Skip to main content

One-state solution

I believe Yasser Arafat would have approved a one-state solution. I wrote this at the time of Arafat's death. I republished it as Hamas was given a voters' mandate to carry the torch of Palestine into the next stage, in conditions of extreme difficulty...and now again, as Israel has gone from bad to mad.

In mourning the death of Yasser Arafat, let me quote extracts from an article by Jonathan Steele in the Guardian Weekly in which he gets the historical context exactly right, in explaining Arafat's greatness:"In the days when Britain was being forced to give up one colony after another, the phrase 'father of the nation' was much in vogue. Julius Nyerere in Tanzania, Archbishop Makarios in Cyprus, and Kenneth Kaunda in Zambia were among the many who won this informal title, not just from journalists in search of a label but, more importantly, from their own people. As teachers, clerics or trade unionists who became political leaders, they were seen as the chief architects of the struggle for independence.

"Forty years on from the age of decolonisation, Yasser Arafat...can claim that status. In many ways his title is even more deserved. He had to win recognition of the fact that there was such a thing as a Palestinian nation at all. For decades the Arab states and the British, who initially had the mandate to run Palestine, and the Israelis, who moved into the land, refused to accept that there were Palestinian people, let alone a nation.

"Unlike other independence leaders, Arafat was not working in a situation in which the settler community had reached its peak and the metropolitan government that supported them was starting to lose heart. He had to fight against a constantly expanding settler tide linked to a determined government and a rock-hard military, both of which were backed, or at least not opposed, by a world superpower. Nor was the definition of the territory fixed. It was under constant threat of shrinkage and is to this day.

"To hold firm in these conditions, to maintain political unity and keep up his people's morale and resistance under conditions of siege, house demolitions and assassinations, was extraordinary. To move from defensive consolidation and to start to build a nation was nigh impossible. That Arafat has managed to do it and retain the affection of his people, not just as a symbol of independence but as a respected and approachable human being, is a tribute to his greatness."

So wrote Steele, who is one of the most insightful of leading British journalists. But for some people, Arafat had turned into the ineffective leader of a corrupt territorial government, who had failed to hold out for a decent settlement. In fact what he did to the end, having led his people decades ago into the idea of a reborn Palestine, was to take what he could in territory as the basis for a Palestine that would become a progressive, secular nation in which all faiths can live and breathe.

It will come about one day. The "two-state solution" to which everyone has paid lip service, is a non-starter. The "Palestine Territory" is a travesty, with desparate people barely existing, in crumbling ruins in a screaming dialogue of constant suicidal violence. Israel is a grotesque entity in which citizens have had more and more to become racist oppressors, or lurk in a near-fascist state, the aircraft carrier of US imperialism at its most rampant.

So yes, Arafat's death does signal an opportunity for a new direction. The good people of Palestine and Israel, in his name and no doubt with his blessing, can start finding the way back to the long and hard but straight road towards the secular democratic state of Palestine, which includes Israel.

We can pay tribute to those with courage and vision and perseverance who are secular leaders, to name a random few: Hanan Ashrawi, Uri Avnery, Mordechai Vanunu – thousands more...Long live the vision of a secular, democratic Palestine-Israel, from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, from Egypt to Syria, and those who would build towards its reality, to become a beacon of modern statehood in a sea of oil-curdled Arab feudalism.

Let the Palestinians hang on to every inch of land they have, and go on pressing for more. But they must turn their backs, as must peace-loving Israelis, on what George Bush at a press conference pledged to protect: Israel, "as a Jewish state". No democrat can continue to go along with the US in promoting two states, each one, in opposite ways, a travesty of the very word state.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Aerogramme from Lisa and Richard

To: Mr & Mrs J. Hall, Box 49 Eikenhof (TVL) Johannesburg Afrique du Sud. 28.3.76 Dear John and Nola, Today a week ago we were still in New Delhi with Eve and Tony and the boys and the whole thing looks like a dream. We arrived on the 28.2 in New Delhi and were happy to see the whole family fit and in good health. The boys have grown very much, Phil is just about the size of Tony and the twins are above average. We stayed untill the 22nd March, as our visa ran out and we did not want to go through all the ceremony of asking for an extension. It also got hotter and I don't know how I would have supported the heat. The extra week would also have passed, so we decided not to go to all the trouble with the authorities and leave on the 22nd. I cannot tell you how happy we have been to see such a lovely family, so happy and united. It is rare to experience sucha thing and we have both all the reasons to be proud of them (when I say goth I mean you and us ). There is su

Guardian books blog fringe: Norman Mailer

FLASHING THE GUARDIAN -- A BOOKS BLOGGERS' REBELLION :  The unheroic censor with a death wish Part 1: In which Norman Mailer stars in an experiment in search engine optimisation By ACCIACCATURE 3 February 2009 When Norman Mailer died in 2007, informed opinion – in the blogosphere, people who had read at least two of his books – was split. The army of readers who saw him as one of the most despicable misogynists writing fiction in the 20th century was perfectly matched by warriors on the other side, who raged that the label wasn’t just unwarranted but tantamount to heinous calumny. Before commenters returned to bitching-as-usual, tempers were lost on literary sites all over the net in debating temperatures high enough to bring to mind tiles burning off space shuttles re-entering Earth’s atmosphere. After I'd agreed to a spontaneous suggestion by our good friend Sean Murray -- a pioneer and stalwart of the comments section of The Guardian’s books blog – that we re-

Guardian: Kate Harding's reactionary censorious blog on CiF

It should go without saying... ....that we condemn the scummy prat who called Liskula Cohen : "a psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank" But I disagree with Kate Harding , (in my view a pseudo blogger), posting her blog in the Guardian attacking bloggers. It's a case of set a thief to catch a thief. The mainstream media is irritated by bloggers because they steal its thunder and so they comission people like Kate Harding , people with nothing to say for themselves, apparently, other than that they are feminists, to attack bloggers. I'm black. So I can legitimately attack "angry white old men". I'm a feminist, so I have carte blanche to call all anonymous bloggers "prats." Because yes, that is her erudite response to bloggers. No I don't say that the blogging medium can't be used to attack progressives in whatever context. Of course it can. But to applaud the censorship of a blogger by a billion dollar corporate like Google, and moreov