17 results back to index
After Zionism: One State for Israel and Palestine by Antony Loewenstein, Ahmed Moor
Boycotts of Israel, British Empire, cognitive dissonance, colonial rule, drone strike, facts on the ground, ghettoisation, land reform, Naomi Klein, one-state solution, Ronald Reagan, Rosa Parks, young professional
A widening and positive debate in print and on the internet about the one-state solution has become commonplace.1 Israeli and Jewish scholars have also been converted to the same cause.2 In the last few years especially, a Jewish/Israeli surge in the debate on the one-state solution has become apparent.3 Meron Benvenisti’s major 5,000-word essay in Haaretz’s 22 January 2010 supplement is a striking indication of this surge. In addition, mainstream western publications now regularly carry articles on the one-state solution, unheard of just ten years ago. Examples include the Los Angeles Times (Saree Makdisi, “Forget the Two-state Solution,” 11 May 2008), Newsweek (Sari Nusseibeh “The One-state Solution”, 29 August 2008), the Irish Times (“Nudge Towards Alternatives in the Middle East”, 13 March 2010), Foreign Policy (Dmitry Reider, “Who’s Afraid of the One-state Solution?”, 31 March 2010), and the Washington Post (George Bisharat, “Israel and Palestine: A True One-state Solution”, 3 September 2010). Since 2000 several US and European one-state groups have come and gone, but they have constantly been replaced by new ones,4 and an increasing number of conferences have been held on the one-state solution.
THIRTEEN How Feasible is the One-State Solution? Ghada Karmi Introduction Not long ago, the idea of a one-state solution for the conflict in Israel/Palestine was the preserve of a few intellectuals and activists on both sides. Over the last ten years, however, this vision has become an increasingly valid one for discussion and debate. Traditionally, the one-state idea has had its greatest appeal for Palestinians in the Diaspora, but even then amongst a small minority. Various Palestinian scholars and activists have written about the advantages of the one-state solution, as isolated works of interest mainly to similar enthusiasts. But today the situation has changed. A widening and positive debate in print and on the internet about the one-state solution has become commonplace.1 Israeli and Jewish scholars have also been converted to the same cause.2 In the last few years especially, a Jewish/Israeli surge in the debate on the one-state solution has become apparent.3 Meron Benvenisti’s major 5,000-word essay in Haaretz’s 22 January 2010 supplement is a striking indication of this surge.
With a few small exceptions, no major institution or mass movement has adopted any variant of the one-state solution. Indeed, endorsements at any official level have stemmed only from marginal groups or states outside the “western club”: in 2004 the US Green Party adopted the one-state solution at its national convention; former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani once called for a united government of Israel and the Palestinian territories; and Libya’s former and discredited head of state, Colonel Qaddafi, proposed in 2003 that a unitary Israel/Palestine (which he named “Isratine”) be created in place of the current arrangement. The reality that must be faced is that opponents of the one-state solution far outnumber its supporters, and much of that is based on what they see as the enormous obstacles to its implementation. This has led to the view that the one-state solution is very good in principle but it can never happen, and the dearth of ideas for its implementation has only strengthened this perception.
Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on Israel's War Against the Palestinians by Ilan Pappé, Noam Chomsky, Frank Barat
Ayatollah Khomeini, Boycotts of Israel, British Empire, desegregation, European colonialism, facts on the ground, failed state, friendly fire, ghettoisation, Islamic Golden Age, New Journalism, one-state solution, price stability, too big to fail
Do you think that because of the situation in Gaza and the ever-spreading settlements, the pendulum will now swing toward a one-state solution as being the only possible end point to the conflict? Two points of clarification are necessary. First, there is a crucial difference between a one-state solution and a binational state. In general, nation-states have been imposed with substantial violence and repression for one reason—because they seek to force varied and complex populations into a single mold. One of the more healthy developments in Europe today is the revival of some degree of regional autonomy and cultural identity, reflecting somewhat more closely the nature of the populations. In the case of Israel-Palestine, a one-state solution will arise only on the U.S. model: with extermination or expulsion of the indigenous population.
The resolution of a conflict can only occur when such a lid can be put firmly on the past and bring its horrors and evils to a close. At the academic and civil society level this realization is solid and has created fertile ground for the discussion about a one-state solution. However, this is unfortunately not the case with the mainstream media and political arena in the West or in the Arab world. There is a better chance to debate the historical narrative that to propagate the one-state solution at this stage in the struggle. Mainstream media and politicians reject out of hand the one-state solution, but may be willing to accept that their historical narrative so far was distorted and wrong and that they should view the conflict as a process that began in 1948, even in 1882, and not in 1967. In other words what should be hammered in is that what the “desperadoes” call the facts on the ground that gradually made the desired two-state solution impossible were not an accident.
