Two States Is Dead: The UN Refugee Resolution Shows the Way

A Palestinian state alongside Israel has never been further from reality than it is today. Negotiations for a two-state solution have again capsized despite the Palestinian coup regime’s pronounced wish (if one is to believe Wikileaks) to sell off the Palestinians’ core rights in exchange for some measly Bantustan areas.

Meanwhile Israel, contrary to international law, continues to build settlements and steal Palestinian land, in a colonisation with ethnic cleansing, as it has done for more than a hundred years. The politics of genocide against the Palestinians have actually been facilitated by the UN suggestion for partition in 1947 and the Oslo Agreement in 1993 that launched the idea of a two-state solution.

Support for the idea of a two-state solution is dwindling among the Palestinians. Fatah, the movement that seized power through a coup after Hamas had won the election, has the two-state idea on its programme, but is losing supporters since the latest events. Hamas, formerly a bitter enemy of the idea, in attempt to achieve agreement, has suggested a provisional two-state solution connected to the UN Resolution 194 concerning the Palestinian refugees’ inalienable right to return. A right that Israel categorically denies as it is incompatible with the preservation of Israel as a Jewish state, as its Jewish majority would be threatened for demographic reasons.

Despite this, energetic efforts are presently being made to revive the Idea of a two-state solution from an unexpected corner: Latin America! During a short space of time, as if under starter’s orders, Brazil, Argentine, Bolivia, Uruguay, Guyana and (reserving opinion re the borders) Chile and Peru have hurried to assist at the request of the Palestinian coup regime. These countries “recognise” – without a prior peace agreement – the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel with the armistice line from 1967 as the border. Cuba and Venezuela have done something similar, also the former Soviet Union, but much earlier on.

Headed by France, the EU is also for a “recognition” of Palestine when “appropriate”, meaning when the US and Israel so wish. The Norwegian foreign minister declared Norway’s enthusiastic wish to help the Israel puppet, Abbas, to construct a regular state apparatus for the new “democracy” alongside Israel.

Israel rejected the initiative from the Latin American countries as meaningless. The US has followed suite. Israel wishes to seize at least the whole of Palestine – but without the Palestinians.

The two-state solution is destructive

Those who advocate the idea of two states may applaud the recycled initiative from the Latin American states. Perhaps their governments wish to demonstrate their independence from the US and Israel by flagging their sympathy for the stateless Palestinians. But the action is destructive for at least these following reasons:

1. The expelled Palestinians will be hindered from returning, which means that the ongoing politics of genocide are accepted both by the Palestinians and the international community. Israel’s 2 million Palestinians, discriminated against and threatened with deportation, are left to their fate. International law is put aside. The core reason for the conflict remains unresolved, thus new wars can be expected.

2. Just like other UN states that defer to the US and Israel’s agenda, the Latin American countries close their eyes to the fact that the Palestinians are deeply divided into two hostile factions that have different opinions about the two-state idea. Dialogue with only one side will of course increase the division.

3. After winning an election, acknowledged by international observers, with a substantial majority, Hamas was entrusted by the Palestinian people to appoint a government. This has been sabotaged by Fatah in collaboration with the US and Israel together with other western states who do not accept the election results. The brazen act of taking Fatah’s side in this situation is also hypocritical, as it counteracts the democracy these countries say they advocate. Emphasising this is the fact that the Fatah leadership receives arms and military training from Israel in order to fight Hamas.

4. There is no evidence that Israel will stop the successful tactics of exploiting negotiations to steal more land, and continue the ethnic cleansing and the genocide.

Those who are presently trying to achieve new negotiations for two states carefully avoid stating an opinion about the core question in the Middle East, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, which has been going on since 1948. A treaty that aims for just and lasting peace must first and foremost solve the core question of the conflict, or everything else rests on shifting ground.

It is the expulsion of the Palestinians from their country and the theft of their land that has created the preconditions for the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, with a comfortable Jewish majority. A state that has no determined borders and that forever yearns to expand.

