Tags
Britain, House of Commons, Internal Discussion, ODS, One Democratic State, palestine, Recognition of Palestine, Two States
On Monday, October 13, 2014, Labor MP Morris is expected to propose to the House of Commons, Britain’s parliament, a motion stating that “this House believes that the government should recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel”.
There was a lot of activity in support of this motion in the Palestinian solidarity movement. Even though a “Yes” vote will not be obligatory, and will probably not immediately change Britain’s official policy, it will be perceived as a blow to Israel and a victory to the Palestinian movement. It may be seen as another proof that the collapse of the fake “peace talks” and the massacre in Gaza this summer deeply eroded Israel’s international support.
Free Haifa consistently promotes the view that the only just and permanent solution for the suffering of the Palestinian people is the return of all Palestinian refugees and the establishment of one democratic state (ODS) in all of Palestine, for all of its inhabitants, Arab, Jews and others (as defined in the Munich ODS Declaration).
As the proposed motion clearly contradicts this view, should ODS supporters object to it? I don’t think so. There was some discussion about this issue between ODS supporters, and I would like to present here the case for supporting the motion. To be honest, I don’t really believe that my position will influence the vote in the Commons. I rather publish this argument as a contribution to the discussion about the perspective of the ODS movement.
What is at stake?
Britain is not my state but a declining imperialist power that used to occupy Palestine and helped the Zionist movement to colonize it. In 1936-9 some 20,000 Palestinians were massacred by the British army in the suppression of the great rebellion.
I do not expect the British parliament to lead the struggle for freedom, surely not for a Free Palestine.
ODS is basically not a movement, competing with other movements, like an imaginary two-state movement, for the support of the world public opinion, including the opinion of the British empire.
If it was like this, ODS could be regarded as a hopeless side-show, not even entering the big-men’s stage.
ODS is a program for the victory of the Palestinian struggle – it is both a methodology for the current struggle and a plan for establishing one democratic Palestine after Zionism will be defeated.
As such, our tactics and strategy should be aimed at one thing: Put an end to the Zionist Apartheid regime. The people of Palestine will follow the path of ODS if and only if they will be convinced that this is the most efficient way for them to achieve their liberation after more than a hundred years of colonialism, ethnic cleansing and occupation.
From this perspective we should also examine the planned vote in the British parliament on Monday, October 13.
As far as I know Britain is a longtime supporter of the state of Israel, from their common aggression against Egypt in 1956 (together with France) till these very days. They consistently support Israel’s war crimes militarily, politically and economically.
What may change is that by recognition of an illusionary Palestinian state the British government, in case its policy will change, will be one step less supportive of the reality of Israeli Apartheid in the whole of Palestine.
ODS should promote tactical advantages
A purist position that will reject such a tactical advantage to the Palestinian struggle will discredit ODS and push it to the sidelines.
As Palestinians we should reject Palestinian recognition of the state of Israel, as it gives legitimacy to ethnic cleansing and Apartheid and undermine the struggle for the return of the refugees.
In fact Yasser Arafat was poisoned by Israel exactly because he refused to sign off the right of return. Even Mahmoud Abbas, which said that security coordination with the occupation is “sacred”, refused to “recognize Israel as a Jewish state” – knowing that it would mean outright endorsement of Apartheid and Ethnic Cleansing.
But for Britain to pass from recognizing only Israel to recognizing Israel and Palestine is a small step in the right direction.
Contradictions between Israel and its supporters
Our enemy is not the two state solution but racism and Apartheid, wherever they are. As was explained so well by Ilan Pappe in his lecture in Ar’ara, the “two state solution” is not a political program that the Zionists plan to implement but an illusion that they sell the world in order to legitimize the eternal occupation of the West Bank. By demanding from Israel to stand up to its words, its allies may expose some of the Israeli lies.
The search for more critical position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by some European states is another proof that Israel is losing ground in the struggle for the legitimacy of its racist system. It is not the valuable ally that it used to be at the time of the cold war or for suppressing the Arab national movement. While the imperialists are looking for new alliances in the region, their uncritical support to Israeli racism may cost them ever more.
One for two, two for one
So what is the real relation between the “two states” and “one state” camps on the Palestinian side?
Some Zionist propagandists can try to use an article like this as another proof that support of “two states” is part of the Palestinian “Salami tactics”, chopping Israel slice by slice.
The truth is simpler than this. Most Palestinians naturally aspire to see one free Palestine. Many are tired of the long struggle and suffering and are ready to accept any dignified semi-solution, even an independent state it 20% of Palestine, at least on a temporary basis.