Meanwhile we are quietly observing a rare event in history, what the late Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling called “politicide,” the murder of a nation—at our hands.91 FIVE BLUEPRINT FOR A ONE-STATE MOVEMENT: A TROUBLED HISTORY The demise of the Oslo Accord at the very beginning of the twenty-first century gave special impetus to the old/new idea of a one-state solution. It seems to be with us again and the interest in it grows by the day. And yet it does not appear as an item on the agenda of any actor of significance on the Palestine chessboard. Neither major powers nor small political factions endorse it as a vision or strategy let alone as a tactic for the future. Its attractiveness, however, is undeniable given the failure of the alternative solutions. This seems to be the appropriate moment to ponder its past history and its future trajectory. This essay does not wish to recap the faults of the two-state solution, nor does it strive to argue for the advantages of the one-state solution. The purpose here is first to remind readers that although the idea today is hypothetical, theoretical, and quite abstract, it used be a concrete plan, strategy, and vision.
On Palestine by Noam Chomsky, Ilan Pappé, Frank Barat
Boycotts of Israel, British Empire, cognitive dissonance, conceptual framework, David Brooks, facts on the ground, failed state, ghettoisation, Naomi Klein, Nelson Mandela, one-state solution, Stephen Hawking
Frank Barat Brussels September 2014 Chapter One The Old and New Conversations Ilan Pappé When Frank Barat and I sat with Noam Chomsky for a long discussion about Palestine we divided our conversation into three parts: a discussion on the past, focusing on understanding Zionism as a historical phenomenon; a conversation about the present, with a particular focus on the validity and desirability of applying the apartheid model to Israel and on the efficacy of the BDS movement as a major strategy of solidarity with the Palestinian people; and finally, in talking about the future, we discussed the choice between a two-state and a one-state solution. The principal purpose of these meetings was to help us all clarify our views in light of the dramatic changes not only in Israel and Palestine in recent years but in the region as a whole. We assumed that many readers would agree with us that Chomsky’s take on Palestine, at the present historical juncture, is a crucial contribution for any relevant discussion on the issue. We hope that this conversation helps to clarify the Palestine issue, specifically highlighting the possible transition that is taking place in the solidarity movement with the Palestinians, with wide implications for the struggle from within Israel/Palestine.
We need a more guarded approach when offering this new perspective, as we are not only challenging the hegemonic powers but also the convictions of many Palestinians and genuine friends of the Palestine cause. Hence framing this challenge as a conversation may be more helpful. I suggest enhancing this conversation by producing a theoretical dictionary, specific to the Palestine issue, that gradually replaces the old one. The new dictionary contains decolonization, regime change, one-state solution, and other terms discussed in the following pages and later with Noam Chomsky and others who try to find a way forward and out of an ongoing catastrophe. With the help of these entries, I hope to reexamine the hegemonic discourse employed by both the powers that be and the solidarity movement with Palestine. However, before presenting the entries in the new dictionary, I would like to look more closely at the waning of the old one still dominating the conversation about Palestine among diplomats, academics, politicians, and activists in the West.
Granted, the official peace camp in Israel and the liberal Zionist organizations worldwide still subscribe to the view—as do leftist politicians in Europe. In some ways, known and famous friends of the cause still endorse it—some, it seems, even religiously—in the name of realpolitik and efficiency. But the vast majority of activists are looking for a new way out. The emergence of the BDS movement, through the call for such action by Palestinian civil society inside and outside of Palestine, the growing interests and support for the one-state solution, and the emergence of a clearer, albeit small, anti-Zionist peace camp in Israel, has provided an alternative thinking. The new movement, which is supported by activists all around the world and inside Israel and Palestine, is modeled on the anti-apartheid solidarity movement. This has become clear by the prominence of BDS as the main tactic on campuses during Israel Apartheid Week—apartheid now an acceptable and common term used by student activists on behalf of the Palestine cause.
