It does not
take extraordinary skills or understanding to take apart any
system based on illusions and deceptions. The normal skepticism
that we apply to our favorite sports team is all that is
required. If we take our innate skepticism and apply it to
questions that really matter to human life, including our own,
we would be taking one step closer to solving the most pressing
human tragedies we are all facing today. In particular, I am
speaking about the Palestine-Israel conflict which is extremely
misunderstood in North America because of the genius of our mass
media to turn everything into a vague, oversimplified, pretty,
and presentable package. It is really not that difficult to
understand. It is really easy to comprehend once facts are
looked at.
My goal with this article is to establish a framework of
discussion that people can use when discussing this issue and
show, perhaps, the strongest suggested solution to this conflict
put forth by David Ben Gurion -- one of the founding fathers of
"Zionism". His solution is certainly different from the majority
of self-proclaimed Zionists of today.
I wrote this from a while back and there are certainly things I
would like to add on to this. Things such as the fact that
Israel is the only country in the world without official
borders. Or, explain what the reasons are as to why Palestinians
will not legally recognize Israel's existence as it justifies
the latter and other atrocities and injustices committed against
them. There a lot of things but the focus here is to look into a
solution espoused by one of the founding members of the Zionist
movement. Enjoy.
= Establishing a Framework of Discussion =
i.) Ignoring the Arguments of Lunatic Racists
Before moving on to discuss the complexities of this conflict,
it is important to lay out a framework for discussion first. In
particular, it is important to figure out the valid claims of
those who regard the former Palestine as their home.
I will choose to opt for principles held by non-racists in that
it recognizes: Israelis and Palestinians are human beings
with equal rights within the territory of former Palestine.
The right to self-determination within this territory is granted
to both groups. I will ignore the racist viewpoints, that is
continually perpetuated in the mainstream discussion and some of
us unknowingly have, of this issue. Of course, these stances are
racist in that it refuses to recognize the human rights of both
Palestinians and Israelis to national determination in the
former Palestine according to the international consensus and
law.
As it relates to the rights of Palestinians, the first rejects
the idea of their historical existence within the former
Palestine. This view is expressed by the Israeli Labor Party
Prime Minister Golda Meir when she said:
"It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in
Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came
and threw them out and took their country away from them. They
did not exist."
Therefore, the quotation asserts that creating a Palestinian
state is an absurd idea. This asserts that Palestinians had no
attachment to their homes and to the land that they have worked
for many generations. Furthermore, they do not have the same
attachment that the Jews, who were exiled from the land two
thousand years ago, have to the land.
The second stance takes the position that Jordan is a
Palestinian state, that no third state will be accepted aside
from Jordan and Israel. Other Arab states are also regarded by
some as the home of Palestinians. This view is expressed
perfectly by Moshe Dayan of the Israeli Labor Party:
" I do not think ... that a Palestinian should have
difficulties in regarding Jordan, Syria, or Iraq as his
homeland."
Both point of views, again, are racist in that it refuses to
recognize the rights of Palestinians. These two stances merely
see the Palestinians in the context of a refugee problem.
Assuming that none of us are racist, I will remove recognition
of these two viewpoints with little fear of protestation. Of
course, I am also including those who refuses to recognize the
rights of Israeli people.
ii.) The Irrelevancy of ‘Who was here first’
It is of no relevance who was historically in the former
Palestine first. It has no relevance, not only in this
discussion, but in finding a solution for this conflict in
general. At the beginning of the creation of Israel this had
some relevance, but not now, nor ever.
To discuss ‘who was here first’ is equivalent to discussing who
was in North America first: Native Americans or us? It is of no
relevance because ‘we’, the people who live here now, are deeply
rooted in these lands and it will be unjust if we are expelled
so the original settlers can move back in. Regardless of their
historical claim to the land, it is not gonna happen. What
happened to them was unjust and wrong, but it will be equally
unjust if we are expelled. We have created facts that cannot be
changed in short of war.
This is what happened to Palestinians when the state of Israel
was created. The lives of Israelis were created at the expense
of the Palestinian people. That being said, many people of
Israel are now deeply rooted in the land where hundreds of
thousands of Palestinians were forcefully expelled from. To
remove them would be equally unjust. Decades and generations
have long passed and many of those who live there now are the
sons and daughters of those who settled. That being said, Israel
has a historical responsibility to recognize that they
established a state on land almost entirely owned by
Palestinians for many generations. As a result, millions have
been made into refugees. This responsibility is conveniently
avoided by many Israeli leaders in order to justify further
expansion in Palestine.
The best we can do is bring about justice, reparations, and
genuinely seek peace. Most importantly, we have to prevent the
creation of new ‘facts’ that cannot be changed in short of war.
iii.) The Issue of Creating New Facts
As I have already pointed out, it is important to prevent the
creation of new facts. For example, the ‘occupied territories’,
which are being illegally held by Israel according to the
majority of the world and the United Nations, are currently
being settled by Israelis. Homes are continually being built
atop the land of Palestinians who have been expelled from the
land, fled from it, illegally bought out, and so forth. These
settlements are being encouraged by the Israeli government
through subsidies which are being paid by U.S. tax dollars.