It is not completely secret that some of the salami theory is true in reverse: some Palestinians believe that asking for ODS is what may frighten Israel into accepting the Two States, giving up control of the West Bank.
On the other side we should remember that the whole idea behind Israel is to establish Jewish supremacy in Palestine and to function as an imperialist advanced-post in the struggle against Arab Liberation. This is not compatible with the reality of a contracting Israel that will have to live in peace. While Zionism is getting ever more explicitly racist and war-mongering, for many Israelis looking for the alternative a prosperous united Palestine, integrated in the Arab region, may be more attractive than a small walled ghetto.
One Struggle
Till now things are made simple for us by Israel, which refuses to give up any semblance of dignified lives to any Palestinian. There is no reason that Palestinians will be divided in their struggle while they are all occupied and oppressed by the same colonialist regime.
The immediate message of ODS is that all Palestinians should unite – the demand for the Right of Return, for end to the occupation and for end to all sorts of racism and discrimination are not contradictory but components of one struggle.
It is the struggle by one Palestinian people aspiring to live free in its homeland. ODS is the only clear perspective to achieve this. Every small step on any front to undo Israeli Apartheid is welcomed.
I agree with the tactic of encouraging such Western efforts to support a Palestinian state for the reasons you have set forth. On the other hand, my view of the endgame has changed. I no longer believe it would be possible for the Palestinians to thrive in a unitary state with the Israelis. The latter, even if many left, would dominate the new state. One has only to look at the outsize influence that tribal Jewry has in the US, the UK, France etc. – with less than 3% of the population.
If and when the dam breaks I think it would be wise to let the Israelis know that Jews will not be welcome in Palestine. Those who wish to stay would be invited to apply for citizenship, but hopefully such applications would be scrutinized very carefully, ensuring that only a very few would remain. This may seem harsh but I believe it would be necessary. The model should not be South Africa, but Algeria.
Roger Tucker
One Democratic State
https://sites.google.com/site/onedemocraticstatesite/
Hi Yoav,
We agree on the goals but not on some tactics or analysis.
(1) Tactic of recognition of Bantustine: Vincent Fean was British Consul in Jerusalem from 2010-2014. In the Guardian last Friday he wrote, “The recognition of Palestine would help to preserve the two-state solution.” This is correct: The only way Zionism can preserve its core of ethnic supremacism is to give the Palestinians their Bantustine. Most of the Labour Party UK knows this, as well as MK Zandberg and ex-diplomat Liel and other thousands of soft Zionists (Beinart, Freedland and and and). This is the MOVEMENT behind this tactic of getting European countries to recognise Bantustine. This motion strengthens recognition of the rogue state of Israel, by paying the small price of doing without about 15% of Palestine (WBG minus ‘irreversible’ Jews-only settlements there).
(2) One great supporter of the House of Commons motion is Mr Abbas, who, it is known, would willingly give up Right of Return. Abbas is not alone, but represents the most powerful (not ‘numerous’) group of Palestinians. This UK motion (Swedens went before it and others will follow) are part of his partnership with the soft Zionists to imperceptibly reliquish RoR, re-confirm Israel’s legitimacy (its de-legitimisation appears to be the thing Israel fears most, and support for this motion means failing to capitalise on this) and leave the Palestinian citizens of Israel to their fate (as Arafat said around the time of Oslo, the PLO wasn’t interest in the ’48 Palestinians).
(3) You yourself, Yoav, in a recent email to an ODS group, said you disagree with the text of the motion, which calls for Britain “to recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel”. How can you advocate support for a motion whose text you reject?
(3a) The motion’s passing would greatly strengthen the position of the PA (point 2 above). Added to the fact that the text literally means that a Yes vote is a vote recognising the ZE as it is (point 3 above), ODS has an even tougher battle.
(4) Since when does a “purist” attitude “discredit” ODS? ‘Purist’ means: based on principle and long-term thinking (strategy instead of tactics). In my admittedly limited historical understanding, the Zionists have almost always been ‘purists’. And they are winning hands down.
(5) If this motion is passed, it will make our task here in Europe of defending the unity of all Palestinians, defending all their rights – not just the end of the occupation of WBG – and working for one democratic state much harder. Why? Because we’ll have to go through the argument of “They got their state, that’s what they wanted, isn’t it?” This motion is pure divide-and-rule: give the PA, two-stater camp a bit, causing a fight with those who insist on full rights.