Letters to My Palestinian Neighbor by Yossi Klein Halevi
Given the failure of the peace process and the emotional resistance on both sides to partition, it is tempting to embrace a one-state solution, in which Palestinians and Israelis will somehow jointly govern. But those promoting that seeming solution are deceiving themselves. The only solution worse than dividing this land into two states is creating one state that would devour itself. No two peoples who have fought a hundred-year existential war can share the intimate workings of government. The current conflict between us would pale beside the rage that would erupt when competing for the same means of power. The most likely model is the disintegration of Yugoslavia into its warring ethnic and religious factions—perhaps even worse. A one-state solution would condemn us to a nightmare entwinement—and deprive us both of that which justice requires: self-determination, to be free peoples in our own sovereign homelands.
The transcript of that talk made headlines in Israel. Arafat’s defenders tried to reassure Israelis: He’s just playing to the crowd. But the cumulative impact of Arafat’s rhetoric reinforced the deepest Israeli fears of being deceived, of lowering our guard. Like most Israelis, I came to believe we’d been played for fools. A two-state solution had never been Arafat’s intention—except as prelude to a one-state solution, the end of the Jewish people’s dream of sovereignty. For Israel there would be no peace, only territorial withdrawals accompanied by terrorism. The Israeli Right was vindicated: More Israeli concessions led to more terror. In supporting the Oslo process, I had violated one of the commanding voices of Jewish history, the warning against naïveté. I had confused war for peace, one big Palestine for two smaller states.
Though every Israeli government in recent years has affirmed a two-state solution, and though there is a long-standing majority of Israelis supporting two states, our side has shown its lack of good faith in the most literal way possible—through concrete and mortar, expanding settlements. And the daily message your society conveys to itself is that a two-state solution is merely a Palestinian tactic on the way to a one-state solution. In the last two decades, Palestinian leaders have rejected every peace offer in part because of their maximalist interpretation of return. For them, the precondition for peace is my agreement to commit suicide. I am looking out at Anata, the Shuafat refugee camp, one of the Palestinian villages and neighborhoods within view of my porch. Unlike the refugee camps in Gaza, where Palestinian authorities forbid substantial improvements in living conditions, here at least houses are being built.
Who Rules the World? by Noam Chomsky
"Robert Solow", Albert Einstein, anti-communist, Ayatollah Khomeini, Berlin Wall, Bretton Woods, British Empire, capital controls, corporate governance, corporate personhood, cuban missile crisis, deindustrialization, Donald Trump, Doomsday Clock, Edward Snowden, en.wikipedia.org, facts on the ground, failed state, Fall of the Berlin Wall, Howard Zinn, illegal immigration, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), invisible hand, liberation theology, Malacca Straits, Martin Wolf, Mikhail Gorbachev, Monroe Doctrine, Nelson Mandela, nuclear winter, Occupy movement, oil shale / tar sands, one-state solution, Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances, precariat, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Ronald Reagan, South China Sea, Stanislav Petrov, structural adjustment programs, The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, Thorstein Veblen, too big to fail, trade route, union organizing, uranium enrichment, wage slave, WikiLeaks, working-age population
Non-Aligned Movement Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) NORAD North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Northern Alliance North Korea North Vietnam Norway nuclear weapons Nuremberg tribunal Obama, Barack assassinations and climate change and Cuba and economy and energy and habeas corpus and Israel and Latin America and nuclear weapons and terrorism and torture and Obeid, Sheikh Abdul Karim Occupied Territories Occupy movement oil. See also energy Okinawa Oman one-state solution Ornstein, Norman Orwell, George Oslo Accords Oslo Peace Research Institute Ostrom, Elinor Ottoman Empire Oxfam Ozanne, Julian Pacific Rim Pakistan Palestine (Carter) Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Palestinian Authority (PA) Palestinian National Council (PNC) Palestinians. See also Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and specific territories binational secular democracy and elections of 2006 expulsion of “external” vs “internal” Palestinian state. See also one-state solution; two-state solution Palmerston, Lord. See Temple, Henry John Panama Paris agreement on climate change Paterson, Thomas Peace Now Pearl Harbor attacks Pentagon Peres, Shimon Pérez, Louis Peri, Yoram Perry, William Persian Gulf personhood Peru Peterson, David Petraeus, David Petrov, Stanislav Philippines Physicians for Global Survival Physicians for Social Responsibility Pillar of Defense, Operation Pinochet, Augusto Plain of Jars plutonomy Political Science Quarterly Polk, William Porter, Bernard Power, Samantha Pravda presumption of innocence preventive war prisons and incarceration privatization “Problem Is Palestinian Rejectionism, The” (Kuperwasser and Lipner) Program for Public Consultation Protective Edge, Operation Providentialist doctrines public opinion public relations Puerto Rico Pugwash Conferences Putin, Vladimir Qaddafi, Muammar al- Qatar Question of Torture, A (McCoy) Rabbani, Mouin Rabin, Yitzhak Rachman, Gideon radical fundamentalist Islam.
