When I on 24 December 2010, the emotionally-charged opinion of Attia and Verena Rajab against my contribution " one-or two-state solution for Palestine? had "on the Web site Palestine portal read," I have a brief written reply , because I feel it below my level, I deal with such indisputable text. This text actually appeared again in the online newspaper "Neue Rheinische Zeitung of 29 December 2010. Rajab The work not only with false statements of fact, but also outrageous political insinuations, by trying to discredit me or a wedge between the serious critics to push this as a dogma, therefore, coming one-state utopia.
I have the statement also criticized as a politically-damaging and unnecessary connection is established between a meaningful campaign (BDS) and a utopian political action took namely the "one-state solution" as a "silver bullet" to solve the Middle East conflict. This utopia is now accepted as the ne plus ultra with teeth and claws, although had gathered in Stuttgart activists must be clear that no single Member State of the United Nations supports this utopia, as all UN resolutions on the establishment of a sovereign State of Palestine target next to Israel.
in this context I would like to point out that there are two "Stuttgart Declaration" is the first dated 6 December , the other of 10 December, and it is now open for signature in cyberspace. The Declaration of 6 December, which was only a few days online, are found very interesting, questionable formulations that have made me suspicious, and throw a stale light on the likely real motives of the organizers.
This is stated in the declaration of 6 December: "Everyone needs to take without delay all that is in his power. We can not wait for Israel collapses on its own. "
white washed Politically, this passage appears in the statement of 10 December as follows: "It is high time (,) to put pressure on Israel. The Zionist system will not recognize Israel on its own the rights of the Palestinians. "
And more is in the Declaration of 6 December: And what should be done to break through structures of injustice and isolation of the oppressed: "We will tear down a further Freedom Flotilla and a flood of actions on land and water, the walls and blockades around Gaza and the West Bank and run."
realistic to in the Declaration of 10th December: "The conference participants are committed to further Freedom flotillas and massive action to stop land and sea blockade and occupation of Gaza and the West Bank."
following closing paragraph in the statement of 6 December missing in the of 10 December: "In particular, we Germans have the duty to take a stand. Germany has not blameless in what has been done to the Palestinians / interior as a consequence of German history. Especially the German past demands of us a very strong sense of responsibility in dealing with human rights and when it comes to expulsions and ethnic cleansing. "
This typical German assertion lacks any historical basis, because in the debate in the UN in connection with the partition resolution did not go to the German crimes of European Jewry. Even Zionist circles were not the crimes of the Holocaust as a "supportive" argument for the formation a Jewish state established in the debate. The goal of the Zionists, was a Jewish state on the basis of the set to "public law", that is, Israel had been established even without the catastrophe of the Holocaust. The only power that the creation of a state for the Jewish people because of the Holocaust and the failure of the West, one not to have such prevented, has called, was the Soviet Union in the person of its UN representative, Andrei Gromyko, the future Soviet foreign minister.
The other impertinent insinuations me and the other critics are women compared with no comment, let alone a rational counter-argument value. I've used at any point of my article, the terms "division and sectarianism." This I had, however, on 24 December rectified. It is also striking is how comfortable throwing the Author with the term "apartheid state of Israel" around. did too, it is necessary to differentiate between the former apartheid in South Africa and an "Israeli Apartheid " as the British journalist Ben White in his book.
The two writers / In trying a set of screen wife of the conference, Felicia Langer to express to my criticism in position because I allegedly twisted her sentence and the last sentence, "the hope remains, "have not cited. to say now that it had decided not totally against the one-state solution, its seems only polite to have been due. How embarrassing it would have been if they had publicly disavowed the organizers and the other speakers? Who would have expected this from Felicia Langer, she does not know really.
already quoted from in my interview 24th December, she has taken a clear position against the Stuttgart Declaration. In this interview, she said, but added: ". I felt insulted because you have called the two-state solution as a dogmatic" If you read her whole speech, then the sentence is "The One-State solution, presented here has beautiful features, but I fear that it is unrealistic, but the hope remains, "is completely unique and can not be taken as support for this utopia to complete. What sense is then the following sentence: ". I still remember that a million French settlers of Algeria have left" Anyone who tries Mrs. Long, to collect revenue for the utopia of one-state solution, is not only against the spirit of her speech, but also deeply dishonest. serve the sentence, "the hope remains," can be used for the one-and two-state solution. "In thousands of speeches I talked about a two-state solution because a different solution has been lying beyond my imagination, "she explained further in the interview. The one-state solution is not realistic, and as "Israeli and German, I can not be for the eradication of Israel, yet I reject the ethnocentric system. Israel must democratize itself and entzionisieren and a state of all its inhabitants. In addition, there should be a democratic Palestinian state free from Israeli occupation. Whether the two countries unite in the future or even go up in an even larger confederation, can only show the future. "
The Author give the impression that the state solution an idea that is supported by a mass movement, but this is not Sun I am reminded of the 1980s than in the dispute said retrofitting parts of the SPD, its party congress decisions had anything to do with reality or could change this. This hubris Hans Apel wrote the following in the root directory: "Finally, the SPD's not the third world power."
