The One State Solution Sounds Like a Good Idea, but …

Solving the problem of Israel/Palestine isn’t rocket science: the solution is obvious. We just have to get serious about it.

A brief history

Due to recent events, things are coming to a head in the Middle East. As Israel becomes more belligerent and aggressive, more committed than ever to using overwhelming force as its only answer to a rapidly deteriorating situation, feeling itself even further victimized and becoming ever more paranoid, two issues come to the fore: the question of legitimacy and the question of long-term viability. More and more people, even within Israel itself, are becoming aware that what we are looking at is a severe societal case of paranoid schizophrenia, a split personality featuring the Jewish Übermensch and the poor innocent yiddische victim, in light of which the search for a solution becomes even more pressing.

It is becoming clear even to very slow learners that a European settler-colonialist society based on ethnocentric identity, established in the middle of the 20th Century no less, in the midst of people with whom they have little or nothing in common, aggressively alienating their new neighbors through the establishment of an Apartheid state based on blatant racism, and carving out ever more territory for itself through ethnic cleansing and remorseless genocide, never really had much of a future.

The only reason that this bizarre “State” has lasted so long, six decades and counting, has been the financial, military and political support that Israel has been receiving from the West. This support, in turn, has been the result of intense pressure brought to bear by a relatively small number of wealthy and powerful Zionist Jews, the Israel Lobby, particularly in the English speaking democracies. This support seems to be on the verge of weakening, while the political elites are finally beginning to comprehend the insupportable costs to their countries, in lives, wealth, international support and moral standing, of succumbing to such blackmail.

Equally relentless have been a small but determined number of liberal Jews who have fought Zionism from day one, and whose numbers are now increasing exponentially. These people have come to realize not only the moral hypocrisy and irrationality of supporting liberal, humanitarian and universalist causes everywhere except Israel, but the age old danger to themselves of antagonizing their host populations and ultimately incurring their inevitable wrath.One would think that we Jews, supposedly so smart, would learn from history, not mindlessly repeat it.

So is there a way out of this increasingly intolerable and dangerous situation? Of course there is; it’s been there from the beginning, and in fact it was the mainstream Zionist policy for nearly eighty years prior to the rise of Nazi Germany. Various configurations were envisioned, but what it boiled down to was sharing the land with its existing inhabitants, the Palestinians, on the basis of justice and equality. These were the conditions, in fact, articulated in the United Nations resolution in favor of the establishment of a Jewish state, which, like all subsequent UN resolutions, Israel has treated with the utmost contempt.

That brings us up to 1948. A great deal has happened since then, but I must reduce it to a few sentences. The inexorable logic of political Zionism, driven by fear of the “demographic problem,” requires the maintenance of a predominantly Jewish population – the traditional ratio being no less than 80:20. As the current Palestinian population within the ever shifting boundaries of “Israel” is about 20% and growing faster than the Jewish population, the politically convenient notion of the Jewish State being a “democracy” is threatened by the greater fertility of its (second-class, feared, hated and barely tolerated) non-Jewish citizens. In addition, since 1967, Israel has occupied the West Bank and Gaza, areas previously in a political limbo, but now representing an “existential” threat within the borders of what the political Zionists have always claimed as “Greater Israel.” (See The Zionist Plan for the Middle East) Even not counting the Palestinian diaspora, those within Israel together with the populations of the Occupied Territories would soon constitute a majority.

Although Israel forcibly evacuated its settlers from Gaza, hoping thereby to consign the inmates of what then became an open air concentration camp to oblivion or, they hoped, rule by the Egyptian dictatorship (who declined the offer), the residents, mostly refugees since the Nakba, refused to accept their fate. In response, the government has chosen to lay a medieval siege to the area, employing the ancient strategy of literally starving the besieged into submission.

This situation arose because the Israeli intelligence services, comparable in power and ruthlessness to the Soviet KGB, had instigated the creation of an Islamic fundamentalist party called Hamas to counter the previously dominant Fatah party of Yasir Arafat. When Hamas surprisingly won the elections sponsored by Israel and its patron, the U.S., and was able to consolidate its power in Gaza if not in the West Bank, Israel promptly instituted a siege of Gaza, hoping thereby to undermine Hamas. It wasn’t a very bright idea and has lead to barely imaginable terror and further suffering of people most of whom were already refugees from the Nakba.

There is a third segment of the Palestinian population, the Diaspora, the most numerous of the three groups, living in refugee camps in Lebanon, in Syria, as well as constituting nearly half the population of Jordan, and spread out across the globe, with many of them in the U.S. and the U.K. They have steadfastly refused to give up their right of return, a right that is not based on an ancient story, like the one that forms the core of the Jewish narrative, but is clearly historical, quite recent, and deeply enshrined in international law.

This is the real “existential threat” to Israel, not the seemingly endless and arbitrary series of enemy nations “out to get them,” the latest target being Iran. The real existential threat to us, the rest of the world, is the Israeli proclivity to act on its paranoia regardless of consequences, to rely on its overwhelming military superiority (built from the largesse of U.S. taxpayers) to its perceived enemies.

Israel is a nuclear power (again, thanks to its fifth column within the U.S.) and there is no reason to believe that if they imagine themselves sufficiently threatened they won’t use those nukes. The bottom line, the reason that the story herein described is so vital to understand, is the likelihood that Israel, if allowed to continue on its path unchecked, will inevitably provoke a nuclear war, a catastrophe that life on this planet might very well not survive.

