The "peace process" that was in September 1993 set as a deus ex machina on the lawn of the White House in the international community as a way to resolve the Middle East conflict in motion, has no peace, only more crew processes to be related. A state of "Palestine" worthy of the name seems to be no longer feasible. A solution of the oldest regional conflict is nowhere in sight. Even U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama had before the might of Israel and its auxiliary forces capitulate in the U.S.. Under his presidency is in the Middle East conflict, nothing change for the better. The "peace process" has led to considerable frustration among all parties. So it is no wonder that is kept on the lookout for alternative solutions.
The one-state solution as a utopia In recent years there have been various conferences, which promotes the old idea of a "one-state solution" as "the solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have. Such events were held in Madrid, London, Haifa, Texas, and last of 26 to 28 November 2010 in Stuttgart. One of their key arguments of the one-state representative is: All attempts to the Middle East conflict through the creation of a second States to solve for the Palestinians, have failed. Similarly, speaking for the development site for a two-state solution because it comes from a symmetry of power between the colonial power and the colonized. This is based on a false premise, namely the concession that by guaranteeing a limited national rights to Palestinians in the territories that were conquered in the June 1967 war by Israel, while refusing the Palestinians within Israel and those in the Diaspora, to grant the same rights. What also speak against a two state solution, according to the proponents of a one-state solution is the fact that in the former Israeli citizen Palestinians continue remain second-class and the refugees their UN-chartered resolution right of return would be denied.
In relation to the right of return is important to note that such under international law, only the directly affected families deserve, the descendants and their descendants, however, is only a right to compensation. Thus, the international law Dieter Murswiek writes with reference to Gornig Gilbert: "The right of return is not inherited, so this may be done in the course of time. can inherit the other hand, his compensation claims. "caveat, he adds, however, that which applies to individual claims, not necessarily for Group claims should apply in that they receive their return claims as a group, "as long as it exists as its identity-aware group and as long as the territorial status of the expulsion zone, in accordance with the self-determination of peoples has changed in such a way that a legal tie between the territory and the displaced group no longer exists. The existence of displaced people group is not dependent on the survival of the generation that grew up in the expulsion area yet. Of course, the group regularly lost consciousness during the time go when the members of the group are integrated in the host country. "
Murswiek this has indeed written anything in relation to the rights of displaced persons after the Second World War, but in the form of generalizing, it is also true of the Palestinians displaced in 1948, especially to those who have not been integrated into the Arab states. But Murswiek has continued to point to the problems of relying on the right of return, which occur "when the expulsion area, a new population has become established." Relying on the international law, Christian Tomuschat goes Murswiek on to say that although the national law of the displaced in principle prevail must, "because it might otherwise be frustrated by illegal settlement activities". It still speak some evidence "that acquires in the course of time, the resettled population own national law. The solution can not be that one of the competing rights of the home side prevails. It would create new injustices, if the current soft in the areas of expulsion would have people living, and it would continue existing injustice perpetuated if the displaced with regard to the rights of absprächen now living in their homes the right of return. In such cases, a solution must be sought which enable the interests of both groups will meet. The longer the period of expulsion, are the stronger the Enforcement capabilities of the new settlers. "
connoisseurs know that international law does not like national law can be enforced because there is no centralized sanctioning authority. The enforcement of international law claims essentially depends also on international power constellations. Consequently, one must detach themselves from the idea that international law a strict order of rules or commands into gear, where you only need to follow to reach a "just" goal. Prudence is as important as Rechtsdogmatismus not be regarded as the ne plus ultra. Proponents also claim
one-state solution, that a two state solution would deny refugees their internationally guaranteed right of return. The above statements on this internationally guaranteed rights are not as clear, as generally assumed. Furthermore, it is claimed that an internationally sought two-State solution could not create a viable Palestinian state and a Palestinian and Jewish-Israeli independence in their own countries could eliminate the fundamental injustices. As there is only one independent state of Israel, can be negotiated on this issue when an independent Palestinian state by the international community established and has been accepted.
That a one-state solution, the cheapest solution would be politically and economically, I have emphasized in many presentations, but added again that I believe in the prevailing international power relations and the dominance of the Zionist ideology on the consciousness of Israelis for absolutely utopian. In contrast to the observations of the other conferences that have addressed the issue of one-state solution was in the "Stuttgart Declaration" a linkage between the very important BDS (boycott, sanctions and de-investment) with the political requirement for a state solution prepared. I think of counterproductive for the BDS campaign and, because it primarily through their actions aimed, ended that by international economic pressure, Israel's occupation rule over the Palestinian homeland and allow the Palestinian people a life of self-determination in their own state, worthy of the name, and without settlers. Had Israel followed the example of Germany in terms of integration of its refugees, would be pretty long peace in Israel and Palestine. The stands but still the ideology of Zionism as the main obstacle in the way. Not only almost 100 percent of Israelis are against a one-state solution, they also consider a "bad joke" but not a member of the United Nations is committed. So where, representatives of such a solution the hope that such an approach could ever be realized, if not only by Israel and its colonial expansionism? Israel continues this policy, it is not only the Arabs but the whole Muslim world to raise against him.