And one final note: My assertion that Israel might express itself in a dozen (= 12 people) for a one-state solution, has been previously untertroffen yet. The fact is: of 834 signatories / women are (as of 30.12, 21.22 clock.) only six that have specified as the home country "Israel". Uri Davis, Palestine, Jeff Halper is Palestine / Israel and Ilan Pappe has registered as a United Kingdom home state. For the dozen or so are still missing six "bred" Israelis who profess allegiance to their home country Israel.
The international solidarity movement should not divide and weaken reason, but to coordinate their actions so and use that it can generate the most value for the liberation of the Palestinian people from Israeli occupation. It is also aimed primarily the BDS campaign. The second thrust must be on the transformation of Israel from a "ethnocracy" aiming towards a democracy in the Western sense. The fact that the Zionist ideology, the focus has to apply, no need for expert discussion. The main obstacle to resolving the Middle East conflict is the Zionist ideology of substances without a "de-Zionization" Israel, as it has been called Michel Warschawski is the country no country can be of all its inhabitants. Only when this goal will be reached, and the Middle East conflict to be resolved. For wise and far-sighted Israelis, it is clear that Israel will have no future as a "Jewish and democratic" state. The Zionist Israeli political elite must be between "Jewish" or choose "democratic". People are demanding that Fatah and Hamas in the occupied territories that should pass the sole responsibility of the Israeli occupying forces to then hope they could produce a Palestinian majority, the requirement of "one man, one vote" to enforce given to political illusions about the resistance to the Zionist ideology out. In order to effect political change in Israel, it requires a majority of Israeli citizens and massive pressure from the international community.
When referred to already in full swing ongoing slander campaign by the "Israel lobby" in connection with the Israeli government so Israel critics is the concentration of pro-Palestinian forces announced and not the controversy over a political utopia. If the solidarity movement split on that would be political suicide.
I have the statement also criticized as a politically-damaging and unnecessary connection is established between a meaningful campaign (BDS) and a utopian political action took namely the "one-state solution" as a "silver bullet" to solve the Middle East conflict. This utopia is now accepted as the ne plus ultra with teeth and claws, although had gathered in Stuttgart activists must be clear that no single Member State of the United Nations supports this utopia, as all UN resolutions on the establishment of a sovereign State of Palestine target next to Israel.
in this context I would like to point out that there are two "Stuttgart Declaration" is the first dated 6 December , the other of 10 December, and it is now open for signature in cyberspace. The Declaration of 6 December, which was only a few days online, are found very interesting, questionable formulations that have made me suspicious, and throw a stale light on the likely real motives of the organizers.
This is stated in the declaration of 6 December: "Everyone needs to take without delay all that is in his power. We can not wait for Israel collapses on its own. "
white washed Politically, this passage appears in the statement of 10 December as follows: "It is high time (,) to put pressure on Israel. The Zionist system will not recognize Israel on its own the rights of the Palestinians. "
And more is in the Declaration of 6 December: And what should be done to break through structures of injustice and isolation of the oppressed: "We will tear down a further Freedom Flotilla and a flood of actions on land and water, the walls and blockades around Gaza and the West Bank and run."
realistic to in the Declaration of 10th December: "The conference participants are committed to further Freedom flotillas and massive action to stop land and sea blockade and occupation of Gaza and the West Bank."
following closing paragraph in the statement of 6 December missing in the of 10 December: "In particular, we Germans have the duty to take a stand. Germany has not blameless in what has been done to the Palestinians / interior as a consequence of German history. Especially the German past demands of us a very strong sense of responsibility in dealing with human rights and when it comes to expulsions and ethnic cleansing. "
This typical German assertion lacks any historical basis, because in the debate in the UN in connection with the partition resolution did not go to the German crimes of European Jewry. Even Zionist circles were not the crimes of the Holocaust as a "supportive" argument for the formation a Jewish state established in the debate. The goal of the Zionists, was a Jewish state on the basis of the set to "public law", that is, Israel had been established even without the catastrophe of the Holocaust. The only power that the creation of a state for the Jewish people because of the Holocaust and the failure of the West, one not to have such prevented, has called, was the Soviet Union in the person of its UN representative, Andrei Gromyko, the future Soviet foreign minister.