The Solution

There are various proposals for resolving this state of affairs, but they really boil down to two: the one state solution vs. the two state solution. The latter has been endorsed by most of the world’s elites, including significant minorities within the Israeli government and civil society; in the West, led by the U.S.; most of the Arab countries and the PLO since Yasir Arafat himself endorsed the idea. Well, that pretty much settles it, one might say, at least if you don’t look too closely. The two state solution proposes that an independent Palestinian state be created in the West Bank and Gaza within the borders that existed prior to the 1967 war. Such a state would have territorial integrity, a protected land corridor between the two sections, the rights and privileges of any member of the United Nations, provide a home for all Palestinian refugees and have its capitol in East Jerusalem. Makes sense, doesn’t it?

Actually no — it’s pure fantasy. For one thing, it would mean defeat not only for the basic Zionist project of building Eretz Yisroel (Greater Israel), to which the Israeli government is more and more committed, but it runs directly counter to the dynamic that drives the Jewish state, as in all forms of ethnocentric or nationalist fascism. As Lebanon’s Druze leader Walid Jumblatt succinctly put it on May 23rd, “Israel can’t survive without expansion and war.” Assuming for the sake of argument that we’re talking about a truly viable, sovereign Palestinian nation, consider Israel’s dread of a contiguous state populated by its recent victims – well, I needn’t belabor the point.

And just exactly how is the Israeli government going to pull off the forced evacuation of half a million of its citizens? They were faced with a violent struggle to remove the 8,000 Jewish settlers in Gaza. And those settlers have now become nearly dominant in the government and the military, so exactly who is going to do this? What the Israelis mean when they talk about the two state solution is the legitimization of the Matrix of Control that they have designed and mostly already constructed. It consists of about a dozen isolated bantustans, surrounded by barbed wire, checkpoints and guards. These “self-governing” labor camps would not only supply very cheap labor for the Israeli economy, but would have to support their entire infrastructure and administrative budget from such meager revenues through internal taxation. Collectively they would have the status of being a “Palestinian State.” What a deal!

It would also erase the bottom line of the Palestinian struggle, which is the Right of Return to the land from which they were and are being expelled. Neither side, when push came to shove, could or would accept such an arrangement. Any Israeli government that seriously endorsed the idea would immediately fall, as would the collaborationist Palestine Authority in Ramallah if the prospect became imminent. An even more convincing reason, though, is that it could not even remotely be called a “solution” – quite the contrary. Such a configuration could theoretically be imposed by force by the U.S., acting in concert with its allies and the U.N., but it would be like placing a massive nuclear bomb between the river and the sea, just waiting for the spark that would give it critical mass.

There are clear and obvious reasons why the various elites are promoting the idea of the two state solution. For Israel, the “peace process” provides public relations cover for its ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. It should also be clear to people who understand the dynamics of the Jewish state that one thing can’t be allowed to happen – a successful conclusion, peace. Peace is anathema. The primary reason for this is embedded in the nature of Zionism itself. One has to understand that fear, ancient and deep-seated paranoia, is at the heart of Zionism.

For three years I have been imploring you, Jews of Poland, the crown of world Jewry, appealing to you, warning you unceasingly that the catastrophe is nigh. My hair has turned white and I have grown old over these years, for my heart is bleeding that you, dear brothers and sisters, do not see the volcano which will soon begin to spew forth its fires of destruction. I see a horrible vision. Time is growing short for you to be spared. I know you cannot see it, for you are troubled and confused by everyday concerns… Listen to my words at this… for time is running short.

— Vladimir Jabotinsky to the Jews of Warsaw on Tisha b’Av 1938

Moreover, Zionism is a textbook example of ethnocentric fascism, almost identical to Nazism, merely having a different tribal identity. A salient characteristic of such ideologies, as Jumblatt pointed out, is that they have no brakes — if they stop picking fights with their neighbors, if they stop trying to expand further and further, they lose their cohesion, their raison d’etre, and die.

This is particularly true in the case of Israel for a number of reasons. One of the main ones is that the Jewish population of Israel is a hodgepodge of different peoples, a true melting pot of cultures that have little in common with one another except for the notion that they are “Jewish.” But, as Sand has convincingly demonstrated, there is no such thing as “the Jewish people,” any more than there was such a thing as the “Aryan race.” It’s just a story, the kind one would tell to children, which was then massaged into powerful propaganda. Without the glue of an external enemy and serial wars, Israel would implode. Its people, by and large, distrust and even detest one another. As long as their fear and hatred can be directed at the “other,” the external enemy, then the house of cards can maintain itself.

Until recently, Israel resembled India, a caste system with the Brahmins (the Ashkenazim) on top and those from the third world at the bottom, with the Sephardim somewhere in between, and the Ethiopians and other exotic “Jews” being the Untouchables. However, several new wrinkles have emerged in recent years, particularly with the massive intake of Russian opportunists (many of whom are about as “Jewish” as Mao Tse-Tung), and more ominously, the rise of a virulently fascist religious element. And lastly, the Gush Emunim, the settler movement, a group of way over the top fanatics who largely overlap with the religious zealots. They are becoming increasingly powerful and are challenging the old Ashkenazi elite in both the political establishment and the military. These factors create an opportunity for reaching out to the small but still potent segment of Israeli society that retains some vestiges of sanity with the idea of one democratic state.

The motivation of the Vichy government in Ramallah is clear enough. This is the small Fatah elite that inherited the Palestine Authority from Yasir Arafat. It is widely recognized as corrupt and wholly self-interested. A Palestinian state would solidify its grip on power and the spoils that would go with it. In any case, they take their orders from Israel and the US.