What is a “Jewish state”?

The two-state solution means, in fact, a Palestinian state alongside a Jews-only state, other interpretations are meaningless. This is understood when we study the two meanings of the term “Jewish state” that can be discussed, namely one according to the UN partition plan from 1947 and one according to Zionism’s definition.

A prerequisite for the UN partition plan was that the demographic relationship between Jews and Arabs could only be changed if both parties were willing. Other preconditions were determined borders, equality before the law, respect for land and property and more. Israel has ignored all these demands, thus, through its actions, rendering the resolution obsolete.1 The fact that the partition plan is indifferent to people’s right to self-determination and has never been acknowledged by the Arab states in question and the Palestinians’ representatives, reinforces this point.2

The sole remaining meaning of the term “Jewish state” is thus the Zionists’. It considers that the state exists exclusively for the world’s Jews, but not for the original inhabitants, the Palestinians. A state territory of this nature can never be other than colonial and racist.

Palestine is an Arab country, predominantly Muslim, which has been colonised. With inevitable logic, therefore, all Arab and Muslim resistance in the Middle East must be crushed, and regimes bribed into loyalty. To this end, Israel uses its influence in the US for war policies that spread in ever widening circles from Iraq and Afghanistan, to Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and soon the whole of Iran. American soldiers, and those of other countries – not Israelis – sacrifice their lives for Israel’s interests and the price is death of millions of civilians and devastated countries. Following on this, the US economy and reputation are in continual decline. Israel on the other hand is more than happy with the result in Iraq.3

Those opposing South Africa’s apartheid system never proposed a “white state” alongside a “black state”. To this day, we would see that as morally unsound, ridiculous and not in the interests of the original black population.

It may seem slightly strange therefore that so many international protesters against Israel’s apartheid system are in favour of a “Palestinian state” alongside a “Jewish state”. It is not unreasonable to ask the question if this is solely political theatre and who the director might be. The Latin American states in question are born out of freedom fights against colonialism. Several of them are considered to be part of the anti-imperialistic avant-garde. They should not have fallen into this trap.

The Refugee Resolution guides the way

The UN resolution 194 from 1949 concerning refugees’ right to return to their homes is the Palestinian’s main legal instrument in their fight, with the significant supplement in resolution 3236 that the right to return is inalienable. The resolution states that its implementation is inevitable to the solution of the Palestinian question and for a just and lasting peace. Today, the UN resolution 194 is still the key4 to the end of the conflicts in the Middle East and a significantly less dangerous world.

In August 2008, Mahmoud Abbas, who was then still the Palestinians’ legitimate president, received an open letter signed by all of Palestine’s most important organisations: civil rights movements, institutions and parties in the ”homeland”, including Fatah and Hamas, together with refugee organisations. The letter highlights the conflict’s absolute core question, that of the Palestinian refugees and their inalienable right to return to their homes. This document must be judged as including the most important guidelines upon which the Palestinian people in the “homeland” and in exile have been able to agree.5

Another fundamental document for the Palestinians’ way forward is that covering the demands of a boycott, isolation and sanctions against Israel (BDS) from June 9th 2005. This document also focuses on the rights of the refugees.6

The best way to show solidarity, and support the Palestinians is therefore – quite simply – in different ways, to work for the boycott of Israel that they themselves advocate and the right to return according to the UN decision. An initiative to expel Israel from the UN because of its refusal to obey resolutions, especially 194, would also be suitable.7

  1. Virginia Tilley: Hamas and Israel´s “Right to Exist.” []
  2. UN Partition Plan. []
  3. Israel: We Destroyed Iraq.. Iraq must Stay Divided and Isolated… The Oil of Northern Iraq will Flow into Israel! []
  4. Dr. Salman Abu Sitta: It’s time for those who hold keys to their homes to rise up. []
  5. Open letter to President Mahmoud Abbas. []
  6. Palestinian United Call for BDS against Israel. []
  7. Revoking Israel’s UN Membership? []

Snorre Lindquist is a Swedish Architect of, among other things, the House of Culture in front of the Nativity Church in Bethlehem on the West Bank. Contact him at: snorre_lindquist@hotmail.com. Lasse Wilhelmson is a commentator on the situation in the Middle East, and has been a member of a local government in Sweden for 23 years, four of which in an executive position. Contact him at: lassewilhelmson@bredband.net. Read other articles by Snorre Lindquist and Lasse Wilhelmson.