The near-inevitable outcome, “one state for two nations,” will pose “an immediate existential threat of the erasure of the identity of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state,” which would soon have a Palestinian-Arab majority.1 On similar grounds, in Britain’s leading journal of international affairs two prominent Middle East specialists, Clive Jones and Beverly Milton-Edwards, write that “if Israel wishes to be both Jewish and democratic,” it must embrace “the two-state solution.”2 It is easy to cite many other examples, but unnecessary, because it is assumed almost universally that there are two options for mandatory Palestine: either two states—Palestinian and Jewish-democratic—or one state “from the sea to the river.” Israeli commentators express concern about the “demographic problem”: too many Palestinians in a Jewish state. Many Palestinians and their advocates support the “one-state solution,” anticipating a civil-rights, anti-apartheid struggle that will lead to secular democracy. Other analysts also consistently pose the options in similar terms. This analysis is almost universal, but crucially flawed. There is a third option—namely, the option that Israel is pursuing with constant U.S. support—and this third option is the only realistic alternative to the two-state settlement.
Hussein, Saddam Husseini, Faisal Ibrahim, Youssef Ickes, Harold immigrants imperialism India Indians (Native Americans) indigenous populations Indochina Indonesia industrial revolution Industrial Workers of the World inequality Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) internal security International Court of Justice International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia International Energy Agency International Monetary Fund (IMF) International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War International Security Intifada Iran coup of 1953 Iran Air Flight 655 Iran-Iraq war Iraq U.S. invasion of Ireland Iron Fist operations ISIS (Islamic State) Islamic Jihad Islamic world Israel. See also Jerusalem; one-state solution; two-state solution; and specific operations, wars, and territories Buenos Aires embassy bombing demography and Gaza and Greater Iran and Lebanon and Libya and North Korea and Oslo Accords and separation wall and settlements and Tunisia and Israeli-Arab wars 1967 1973 Israeli High Court of Justice Israeli Knesset Israeli-Palestinian conflict. See also Palestinians “Is There a Future for the NPT?”
The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz
affirmative action, Boycotts of Israel, British Empire, different worldview, facts on the ground, Jeffrey Epstein, Nelson Mandela, one-state solution, RAND corporation, Silicon Valley, the scientific method, Thomas L Friedman, trade route, Yom Kippur War
I believe in a one-state solution.”5 He, along with Chomsky, favors a binational secular state—an elitist and impractical solution that would have to be imposed on both sides, since virtually no Israelis or Palestinians would accept it (except as a ploy to destroy the other side’s state). To be sure, the poll numbers in favor of a two-state solution vary over time, especially according to circumstance. In times of violent conflict, more Israelis and more Palestinians reject compromise, but most reasonable cintro.qxd 6/25/03 4 7:59 AM Page 4 THE CASE FOR ISRAEL people realize that whatever particular individuals would hope for in theory or even claim as a matter of God-given right, the reality is that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians will go away or accept a one-state solution. Accordingly, the inevitability—and correctness—of some sort of two-state compromise is a useful beginning to any discussion that seeks a constructive resolution of this dangerous and painful conflict.
See Mohammed Muslims discrimination of non-Muslims by, 155, 156 Holocaust and, 54–58, 59, 60 Husseini as leader of, 40 bindex.qxd 6/25/03 262 8:44 AM Page 262 INDEX Muslims (continued) persecution of Jews by 17, 18–21, 58–61 Nasser, Gamal Abdel, 91–92, 142 Nazis, 52, 54–55, 57. See also Hitler; Holocaust “Nazi Scouts,” 54 Negev Desert, 68 neo-Nazis, 191, 232 “No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel,” 97 Novak, Bob, 123 nuclear weapons, in Israel, 103 Nusseibi, Hazam, 82 oil interests, 225 one-state solution, 4 Oren, Michael, 52, 93–94, 142–43 Oslo peace process, 72, 108 Oslo II Agreement of 1995, 88, 99, 109 Ottoman Empire, 17, 19, 21, 24, 33 Palestine and Camp David-Taba negotiations, 97, 105 demographics of, 24–28, 33, 34, 67–69 ethnicity in, 24–25, 26 and First Aliyah, 23–28 history of claims to, 4–5 and Israeli occupation, 96, 97, 241 Jewish majority in areas of, 17, 19, 27, 33, 59, 68–69 Jewish presence in, 5, 6, 15–21, 27–28, 35–36, 46 land purchases by Jews, 25–26 living conditions in, 27, 28, 46, 161 medical response to terrorism by, 125 non-Jewish immigrants to, 28 under Ottoman rule, 24 peace offers rejected by, 105–16, 176–77, 206–207 Phalangist massacre of 1982, 12 Phased Plan for liberation of, 72–73 post-World War I reorganization of, 33 shifting boundaries of, 24–25 statehood, 7–8, 159, 161–65, 177, 234, 235, 238–40 “takeover” by Jews of, 39–44 United Nations partitioning of.