One State, Three Variations on a Theme

The current situation is already a single state, consisting of Israel and the OPT. Israel has de facto control of the entire country, although Gaza is in a state of resistance, its people desperately trying to survive. Israel controls the all the borders, the transportation infrastructure, the electricity supply, the water supply and has an overwhelming monopoly on military force, in fact everything but the air that people breathe. But those pesky Palestinians refuse to give up and die, which must be extremely irritating to the leadership in Tel Aviv. The strategy is, and always has been, to rid the land of non-Jews, using whatever means are available, but limited by the constraint that Israel vitally needs the support of the West, at the very least American support. The possibility of losing this support — without which Israel would be in the same position as the apartheid state of So. Africa when they could no longer ignore the writing on the wall — is the only thing that has so far prevented the total expulsion or extermination of the Palestinians within the country.

This view, the goal of which is the establishment of Eretz Yisroel, is the Zionist version of a single state. There used to be a largish contingent who imagined that the borders of this state would be the Tigris/Euphrates to the east and the Nile to the west, but there is now a consensus that would be satisfied with the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

There are two other possible versions of a single state, at least in theory. The first is a mirror image of the Zionist one, as articulated by a few Palestinians and their more strident supporters. This vision entails, at least metaphorically, driving the Jews into the sea. For an eloquent and passionate expression of this vision, read ‘A strategy of liberation requires emancipation‘, by Nahida Izzat, someone I admire and respect. It is, at bottom, a simple but unconditional demand for justice. In her view the only solution that would satisfy this condition would be to return the land to its rightful owners — end of story. She leaves up in the air the question of what would happen to the current Jewish population — that is not her concern. This view, which really entails returning to the status quo ante of more than 60 years ago is difficult to fault. However, it ain’t gonna happen. As Thomas Wolfe put it, “you can’t go home again.” The fact is that most of the now resident Jewish Israelis were born there. However, as an initial negotiating demand, the version of a single state articulated by Nahida has more validity than the Zionist one, at the very least.

The government of Israel, The Palestinian Authority (PA), the Arab dictatorships and the US Empire and its vassal states are all primarily concerned with short term political and economic advantage rather than an actual solution to the problem. Not only that, but the Western democracies are hamstrung by the nearly absolute power wielded in those countries by the Israel Lobby, a situation that, in the U.S., reaches back at least as far as the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson. Those who have an actual stake in solving the conflict, and thereby achieving the universal goals of human rights, peace and justice, are ordinary Israelis, Jews everywhere, the Palestinians and the population of the West, not to mention the Umma, the Islamic world – actually, all of us.

All of which brings us to the third alternative, the only one that is not only actually possible in the long term, but is the only proposal that actually solves the problem – the replacement of the existing political configuration by a single democratic, pluralistic state. What is seldom mentioned in discussing this possibility is that it would be, to use a kitsch expression, a win-win for everybody, even the extremists on both sides. Let’s see how it would affect the various protagonists, which actually includes all of us, since whether we like it or not we are all connected. I don’t think it’s necessary to go into any detail about the basic idea – it is simple, obvious and is already accepted by most of the world as the gold standard for modern nation-states.

Indeed, it is the entire world that is at risk. Considering the high probability of Israel setting off a nuclear war if it feels irremediably backed into a corner, it is in everyone’s most fundamental interest to bring about a peaceful resolution, which can only be achieved through the establishment of one democratic state.

How Israelis would benefit

One of the most often heard objections to the One State Solution (OSS) is that the Israelis would never accept it. This argument is false on several counts. For one thing, never say never. The Nationalists of apartheid South Africa loudly proclaimed “over my dead body,” as did the Protestant Unionists of Ulster. There are many examples. In the heat of battle, the enemy is always seen as barbaric, the embodiment of evil, people with whom one could never be reconciled. But what actually happens after an armed conflict has been concluded? The hated “Huns,” the dreaded “Boches,” become one’s friends and allies. The “Yellow Peril,” the “Japs” and so forth, not to mention the dreaded Russians, become one’s principal trading partners and fellow upholders of the peace.

No matter how deeply embedded the Israeli dread of annihilation at the hands of their victims may seem, such attitudes, like all political attitudes, are only skin deep and as temporary as the fevers of love and hate. As Gideon Levy put it last year in one his pieces for Haaretz, “the only recognition that is needed now is Israel’s recognition of the Palestinians as human beings. If this is obtained, all the rest will be relatively easy.”

We should also recall that Zionism, prior to the ascendance of Jabotinskian fanaticism and terrorism in Palestine about 80 years ago, envisioned a cooperative, binational state. It was not that long ago. The ridiculous notion that “they’ve always hated and fought one another,” another objection that one often hears, is just one of many facile inventions of Zionist propaganda. Barring relatively brief eruptions of tribal and religious strife, like the Crusades, the siblings of the Abrahamic tradition (outside of Europe at least) have gotten along rather swimmingly for the last 1,500 years, i.e., since the birth of Islam, which has traditionally respected and been hospitable to both Christians and Jews.

The Zionists wanted to have a place where Jews would be safe from their implacable enemies, a place where they could be just ordinary people, going about their business – a place where Jews would no longer be exposed to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Unwilling or unable to recognize that the Western democracies already offered such a haven, they settled on Palestine as the location of the putative Jewish state (a number of other places were considered), they convinced themselves that they could unobtrusively insinuate themselves among the natives, who wouldn’t really mind. After all, the Zionists were enlightened Europeans and the natives were benighted, albeit inoffensive, orientals. No doubt they would feel honored and grateful. Land would be purchased, deals would be made, and knowledge and wisdom would be transferred. Bear in mind that all this was promulgated at the height of European colonialism and the idea of the White Man’s Burden.