The two-state solution as a solution to the Middle East conflict? Many Jewish leaders have spoken out before the State of Israel for a bi-national state. Whether Albert Einstein, Martin Buber, Gershom Scholem and Hannah Arendt, all of them were politically marginalized by the dominant Zionist elite who wanted to found a Jewish state in order to create not only the problem that anti-Semitism in the world, but also to enable the Jewish people to live as equal and same in the international community.
speaks for a two-state solution is not only the United Nations partition plan of 29 November 1947 (UN General Assembly Resolution 181), but also as a result, all subsequent UN resolutions, they were adopted by the UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly. There is virtually no one except a few thousand individuals working for the state solution. Even the recent letter from former Government and the President finally calls for the solution of the Middle East conflict through a two-state solution. The only state that can torpedo a two-state solution, Israel continued its colonization.
Even the PLO, which was originally the concept of a secular and democratic state for all inhabitants of Palestine, with the exception of the Israelis who are following the state of Israel came into the country was represented, had to bow to the realities and has 1988 in Algiers Proclamation of the State of "Palestine" for the two-state solution and recognition of Israel decided. That since the outbreak of the "peace process" in September 1993 no Palestinian state is created, the policies of Israel is due to the occupied areas of urban sprawl since that time with a pace and built a wall, respectively, a security fence around these areas has to imagine no one that, on the basis of this island kingdom a viable state could emerge.
Not only the UN but also the international community has a duty to its member land of Israel to get them to finally accept that international law and to accept the undersigned human rights covenants relating to the treatment of the oppressed Palestinians. When Member States of the UN do, they can international law , Prevail as the U.S. government has demonstrated in regard to Iraq, only in the case of Iraq, no violation of international law was in place, but the United States pursued their murderous sanctions regime, only the intention of Iraq to the level of a third world country " to develop down "for it to be easier to shoot assault in order to fill it up. More justified would be a collective action by the international community against the occupation regime of Israel, since for 43 a violation of international law and humanitarian law is evident to all. It therefore lacks only the will of the United States and other countries, international law once to solve a use dangerous regional conflict rather than abuse it lead to war.
The argument that we have already been created irrefutable facts on the ground is not convincing. In a colonial conflict, and therefore it is in the Middle East conflict, acquires the colonial power no legitimacy over the occupied territories. All unilateral measures are null and void under international law. This is also true for the 500 000 settlers who have settled as colonists in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Israeli governments have shown that they are in a position with the interests of the state benefit their citizens from the occupied Areas to the heartland of Israel to bring back, as happened in Sinai and the Gaza Strip. Both resettlement schemes were implemented by Ariel Sharon. As the German-Israeli human rights activist Felicia Langer in her speech in Stuttgart has stressed France was transferred to Algeria in a position to one million French people back to the motherland.
The realization of self-determination of the Palestinian people must be the primary goal of all states of the UN because it is rooted in all UN resolutions. It is essential that the end of the 43-year Israeli occupation regime and the cancellation of all unilateral measures. This should be the solidarity movement To concentrate because the first positive steps to recognize a state of "Palestine" by some Latin American countries. Furthermore, the solidarity movement 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 for an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, and regard as the wrong path. 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 that these discriminatory Status stipulate. 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 transform itself into a 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 represents the biggest obstacle to the solution of the conflict dar. Therefore, according to Elias Davidsson opposition to the Zionist imperative, because they "derive from a vision of humanity based on the inherent dignity and equality of every human. Without a "de-Zionization" Israel, as it has been called Michel Warschawski, the country will be no state of all its inhabitants. Only when this goal will be reached, and the Middle East conflict to be resolved.
But primarily decide on the Israeli and Palestinian people. We should not succumb to the hubris to make it better or be able to know before the affected site. What can the international solidarity movement, awareness training about the inhuman policies of the Israeli occupation regime and the racist developments in Israel is recent and the legal constitution of the state that has enshrined the inequality of its citizens based on religion at all social areas. If this is achieved, a democratic Israel in the classic sense of the word and the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state worthy of the name, then both people are on the way to a State or even to a still larger unit, maybe even a three- state solution (Confederacy) to open. But everything depends on the end from the occupation regime, and it should focus on all civil society forces, united in an international movement.
First appeared in: The
Semite. independent Jewish magazine.