The Idea of Israel: A History of Power and Knowledge by Ilan Pappe
affirmative action, Ayatollah Khomeini, Boycotts of Israel, British Empire, double helix, facts on the ground, feminist movement, Francis Fukuyama: the end of history, mass immigration, Nelson Mandela, New Journalism, one-state solution, postnationalism / post nation state, stem cell, urban planning, Yom Kippur War
Israel had failed to market itself as a peace-seeking Jewish and democratic state, hence the great success of the vicious delegitimisation campaign. If this campaign continued, warned the Reut Institute, Israel would become a pariah state and there would be no solution for the Palestinian question, bringing a one-state solution to the fore. When Zionist bodies warn against the danger of a one-state solution, what they mean is what Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert warned against in 2007: that Israel would necessarily end up as an apartheid state under such a scenario.33 ‘A tipping point in this context would be a paradigm shift from the Two-State Solution to the One-State Solution as the consensual framework for resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict’, states Reut. Even a comprehensive permanent status agreement would not be capable of putting an end to the delegitimisation campaign, because inherent in those efforts, contends Reut, is the negation of Israel’s right to exist.
Extreme Rambling: Walking Israel's Separation Barrier. For Fun. by Mark Thomas
And so he struts and frets his hour on a stage of his own making, answering questions of his own asking and railing against enemies of his own choosing: religious settlers sacrificing Israel on the altar of their egos; politicians immersed in ignorance; and the ever-indifferent, non-breeding, dog-owning, pastry-loving elite in Tel Aviv. To Soffer, their biggest crime is in failing to comprehend the greatest threat of all: the breeding Palestinians within the one-state solution, with two nationalities living within one country. For Soffer, the economic consequences of a one-state solution are disastrous: ‘The income gap between this village,’ – he points to the Palestinian side – ‘and this one,’ – he gestures to the Israeli homes – ‘is one to twenty. There is no other such place on earth.’ He pauses as if considering the magnitude of his own insight, and stares off into the abyss of a bi-national state. ‘Six million Jews will have to support six million Arabs, and the burden falls onto my middle-class shoulders.
Ten Myths About Israel by Ilan Pappe
And yet the demonstrators also expressed their skepticism and distrust concerning what their media and politicians tell them about the socioeconomic reality; this may open the way for a better understanding of the lies they have been fed about the “conflict” and their “national security” over so many years. The funeral should energize us all to follow the same distribution of labor as before. As urgently as ever, Palestinians need to solve the issue of representation. And the progressive Jewish forces in the world need to be more intensively recruited to the BDS and solidarity campaigns. In Palestine itself, the time has come to move the discourse of the one-state solution into political action, and maybe to adopt the new dictionary. Since the dispossession is everywhere, the repossession and reconciliation will have to occur everywhere. If the relationship between Jews and Palestinians is to be reframed on a just and democratic basis, then we can accept neither the old, buried map of the two-states solution nor its logic of partition. This also means that the sacred distinction between Jewish settlements in Israel (before 1967) and those in the West Bank (after 1967) should be consigned to the grave as well.
Catch-67: The Left, the Right, and the Legacy of the Six-Day War by Micah Goodman
Even if it is more likely that the demographic problem does not exist, it is still possible that the demographic problem might exist. Any right-wingers with a shred of intellectual honesty must take into account the risk that the left’s demographic nightmare could yet come true. In a rational calculation of that risk, given the demographic assumptions of the right, the loss of Israel’s Jewish majority is an unlikely but still devastating prospect—a high-impact, low-probability event. Betting on a one-state solution is like investing in a stock that analysts say has a small chance of falling but would be totally wiped out if it fell. No rational or responsible investors would put all their money in such a stock. This is the crux of the irrationality of right-wing supporters of annexation: they are willing to bet 100 percent of Israel’s survival on this one demographic stock. Nobody would board a plane who suspected there might be even a 10 percent chance that the plane would crash simply because the likelihood was low.