(6) The motion is a great example of the discourse of “There are two equal sides fighting over the same piece of land.” Its language of balance and fairness is a masterwork of deception. Supporting it means cementing this view: two countries for two ‘peoples’. Sorry, but the Palestinians have always opposed partition. This motion supports partition, it IS partition – Palestine AND Israel.
(7) Of course I respect any Palestinian who is tired of the struggle or doesn’t want to risk life and limb and freedom any longer, and wants even a small state because it brings some dignity. If I knew that was a majority view I’d support it. But not only does nobody know much about the opinions of ALL Palestinians, but as long as there are those like yourself demanding full rights, I’d rather work for that.
(8) I think the ANC had some discussions on exactly this point – whether to work for international recognition of the ‘Bantustans’. I think a large ANC majority rejected this. The ANC won.
Thank you,
Blake Alcott
Dear Blake, dear Yoav,
we thank you that you have brought the ODS-subject up for discussion after such a long pause during and after the Gaza war and we thank you for the analysis of the meaning of the motion in the British parliament.
As we all know our ODS idea is not new, it was the PLO program before 1974. In this year PLO adopted the 10-points-program in which they stated that the liberation of Palestine could be achieved step by step. The Palestinian state could be constituted in every area of Palestine where it was possible. This was the basis of the way to the Oslo agreement through Camp David and other agreements with all consequences (recognition of the Apartheid State of Israel, partition of the land into Bantustans, dividing the Palestinian people into Palestinians in the 1967 areas, the 1948 areas and the refugees outside Palestine).After Oslo the PA focused only on the Palestinians in the 1967 areas whereas the people in 1948 and outside the land were completely neglected politically. This weakened the Palestinian liberation struggle gravely. We think we don’t have to repeat this fault.
Apartheid Israel is in real crisis since it becomes increasingly clear to the international public that the two state process is dead and since with all its crimes Apartheid Israel has delegitimized itself. And BDS has considerable success which is menacing the Israeli Apartheid state. All these efforts to acknowledge a so called Palestinian state (without saying anything about frontiers, Palestinian rights, RoR and so on) and to stress that it should be constituted alongside Israel are nothing else than an attempt to save Apartheid Israel and to revitalize Oslo somehow.
In spite of praising this motion as a step forward we as ODS supporter should clearly state that it is a cementation of Apartheid, that it means abandoning the rights of the Palestinian people (completely of the refugee rights and the rights of the 48 Palestinians since they have lost their Palestinian representation after Oslo).
Sorry Yoav we support the principles which Blake has emphasized. Yoav has very clearly analyzed the basics of the situation but we think that he has missed the meaning of the British motion. We as ODS supporter should not endorse this motion in the public. To the contrary we should try to stop the influence this might have on the public opinion internationally. We think we can be successful. ODS is the only way to achieve the Palestinian rights and the human rights of all the people in historic Palestine. Go on in this way.
With solidarity
Attia and Verena Rajab, Palestine Solidarity Committee Stuttgart, Germany
Please see George Galloway’s statement against the motion and explicitly for ODS: http://www.respectparty.org/2014/10/10/statement-from-george-galloway-on-palestine-motion-in-parliament/
Galloway is the only MP who supports ODS. He is an old political fox and knows the damage this motion will do within British politics to the cause of Palestinian rights (all of them).
And Ali Abunimah’s more general argument against: http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/recognizing-state-palestine-sweden-could-harm-palestinians And don’t miss the link to his longer article on Al-Shabaka.
Thanks, Blake
Today, a day before the House of Commons vote, ALON LIEL weighs in in the UK ‘Independent’ newspaper under the title “True friends of Israel will vote yes for the state of Palestine”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/palestinian-statehood-true-friends-of-israel-will-vote-yes-for-the-state-of-palestine-9789743.html
4 choice quotes:
“The occupation does not only harm the victims under its rule, it also threatens Israelis.”
“Each such step [of settlement-building and continued occupation of the West Bank] increases the threat towards the existence of the sovereign state of Israel, as envisioned by its forefathers.”
“It [the House of Commons motion] proposes that the international community practically express its support for the existence of two sovereign states in the region…”
“Only the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state will ensure the continued existence of the sovereign state of Israel along the green line… [and] true friends of Israel should raise their hands in support of this proposal and vote yes for the state of Israel,…”
A YES vote is YES TO ISRAEL.