Although, before these new facts can be halted, we must first
take the first steps to finding a solution to this conflict
which can, not implausibly, bring both groups to the brink of
destruction.
= First Steps Towards Finding A Solution =
What is of great relevance here, as it relates to finding a
solution, is the recognition of the international consensus that
has been constantly reiterated in many ways. Many are unaware
that an international consensus, and even of the existence of
U.N. Resolution 242, exists because, again, of the genius of our
mass media here in North America in distorting this conflict.
Since Israel illegally conquered the occupied territories in
1967 (and has not let go since), the international community has
favoured a political settlement in accordance to approximately
the pre-June 1967 borders. This was how this resolution was
understood. It also came with security guarantees, recognized
borders, and various devices to help assure peace.
This resolution has been accepted by Israel, Egypt, Jordan,
Lebanon, Syria, Europe, Russia, and by most non-aligned nations.
Aside from Israel, the United States, a few Arab States, and
certain groups in the PLO, the support for this solution
approaches worldwide unanimity.
While the original resolution has been changed from the 1970's,
today it recognizes the right of Palestinians to national
self-determination. In other words, it no longer espouses the
racist assumption that Israelis have inherent rights that
Palestinians do not have nor deserve. As well, this consensus
now includes the concept of a Palestinian state in the West Bank
and Gaza Strip (a two-state settlement). This reflects higher
demands of justice for Palestinians. This solution is also
politically realistic in that it will maximize the chances for
peace and security for all the inhabitants of the former
Palestine. The valid claims of the two major parties are also
satisfied as much as possible.
While this solution is weak in many respects and only fairly
stable, accepting it will set the stage for interstate
relations. If interstate relations becomes a reality, stability
might soon follow. Again, this solution is not, and should not,
be final. Regardless, its acceptance is important in taking the
first steps in finding a better, more preferable, alternative
because the rights of Palestinians will be recognized and the
‘racist’ perspective I have highlighted earlier will be put to
rest.
If Israel and the United States are interested at all in peace,
it will change its racist principles and recognize the
international consensus. In other words, recognize the rights of
Palestinians to national determination.
= The Best Solution =
Putting aside any in-depth discussion of the history of Zionism
and the Jewish State of Israel, Zionism has a Jekyl and Hyde
historical personality. There are two aspects of Zionism: (i)
Zionism for Jews (ii) The other for Palestinians and Arabs.
For Jews, the Zionist movement brought a lot of European and
Eastern Jews to Palestine. It promised a different life from
persecution and the restoration of an ancient homeland in the
former Palestine (or, at one point, East Africa). For
Palestinians, these are all true, but in many instances at their
expense. The mixed society that existed before, and they
effectively maintained, was shattered by the influx of Jews into
the former Palestine.
While the roots of Zionism definitely had some racist and
imperialist roots ideologically, it is not an ideology that is
inherently racist and imperialistic. While Zionist leaders like
Theodor Herzl wanted the indigenous population out of the
country and to deny them work, a countercurrent existed within
the movement. In my opinion, within this countercurrent is where
we find the best solution for the conflict. While there was a
significant change in their positions later on, these
suggestions made in internal party discussions seem to have
reflected a clear understanding of the issue and commitment to
justice.
David Ben-Guron, a member of the Zionist movement, explained in
1930:
"The regime in Palestine must at all times assure both the
Jews and the Arabs the possibility of unhampered development and
full national independence, so as to rule out any domination by
Arabs of Jews, or by Jews of Arabs. The regime must foster the
rapprochement, accord, and cooperation of the Jewish people and
the Arabs in Palestine ... [which will be] ... a federal state,
comprising an alliance of cantons (autonomous districts), some
with Jews in the majority, and some with Arabs; national
autonomy of each people, with exclusive authority in matters of
education, culture, and language; matters of religion: under the
control of autonomous religious congregations, organized as free
statutory bodies; the highest body of the state: the federal
council, consisting of two houses – (a) one representing
nationalities in which Jews and Arabs will have equal
representation, and (b) one in which representatives of the
cantons will participate in proportion to their respective
populations. Any federal law and any change in the federal
constitution can be enacted only with the agreement of both
houses."
Before a Royal Commission in 1937 he continued to assert:
"If Palestine were uninhabited we might have asked for a
Jewish state, for then it would not harm anyone else. But there
are other residents in Palestine, and just as we do not want to
be at the mercy of others, they too have the right not to be at
the mercy of the Jews."
Before this idea of a one-state solution can come into fruition,
the worldwide acceptance of U.N. Resolution 242 must be first
accepted. From there, we can all move closer to achieving some
sort of peace in the Middle East. And yes, it is a long way from
there.
Maybe
A Zionist Got It Right