Propaganda and the Public Mind by Noam Chomsky, David Barsamian
Albert Einstein, Asian financial crisis, Bretton Woods, business cycle, capital controls, deindustrialization, European colonialism, experimental subject, Howard Zinn, Hyman Minsky, interchangeable parts, liberation theology, Martin Wolf, one-state solution, Ralph Nader, RAND corporation, school vouchers, Silicon Valley, structural adjustment programs, Thomas L Friedman, Tobin tax, Washington Consensus
Noam Chomsky, “Nationalism and Conflict in Palestine,” New Outlook (Israel) (November-December 1969). Reprinted in Noam Chomsky, Peace in the Middle East? Reflections on Justice and Nationhood (New York: Vintage Books, 1974), pp. 49-92. 23. Meron Benvenisti, Intimate Enemies: Jews and Arabs in a Shared Land (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995). 24. See Azmi Bishara, “Where Suicide Bombs Come From,” New York Times, February 17, 1995, p. A31. 25. Edward W. Said, “The One-State Solution,” New York Times Magazine, January 10, 1999, p. 6: 36ff. Or see Edward W. Said, “Truth and Reconciliation,” in The End of the Peace Process: Oslo and After (New York: Pantheon Books, 2000), pp. 312-21. 26. Bob Edwards, interview with James Glassman, NPR, Morning Edition, January 21, 1999. Peter Jennings, “No Easy Way to Save Social Security,” ABC, World News Tonight, December 8, 1998. 27.
The Biggest Prison on Earth: A History of the Occupied Territories by Ilan Pappé
Boycotts of Israel, British Empire, facts on the ground, friendly fire, ghettoisation, low skilled workers, New Urbanism, offshore financial centre, one-state solution, Panopticon Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Kuhn: the structure of scientific revolutions, urban planning, urban sprawl, Yom Kippur War
Retrieved 9 November 2015. 29.Lenczowski, American Presidents and the Middle East, 1990, p. 105. 30.LBJ, National Security File, Box 104/107, Middle East Crisis: Jerusalem to the Secretary of State, 8 June 1967; Barbour to Department, 8 June 1967; Joint Embassy Memorandum, 8 June 1967. 31.This early period is discussed in detail in Chomsky and Pappe, Gaza in Crisis, 2010, pp. 19–56. 32.A prediction made in the government meeting on 19 June 1967. 33.These quotes can be found in a special report on the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories, A Special Publication of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, February 1994. 34.Ibid. 35.See Chomsky and Pappe, Gaza in Crisis, 2010, pp. 19–56. 36.Israel State Archives, government meetings, 19 June 1967. 37.Ibid. 38.Haaretz published long quotes from this meeting, 2 November 2003. 39.Spiegel, The Other Arab–Israeli Conflict, 1985, p. 160, and Hershberg, ‘Ethnic Interest Groups and Foreign Policy’, 1973, pp. 27–8. 40.In Haaretz. 41.See, for instance, Haaretz and Maariv, 21 and 26 June 1967. 42.Haaretz, 7 June 1967. 43.This argument is made by Zertal and Eldar, Lords of the Land, 2009. 44.On Fulbright and AIPAC see Pappe, ‘Clusters of history’, pp. 4–27. 45.See further analysis on this in Pappe, The Forgotten Palestinians, 2011, pp. 94–100. 46.See Pappe, ‘Moshe Sharett, David Ben-Gurion and the “Palestinian Option”, pp. 77–95. 47.See ‘Palestinians revive idea of one-state solution’, Toronto Star, 15 September 2008. 48.Shehadeh, The Third Way, 1982. 49.Haaretz, 8 June 1967. Haaretz’s general line from 27 May 1967 was that Israel should attack Egypt, and later it supported an overall war. Chapter Three: The Greater Jerusalem as a Pilot Project 1.A dunam is a unit of land used in the Ottoman Empire and still in use in many parts of the Middle East. One dunam is about 1000 square metres, roughly equivalent to a quarter of an acre or 0.1 hectare. 2.See Goldstein, Eshkol: Biography, 2003, p. 736, note 914. 3.The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine was founded in 1967.
