http://www.gwynnedyer.com/articles/Gwynne%...20Apartheid.txt
Israel Sixty Years On: Partition or Apartheid
By Gwynne Dyer

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was just back from the Annapolis summit where President George W. Bush tried to reboot the moribund
Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. More importantly, last week was also the 60th anniversary of the United Nations vote that divided British-ruled
Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. That promised Arab state still doesn't exist, of course, but if the peace talks fail to produce it in the
end, Olmert told the newspaper Ha'Aretz, then Israel is "finished."

"If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses," Olmert said, "and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights
for the Palestinians in the (occupied) territories, then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished. The Jewish organisations which
were our power base in America will be the first to come out against us, because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support
democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents."

It was an extraordinary thing for a right-wing Israeli politician to say: Israelis usually erupt in fury if anybody suggests a comparison
between their country and apartheid-era South Africa. However, Olmert wasn't talking about the country as it is now -- seven million people, of
whom about five and a half million are Jews -- but about the country that would exist if the peace talks fail definitively and the four million
Palestinians in the occupied territories remain under Israeli control indefinitely.

They have already been under Israeli military rule for forty years, and fifteen years of on-and-off peace negotiations have made little
progress towards a Palestinian state. The Arab population both within Israel and in the occupied territories is growing much faster than the
Jewish population, even counting Jewish immigration. Some time soon, there will be more Palestinians than Jews within the borders of the former
British mandate of Palestine (between the Jordan River and the sea) for the first time since the war of 1948-49.

Most of the Palestinians who lived within what is now Israel fled or were driven out during the 1948-49 war, and in order to ensure that the
new state had an overwhelming Jewish majority Israel never let them return. Subsequent Jewish immigration, combined with the fact that many of the
Palestinians fled beyond the borders of the old British mandate, meant that Jews were still a large majority overall even when Israel conquered all the
remaining lands of former Palestine in the 1967 war. For a long time, the "demographic question" did not trouble Israelis much.

There were still far fewer Palestinians in the late 1980s, when Yasser Arafat persuaded the Palestine Liberation Organisation to adopt the
goal of a Palestinian state within the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem (which is considerably less than it was given under the UN
partition plan of 1947). That led to the era of the "peace process," but for various reasons (and with much blame on both sides ) the negotiations
never succeeded.

Now the Palestinians are within sight of becoming a majority in the whole of the territory between the Jordan and the sea, and some of them are
starting to abandon that compromise goal. Let us have a single democratic state in all of these lands, they say, and we don't mind if Israel never
returns to its 1967 borders.

We will just demand our equal democratic rights within this larger country that includes all the land now controlled by Israel, and our votes
will change Israel from a "Jewish democracy" to a multi-ethnic, post-Zionist democratic state. (Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, has
already adopted this strategy.)

That is the spectre that haunts Ehud Olmert and every other thinking Israeli. If you cannot make the two-state solution work, then you
get the one-state solution, and Palestinians will soon be a majority within the borders of that single state.

Israel has the military power to deny the vote to Palestinians in the "occupied territories" indefinitely, but in that case it will look more
and more like apartheid-era South Africa, with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as its Bantustans. Even its American supporters will turn away in the
end, and it will, as Olmert put it, be "finished."

That would not happen next year, or even in five or ten years, but the possibility is now permanently on the table. Even on the right, many
Israelis are concluding that a Palestinian state is essential to the long-term survival of a Jewish state -- but many others still think that a
two-state deal is either undesirable or impossible, and hope that the current round of peace talks fails.

They will probably not be disappointed, for Olmert's cabinet would collapse if he made any major concessions on Jerusalem or Palestinian
refugees in the talks. His negotiating partner, Mahmoud Abbas, only controls half of the Palestinian population in the occupied territories.
Eighty-three percent of Israelis think there will be no peace deal in the next year, and expectations among Palestinians are even lower. But the
question is as valid as ever: "If not now, when?"

__________________

I'm a leftwing fascist, disease spreading, devil worshipper!

Actually Palestinians HAVE been self-ruling partially since Oslo (1993), and even more so from about 2000.

In case you haven't noticed, and despite their INTERNAL partition/division.. there is a virtual palestinian State (or two) with an elected PM and Representatives.
The Palestinians have been offered a state (I believe about 9 times) since 1948.
The original partition, Rabin, and Barak coming to mind for now.
The intifada/still-ongoing-WAR itself WAS the Arafat 'counteroffer' to Barak's proposal for Two States.
How quickly they forget!
And how rampant revisionism is in this conflict.

Israel, also, offered Complete withdrawal just after the 1967 War in exchange for mere recognition- the Arabs refused (Khartoum Conference).
Thus "Occupation".

Not that the Arabs ever intended a 'palestine'.

You'll note there was no 'Palestine' between 1948 and 1967 when Arabs controlled the land in question.

In the PLO's 1964 [still Unamended] Charter, in fact, they reject all claims to the West Bank. Which brings up the point- what exactly were the 'Liberating' in 1964 before any 'occupation'.

The vast majority of Israelis have always been in favor of the Two State solution- obviously in 1948 and until the present day.

Math not generally considered a Jewish shortcoming.
A One state solution with an Arab Muslim majority means the end of israel/Jews- as it means the end off every people that has [had] it. Lebanon about the last country with significant Christians - and it is of course Dar al-Harb.

as to the refugees and 'return' .. more later- duty calls.

There is a world of difference between a state on paper and a state that is viable


yes...and didn't he get assassinated by an Israeli extremist?