22 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Ismail Zayid said on March 16th, 2011 at 10:37am #

    The two-state solution was born dead. It never had any reality, as well-explained in this excellent report. The Zionist programme, as reaffirmed by Golda Meier, in the stement in the Sundat Times, in 1969, denied the existance of the Palestinian people. The partition proposals going back to the Peel Commission and the UNGA resolution # 181, of Nov. 29, 1947, were unjust and were neve intended, by the Zionist groups, to be implimented. David Ben Gurion, Israel first prime minister stated, after Israel conquered 78% of historic Palestin: “The status quo will not do. We have set up a dynamic state ben upon expansion.” And the expansionist progamme continues.

    The Oslo Accord was also a charade were the Palestinian leaders sold out their people’s cause, as the current PA , led by Abbas. For the Palestinian people, the Right of Return to their homes is a fundamental principle and basic right and any solution, short of that, will not bring peace.

    The Palestinian people are calling for a modicum of justice. For without justice, there will be no lasting peace for Muslims, Christians or Jews in this tortured land.

  2. 3bancan said on March 16th, 2011 at 3:34pm #

    “A Palestinian state alongside Israel has never been further from reality than it is today”

    There has never been a plan for “a Palestinian state alongside Israel” in the Jewish nazis’ plans for the ME.

    As to “the 2-state solution”: It’s ok with me – Palestine for the Palestinians and Birobizhan for the Jewish nazis…

  3. hayate said on March 16th, 2011 at 7:29pm #

    The site Palestine Think Tank says they are closed when I’ve visited during the last few weeks.

    [http://palestinethinktank.com]

    Does anyone know if this is temporary or permanent?

  4. Rehmat said on March 16th, 2011 at 8:03pm #

    Historically- two-state solution was suggested in the notorious Balfour Declaration in 1917. It could not materialized because the dream of the Zionist leaders have always been a demographic Jewish state in whole Palestine an some of its surrounding Arab countries (Jordan, Lebanon, Iraqi Kurdistan and part of Egypt).

    Now, Benji Netanyahu government using the murder of Jewish settler Fogel and his family last Friday to derail the so-call ‘peace negotiation’ and build 1000 new homes for the illegal Jewish settlers. Interestingly, Fogel and his family members were murdered by Fogel’s Korean servant whom Fogel refused to pay 10,000 shekels in backpay.

  5. Deadbeat said on March 16th, 2011 at 8:52pm #

    The closure of Palestinian Think Tank looks to be permanent. I’m sadden to see it close. There were some great contributors to that site.

  6. hayate said on March 16th, 2011 at 9:04pm #

    Deadbeat

    I searched on the web and found this site:

    [http://wewritewhatwelike.com]

    Also associated with Mary Rizzo. From the sections labeled PTT, it looks like she might be continuing Palestinian Think Tank at this site. I had not looked in on PTT for a while when I noticed the closed page, maybe she announced she was moving to this new site and I didn’t see the notice?

  7. Nate said on March 17th, 2011 at 4:40am #

    For alternatives to the two-state solution, take a look at the recent issue of the Middle East Journal. The article on the “Interspersed Nation-State” describes the theoretical and functional basis for a state structure that exists primarily over people rather than land. This means an arrangement in which Palestinians and Israelis would each have an independent government, but the citizens of each state would be able to move freely and commingle within the entire disputed region.