Well, what can one say? Good luck, sir, as my teacher put it. We Jews have a reputation for being “smart” people, but a dumber idea has never been formulated. It arose out of a sense of utter desperation and the delusion that Jews would be safe only if they had a State of their own, a sort of super ghetto. So we set about constructing the Golem, but in our usual Rube Goldberg fashion. Even so, the Golem was fed and cared for, and as predicted, it became a monster.

What is it that most Israelis actually want? Not surprisingly, we find that they want what people everywhere want, security and stability, peace, to be respected if not loved, to be free of constant fear and anxiety, to have the sense that their children will have the opportunity to live normal, productive and happy lives. All surveys have been consistent in this respect. None of these things are possible as long as the Israelis stick with political Zionism, and the Israelis, deep down, know this. They may be temporarily deluded, even collectively insane, driven by the howling winds of paranoia, arrogance and bloody minded defiance that always accompany full-blown fascism, but they aren’t actually stupid, and the madness cannot last.

So let’s consider what would likely happen if wiser heads prevailed and the Israelis were to agree to share the land, no matter how reluctantly, with the Palestinians in a genuine, rather than faux, democracy. Jerusalem would become the capitol. Jews, like anyone else, could live wherever they liked in the whole country. Given that they would initially be in the numerical majority, they could insist on whatever safeguards they thought necessary to protect their interests, a negotiating position that the Palestinians would have to give due consideration to. They would most likely have to accept the necessity of a truth and reconciliation commission, but that’s a far cry better than the possible consequences of a solution imposed by a world no longer willing to tolerate a totally out of control rogue state — or the final war, the one that the Jews lose, quite possibly on terms of unconditional surrender, quite possibly after blowing up half the world. Fortunately for the Israelis, the Palestinians have proven themselves to be an extremely decent, tolerant and amazingly patient people. In general, they show remarkably little animosity towards Jewish people, and the remaining hotheads, on both sides, could be dealt with.

Realistically, the Jews, after eventually becoming a minority of the population, but a very substantial minority, would largely retain economic control, as well as dominance in many other ways. South Africa stands as just such an example of “the more things change, the more they remain the same.” And a Jewish culture, with its multifarious institutions, customs and traditions would coexist with its Palestinian counterpart, enriching both but threatening neither.

It should be noted that among all the Islamic peoples the Palestinians are the most secular and the most highly educated. Together, the synergy of the two would almost certainly result in a dynamic society that would instantly become the flagship of the Middle East, in which Jews could play a respected and admired part instead of being universally reviled and hated. Sound too good to be true? Not really — it’s a reasonable projection of what would likely happen if just a little sanity were to prevail.

How Palestinians would benefit

In a survey taken a couple of years ago 72% said they would accept a two state solution. Responding to a different question, 72% said they would accept a one state solution. In a word, the Palestinians would just like the nightmare to stop – they want a solution and they’re not picky about what form it takes. However, as we have pointed out, a two state solution is anything but a solution – it would be a recipe for an even greater disaster. Not that the Israelis, while under the sway of political Zionist leadership, would ever actually consider a viable, sovereign Palestinian state. So it’s not something that we even have to seriously consider, unless the US led West, in its predictably imperious, blundering, short-sighted manner, were to try to impose such a thing.

As for specifics, Jerusalem would be the capitol. The right of return of the Palestinian diaspora, enshrined in international law, would be acknowledged and the negotiating parties would have to work out the details. Needless to say, the obscene wall would come down. The West and the Arab countries would have to pony up a lot of money to deal with the costs of repatriation, compensation on both sides and reparations, but in the long run it would be far cheaper than any conceivable alternative. Again, the details would have to be worked out between the two parties directly concerned, in consultation with all other interested parties.

Presented with such a possibility I think we can say with some certainty that the vast majority of Palestinians would be in favor of such arrangements. After all, like the Israelis, they aren’t stupid. So the other major objection one hears far too often — that the Palestinians have to decide among themselves what they want and then we will support that — can be dismissed as the nonsense it is. The Palestinians, with the boot firmly planted in their necks, are in no position to decide much of anything. And just how would they get together to come up with some expression of their collective desires? In Gaza they are cut off, unable to come and go; in the West Bank they are under an oppressive regime consisting of self-interested Quislings under the military command of an American General, and otherwise they are scattered around the world, many in refugee camps, in no position to even begin to formulate their collective will, if there is such a thing.

How the rest of the world would benefit

This should be too obvious to even mention, but a couple of things need to be said. With the Jewish state dissolved and the problem solved, Zionism, a combination of ethnocentric, religious and nationalist fascism dedicated to the continued existence of Israel, would no longer have a raison d’être and would consequently die a quiet, unlamented demise, to the great relief of billions of people. In one stroke, its iron grip on the political life of the West would relax and perhaps the ideals and hopes that gave rise to the great democracies could somehow be salvaged. The U.S., foremost among these, might once again be viewed with respect instead of with a mixture of fear and contempt. Perhaps we could begin to deal with the real problems that face humanity, without being distracted by the wars, hypocrisy, treason, crimes, terrorism, distortions, double standards, lies, confusion and scheming that Zionism has until now plagued us with.