The problem with Israeli politics is that it is not anywhere near as unified as the politics of the American Jewish political interests. Israel may have long wanted a two state solution however it is impossible for any government to be formed in Israel without the support of it's hardliners and orthodox Jewish minorities - these groups don't believe in giving up any land and are in the forfront of de-arabizing Jeruselum and pushing for settlement expansions. The end result is a two-state solution that creates on state that can not be viable economically or defensable or wholey independent of Israeli whim.

Oh, I agree - in fact the author agrees. A one state solution would be demographic suicide and a right of return is something that the Palestinians will likely have to give up as a bargaining point. Perhaps though, some compensation is in order.

And, by the way - it does not mean the end of Israeli jews - Jews and Muslims have lived peaceably together in that area for centuries. In fact, Jews - historically - faired better under Muslim rule then they did under Christian rule. There is no reason why they could not live peaceably again.

__________________

I'm a leftwing fascist, disease spreading, devil worshipper!

If anyone is under the mistaken impression that Palestine should be shared between the Israeli's and the Palastinians, please look back into history and tell me how that has ever worked, in the past.

I think they should say to whomever wants to stay within their boarders, either you play by our rules or you get out.

I think they should maintain a 10 mile exclusion zone around their boarder and force anyone coming into the country to either fly in, or go through one of only three land entry points.

Rafa in the west.
Masada in the east.
And Mizip Hanita to the north.

I think the 1943 and 1949 Armistice Lines should be removed and they should take back the western territories all the way back to Syria and Gaza back.

I think Jerusalem should be Israeli.

I think that if Israel believed a little more about their history, they could do this with complete impunity.

Two state solution is only for Chamberliniots and their willingness to sell their souls for compromise.

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

Correct me if I am misunderstanding you but - are you suggesting that Israel permanently annex all occupied territories...?

If so - it would certainly cease to be a "Jewish state".

If not - what happens with those territories?

Do you maintain a permanent occupation with an apartheid system?

__________________

I'm a leftwing fascist, disease spreading, devil worshipper!

Yeah Grant what are you saying?

PErsonally I think Israels best bet is to use the settlements they've made as a barganing chip to get the Palestinians within their boarders out. I.e. you can't stay here but you can move into a nice settlement house.

If they don't they're just delaying the problem. Eventually they will be outbred by the Arabs.

I think Israel mostly needs to decide if it's a democracy or a Jewish state. It can't be both.

__________________
Man up.

Palestine was Created in Two pieces... like Michigan. (not really)
One can question if that's Viable or not but in the main that's not Israel's fault.- perhaps the UN would be your beef.

He did indeed.
Of Course in Palestine- certainly in the Southern part/Hamastan, the 'Extremists' are in charge.
And they are making gains in the WB too.
They reject any recognition of the state of Israel. Period.
They have said, between firing missiles, they would accept the classic Muslim 'Hudna', temporary treaty.
See: http://www.iris.org.il/plophase.htm

Viability partially dealt with above.. but as to the 'Occupied' parts....
Please read the string on Resolution 242.

That resolution always foresaw Israel making small adjustments in it's favor to the 1967 line- even the anti-Israel UN recognizing it was a Defensive if pre-emptive war.
The Fence currently runs 3% into the WB and Gaza has been returned completely.

I am in favor of that 1967 adjusted line 'Palestine'; roughly where the fence runs now... and a border adjustment that was thought fair after 3 attempts to wipe out the Jewish State. Virtually no one has even gotten that many tries before losing territory (Check 20th C political maps).
Outposts 'illegal settlments' outside the fence would be shut of course.. unless they want to try living under Arab Rule.
We all know what would happen to them- and it wouldn't be the same way Israel's 20% Arab/'palestinian' minority is treated.


You contradict yourself above- but end with something certainly Wrong.
Jews would flee a majority palestinian state as even Chrsitain Arabs have fled/been forced out since Oslo gave Muslims rule over FORMERLY Christian cities like Bethlehem, Beit Jalla, etc.

The Palestinian majority even if they agreed to No 'right of Return' (a Bogus 'Right' to begin with) would allow a flooding in of Arabs no matter what the constitutuion said. Who would stop them?
Be serious.
Jews would be zoned out, Shaken down, and eventually cleansed from 'greater palestine'.

To suggest anything else is Not serious discussion.

What US Grant is saying and WAS viable for short time- but certainly not now, was the pushing of all the Arabs off the West Bank as was certainly possible as a/the conclusion to the 1967 war if Israel was indeed 'land greedy'.
But they really didn't know what to to with the territory - and no one has been decisive enough since.

But if all the Palestinians had become Jordanians (as Jordan had annexed the WB in 1948 anyway. King Hussein only ceded to the WB to 'Palestine' after He Lost it). Then despite the fact there would have been more injustice for a time.. there would not be ongoing war.. but a Solid understandable defendable Border at the Jordan River and peace long ago.

Sure it can be both.
Israel IS currently a "Jewish State " in character but is Secular in practice .. and Democratic too.
Israel is NOT a 'Jewish State' like Saudi Arabia is a Muslim one!
A 'Jewish State' doesn't mean a theocracy.

What cannot be done is incorporating all the occupied territories and still be anything at all- Jewish or Democratic.

The 'one state's most powerful party would be an Iran supported Hamas.
Liberal and tolerant Democracy?
Forget it.
After they eliminatd the Jews they'd be back to the current two factions killing each other.

I have often mused that if there was never an Israel-- how many MORE Dead Arabs there would be in the Same geography! .. but less press of course.
ie, http://www.danielpipes.org/books/greaterchap.php

I think what he might have meant by Jewish state or democracy is that at some point Jews will be outnumbered by Arabs. At which point Hamas would be the leading Israeli political party.

Again I think the way out is coaxing the Arabs in Israel to take all the settlement housing and that absolutely lock down the boarders.