    The Interspersed Nation-State structure would allow two states to tax, regulate, and protect their separate peoples within the same region (i.e., the states share land). Citizens of both states would have the benefits of an autonomous government and also access to 100% of the disputed territory. And while this may seem “idealistic” the research in the article shows that the strictly territorial state structure is outdated and no longer functions well in an increasingly globalized, mobile world.

  8. 3bancan said on March 17th, 2011 at 6:00am #

    Nate said on March 17th, 2011 at 4:40am #

    “the strictly territorial state structure is outdated and no longer functions well in an increasingly globalized, mobile world”

    Ie, the Jewish nazis are above the law and Nate is here to spread Josef Ovadia’s ‘truth': “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel”…

  9. Rehmat said on March 17th, 2011 at 6:53am #

    Mary Rizo is a ‘self-hating Jew’, according to ‘Jews sans frontieres. She originally started with ‘peacepalestine’ website, which was canned within two years. Then she joined with Gilad Atzmon at ‘Palestine Think Tank’. Gilad Atzmon left the site later. The site says ‘not hacked’!

    Mary Rizo, who had comment posted on my blog ‘Rehmat’s World’ – still owns TAXCALA translation site.

  10. Angie Tibbs said on March 17th, 2011 at 7:10am #

    For your information, when introducing “We Write What We Like”, Mary stated that “We Write What We Like is a new version of Palestine Think Tank which is widened to include more editors and authors, and simplified in its form to be able to bring a greater amount of fresh content than PTT could”.

  11. Deadbeat said on March 17th, 2011 at 9:45am #

    There’s a very interesting debate on “We Write What We Like” between Mary Rizzo and Aletho over Libya. I have to agree with Aletho and think that Ms. Rizzo made a tactical error in her arguments. There is a lot of confusion about Libya and it is interesting to see the arguments of those who argue that the Left should stand with the “people” however without knowing much about who the “people” are. As we have seen with the “Greens” in Iran, one really has to do the work to get real information especially as the manipulators are now trying to hide their reactionary policies and their execution amongst the populous.

  12. hayate said on March 17th, 2011 at 11:36am #

    Thanks, Angie Tibbs.

  13. shabnam said on March 17th, 2011 at 1:55pm #

    {There is a lot of confusion about Libya and it is interesting to see the arguments of those who argue that the Left should stand with the “people” however without knowing much about who the “people” are.}

    I agree with you Deadbeat. Please look at the following to see who are behind “Greens” stooges where the pseudo ‘left’ including the Judeofascists support in order to help Israel to erect “greater Israel” based on Oded Yinon protocol.

    {I just stumbled into my personal Wikileaks moment by inadvertently finding a document that apparently links “Green Movement” operatives to a US government propaganda operation. This is the second time such links have been exposed by me inadvertently. (They’re not good at keeping secrets!)
    The document said, among other things, that it was meant to appeal to the youth in Iran because the existing LA-based outlets were basically too incompetent and not taken seriously, and furthermore the project had the backing of “leaders of the Green Movement” (mentioning Mohsen Sazegara and someone who runs a pro-Mousavi/Karroubi facebook page, amongst other B-list types.) They estimated that the network would become financially self-sufficient in three years. They also planned on creating a foundation in an unspecified country in Europe to essentially act as the front for this network, and there were some statistics about how the “secondary” marketing by email distributions in iran would be, how to press the human rights angle for maximum advantage, and how they planned to get around government internet censors in Iran, Etc. etc.}

    {http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/11355}

  14. hayate said on March 17th, 2011 at 10:18pm #

    Deadbeat

    “There’s a very interesting debate on “We Write What We Like” between Mary Rizzo and Aletho over Libya.”

    I saw that and was going to say something, but thought better of it. Neither side “smelled right”.

  15. Deadbeat said on March 17th, 2011 at 11:53pm #

    I agree hayate about staying out of the fray but just judging on the basis of rhetoric I had to lean with Alethos. Now that the UN has decided to declare war against Qaddafi and the Libyan people, Mary Rizzo will now have her positioned linked with the Ziofacists.

