Experts in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict discussed the viability of the one-state and two-state solutions in a panel held at the International House last night. The panelists included Mitchell Plitnick, formerly of Jewish Voice for Peace, Ali Abunimah, co-founder of Electronic Intifada, and Yousef Munayyer, from the Jerusalem Fund. It was moderated by Political Science Professor John Mearsheimer.
All three panelists concluded that the most important ingredient in any long-term solution, regardless of whether it be one-state or two-state, was the recognition of basic human rights and the establishment of equality for Palestinians.
“The problem is not the ‘Palestinian Problem,’ as it is sometimes called, and is not the ‘Refugee Problem’,” Abunimah said. “Palestinians are not the problem. Refugees are not the problem. The denial of their rights by Israel and by Zionism is the problem.”
Both Abunimah and Munayyer referred to Israel as an apartheid state because Israel’s pursuit of a fundamentally Jewish state with a majority of citizens being Jewish has allowed for the subjugation of Palestinians, they said.
“The state of Israel rules over about half as many Palestinians as it does Jews, and it treats them with different policies based on where they live and their backgrounds to ensure the maintenance of a Jewish majority,” Munayyer said. “This is a convoluted way of saying that this is an apartheid state.”
One of the key human rights violations that the panelists touched upon was the notion of a “demographic problem,” which refers to Israel’s concerns over the growing rate of non-Jewish Palestinians being born in Israel. Many feel that the growing Palestinian numbers threaten the Zionist notion of a Jewish state with a Jewish identity.
“This sort of demographic obsession that translates into state policies that involve human rights abuses is the same sort of scary outcome of nationalism that the last century taught us is so terrifying,” Munayyer said.
Munayyer, who is a Palestinian citizen of Israel, remarked that it is unlikely that he would have met his wife, who lived 45 minutes away in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, if they hadn’t both left for America, because of the active efforts to prevent Palestinian-Israeli citizens from marrying Palestinians from the West Bank. The reason behind this policy, as identified by Munayyer, is to prevent “demographic spillover.”
When the panelists took questions from the audience, Rebecca Abrams, a member of the Chicago Friends of Israel, called into question comments made by Abunimah in regards to his rejection of Israel as an exclusively Jewish state.
“I’m vehemently opposed to violating the rights of Palestinians so that Jews can maintain an unjust monopoly on power. Just as I’m absolutely against whites in South Africa maintaining an unjust monopoly on power, I’m absolutely against mass incarceration in the United States, I’m absolutely against all systems that maintain the unjust power of one ethno-religious or racial group over another,” Abunimah responded as several in the crowd applauded.
A previous lecture on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict held early last week was marked by protests from the audience. In addition to picketing, some of the protesters faced their chairs away from the speaker, Israeli-American Law Professor Amos Guiora from the University of Utah, in the middle of the talk, and one student continuously interrupted him until being escorted out of the room. In contrast, this lecture provoked dissent from the audience but no formal protest.
Pallywood at its finest.
The Pallywood industry is based on the distortion of the truth in-and-around Israel. If one Googles “PAllywood” one discovers countless articles detailing the lies, half-truths and insinuations used by those whose only real concern is deligitimizng Israel – and the four participants at this gathering are skilled actors in this ugly game.
Modeled after the Nazi propaganda machine desgined by Herr Goebbels the Pallywood’s tools of trades are little different.
While Muslims in Syria kill women, children, elderly indiscriminately – up to 90,000 people and counting – we devote our anger on Israel for we are anti-Semites in sheep’s clothing.
While Muslims have killed up to one million in Sudan, and counting, we devote our anger on Israel for we are really just anti-Semites pretending we are humanitarians.
While Muslims in Mali have forced 500,000 (and counting) people into refugee status – as they have done in the past year – we devote our anger on Israel for we are anti-Semites pretending to be for social justice.
While Muslims kill off what remains of the ancient Hindu population in-and-around Pakistan we devote our anger on Israel for we are like the Germans during the 1930s – people who needed a convenient scapegoat to escape their own feelings of frustration.
While Muslims have wiped out all the Buddhists from their ancient homeland in Afghanistan we devote our anger on Israel for it’s easy to pick on Jews and we are shameless hypocrites engaging in man’s oldest prejudice, anti-Semitism, while pretending to be holier-than
So when Muslims are being attacked by lynch mobs in India, when they are being beaten over the head and shot at in the Rakhine area of Burma, and Tuaregs are being oppressed in Mali, their oppresion doesn’t matter just because elsewhere a Muslim does the same?
I don’t deny the threat of Islamic extremism, the brutality women face in some Islamic countries, or the horrors religious minories have to endure in Pakistan or elsewhere, but to put blood libel on an entire people is justifiable? As a Serb, does the fact that my family had to endure decades of Ottoman rule justify crime commited against Muslim Bosniaks and Kosovar Albanians during the 90′s?