If one agrees that One Democratic State is the only conceivable solution, then, you, dear reader, must act. As is frequently said, silence is complicity. And as mentioned earlier, we cannot look to the powers that be to accomplish this. They mostly have other agendas, utterly inimical to working for the actual benefit of their constituencies, let alone humanity as a whole. That leaves us, ordinary people, to bring this about. We will have to work within our communities, our towns, cities and states, our own countries. Most people, in the West particularly, have been subjected to incessant propaganda that has left them confused and almost totally ignorant. If you talk to people and just point out a few simple facts you’d be surprised how people will respond. It starts with “Oh, I didn’t know that. Keep talking.” One by one people will become more aware and start pitching in, like a snowball rolling downhill.

If you’re interested, please get in touch with me (we’re just collecting email addresses at this point) — some of us have developed a workable strategy for moving forward, but we need a bunch of people to help out. We envision a three-pronged campaign, in Israel itself, within the Palestinian communities and, most vitally, among the population in the West. It was worldwide moral outrage that undid South African apartheid, along with the resistance of the oppressed, working together with their white South African allies, and, eventually, the recognition by key members of the ruling elite that the jig was up. This will be more difficult, because the power elites in the West weren’t part of the problem then as they are now. The craven, hypocritical politicians have been bought and are terrified of the Israel Lobby. The Zionists own the mainstream media and are in firm control of the universities. This will be more of a challenge than Apartheid in So. Africa or overcoming Jim Crow and segregation in the US was, but we the people can do it, and it has to be done.

It’s high time that One State advocacy went from being a few voices crying in the wilderness to a worldwide movement that will solve the central international political crisis of our time and, potentially, transform our world.

Roger Tucker devotes himself to bringing about One Democratic State between the river and the sea, aka the One State Solution. He cane be reached at: Read other articles by Roger, or visit Roger's website.

30 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Max Shields said on June 15th, 2010 at 11:04am #

    I think it is fair to say that you have clearly identified the problem and solution. It is a non-ideological solution which clears the air of delusions. Perhaps it will be embraced before the other alternatives are kicked into gear.

    I’ve been “discussing” the “one-state solution here, and already there is a small chorus here and elsewhere that is picking up momentum. Many have translated the unfair Helen Thomas affair as one calling for this solution. The ideology that wraps itself in fear and domination is what drive this perpetual conflict. And yet like so many heineous human crimes, there is a deep vulnerability that will show itself and dissipate once the inevitability of a single state solution gains traction.

    We’ve seen it within the deepest and longest of conflicts throughout history, emerging is a banality, followed by a reconstruction. There is an inevitability that one-state brings, a setting in motion a state of equilibrium, that has kept the human world off balance for decades.

  2. Ismail Zayid said on June 15th, 2010 at 11:19am #

    This is an excellent and thorough analysis of this conflict. The backgound sums up the essence the Zionist programme which was and remains the takeover of Palestine and the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people of this land.

    As to the solution, Roger Tucker sums up accurately the impossiible achievement of the so-called two-state solution, because Israel has no intention of allowing the Palestinians a genuine independence in a state in the West Bank and Gaza, a mere 22% of historic Palestine. Israeli definition of a Palestinian state is merely complex fragments of a batustan totally under Israeli control, and denying the dispossessed Palestinian refugees the right of return to their homes, as stipulated by international law and UN resolutions. The one-state solution appeares more logical by creating a secular democratic statet, where all citizens, be they Muslims, Christian or Jews, have equal rights. Alas, such a solution appears remote in the views of the current Israeli leadership and Zionist dogma, where racism and discrimination remain the paramount policy.

  3. Roger Tucker said on June 15th, 2010 at 1:08pm #

    A group of us are collecting the email addresses of people who are in favor of the one state solution. Please write to me at this address if you’d like to be on the list. Once we get started we’ll be sending out bulletins about once a week or so. My address is rtucker41 @

    Roger Tucker
    One Democratic State

  4. MichaelKenny said on June 15th, 2010 at 1:12pm #

    Almost an aside. Israel is not “a European settler-colonialist society based on ethnocentric identity”. It is a pseudo-European nation-state based on Jewish misperceptions of “Europeanness”. The unwillingness to integrate into European society, which got the Jews clobbered at regular intervals right down to 1945, meant that they stood outside the window of European civilisation, aping what they thought they saw within. Taking “snapshots”, but lacking the ongoing evolution of a living culture of which they were part. European colonialism was not based on a historic claim but on brute force born of a master race delusion, which European shave now abandoned but which lives on in an embarrassing number of its colonial “rejects”. Custer didn’t say to Crazy Horse: “God gave this land to me”! Secondly, European colonialism was not “ethnocentric”. Huge numbers of Americans are not of “British” origin and many who think they are, are in fact French Huguenots. A great many Afrikaners are also Huguenots and many of the “Pieds-Noirs” in Algeria were Spanish, Italian, Maltese, anything except French! Maradonna is an Italian name, not Spanish. Kirchner is Swiss German. Che is an Irish-Argentinean! His father was Ernesto Guevara Lynch! The idea of a colony reserved solely for the mother country’s ethnic group is unknown in European colonialism. And, of course, there was always a mother country!
    None of that is true of Israel. The world’s Israel problem does not come from Israel being a product of European colonialism but precisely from the fact that it is NOT a product of European colonialism. Remember Neil Diamond: “L.A.’s fine, but it ain’t home, N:Y.’s home, but it ain’t mine no more”. That’s the problem of the Jews. Israel may well be their “home”, but it had ceased to be “theirs” long before the first Zionists began to return in the 1880s. In other words, Zionism, and the pseudo-European state of Israel that it spawned, are unrealistic and unworkable illusions. The “one-state solution” is thus probably the only realistic solution.

