RSS

Tue, Oct 14th 2008, 14:32

Lior Petek, University of St. Gallen, Platinum Contributor (216)

As a rule I would never promote an article with an extremist view by arguing against it and thus giving it the attention its proponents so desperately seek. That is why I did not comment on the first such article (“A One-State Solution for Israel and Palestine” of July 25, 2008) that was given exposure to by the Atlantic Community. Yet the exposure of this extremist view by the Atlantic Community seems to be continuing with this article by Karmi so that it gets increasing attention no matter what I do. Therefore, I have decided to argue against this article.

I will demonstrate below the extremist and unscholarly nature of this article, which makes it not worthy of exposure by the Atlantic Community or anyone other sharing the transatlantic values of peace, prosperity and (human) security. I will do so by highlighting some of the arguments of Karmi and instantly refuting them.

“Unlike previous resolutions, which have been based on a Jewish state in most of historic Palestine with Palestinians relegated to the remnants”.

It is very interesting that Karmi defines “historic Palestine” the way it best suits his argument: The area that has come to be known “Palestine” after the Churchill paper of 1922 separated “Transjordan” (today Jordan) from the real “historic” Palestine. So this clearly goes to show that the author’s intention is none but to delegitimize the state of Israel and not to contribute to a scholarly, objective debate about how to best solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

“The one-state solution is now part of mainstream discourse.”

No argument is more revealing in this article than this one. No author would support his argument by claiming it belongs to the mainstream discours if it really was. After all, if it is so obvious that “the one-state solution is now part of mainstream discours”, why is the author then so eager to stress it? It just underlines what this article is all about: Establishing an extremist position in the mainstream discourse – and unfortunately, as I said, the Atlantic Community is promoting it.

“Increasingly, Palestinians - and some Israelis - support it [the one-state solution]”

Of course, it is not surprising that Karmi does not come up with a single empirical support whatsoever for this claim.

“[…] exposing the inequity and dishonesty of the two-state solution, to replace it with something fairer and more durable.”

Of course, the exact meaning of “inequity”, “dishonesty”, “fairer”, and “durable” is appropriated by Karmi alone.

“The general assembly notes the failure of recent efforts made by regional and international parties to resolve the conflict through the creation of two states”

It is very telling that Karmi nowhere in his article elaborates on the exact causes of that failure. Is he afraid he would get people to actively think about this matter and end up believing that the responsibility for that failure is not so one-sided as he implies it is?

“[…] by setting up a state which is democratic and secular, in which the rights of all people living within its borders to freedom of worship, security, and equality under the law are enshrined in a new constitution”

I am wondering if Karmi can point to a single Arab country (in fact, this is what the author implicitly proposes, since the Arabs would outnumber the Jews – another important fact that Karni does interestingly not seem to consider worth mentioning), where those conditions (“democratic”, “secular”, and “security”) hold? The Arab state that comes closest to this is Lebanon and we all know what has been going on there.

“The pace of Israeli colonisation, unimpeded since 1967, redoubled after the Oslo accords, demonstrating Israel's aversion to a two-state solution.”

Wait a second, I thought the author wants us to have an “aversion to a two-state solution” and instead support a one-state solution? Now the author implicitly tells us that a one-state solution is something bad?! Oh I forgot, the majority of such a one-state solution (Israel annexing the whole West Bank and Gaza Strip) would be Jewish, since under this solution no return of Palestinian refugees is envisioned! So why should the author confess that he does not want a “one-state solution” but an “Arab-state solution”?

“Avraham Burg, former Knesset speaker, told the Israeli daily Haaretz in June that "time was running out for the two-state solution".

Quoting out of context, a classic brainwash technique! Burg’s argumentation (of course, he does not represent the Israeli government, people or academia, but why bother the readers with details that disclose the arguments for his conclusion as weak?) is at best stupid and at worst even a counterpoint to the argument of Karmi. It is at best stupid insofar as Burg basically argues that there is too little space for Israelis and Palestinians to live in two separate states and therefore they should all live in one state together. What is stupid about this logic is that Israelis and Palestinians end up living on the same size of territory – making one state out of previously two does according to my geometric knowledge not enlarge the total territory the Israelis and Palestinians inhabit. It is at worst a counterpoint to the author’s conclusion as no refugees would be allowed to return, since according to Burg’s assumption and logic the current population does already not have enough space. Yet you guessed it, why should Karmi point to the fact, that Burg’s argument does in fact implicitly argue against his solution, if he just wants to brainwash us.

“Scores of others have articulated the same view [that a one-state solution is the only viable option].”

For sure, if those “scores of others” would be credible, trustworthy personalities and experts he would name at least some of them, right?

“The peace process predicated on the two-state solution is stagnant, and a momentum has started towards the obvious alternative, a unitary state.”

“A unitary state is inevitable.”

Again one looks in vain for an argument as to why a one-state solution is the “obvious” and “inevitable” solution. After all, if a two-state solution is not workable – an opinion one may legitimitely have – there are plenty of other possibilites as, for instance, the one-state solution with Egypt annexing the Gaza Strip and Jordan the West Bank (after all, Karmi seems to be obsessed with the past rather than the future).

“Establishing an exclusive state defined along ethnic-religious lines and excluding its previous inhabitants was unjust and ultimately unsustainable.”

Characteristically for the author, he completely omits the fate of the former Soviet Union, former Yugoslavia, Lebanon, or Iraq – just to name a few examples of states that were not “defined along ethnic-religious lines”, but that nevertheless turned out to be not so sustainable. Besides, wasn’t the era under the British mandate a situation that comes close to his one-state solution? Or asked differently: Why does he criticize the UN for potentially establishing two states without giving the historical context (quoting out of context, have I already mentioned this technique?), namely that Jews and Arabs demonstrated not to be able to live together?

To conclude, Karmi's article is nothing but extremist and unscholarly promoting a view of subjugating the Jews to the Arabs. Therefore, I beg the Atlantic community to focus on giving exposure to creative, thought-provoking articles that aim to contribute to a peaceful future and not to ones that want to bring us back in history to dark and bloody chapters. I completely support the free exchange of opionions and arguments, yet only insofar as they do not run counter to the shared transatlantic values of peace, prosperity and (human) security.

Wed, Nov 5th 2008, 02:59

Joseph Stephan Patac, Global Risk Management Company, (5)

Dear Mr. Petek

I completly agree with you and would like to express congratulations to this outstanding and profound comment.

Mr. Ghada Karmi's "article" is more of a crackerbarrel sageness and is lacking any profound basics.

I would suggest that Mr. Karmi would forward his article to Hamas Leader Ismail Hanieh, perhaps it could divert Hanieh's point of view and strategies of firing homemade missiles into the negev settlements.

To allege Mr. Karmi only extremist promotings is insofar unfair as still can detect some peacefull intentions.

Masterminding a strategy of outnumbering the israelis, in a one-state-solution, would preoccupy the terroristic organisations in producing babies instead firing missiles, kidnapping soldiers and brain-washing teens to become sucide bombers.
Indeed a human and peaceful way to reconquer Israel and getting read of the jewish population