Amongst all the hyperbole about Israel being a "colonialist state" with few "natives to the region" at least two things are forgotten. One is that a relatively small number of "Palestinians" are native to the region either, being fairly recent descendants of immigrants from Egypt, Syria and other Arabs regional states. Secondly, the "Palestinian question" is being pushed by "Palestinians" in part though religious motivation, in that territory once conquered always remains "Islamic land". I do also wonder too whether "Palestinians" of today are representative of whatever "Palestinians" inhabited the region in 1948, given the way Muslims have pushed Christians out of the region, to the extent that towns like Nablus and Bethlehem, in 1948 having a distinct Christian majority are now something like 90% Muslim.

Lastly, given the dhimmi status of Jews under Islam, and their treatment for centuries by various Islamic regimes, one wonders about the logic of calling for a "single state solution" especially given the supremacist bent of fundamentalist Islam.

Phillip,

My opinions are quite regardless of Lenin's debates with the Bund (best expressed in and "To the Jews" (1905) "Critical Remarks on the Jewish Question" (1913)) or Stalin's approach to provide a an independent oblast in Birobidzhan or the Soviet Union being the second state to recognise Israel.

Rather I am being specific in a social scientific sense. There is no common Jewish identity apart from Judiasm. There is no common first-language, there is no common genetic basis, or anything else that is not a subset of the religious identity and heritage. Likewise the people of Timor-Leste are not a nationality either, rather that state is a federation of different nations (the Tetum, the Makasae, Fataluku etc).

I am not advocating assimilation; people have every right to practise their faith and profess those symbolic representations. Indeed, like Arendt, Einstein and a host of other people of similar ilk I have often argued strongly in favour of a Jewish *homeland* in Palestine. I'm not exactly why, but I personally feel a strong connection with those of the Judiac faith and heritage.

What I reject is the special right to a specific Jewish *state* just as I reject the right to a Catholic state, a Muslim state or any other rule of religion over secularlism. This also applies to the requirement that the English head of state must be an Anglican, the recognition of various Lutheran churches as state religions ni the Scandanavian countries etc.

Moreover, I have great difficulties in supporting any state (including Australia) which has been established by colonial imposition over indigenous people and continues occupations and invasions contrary to international law (let alone human decency)

If Israel manages to resolve these two issues (religious exclusivity and colonialism) they may find that the left become strong supporters of what is a country with significant democratic institutions, quite notable for the region.

Your suspicions btw, are correct, not that I make any attempt to hide these affiliations.

Regards,

Lev

To Philip Mendes,

Can you please tell me why believing in the one-state solution to teh Israeli/Palestinian conflict is "akin to religious fanatacism", "beyond rational debate" and "unconnected to contemporary or historical reality"?

I personally believe in the one-state solution. That is, don't have a Jewish state. Don't have a Palestinian state either. Just have a democratic state where they can all live together in peace and equality. No discrimination, no favouritism, no repression. Can you please tell me what is wrong with this position?

Meanwhile, can you please tell me how it is possible to have a state established to favour one particular religious group over everyone else and have a fair system in place? Because I, for one, can't see it.

Phillip says:

"A third perspective - held mainly, but no longer exclusively, by the far Left sects - regards Israel as a racist and colonialist state which has no right to exist. This perspective reflects what may be called a position of anti-Zionist fundamentalism that is akin to religious fanaticism. Adherents hold to a viewpoint opposing Israel’s existence specifically and Jewish national rights more broadly which is beyond rational debate, and unconnected to contemporary or historical reality."

That's it? That's the refutation of the one state solution? The refutation of likening Israel to South Africa? Seeing the question in terms of colonisation and racism? Seeing the establishment of the State of Israel itself as an act of genocide against the Palestinians? No refutation at all. Just bile dismissing an idea Phillip does not want to address. That will not do at all Phillip. It is intellectually dishonest.

I agree with Lev's analysis. Unfortunately, whether deliberate or not, Phillip's response failed to address his comments. To put it simply, like South Africa, the way forward is for a rainbow nation of Palestine.

Reply to Seneca:

Yes,I have to agree with what you say.It disappoints me and mystify me why Muslim states havent done more to help the millions of displaced Palestinian refugees. They are consigned to dreadful refugee camps in Lebanon. Muslims are heard to boast that they practice a principle of brotherhood unparalleled in the civilized world. A close look at the Palestinian problem makes you think again! They have been exploited and used as political pawns. What has Syria done for them?What has Turkey,Pakistan,Iran, Malaysia,Indonesia, Morocco,Algeria, Tunisia, Egyptand the UAE states where is mind-blowing wealth for all in the Emirates? Jordan tried to accomodate thousands of them and look what happened!The Palestinians tried to overthrow the Kingdom to establish a Palestinian state.If the Hashemite Bedouins hadnt ridden in from the deserts to overthrow them the Kingdom would have been lost and they would have captured Jordan as their own.

When have Muslim states raced to help the poor in Thailand and Bangladesh when they have been hit by the ravages of nature?

Meanwhile the Palestinian state languishes in the hands of the usurpers whose occupation has been legalised and validated by the UN under the conspiracies of the US and its allies.

Socratease

socratease says:

"Jordan tried to accommodate thousands of them and look what happened!The Palestinians tried to overthrow the Kingdom to establish a Palestinian state.If the Hashemite Bedouins hadn't ridden in from the deserts to overthrow them the Kingdom would have been lost and they would have captured Jordan as their own."

My memory is a little hazy on this so no doubt I stand to be corrected but I thought the PLO could have taken power in Jordan - it was a popular uprising - but refused to do so on the mistaken basis that they were not to interfere in the politics of host nations. This reflected the PLO's top down approach to liberation, and the fact they didn't want to upset the ruling elite in those countries or their so called support for the Palestinian cause.

If their approach had been more bottom up than top down then the whole face of the Middle East could have changed in and from 1970.

And by the way Phillip, for some time the PLO had a policy of a democratic and secular Palestine - ie a one state solution. Hardly a policy confined to far left sects, as you sneeringly describe us. And hardly an example of the ideal of searching for truth and the possible resolution of issues through rational debate, discourse and discussion.