Some people are happy that countries are starting to recognize an entity called Palestine on 22% of historic Palestine- assuming that settler colonial apartheid Israel will withdraw to the 1967 boarders. Palestine is a one united indivisible country from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea that is colonized by settler colonial apartheid Israel. The people of Palestine are struggling to decolonize their entire homeland, dismantle the institutions, laws and policies of settler colonial apartheid Israel, and create a one democratic state for its citizens (including all the refugees and their descendants) in all of historic Palestine. Creating an entity in 22% of historic Palestine without addressing other basic issues is not in the interest of justice and peace nor it is compatible with the objectives of ODS!
Unlike the ANC and its Freedom Charter of 1953, the PLO abandoned its long held program/position/strategy of liberation and the creation of a secular democratic state in ALL of Palestine in favor of the Zionist gimmick of two states- a position that the Zionist movement adopted by its support of UNGA Resolution 181 in 1947. Unlike the position of the PLO, ODS should stay the course and adopt the ANC position as adopted and articulated in both the Dallas and the Munich Declarations for one democratic state in historic Palestine.
Pingback: Parliament votes to recognise Palestine: what is going on? |
Pingback: One Democracy – Twenty Good Reasons to Press for Statehood
Pingback: Why did Britain recognize Palestine? | Israel Messenger
Pingback: Why did Britain recognize Palestine? | الحرب الطائفية في المملكة
Pingback: Why did Britain recognize Palestine? | NOFrack.co
Hello Yoav, Attia, Verena and Samir,
I’m weighing in again in opposition to these ‘recognise Bantustine’ motions in Sweden, the UK, France, Ireland, the EU etc.
I’ll make a compromise suggestion right off: If the text of some European motion demanded simply ‘recognition of the state of Palestine’ – PERIOD – then I think ODS could support it. Many non-European states have done just that. This short simple text sets no boundaries, doesn’t mention the Zionist Entity and doesn’t praise the two-state solution. That would be real support with no traps.
But look at the actual texts:
UK (passed 13 October 2014): “This House believes that the Government should recognise the state of Palestine ALONGSIDE the state of Israel as a contribution to securing a negotiated TWO-STATE SOLUTION.”
Ireland (passed 10 December 2014): The Irish government shall “officially recognise the State of Palestine, on the basis of the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital, as established in UN resolutions, as a further positive contribution to securing a negotiated TWO-STATE SOLUTION to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
EU (passed 17 December 2014): “The European Parliament supports in principle recognition of Palestinian statehood and the TWO-STATE SOLUTION, and believes these should go hand in hand with the development of peace talks, which should be advanced.”
Don’t you love the UK-motion’s picture: two little states walking side by side, each only wanting what is best for historic Palestine. Peace-talking!
It is way over my head why ODS (one-state) should support motions calling for TWO STATES.
If anything has been consistently supported by the Palestinian people since 1917 it is that Palestine should not be partitioned. The 1988-2014 desire by certain leaders for a state on any square meter of Palestine is an interlude, and ALL Palestinians have never been asked their opinion.
That doesn’t mean we aren’t all secretly happy because the votes INDICATE a favourable shift of European opinion. Yoav, I think you are looking at it only on this symbolic, short-run level. How can re-affirmation of recognition of the ZE and loud support for partition be a “step in the right direction”?
But as Joseph Massad writes in EI these motions result from fear of BDS and fear of de-legitimisation of Israel. http://electronicintifada.net/content/recognizing-palestine-bds-and-survival-israel/14123
In his words: “As there is no Palestinian state to recognize within the 1967, or any other, borders, these political moves are engineered to undo the death of the two-state solution, the illusion of which had guaranteed Israel’s survival as a Jewish racist state for decades. These parliamentary resolutions in fact aim to impose a de facto arrangement that prevents Israel’s collapse and replacement with a state that grants equal rights to all its citizens and is not based on colonial and racial privileges.”
Love that phrase: “undo the death”! Miko Peled has also offered some reasons for opposing these motions: http://mikopeled.com/author/mikopeled/
In my opinion if ODS is about anything, it is about an inspiring vision. Its purity is the best thing we have. The ANC and the Zionists stuck to their pure vision and they won. Unless a ‘recognition’ motion ignores the ZE and the two-state solution, it is a step in the wrong direction, a deceptive effort to save core Israel’s ass.
Yoav, I think you should change the title of this thread: there is no general support by ODS supporters for these motions.
Thanks, Blake
Pingback: Parliament votes to recognise Palestine: what is going on? | rs21