From 26 to 28 November 2010 was held in Stuttgart, a Palestinian solidarity conference, entitled "Separate past - Common Future", Stuttgart, which resulted in a so-called Declaration has been published, which advocated for a state solution as a "silver bullet" to solve the Middle East conflict on behalf of the speakers and the majority of participants. The characteristic style of explanation is in parts aggressive and polemical. It is not offered a substantive alternative, but the proponents of a two-state solution can be discredited so that they would supposedly hold "dogmatic" in such and the "realities" ignored. Furthermore, would deepen a two-state solution to the "inequality" and cement. Completely dishonest is the implicit connection between state solution and the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions). A winning international support to movement which aims to end the occupation of the Palestinian homeland by Israel, is a non-political, because unrealistic goals as the one-state solution.
The debate about a one-state solution is almost as old as the conflict itself. Not only the signatories of the "Stuttgart Declaration" have discovered this, but already Martin Buber, Gershom Scholem and many others, they are in the thirties and forties of the 20th Century for the most advanced of all solutions used. Matzpen in Israel, the Communist Party of Israel, even the Communist Federation in the Federal Republic of Germany have called for a multi-national state in Palestine. The story is unfortunately passed over it. Could the Jewish representative of a single state has not prevail against the idea of the then representative of Zionism on the international stage, the less the current representative of this idea to be heard. The establishment of a Jewish state was the latest since the promulgation of the "Balfour Declaration" defined target not only of the British Empire, but at least since the presidency of Woodrow Wilson and the goal of U.S. foreign policy, by the Zionist representatives not to speak. Anyone familiar with the debate at the United Nations, should know that the Zionist representatives at that time pursued a single objective, namely the establishment of a Jewish state on the basis of "public law". The Holocaust has played no role in this debate. The only power which had established that argument for the establishment of the state in the debate was the then representative of the Soviet Union in the UN Security Council, Andrei Gromyko. His argument for the right of the Jewish people to statehood based on the catastrophe of the Holocaust, as John Strawson from the University of East London "in its investigation" partitioning Palestine "convincing has documented.
Since all political actions of the Palestinian resistance and the negotiation of a two-state solution have been fruitless, it seems the authors of the "Stuttgart Declaration" to be concluded to try it once with actions to achieve one-state solution. The politically fatal, however, that this proposal with the currently running BDS campaign combine to be focused on another goal to achieve and, through international pressure to end the occupation of Palestinian land. Thus, the BDS campaign inflicted serious damage because it is the Palestinian and international campaign with a utopian political Call overloaded, so something is counterproductive. Thus divisive tendencies first the Dortmund area planner Viktoria Waltz has noted in an email that has created quite a stir within the community. And Thomas Immanuel Steinberg emphasized this negative aspect.
The demand for one-state solution in Israel has perhaps a dozen supporters who have no political influence. The entire political elite of the country is against it. Also among the Palestinian political elite there seems to be frustrated, who had hoped the so-called peace process, a "Singapore". Now you want from the wreckage of their political ability of the Israeli occupation throw the feet and settle back comfortably in the American-European-funded occupation. A one-state solution would mean for them the acceptance of second-class citizens for ever. Even the Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery, who is regarded by the right-wing nationalist and extreme right-wing circles as "extreme left" keeps this concept at all. "The empty talk of a few professors who have simply had enough of Israel's resolve and do it." Also for Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and Felicia Langer political and international legal reasons against the concept of a one-state solution.