The other impertinent insinuations me and the other critics are women compared with no comment, let alone a rational counter-argument value. I've used at any point of my article, the terms "division and sectarianism." This I had, however, on 24 December rectified. It is also striking is how comfortable throwing the Author with the term "apartheid state of Israel" around. did too, it is necessary to differentiate between the former apartheid in South Africa and an "Israeli Apartheid " as the British journalist Ben White in his book.
The two writers / In trying a set of screen wife of the conference, Felicia Langer to express to my criticism in position because I allegedly twisted her sentence and the last sentence, "the hope remains, "have not cited. to say now that it had decided not totally against the one-state solution, its seems only polite to have been due. How embarrassing it would have been if they had publicly disavowed the organizers and the other speakers? Who would have expected this from Felicia Langer, she does not know really.
already quoted from in my interview 24th December, she has taken a clear position against the Stuttgart Declaration. In this interview, she said, but added: ". I felt insulted because you have called the two-state solution as a dogmatic" If you read her whole speech, then the sentence is "The One-State solution, presented here has beautiful features, but I fear that it is unrealistic, but the hope remains, "is completely unique and can not be taken as support for this utopia to complete. What sense is then the following sentence: ". I still remember that a million French settlers of Algeria have left" Anyone who tries Mrs. Long, to collect revenue for the utopia of one-state solution, is not only against the spirit of her speech, but also deeply dishonest. serve the sentence, "the hope remains," can be used for the one-and two-state solution. "In thousands of speeches I talked about a two-state solution because a different solution has been lying beyond my imagination, "she explained further in the interview. The one-state solution is not realistic, and as "Israeli and German, I can not be for the eradication of Israel, yet I reject the ethnocentric system. Israel must democratize itself and entzionisieren and a state of all its inhabitants. In addition, there should be a democratic Palestinian state free from Israeli occupation. Whether the two countries unite in the future or even go up in an even larger confederation, can only show the future. "
The Author give the impression that the state solution an idea that is supported by a mass movement, but this is not Sun I am reminded of the 1980s than in the dispute said retrofitting parts of the SPD, its party congress decisions had anything to do with reality or could change this. This hubris Hans Apel wrote the following in the root directory: "Finally, the SPD's not the third world power."
And one final note: My assertion that Israel might express itself in a dozen (= 12 people) for a one-state solution, has been previously untertroffen yet. The fact is: of 834 signatories / women are (as of 30.12, 21.22 clock.) only six that have specified as the home country "Israel". Uri Davis, Palestine, Jeff Halper is Palestine / Israel and Ilan Pappe has registered as a United Kingdom home state. For the dozen or so are still missing six "bred" Israelis who profess allegiance to their home country Israel.
The international solidarity movement should not divide and weaken reason, but to coordinate their actions so and use that it can generate the most value for the liberation of the Palestinian people from Israeli occupation. It is also aimed primarily the BDS campaign. The second thrust must be on the transformation of Israel from a "ethnocracy" aiming towards a democracy in the Western sense. The fact that the Zionist ideology, the focus has to apply, no need for expert discussion. The main obstacle to resolving the Middle East conflict is the Zionist ideology of substances without a "de-Zionization" Israel, as it has been called Michel Warschawski is the country no country can be of all its inhabitants. Only when this goal will be reached, and the Middle East conflict to be resolved. For wise and far-sighted Israelis, it is clear that Israel will have no future as a "Jewish and democratic" state. The Zionist Israeli political elite must be between "Jewish" or choose "democratic". People are demanding that Fatah and Hamas in the occupied territories that should pass the sole responsibility of the Israeli occupying forces to then hope they could produce a Palestinian majority, the requirement of "one man, one vote" to enforce given to political illusions about the resistance to the Zionist ideology out. In order to effect political change in Israel, it requires a majority of Israeli citizens and massive pressure from the international community.
When referred to already in full swing ongoing slander campaign by the "Israel lobby" in connection with the Israeli government so Israel critics is the concentration of pro-Palestinian forces announced and not the controversy over a political utopia. If the solidarity movement split on that would be political suicide.
0 comments:
Post a Comment