Hopes and Prospects by Noam Chomsky
"Robert Solow", Albert Einstein, banking crisis, Berlin Wall, Bretton Woods, British Empire, capital controls, colonial rule, corporate personhood, Credit Default Swap, cuban missile crisis, David Ricardo: comparative advantage, deskilling, en.wikipedia.org, energy security, failed state, Fall of the Berlin Wall, financial deregulation, Firefox, Howard Zinn, Hyman Minsky, invisible hand, liberation theology, market fundamentalism, Martin Wolf, Mikhail Gorbachev, Monroe Doctrine, moral hazard, Nelson Mandela, new economy, nuremberg principles, one-state solution, open borders, Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances, Ralph Waldo Emerson, RAND corporation, Ronald Reagan, structural adjustment programs, The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, too big to fail, total factor productivity, trade liberalization, uranium enrichment, Washington Consensus
Yossi Beilin, Mehiro shel Ihud (Tel Aviv: Revivim, 1985), 42, 147; the primary source for Israeli cabinet records under the Labor coalition, 1967–77. Dayan’s analogy, Gorenberg, Accidental Empire, 81–2. For more on these matters, see Failed States, chap. 5; my Middle East Illusions (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), chap. 6. Herald cited by James Bradley, The Imperial Cruise (New York: Little, Brown & Co., 2009), 63. 36. Sometimes called a “one-state solution,” though there clearly are two groups, each entitled to respect for their own cultural mix, language, and identity. 37. See Failed States, 193ff. 38. For an illustration, see economist Sever Plocker (“A Thorn in the World’s Side,” Yediot, November 3, 1999; http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3798761,00.html), describing with despair how he must cancel a lecture in Oxford because the anti-Israel atmosphere there is so extreme that he would be treated as a leper.
Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism by Stephen Graham
addicted to oil, airport security, anti-communist, autonomous vehicles, Berlin Wall, call centre, carbon footprint, clean water, congestion charging, creative destruction, credit crunch, DARPA: Urban Challenge, defense in depth, deindustrialization, digital map, edge city, energy security, European colonialism, failed state, Food sovereignty, Gini coefficient, global supply chain, Google Earth, illegal immigration, income inequality, knowledge economy, late capitalism, loose coupling, market fundamentalism, mass incarceration, McMansion, megacity, moral panic, mutually assured destruction, Naomi Klein, New Urbanism, offshore financial centre, one-state solution, pattern recognition, peak oil, planetary scale, private military company, Project for a New American Century, RAND corporation, RFID, Richard Florida, Scramble for Africa, Silicon Valley, smart transportation, surplus humans, The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, urban decay, urban planning, urban renewal, urban sprawl, Washington Consensus, white flight, white picket fence
The American Conservative, 24 March 2003. 20 Shlomo Brom, ‘An Intelligence Failure’, strategic assessment, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University, 6: 3, November 2003, 9. 21 Emad Mekay, ‘Iraq: War Launched to Protect Israel – Bush Adviser’, ipsnews.net, 29 March 2004. 22 Edward Said, ‘Collective Passion, Al-Ahram, September 2003, 20–6, cited in Derek Gregory, ‘Defiled cities’, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 24: 3, 2003, 307–26. 23 Joel Beinin, ‘The Israelization of American Middle East Policy Discourse’, 125. 24 James Brooks, ‘Israelization of America’. 25 Ilan Berman, ‘New Horizons for the American-Israeli Partnership’, Journal of International Security Affairs, Summer 2004, 78. 26 See Jonathan Cook, Israel and the Clash of Civilisations, London: Pluto, 2008, Chapter 3. 27 Ibid. 28 Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000, ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm’, report prepared by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, 1996, available at www.israeleconomy.org. 29 Donald Pease, ‘Between the Homeland and Abu Ghraib: Dwelling in Bush’s Biopolitical Settlement’, in Ashley Dawson and Malini Johar Schueller, eds, Exceptional State: Contemporary US Culture and the New Imperialism, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007, 62, 65. 30 Luiza Bialasiewicz et al., ‘Performing Security: Lhe Imaginative Geographies of Current US Strategy’, Political Geography 26, 405–22, 2007. 31 Dag Tuastad, ‘Neo-Orientalism and the New Barbarism Thesis’, 591–99. 32 Patai, The Arab Mind. 33 Mishra, ‘In Search of Monsters to Destroy’. 34 Agamben, Homo Sacer. 35 Omar Barghouti, ‘Relative Humanity – The Fundamental Obstacle to a One State Solution’, ZNet, 16 December 2003. 36 Dexter Filkins, ‘A Region Inflamed: Tough New Tactics by US Tighten Grip on Iraq Towns’, New York Times, 7 December 2003. 37 Assaf Oron, ‘An Open Letter to Jewish Americans’, Seruv.Org, March 2002. 38 Jasbir Puar and Amit Rai, ‘Monster, Terrorist, Fag: The War’. 39 Carl Boggs and Tom Pollard, ‘Hollywood and the Spectacle of Terrorism’, New Political Science 9: 6, 2006. 40 Alastair Crooke, ‘New Orientalism’s ‘‘Barbarians’’ and ‘‘Outlaws’’, The Daily Star (Beirut), 5 September 2006. 41 Derek Gregory, ‘Who’s Responsible?’