It is strange that the "umbrella woman" Stuttgarter this event was not notified in advance of that explanation. In your speech at this conference, they explained that they say that the two-state solution is no longer in question come, because this border to the Palestinians only in a Bantustan could do what was unacceptable to them. She reminded the audience the fact that the French colonial power was transferred to their defeat in Algeria a million French settlers from the country. The one-state solution has "beautiful qualities", but they fear that it is "unrealistic" is. In an interview with me Felicia Langer: "The final document - the so-called Stuttgart Declaration - splits, rather than concentrate on the most important task, namely the struggle against occupation and the current barbaric Israeli policies toward Palestinians. The Palestinian people must decide alone on the solution, and we should support his campaign. An offensive terminology of the 'dogmatic adherence to the so-called international community in the two-state solution', etc. is out of place. This declaration is split our ranks, whose unity we so desperately need ', it is an own goal, so I am against "
International Solidarity Movement. should focus on: it must be their primary to the end of Israeli occupation policies and go to establish a Palestinian state in accordance with international law. The right to a homeland and self determination for every nation to stand by international law. The two-state solution was already predetermined by the UN partition resolution. The representatives of the Palestinian people have to manage to make in 1988 in Algiers, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat as not only proclaimed the State of Palestine, but also recognized the state of Israel within the borders of 1967. The fact that the PLO was originally used once for a secular state in Palestine, is history. The entire international community supports the thesis of two states in the territory of historic Palestine. You should therefore do all that this objective is achieved quickly, or else no more territory is available, can build on the Palestinians their state. It must be the aim of founding this state on the basis of international law, this means that all since the occupation in 1967 unilaterally made policies of the occupying power should be reversed because it violates the international law. Main target countries of the solidarity movement must therefore be the U.S. and the major countries of the European Union, as they the most loyal Allies of Israel and support its international law and violate human rights policy without reservation. But the other UN member states are important, as demonstrated by the recent diplomatic recognition of a Palestinian state by Brazil, Argentina and Bolivia. The UN as an institution is still a duty to implement the second part of the partition resolution, politically, and that is the foundation of the State of Palestine to pursue priority.
The solidarity movement must also have a second thrust, namely, the domestic policy of the State of Israel. Israel defines itself as "Jewish and democratic", what wise and far-sighted Israelis consider an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, and a wrong way. Israel is largely a vibrant democracy, but in the classic sense of the word only for its Jewish citizens. All non-Jewish citizens of the country are second class citizens. There are numerous laws and regulations, which establish that the discriminatory status. The goal of the Solidarity movement must be to make this public, so that transformed Israel from a "ethnocracy" to democracy in the Western sense for all its residents. It is the duty of the supporters of Israel to abandon its double standards and convince the leadership of the country, to a to transform democracy in the classical Western understanding. Such a state of all its citizens in addition to a sovereign Palestinian state worthy of the name is in the interests of all concerned. A major obstacle on the road to full democracy seems to be the ideology of Zionism. It should therefore are also the focus of the Solidarity movement. How explosive is a Zionist-critical attitude which may extend to personal destruction, the example of Ilan Pappe, who, in order to be able to teach again free to go into exile in the UK had.
The Solidarity movement should remain aware that, whatever the Palestinian people after the end of Besetzung für sich in freier Selbstbestimmung entscheiden wird, ist zu akzeptieren. Primäres Ziel muss sein das Ende der Besetzung, alles andere wird sich dann ergeben.
The debate about a one-state solution is almost as old as the conflict itself. Not only the signatories of the "Stuttgart Declaration" have discovered this, but already Martin Buber, Gershom Scholem and many others, they are in the thirties and forties of the 20th Century for the most advanced of all solutions used. Matzpen in Israel, the Communist Party of Israel, even the Communist Federation in the Federal Republic of Germany have called for a multi-national state in Palestine. The story is unfortunately passed over it. Could the Jewish representative of a single state has not prevail against the idea of the then representative of Zionism on the international stage, the less the current representative of this idea to be heard. The establishment of a Jewish state was the latest since the promulgation of the "Balfour Declaration" defined target not only of the British Empire, but at least since the presidency of Woodrow Wilson and the goal of U.S. foreign policy, by the Zionist representatives not to speak. Anyone familiar with the debate at the United Nations, should know that the Zionist representatives at that time pursued a single objective, namely the establishment of a Jewish state on the basis of "public law". The Holocaust has played no role in this debate. The only power which had established that argument for the establishment of the state in the debate was the then representative of the Soviet Union in the UN Security Council, Andrei Gromyko. His argument for the right of the Jewish people to statehood based on the catastrophe of the Holocaust, as John Strawson from the University of East London "in its investigation" partitioning Palestine "convincing has documented.
Since all political actions of the Palestinian resistance and the negotiation of a two-state solution have been fruitless, it seems the authors of the "Stuttgart Declaration" to be concluded to try it once with actions to achieve one-state solution. The politically fatal, however, that this proposal with the currently running BDS campaign combine to be focused on another goal to achieve and, through international pressure to end the occupation of Palestinian land. Thus, the BDS campaign inflicted serious damage because it is the Palestinian and international campaign with a utopian political Call overloaded, so something is counterproductive. Thus divisive tendencies first the Dortmund area planner Viktoria Waltz has noted in an email that has created quite a stir within the community. And Thomas Immanuel Steinberg emphasized this negative aspect.
