Gaza-Israel: Is blaming “the 60 years of occupation” a euphimism for “one-state solution”?
I think it is, even though I think that at least some people who make that reference think to themselves that they are open to a two-state solution.
I've been writing about this need to press the debate about the Gaza-Israel conflict into an answer to the question, "One state or two"?" from the beginning, asking occupiers of cyberspace and real life to respond. I've gotten just a few direct responses so far, all but one for a two-state solution (one brought up the concept of a binational single state).
Finally, this morning, on WCPN's Sound of Ideas, which you can listen to here, Nour Chammas, Executive Director, AACESS-Ohio (The Arab American Community Center for Economic and Social Services) said it. He specifically said that he supports a one-state solution and not a two-state solution.
But, long before he said that, he'd already tipped his hand because he used the words and description, as many have before him, of The Occupation. Not the 1967-2005 occupation by Israel of Gaza. Not the 1949-1967 occupation by Egypt of Gaza. Not the British occupation prior to 1949, or any other occupation in all of history.
No. Just The Occupation.
I posited this before and I'm saying it again: when you hear someone describe the current situation as having roots in The Occupation, realize that the next question you must ask is: do you support a one-state or a two-state solution. Because if they support a one-state solution, the next question is: what are your plans for the millions of residents of the entire "Occupied" land?
There are different answers. But this is where the conversation must go:
Is the speaker envisioning an Islamic state free not only of Jews, but of Druze, Christians, Bedouin and any other non-Shariah loving Semitic person?
Is the speaker envisioning a secular but binational state?
All of these options are actually ones that are formed already in the minds of people who talk about post-violent conflict options.
But only once the players make it known whether they want a single state or two states, and what those states would look like, can we start to see what the players' real interests are. And, sadly, the players are not always the residents. That needs to be addressed as well.
And in case you think I'm a bit kooky about this, I'm actually not the only one pressing the question re: do you think in terms of one state or two - read more at News from Syria. There are other posts there that discuss the one-state v. two-state idea more in depth and with specific consideration of how Israel, being a "Jewish" state, really messes with things (I left a slightly blasphemous - to supporters of Israel - comment there too).
Likewise, articles such as this one indicate Hamas' resolve, even if not that of the rest of the Gaza population, to frame all of its troubles and history to The Occupation:
Exiled Hamas leader Moussa Abou Marzouk said there will be no talks about a permanent cease-fire and that as long as there is an Israeli occupation, there will be resistance.
Marzouk spoke to The Associated Press Wednesday - one day after Egypt and France proposed a plan for ending the fighting in Gaza.
Abu Marzouk said Hamas received proposals from France, Turkey, Syria and Egypt to bring about a cease-fire.
Is there really any doubt that when he says, "Israeli occupation," he means the last 60 years? And Britain before that? And all the other occupiers before that?
Finally, consider this interesting oped, Hamas has failed, it is time they stepped down," written by an Abu Dhabi businessman, who also blogs, about how dysfunctional Hamas is. I don't find it difficult to believe, although I do find the constant writing off of the Arab League, the EU, the GCC unbelievable.
More from entertainment