  5. Max Shields said on June 15th, 2010 at 1:17pm #

    MichaelKenny pedantic quibbles aside, you’ve not addressed the heart of the issue presented by Mr. Tucker.

    There is no absoluteness notion of what a European colony is or is not except to say that this tribe is primarily driven from a Euro-Zionist origin and that it behaves in the most salient way as a European colonial-settler nation; perhaps in many respects resembly the likes of the US colonial settlers, than what we see in Africa and parts of Asia.

    But let’s not miss the forest for the trees.

  6. Max Shields said on June 15th, 2010 at 1:26pm #

    I see now that we concur on the solution. There really is no two state “solution”.

  7. Rehmat said on June 15th, 2010 at 2:49pm #

    Roger Tucker is a moral Jew like Gilad Atzmon. I like his honesty.

    “The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was ‘given’ by a foreign power to another people for the creation of a new state. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their numbers increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It’s abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of continuing conflict. No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate?” – Lord Bertrand Russell, The New York Times, February 23, 1970.

  8. Keith said on June 15th, 2010 at 3:05pm #

    Very clear and concise analysis

  9. hayate said on June 15th, 2010 at 11:19pm #

    Roger Tucker has some interesting ideas on the one state-two state question and goes into quite a bit of detail, both on his ideas and on the background israeli aggression, past and present. Good stuff, I think. Most of what he proposes/writes here I don’t have any disagreements with, but there are a few things. First, this bit about the economics:

    “Realistically, the Jews, after eventually becoming a minority of the population, but a very substantial minority, would largely retain economic control, as well as dominance in many other ways.”

    Were that to happen, many of the same problems about israel would remain. Those who control the finances, control the country. And having any group in control of anything, especially Jewish israelis in a new Palestine would probably leave non-Jews in a similar situation they are now. What is needed to power share where no group has control, and everyone has power.

    A couple of other things I had problems with. The first is he doesn’t give a lot of attention to the Palestinian side, what their views might be, and perhaps what they are known to be. He sort of just glosses over this. As a result, he glosses over their role as well.

    The other thing is I think he’s too optimistic about israeli acceptance. I think it wouldn’t be as easy as he proposes and that israeli bigotry and Judeo-supremacism will be much harder to overcome. I think this will take world involvement and probably for a time, occupation of israel by neutral peace keeper forces. Naturally, israel (IE: the zionist forces) will have to be disarmed. Getting them to go for that is going to be a problem. The usa could force that, so could Europe, but as Tucker writes, the guvs of these countries are all pretty much israeli owned and operated now.

    So it will have to be people power that forces these guvs to dezionise, so they can then dezionise the Mideast and help work out a real solution to the problem the zionists, and their corporate buddies created there. Much as Tucker said.

  10. Max Shields said on June 16th, 2010 at 4:44am #

    hayate some good points/concerns. It is hard to imagine a shift in power (symbolic or otherwise) like occurred in South Africa with Mandela. The problem of integration is significant, just look at the USA.

    The problem is how do you take a machine that is in motion based on hate, demonization and racism and deflate it to make way for this transition?

    Are there lessons from S. Africa or else where? Are the dynamics such that there are tactical approaches that could shift this in favor of one-state?

    One of the key elements is preparedness. Are there groups on the ground who would be ready to support such a transition to work through a form of Truth and Reconciliation? Has the two-state sapped much of the strength from a more viable alternative by dissipating energies to move in that direction? But at bottom what are the precursor conditions that would lead to the inevitability of a one-state? What has to happen? The USA is the enabler of Israel. There can be no transition without this relationship radically changing.

    Perhaps Mr. Tucker can respond.

  11. bozh said on June 16th, 2010 at 6:41am #

    It is no brainer to understand that people who maintain an inegalitarian society wld not ever allow a win-win solution for all people or peoples.

    In US, some people are winners; many are losers. In india, sit’n is even worse.
    In israel, even the jews [mizrahim-shephardim] are losers and many ashkenazim or white ‘jews’ are winners.

    In decades or even centuries, a binational state in expalestine, may correct the present inegalitarianism in israel.
    Of the two nonsolutions available, one state ‘solution’ is better way to go.

    That’s why christo-talmudic ad hoc alliance wld not allow it for a long time; if ever?
    Of course, the alliance appears to be avoiding any ‘agreement’ or ‘peace’. This way, israel is doing better or they think israel is better off.
    Let’s recall that presently pal’ns are ruled by asocialists [fascists]; thus, even with two state ‘solution’, most pal’ns wld remain losers.
    It is like that in iraq, lebanon, afgh’n, all the ‘stans, and in most lands. tnx

  12. Roger Tucker said on June 16th, 2010 at 10:39am #

    Max asked me to respond, so here goes. The way, as a number of commenters have suggested, is fraught with difficulties, but, as M.L. King put it, you have to keep your eyes on the prize. We’re not talking about a world revolution, just putting out one major fire that has already killed hundreds of thousands, displaced millions, caused enormous suffering to afflict tens of millions, and threatens to set the whole world ablaze. Because of the peculiar circumstances of this fire, we can’t count on “the authorities” to send in the professional firefighting crews and the heavy equipment. They, in fact, are in league with the arsonists, so it’s up to us, ordinary people, to pitch in and get the job done.

    There will be no semblance of peace in the Middle East (which in this sense now stretches as far as Pakistan) as long as an atavistic, judeofascist state continues to exist in any form. Allowing even a rump Jewish State to continue to exist would be like pretending to put out the fire while leaving part of it burning (the “two state solution”).