The demand for one-state solution in Israel has perhaps a dozen supporters who have no political influence. The entire political elite of the country is against it. Also among the Palestinian political elite there seems to be frustrated, who had hoped the so-called peace process, a "Singapore". Now you want from the wreckage of their political ability of the Israeli occupation throw the feet and settle back comfortably in the American-European-funded occupation. A one-state solution would mean for them the acceptance of second-class citizens for ever. Even the Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery, who is regarded by the right-wing nationalist and extreme right-wing circles as "extreme left" keeps this concept at all. "The empty talk of a few professors who have simply had enough of Israel's resolve and do it." Also for Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and Felicia Langer political and international legal reasons against the concept of a one-state solution.
It is strange that the "umbrella woman" Stuttgarter this event was not notified in advance of that explanation. In your speech at this conference, they explained that they say that the two-state solution is no longer in question come, because this border to the Palestinians only in a Bantustan could do what was unacceptable to them. She reminded the audience the fact that the French colonial power was transferred to their defeat in Algeria a million French settlers from the country. The one-state solution has "beautiful qualities", but they fear that it is "unrealistic" is. In an interview with me Felicia Langer: "The final document - the so-called Stuttgart Declaration - splits, rather than concentrate on the most important task, namely the struggle against occupation and the current barbaric Israeli policies toward Palestinians. The Palestinian people must decide alone on the solution, and we should support his campaign. An offensive terminology of the 'dogmatic adherence to the so-called international community in the two-state solution', etc. is out of place. This declaration is split our ranks, whose unity we so desperately need ', it is an own goal, so I am against "
International Solidarity Movement. should focus on: it must be their primary to the end of Israeli occupation policies and go to establish a Palestinian state in accordance with international law. The right to a homeland and self determination for every nation to stand by international law. The two-state solution was already predetermined by the UN partition resolution. The representatives of the Palestinian people have to manage to make in 1988 in Algiers, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat as not only proclaimed the State of Palestine, but also recognized the state of Israel within the borders of 1967. The fact that the PLO was originally used once for a secular state in Palestine, is history. The entire international community supports the thesis of two states in the territory of historic Palestine. You should therefore do all that this objective is achieved quickly, or else no more territory is available, can build on the Palestinians their state. It must be the aim of founding this state on the basis of international law, this means that all since the occupation in 1967 unilaterally made policies of the occupying power should be reversed because it violates the international law. Main target countries of the solidarity movement must therefore be the U.S. and the major countries of the European Union, as they the most loyal Allies of Israel and support its international law and violate human rights policy without reservation. But the other UN member states are important, as demonstrated by the recent diplomatic recognition of a Palestinian state by Brazil, Argentina and Bolivia. The UN as an institution is still a duty to implement the second part of the partition resolution, politically, and that is the foundation of the State of Palestine to pursue priority.
The solidarity movement must also have a second thrust, namely, the domestic policy of the State of Israel. Israel defines itself as "Jewish and democratic", what wise and far-sighted Israelis consider an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, and a wrong way. Israel is largely a vibrant democracy, but in the classic sense of the word only for its Jewish citizens. All non-Jewish citizens of the country are second class citizens. There are numerous laws and regulations, which establish that the discriminatory status. The goal of the Solidarity movement must be to make this public, so that transformed Israel from a "ethnocracy" to democracy in the Western sense for all its residents. It is the duty of the supporters of Israel to abandon its double standards and convince the leadership of the country, to a to transform democracy in the classical Western understanding. Such a state of all its citizens in addition to a sovereign Palestinian state worthy of the name is in the interests of all concerned. A major obstacle on the road to full democracy seems to be the ideology of Zionism. It should therefore are also the focus of the Solidarity movement. How explosive is a Zionist-critical attitude which may extend to personal destruction, the example of Ilan Pappe, who, in order to be able to teach again free to go into exile in the UK had.
The Solidarity movement should remain aware that, whatever the Palestinian people after the end of Besetzung für sich in freier Selbstbestimmung entscheiden wird, ist zu akzeptieren. Primäres Ziel muss sein das Ende der Besetzung, alles andere wird sich dann ergeben.
0 comments:
Post a Comment