Of course one would expect comments charging the speakers with “anti-Semitism.” The problem is that the charge no longer works, because people no longer equate criticism of the state of Israel with anti-Semitism. Israel is a state with certain policies. Jews are a people. Historically, the state of Israel has depended on support for whatever it wishes to do through the propagandistic claim that whatever decisions the state takes reference the Jewish people. This claim, however, has been shaken by Jewish voices more than anything else, by Jews who say “no, the state of Israel–its policies and actions–do not represent me.” The real anti-Semites are those who claim all Jews think alike. Ironically, that assumption is the basis for the charges that some level against the speakers.
Chris – the examples of violence against Muslims pales compared to that of Muslims against Muslims, much less than that of Muslims against non-Muslims.
Why is that? Well it might be because Islam’s prophet set the stage. After all it does not take a lot of work to find out the Quran, hadiths and sunna are filled with chapter and verse verifying the sadistic exploits Mohammed and his men acted out during their time.
Are you suggesting the Muslim holy texts are lying, or that there is not a connection between Islamic aggressive Jihad and what is written in these texts?
While Saudis repress all their people (other than the royal family whom have private $500 million dollar private airplanes) we focus our angst on Israel for deep down we are really just anti-Semites pretending to be humanitarians.
While Pakistanis ethnically cleanse that once Hindu country of its remaining Hindus we focus our angst on Israel for deep down we are really just anti-Semites pretending to be humanitarians.
While Egyptians ethnically cleanse that country of its ancient Coptic community we focus our angst on Israel for deep down we are anti-Semites masquerading as humanitarians.
While Mali Islamists turn Mali into the next Sudan we focus our angst on Israel for deep down we are really anti-Semites dressed up in humanitarian’s clothes.
While Yemenis turn that bread basket of the Arabian Peninsula into a place of starvation we focus our crocodile tears on Israel for deep down we are really anti-Semites dressed up in fancy humanitarian clothes.
While Islamists in Southern Thailand kill off over 5,000 Buddhists in the span of a few years we ignore their plight and turn our focus on Israel for we are anti-Semites pretending to be concerned humanitarians.
While Hezbollah kills off what remains of the Christian leadership in Lebanon we turn the spotlight on Israel for they are just Jews and we all know nobody has ever defended the Jews. They’re easy pickings and we are really just Brown Shirts pretending to be humanitarians.
Chris – Here are some recent examples of Muslim violence against Muslims.
* March 6th in Badakhshan, Afghanistan: 17 Afghani soldiers captured and then killed by Muslims.
* March 3rd in Karachi, Pakistan: 48 Shiite killed by Sunni Muslims.
If one studies why they kill their brothers one discovers these Muslims justify it with lessons they’ve learned from their imams and from their holy texts.
This is not a coincident but a logical consequence of a religious order imbued with violence.
So it makes persecution against Muslims justifiable? It makes their problems less important?
There is just as much promotion of violence in The Bible or The Torah. Don’t forget that violence against the Amalek’s in Judeo-Christian thought was justified. You can’t attribute to real life violence to imagined thoughts you perceive others to have, how do you measure that? Before the 1960′s, The Arab world was drastically secularizing, but with the Arab loss of 1967 and the recession of the 1970′s, people lost hope in “Arab Nationalism” and looked for other alternatives. This isn’t just an Islamic phenomenon, but one happening in The West as well with the rise of Christian Fundamentalist thought and parties like the Likud (just in case you don’t know your history, the first parties with popular support in Israel were groups like Mapai, which was a communist political party).
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/341534/25-rohingya-arrested-in-phuket
http://www.voanews.com/content/communal-in-violence-in-burma-leaves-10-dead-mosque-burned/1625736.html
Just some of the recent examples of violence.
It seems like you are nothing more than a bigot. I never justified violence against non-Muslims. Some of my friends in the Palestinian movement criticize me for raising my voice too much, but you have not once denounced the torture of Palestinians, Rohingyas, Indian Muslims, Kashmiris, etc. You put double standards for yourself when you can’t even speak against this and imply rockets flying into Israel is more important because Israelis are more important. If we are truly secularists, which I can tell you are not, the job should be to speak against sectarianism of all kinds, period, not just the ones you want to single out. Those examples are extreme in those contexts, I understand. But in the context of Israel-Palestine, peace begins where the occupation ends.
Also, you never answered my question. Was genocide against Bosnian Muslims justifiable because according to you, the “prophet” encourages killing?
I was not at this event, but the idea of mr. mearshimer being a moderator given his strong views makes a mockery out of the idea of reasoned debate. Iif is a digrace