  16. hayate said on March 18th, 2011 at 12:43am #

    Deadbeat

    I found myself siding with Aletho, as well. Soon after the Libya protests began, I remember reading something on some dubious site about Chavez strongly supporting Q and the Libyan guv. I then checked the Venezuela sites that support Chavez and saw nothing of the kind. The stance towards the Libyan protesters vs the guv was neutral, and they were consistently opposed to outside intervention of any sort. Which is what I would expect.

    While there are valid reasons to change the Libyan guv, just as there are to change just about every other guv, that doesn’t mean the legit protesters are the ones who are the ones calling the shots behind the scenes, or that they will ever have any real say should the regime change take place. For the most part, legit opposition is too divergent and unorganised, in comparison to the “color revolutionary leadership” that usually takes over if the coup proves successful. How many recent “revolutions” have really changed anything? I cant think of any. The least destructive have at best only resulted in stalemates where the violence ceased, but the capitalists still remain in power, though maybe a little less repressive. The people, who backed these “revolutions” still remain powerless. With all the western support for the rebellion in Libya, there is no doubt that if it succeeds, the only thing that will change for Libyans themselves is who is boss, and likely, given the nature of the ziofascist west and what they like to run their puppet guvs, most Libyans will probably be worse off and more powerless than they are now.

  17. Deadbeat said on March 18th, 2011 at 2:35am #

    With all the western support for the rebellion in Libya, there is no doubt that if it succeeds, the only thing that will change for Libyans themselves is who is boss, and likely, given the nature of the ziofascist west and what they like to run their puppet guvs, most Libyans will probably be worse off and more powerless than they are now.

    Agreed! And considering that most people in the West can’t agree on how to spell Qadaffi’s name I can’t see how anyone on the Western Left can figure out with certainty what is actually happening in Libya. My context has been to look at where Libya is strategically. It is right between Egypt and Tunisia and since Obama didn’t want to appear to be against the Middle East rebellions he can use Qadaffi as a great excuse to get U.S. troop into the Middle East to crush these rebellions that worries the Zionists so much.

    I clearly think this is much less about Qadaffi, Libyan politics and oil and much more about Israel and Zionism.

  18. jayn0t said on March 18th, 2011 at 8:16am #

    Unfortunately, Dissident Voice has announced it is going to stop allowing comments at the end of March. However, ‘wewritewhatwelike’ does allow comments so hopefully we can continue our discussions there.

  19. hayate said on March 19th, 2011 at 12:15am #

    Deadbeat

    “I clearly think this is much less about Qadaffi, Libyan politics and oil and much more about Israel and Zionism.”

    I think so, as well. another “hitler” standing in the way of israel/zionist goals and a thorn in their side politically on the world scene. The ziofascist do not tolerate any disobedience, no matter how minor.

  20. hayate said on March 19th, 2011 at 12:20am #

    jayn0t

    “Unfortunately, Dissident Voice has announced it is going to stop allowing comments at the end of March.”

    It is unfortunate. Sometimes the additional info found in the comments section after an article is just as useful as the original article.

  21. jayn0t said on March 19th, 2011 at 1:40pm #

    A tip, guys. Don’t call Mary Rizzo names… she’ll ban you at the drop of a hat…

  22. Jonas Rand said on March 20th, 2011 at 4:40pm #

    Deadbeat, there is no one way to spell Gaddafi’s name in the Latin alphabet, because the letters can be Romanized in multiple ways, especially since dialectal variation differs from the standard. In the Libyan dialect of Arabic, it’s pronounced Gaddafi or Kaddafi, but in standard Arabic it is pronounced “Qazzaffi” or “Qadhdhafi”. (and then there is the question of using “el” or “al”, “Mu’ammar” or “mo’ammer”, etc.) The only standardized way of spelling it is القذافي.

    jaynot, maybe you shouldn’t call her names? What kind of debate is that?