    Nobody has suggested that it would be easy or pretty or would solve all the problems. It’s just something that has to be done, and it can only be done if a great number of people all over the world work together in a concerted effort. The process itself could go a long way towards healing our world. Let me know if you’d like to be part of that effort.

  13. t42 said on June 16th, 2010 at 11:33am #

    quoting R Tucker above: “The Zionists wanted to have a place where Jews would be safe from their implacable enemies, a place where they could be just ordinary people, going about their business – a place where Jews would no longer be exposed to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.”

    This is the rap Herzl and accomplices used to sell their scam to a significant segment of the Jewish population of Eastern & Central Europe. When you say “The Zionists” you obscure the distinctions between the original Zionists like Herzl & the other Basel conferees, plus later top leaders like Weissman, Jabotinsky, Ben Gurion etc.; their most fanatic Haganah/Palmach/Irgun/Betar disciples; and the masses of relatively passive followers who bought into the hustle.

    What Herzl et al were interested in was in becoming Big Shots, by presenting to Lord Rothschild and other Jewish plutocrats a scheme whereby the latter could add genuine State Power including military power to the financial power and the behind-the-scenes influence they already enjoyed in the leading imperialist states.

  14. Max Shields said on June 16th, 2010 at 11:56am #

    While first things first are important, some thought to general governance makes the transition toward the “prize” a vision to be realized.

    I would suggest that there needs to be planted, seeds for redistribution of wealth. The proposal is not to empty out the pockets of those with money and sharing it; but rather to socialize the land. This would help to ensure that real wealth, not purely speculative wealth, remains in the public domain. Farmers would have farms and own their harvest and houses, etc., but the land would be rented. The same would be true in urban centers as well.

    South Africa has been moving toward this. A classical economic definition of land is all of nature. So water, minerals and terra firma are all included in this socialization. The public domain, with government stewardship holds land titles to the land. It in turn pays for social services, infrastructure and housing projects.

  15. t42 said on June 16th, 2010 at 12:25pm #

    okay, so far so good. what are you going to do with money & other forms of liquid capital? what becomes of factories, ships, infrastructure like telephone central offices, hydroelectric dams, windfarms and other forms of material capital?

  16. bozh said on June 16th, 2010 at 1:34pm #

    Once again i affirm that if one does not start telling the [hi]story from the begining, one cannot produce an elucidation nor a suggestion for THE SOLUTION.
    In the beginings, and for eons, we were OK. We are OK today and we’l be OK forever.
    This simplicity and a desirable and apsolutely necessary truth cannot be further defined.
    But if people begin their story telling from, let’s say, 10 k yrs ago when NOT ALL OF US WERE OK [to the clerico-noble class], and persisting in believing or propagating that we are not OK, where thou goest?
    Nowhere! There is only one fire we need to fight: that we are not OK! Being accepted as OK, solves ?all of our ills that befall us on interpersonal and interethnic levels.

  17. Don Hawkins said on June 16th, 2010 at 1:47pm #

    What you just wrote Bozh is true the secret is to not forget at least most of the time.

  18. bozh said on June 16th, 2010 at 2:35pm #

    Don, thanks,
    Yes, we the no ok’s, need to get our lives back. And we ain’t gonna get them back if we just ask for them from people who are taking and keeping them away from us, the unwashed.
    There we are! Not one foreign word; all words purely germanic. And i bet, if i threw in some greek, french, or latin, i wld have made a mess of it.

    Mind u, i read this post to my small head and she said to me: I have my life! If u don’t, that’s ur problem. How in god’s name can u live in the greatest country; say such a stupidity and feel so low??? Touche!!! tnx

  19. Deadbeat said on June 16th, 2010 at 3:40pm #

    What has to happen? The USA is the enabler of Israel. There can be no transition without this relationship radically changing.

    The “USA” meaning what? This generalization is axiomatic and doesn’t get to the heart of the problem. Hayate gets to the root here …

    Naturally, israel (IE: the zionist forces) will have to be disarmed.

    Zionism and its influence of U.S. policy is what has to be challenged. Rather than some abstract “USA”. The abstract “USA” rhetoric has severely missed the root causes of the support for Israel. Until the ZPC is confronted nothing will change.

    The boycott is a good start and hopefully momentum of the boycott will put the kind of pressure needed to confront Zionism in both Israel and the “USA”.

  20. Max Shields said on June 16th, 2010 at 5:19pm #

    No reason to be disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable there DB. I agree that a boycott should be high on the to do list.

    As far as abstractions, what are you doing?

  21. Deadbeat said on June 16th, 2010 at 6:34pm #

    No reason to be disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable there DB. I agree that a boycott should be high on the to do list. As far as abstractions, what are you doing?

    No Max. The reason is NOT to be “disagreeable”. The reason for my post is to be PRECISE. Precision has been missing from the analysis of the Israel/Palestine problem. The problem is not “Israel” and the problem is not “USA”. The problem is a belief system (Zionism) that has a great deal of influence on people both in Israel & the USA. This problem is NOT limited to the “faux” boundaries of Israel.

    You said it yourself that the “USA” is enabling “Israel”. Or put more precisely Zionists in the USA is using their influence to drive policies that supports the Zionists in Palestine. That means that in order to really challenge the problem Zionism in both places must be confronted. The Left has been extremely weak in getting this most important message across.