Lemon Tree: An Arab, a Jew, and the Heart of the Middle East by Sandy Tolan
Albert Einstein, British Empire, Buy land – they’re not making it any more, colonial rule, en.wikipedia.org, facts on the ground, illegal immigration, indoor plumbing, one-state solution, The Spirit Level, Yom Kippur War
The pressures on Britain at the end of the colonial era and how this contributed to their quitting Palestine a year after quitting India were pointed out to me by Tom Segev in his comments on an early draft of my manuscript. The arrival of the UN fact-finding team, known as the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine, or UNSCOP, is mentioned in Righteous Victims, pp. 180-84, and in Segev, pp. 495-96. Palestinians' concerns about the potential fate of Arabs in a Jewish state and their desire for a one-state solution come from several sources, including an interview with the Palestinian scholar Naseer Aruri. The fractured nature of Palestinian society in 1947, particularly in the wake of the Arab Rebellion, is discussed in Rashid Khalidi's Palestinian Identity, pp. 190—92; Yoav Gelber's Palestine 1948, pp. 31-33; and Ilan Pappe's A History of Modern Palestine, pp. 119-20. Further corroboration of Palestinian- Arab disunity on the eve of war was provided by Hillel Cohen, author of Shadow Army: Palestinian Collaborators in the Service of Zionism: 1917-1948 (in Hebrew), and Michael J.
The Zionist Ideas: Visions for the Jewish Homeland—Then, Now, Tomorrow by Gil Troy
affirmative action, Albert Einstein, demand response, different worldview, European colonialism, financial independence, ghettoisation, Mahatma Gandhi, mass immigration, Nelson Mandela, one-state solution, Silicon Valley, union organizing, urban planning, Yom Kippur War, young professional, zero-sum game
Nevertheless, many young Israelis are articulating updated Zionist visions. “I find Zionism today still a dynamic word we can actually use,” one Israeli fighter pilot turned high-school teacher recently proclaimed. “Judaism and Israel are too solid. Zionism [invites me to] create what I think Israel should be.” Another activist invokes the word to distinguish himself from other leftists who seek a one-state solution. Using the “Z-word” broadcasts his commitment to a Jewish state. The Zionist Beauty Myth could easily paralyze Rachel Sharansky Danziger. One of two daughters of Natan and Avital Sharansky, she grew up in the Jerusalem home of two Zionist icons: the Soviet dissident who resisted the KGB, and his equally indomitable wife who fought ferociously for his freedom. Every February 11, the family celebrates what Danziger calls “a private ‘seder’ of sorts,” marking the day her father was freed after nine years’ imprisonment and arrived in Israel.
George Marshall: Defender of the Republic by David L. Roll
anti-communist, British Empire, Charles Lindbergh, David Brooks, Defenestration of Prague, Donald Trump, European colonialism, fear of failure, invisible hand, MITM: man-in-the-middle, Monroe Doctrine, mutually assured destruction, one-China policy, one-state solution, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Simon Kuznets, South China Sea, Steve Jobs, trade liberalization, Works Progress Administration, yellow journalism
“Trusteeship” was not proposed as “a substitute for the partition plan,” it said, but merely as a temporary “effort to fill the vacuum” that would be created when the British mandate expired at midnight on May 14. This was intended to convey the thought that partition—establishment of a sovereign Jewish state and a separate state for Palestinian Arabs—remained the ultimate goal. In the next sentence, the press statement said that “trusteeship does not prejudice the character of the final political settlement.” This point obviously opened the door to a one-state solution or some other political settlement that would not involve partition and a separate Jewish state. Truman was known for plain speaking. However, his press release, drafted by Clifford, was anything but. Moreover, in addressing the use of force, Truman’s release, in a backhanded way, endorsed the UN Charter interpretation first advocated by Marshall and Lovett in February and in addition said that in any case American troops would not be used in Palestine “as a matter of national policy.”68 Just as Truman’s press release did little to repair the negative political fallout from Austin’s statement to the UN, Marshall’s effort to arrange a truce came to naught.