Links from my del.icio.us account for August 11th through August 12th:
- IkhwanWeb – Editorial: Muslim Brotherhood Hits the Obama Campaign Trail – MB speaks out on allegedly MB-linked Muslim advisor to Obama, denies links
- عار التحرش الجنسي في مصر- المصرى اليوم – Mona Tahawy on sexual harassment
- CPJ News Alert 2008 – EGYPT: Still no word, five years after editor disappeared – Still no info on what happened to Reda Hilal
- Hustlers evicted from pyramids – Telegraph – I was told last night that at the press conference a tourist was carving into the pyramids just behind Hawass
- Palestinian negotiator considers binational state – Yahoo! News – Ahmed Qurei airs out threat of one-state solution
The Telegraph article is an uncredited often verbatim rip-off of the longer, bylined AP article.
I recently read in Private Eye that the new editor at the Telegraph, in his efforts to turn it into the Daily Mail, has fired the most experienced people on the Foreign Desk and prompted the resignation of a third experienced hand. Long one of the best British papers, I’m afraid that now they basically have a few interns rehash wire copy and label it as “By Telegraph staff.”
The full AP story (I think):
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/11/africa/ME-Egypt-Pyramids-Makeover.php
You have to admit the Telly’s headline is more catchy.
What do you mean by “threat of one state solution”?
Don’t you think that the two state solution is dead? after 8 years of neglect from the Bush administration in the most critical times for the Middle East, the two state solution is no longer viable.
check out One Country by Ali Abunimah
– if it ever was a viable solution to begin with. But very few Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are willing to embrace this line of thinking – so far the paradigm sift to a one-state struggle has been considered and debated by Palestinians in the diaspora (and inside the 48′ territories of Israel). So the comments by Quray’ are surprising, but i doubt if he really means this – he is one of the architects of Oslo, and they do not like to admit their failure.
I agree with Mink — this is probably a kind of attempt at threatening the Israelis with a one-state solution, the only more unacceptable to them than a two-state solution!
As laudable in principle as a one-state solution might be, I don’t really see it going anywhere. The animosity between the two parties, the uneven balance of power, etc. would not stop just because suddenly they are all citizens of the same state. Not to mention, of course, that the whole thing runs again the ethno-theocratic supremacist ideas at the core of Zionism.
I also agree with Mink. The main thing that pushed Sharon and Olmert leftward was the demographic trends, and the ultimate fear that a Jewish state would become untenable. Qurei knows this, and knows the degree to which the notion is (fearfully) being bandied about in Israel, and thus is trying to scare Israelis. I’d also add that many in Fatah want to be in charge of the Palestinian state. Being corrupt is much harder in Israel.
There was just news about Olmert proposing something along the lines of 96% of the W. B, all Gaza, 5% Negev sand, a corridor, but no Jerusalem. I guess this could be related, as a sort of media response intended to latch onto that piece of news, to show Palestinians that Qurei & Co. are tough negotiators, to spook Israelis, or just to underline their refusal of that Very Generous Offer to Israeli negotiators.
Or maybe it was just a stray comment in a meeting, who knows. I don’t really see the controversy: does anyone disagree with what he is saying? Did anyone even in Israel expect otherwise? Did anyone think that there are some Palestinian super-moderates out there who consider a Jewish state from the river to the sea to be the next-best option if they can’t get the Oslo solution?
A jewish ethnocratic state from the river to the sea is the reality on the ground. It is unlikely to change. A Palestinian “state” achieved through the current negotiations is unlikely to be much better than Gaza. It’s a dreadful prospect for both Palestinians and Israelis.
It is certainly true that the one state framework does not solve anything in itself, and losing the dream/reality of a nation-state of their own it will come as terrible shock for Israelis, and face much opposition from Palestinians. However, it is a framework where dealing with the core issues (refugees, settlements, economic imbalance and prospects, jerusalem, memory of the nakba) could prove, at least in my view, easier, though certainly not easy. If ever achieved, it is unlikely to be a one-man one-vote republic but a more complex arrangement of regions and autonomies etc, perhaps along the lines of the UN proposal for a Cyprus peace deal. It is by no means a recipe for love and peace and harmony in the holy land. Personally I approach it with considerble misgivings and scepticism, but the only alternative I see is the current Apartheid set-up getting worse day by day.
At the very least the Palestinians should raise it – and more seriously than Quray’ did – as a threat, the “we want voting rights” is the nightmare of the Israeli mainstream, and it is more or less the only point of leverage the Palestinians have at their disposal.
Ale- Olmert’s proposals of supposedly 96% are built on Oslo’s incramental logic, requiring the PA to first take over Gaza, then establish its authority there and in other territories; any further Israeli withdrawls and dismantling settlments etc is guarantied in theory but not in practice. No-one seriously expects the PA to be able to take control and “prove itself” any time soon, therefore things will stay more or less as they are. They call it a ‘final status shelf agreement’.
In effect – and Olmert says it quite clearly – the whole idea is to create the impression in world public opinion that an agreement has been reached and a Palestinian state now exists, while this state will still be limited to the Ramalla enclave in the forseeable future – perhaps slightly enlarged, but definitely with no access to the outside world.
mink — I’m not arguing the pros/cons of the proposal, although if the above description is true, it’s plenty worse than Taba. I’m just saying I think the talk of a binational state could be related to that proposal and to negotiations/public relations surrounding it.
As for what Olmert plans, I’m increasingly getting the feeling that neither he nor Abbas have any great hopes for the future. Barring a quick miracle, things look darker than, well, ever, for both Israel and Palestine.
“ethno-theocratic supremacist ideas at the core of Zionism.” this is humbuggery.
several millennia of persecution have suggested to Jews that maybe living in their own country, like just about all the other peoples, is not just preferable but necessary. that’s the “core” of Zionism.
it’s very easy of you to say that a one-state solution is noble — you have nothing on the line. it’s a theoretical, college-essay position. un diplomats may dream of “complex arrangements” and masters’ students may write thesis, but this is not something that anyone would consider as “noble” if he considered it from the pov of the people who’d have to live and die with it.
On another note, it wasn’t 96%, I think it was 93% (but that may not be counting the chunk of Negev bordering Gaza).
dan — yeah, i think you’re right. (about the 93%, i meant, but perhaps about the likely end of a binational state too.)
what would you call this one state? there are lorryloads of violent extremists on both sides who’d snap if forced to live in a place called ‘israel’/’palestine’.