Writing in Beirut’s Daily Star newspaper, leading Palestinian intellectual and Al Quds University President Sari Nusseibeh runs through the reasons why the “one-state solution” is enjoying a revival. Nusseibeh, however, is emphatic in his rejection of a unitary state between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan.
He writes that proponents of this solution:
“…seem not to realize how much more human suffering it would take to attain. As for sounding alarm bells, this might have made sense 25 years ago, when settlement building in East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank was just starting. Today, with over half a million Jews living across the 1949 Armistice Line, it’s almost too late to reverse the process. It is therefore time for action, not words.
Practically, this means pushing within the next few months for a fair deal both parties can live with. And that means a two-state deal; the Israelis will never agree to anything else. Many Palestinians think a single state might be ideal - since it would involve the defeat of the Zionist project and its replacement by a binational country that would eventually be ruled by its Arab majority. But many ships have been wrecked on such rocks before. And the one state likely to emerge from a cataclysmic conflict is likely to be anything but ideal.”
Here we have, with Nusseibeh’s characteristic clarity and eloquence, an acknowledgment of two unsavory and related truths: the window might be closing on two states, but we should not jump to the conclusion that one state is the answer. Nusseibeh seems to grasp what the western advocates of a single state do not. A single state is not a solution, but the terrifying outcome of a conflict that would likely echo the horrors of the Balkans or central Africa.
In his recent profile of Nusseibeh for Z Word, Anthony David related a story which bears repeating: ” As Nusseibeh told an audience at the Hebrew University shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, when talk of the ‘clash of civilizations’ was in the air: ‘Our shared future has to provide Israel with a secure guarantee for its existence as a Jewish state, but it has also to provide Palestinians with a secure guarantee for their freedom and independence in their own state. Israelis and Palestinians. If anything, we are strategic allies.’
Perhaps never more so than now.
LA mayor de la veces pienso que Nusseibeh es una de las voces cuerdas que deberían tener más espacio, tanto en la prensa judía como en la palestina ¡Que decir de la general!.
Se trata de un palestino con un compromiso irrefutable y apasionado con lo que considera justo.
Much as we want to encourage the spirit of internationalism and a multi-lingual ethic, if people posting comments in languages other than English could so in English too, that would be much appreciated! If you don’t feel confident writing in English, then post your comment anyway - if we are able to get it translated and approved, we will do so.
Jorge says…
——————
Most of the time Nusseibeh is one of those sane voices that ought to be given more space, in the Jewish as well as Palestinan press, and let’s not even mention the press in general.
He’s a Palestinian with an irrefutable and passionate committment to what he considers to be just.
“Nusseibeh es una de las voces cuerdas que deberían tener más espacio, tanto en la prensa judía como en la palestina…”
Ya quisieramos que hubiera sólo una decena más como ella y que tuviera la misma repercusión que los israelíes antisionistas profesionales tienen en la prensa europea.
Esperen sentados…
Por otro lado, en una entrevista en el Haaretz, también jugaba con el miedo a la solución de un estado binacional.
Dos artículos interesantes, uno de Nathan Sharansky en el JPost, sobre la opción Moshe Ya’alon, y un comentario en A7FR sobre si tras lo sucesos de Acre (Akko), y los que ciertas organizaciones árabes israelíes preparan en ciudades israelíes mixtas, habrá una reflexión adicional de los defensores de la causa binacional o del “estado de los ciudadanos”.
Jose:
“Dos artículos interesantes, uno de Nathan Sharansky en el JPost, sobre la opción Moshe Ya’alon, y un comentario en A7FR sobre si tras lo sucesos de Acre (Akko), y los que ciertas organizaciones árabes israelíes preparan en ciudades israelíes mixtas, habrá una reflexión adicional de los defensores de la causa binacional o del “estado de los ciudadanos”.”
Tienes una conexion a los dos articulos?
Gracias.
Disculpa el retraso.
En JPost, el de Nathan Sharansky, “Can Israel approach peace from the bottom up”, algo así como “¿Puede Israel realizar una aproximación a la paz desde la base (desde la realidad, o desde abajo a arriba)?
http://www.jpost.com./servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017544638&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Otro muy interesante de Dan Diker, sobre la utilización actual de la amenaza de una solución de un estado binacional enarbolada tanto por dirigentes israelíes como palestinos, “The one-state solution, post-Oslo”:
http://www.jpost.com./servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017567425&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
y sobre la movilización árabe post Acre (Akko), en francés,
“« Effet Acco » : la lutte politique arabe s’intensifie dans les villes mixtes”
http://www.a7fr.net/article/58108.htm
Por cierto, a seguir los artículos del inefable corresponsal del País (Muñoz) en Israel sobre los sucesos en Acre, hablando de pogromos de judíos, hordas judías, judeo-nazis (en boca de una anciana) y pasando sobre puntillas sobre la actuación árabe, el llamamiento a “Matar judíos” desde la mezquita y el papel de los rumores en la “calle árabe”, la razzia organizada contra tiendas y coches de los barrios judíos, etc.
Recomiendo un artículo de Jackey Levy en Ynet, a colación de los sucesos de Acre, titulado “Pogromos y doble rasero”, donde comenta como los pogromos para cierta gente sólo los pueden cometer los judíos (léase colonos y fanáticos religiosos), pero que cuando los comete la otra parte, en contra de los judíos, es incorrecto histórica y socialmente (y de mal gusto) denominarlos así.
The comment above is the last one that will be allowed in Spanish as I don’t have time to translate them. Apologies to anyone who is upset by this
Jose thank you for the links to the article by Sharansky. He is always worth reading.
Have you read Sharansky’s book “Defending Identity?”
It is a quick read but there is a lot of material packed in the few pages. His reply to those who would attack the notion of national idenitities as somehow leading to extreme nationalism or even worse to fascism is very sophisticated politically as well as philosphically.
btw:I tried answering in Espanol but it didn’t pass the censor.
I can understand the reasing behind sticking to English but I must say it did annoy me nevertheless.
The last paragraph should have read:
btw:I tried answering in Espanol but it didn’t pass the censor. I can understand the reasoning behind sticking to English but I must say it did annoy me nevertheless.
Shriber, actually it’s a far more innocent explanation than what you call censorship. I deleted your comment by accident. My apologies.
The point about a comments thread is that everyone should be able to understand it. As we are an English language blog, it seems only reasonable for people to comment in English. We don’t have the time or the resources to translate.
“The point about a comments thread is that everyone should be able to understand it. As we are an English language blog, it seems only reasonable for people to comment in English.”
I agree, Ben.
It is unfortunate that Nusseibeh is largely marginalised as he seems to be one that has both narratives into account. He romanticises about the idyllic “one state”, where the utopian answer would be perfect, but he is not willing to lose or put more lives at stake here. Israelis want a Jewish state; Palestinians do want a state that they have control over. Let’s not look too far ahead and say that two states is impossible. It still can be plausible no matter how grim today’s reality is.