  22. Max Shields said on June 16th, 2010 at 6:55pm #

    No one’s mincing words here. The USA is the empire that feeds the Zionist governed State of Israel. And if that empire is run by Zionists well than it’s the Zionist USA empire kissing up to the Zionist State of Israel…


  23. Max Shields said on June 17th, 2010 at 6:26am #

    I think Mr. Tucker in his response to my request (as well as in his piece) touches on the Zionist/ideological manic government (as well as its offspring here in the USA). You don’t fight against an ideology that exists to do battle and who thrives off of a parnoia Zionism. You take away what feeds Zionism to rid it of its raison d’être.

    Fear and domination is an ancient tool of imperialistic and preditory tribes. Undermining that is the goal for dissipating Zionism. Simply saying the “Left must confront Zionism” is not the answer. It begs the question and will never ever solve the problem – so why waste energies on non-starters?

    By making the one-state solution the only viable solution we begin to move toward a collapse of the Zionist energy. It is only by dissipating that energy that is self-fed through mythology of history and demonization of the other, that Zionism will loose its strangle hold. It may never entirely go away. Fascism and Natzis still persist but are in check.

  24. Max Shields said on June 17th, 2010 at 7:09am #

    Yes that’s Nazi (not natzi). Zionism thrives off of conflict. Likewise it dies or is subdued when solutions are comprehensive such as a one-state. Any alternative simply sets the stage for continued conflict and hence continued Zionist rule.

  25. bozh said on June 17th, 2010 at 9:32am #

    A better way wld be, methinks, to eliminate the Right and Left. This proffers the best chance to stop all land robbers, abusers, torturers. lyars, killers, deceivers or even to prevent such behaviors.

    Fighting solely symptoms or wish they go away, may eliminate some ills, but surely new-old ones wld arise as long as the causes are left untouched.
    On turtle island, until just 5C yrs ago, there was no Left nor Rght. Not to mention army, taxes, spies, ‘laws’, govts. These peoples were just armed with common sense. I’l leave common sense undefined, but anyone is free to explain it in own words or deeds!
    And one of the most important common senses they applied was that nobody commands nobody else. Then, the lucky people had no clergy, pols, university teachers.
    Eliminate imposed division of people into godless, godful, right, wrong, stupid, smart, ur honor, ur serf-servant, etc., is all we need to do. Leave for now symptoms alone.

    For that’s all clerico-politico-educatonal people talk ab. And not even ab all symptoms, but well chosen ones. Do we also have do that? tnx

  26. caperash said on June 18th, 2010 at 9:03am #

    Good article, Roger.

    I still think that most Israelis, let alone their power elites, will not get behind anything reasonable and even if it were crafted, they would undermine it with deceit, treachery etc. I am beginning to think that Helen Thomas got it right: they should all leave. I also think Gilad Atzmon has a real point: since there really is no clear genetic basis for jewish tribalism, despite its effectiveness on many fronts, more Jews should just walk away from being Jewish, let go of that identity and mindset and (gasp!) assimilate.

    (My grandfather did this in the early 1900’s and I didn’t even find out he was the Jewish son of a rabbi until a couple of years ago. I have no doubt he would have preferred that I had never found out, for that was his principal gift to his offspring.)

    But given Jews won’t just up and leave Israel – as you pointed out – I think the single greatest way of the large numbers you mention getting behind something that could have an effect is boycott to which end someone has to set up a website that has thorough information which will take a couple of salaries at the least. (If such a place exists with good information I couldn’t find it and therefore they aren’t doing a good job.) People need to know the financial networks behind the main products they buy and then, armed with that knowledge, avoid purchasing those products. Furthermore, just learning about how it all works is important.

    The effect would be far more than financial alone; the very process of doing the research and publishing the information, and then people participating in a common endeavor, would represent a significant sea-change in the ability of masses of people to come together to do something together versus just reading articles or showing up for a demonstration somewhere. This would send a big message to the elites now dragging the world through unnecessary BS on all fronts all over the world, including in this particular, and important, spot known as Palestine.

  27. Roger Tucker said on June 18th, 2010 at 10:38am #

    Hi, Ashley. Delighted to hear from you – the old address I had for you was bouncing.

    As the subject of boycott has come I thought I should let people know that there is a very widespread and so far quite effective movement called “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” (BDS). The main website is at:

    Although BDS does not endorse any particular solution, I think that in the long run it will prove to be one of the most effective instruments for getting us to One State.


  28. caperash said on June 28th, 2010 at 5:45am #

    According to dubiously sourced CIA study, One State is on the way within 20 years:

  29. Roger Tucker said on June 28th, 2010 at 11:29am #

    caperash, this seems like a reasonable prediction, whatever the source. The only question is how much more damage wll the Israelis cause in the meantime.

  30. Brad Brzezinski said on June 30th, 2010 at 7:53am #

    … colonialist society, ethnocentric identity, Apartheid state, blatant racism, remorseless genocide…

    Are you even able to make an argument without resorting to loaded, inaccurate terminology? This is just demonization.

    Was the creation of Pakistan justified? It parallels Israel in many ways.

    Michael Kenny: “The unwillingness to integrate into European society .. got the Jews clobbered.” The problem here is that in 1920s Germany the Jews were very well integrated. The clobbering turned to genocide. Real genocide, not the ridiculous use of the term by Tucker. The fact is that Jew hatred seems to exist despite the circumstances. One reason used to be that the Jews were passive. Now that Israel is tarred with the label of aggression, that is being increasingly used as the excuse. In the end one has to include that it’s about humanity, not the Jews.

    Something for the gang to ponder.