of this relinquishes the ultimate democratic authority of the populations – once those populations are the legitimate populations,
decided by REAL rights, and valid legal standards: without ethnic prejudice.

> Democracy does not occur on it is own, it requires
> particular mechanisms and procedures that would allow to satisfy
> different interests fo different groupsin society - political, social,
> national. Definitely, such a state would be under significant
> influence fo neighbouring countries, so it is reasonable to suspect
> that it would be quite the same, as "democratic" as they are.

The case of Palestine is unique. And the elimination of Zionist drives also reduces the Western need to maintain docile, anti-democratic
governments in neighboring countries. A substantial reduction of tensions between Israel and Palestine automatically translates into
reduction of tension between the West and the entire region.
It is only natural that progress between Palestine and Israel would lead progress in the region.

> Is there any constitution draft at least for such a state that can
> be discussed? Although such an approach would require to think about
> many mechanisms in many moredetails. And definitely in advance. Can
> Palestinians try to develop a model (at least on a paper) that would
> look attractive for everybody?

Of course, the approach outlined above is offered as a start.

What is most disconcerting is that it will NOT produce genuine dialogue or even sound rebuttals, but will simply be ignored, as the blather
and horror continue.

Political actions based on the theories outlined above have won sharp and unique victories, in the US, against deeply entrenched Zionist
forces. Perhaps there needs to be a little more openness to ideas presented by white male Americans, or maybe there needs to be a better
understanding of average American social ideals – including the power of invoking the US Constitution. Maybe there needs to be better
understanding of the power of the principles themselves.

Thank you Nizar and everyone, for pursuing these questions.

Dave Kersting