Assessing the "Field"

Click to find caption

Illustration: It's been awhile, but the above illustration is apt right now. Once Poll listed Kucinich as fourth in Hew Hampshire.

***********

I had been wondering whatever happened to Tom Hayden, below, as he evaluates the presidential candidates. He was one of the earliest in the SDS back in 1964-65 and played a supporting role in the Trail of the Chicago 8, er 7 after Bobby Seals, evn while handcuffed, and gagged, kept trying to represent himself in the absence of his attorney, Garry.

He later married Barberella who then married Ted Turner. She is better now.

*ZNet | U.S.*

*Rating The Presidential Candidates On Iraq

Another Agonizing Year Ahead*

*by Tom Hayden; November 06, 2007*

/TOM HAYDEN is the author of

Writings for a Democratic

Society, The Tom Hayden Reader, forthcoming from City L

ights Books. He has not

endorsed any candidate for president. /*

*

While most peace activists are evaluating the Democrats, I would

rank Rudolph *Giuliani as the most dangerous of all the

presidential candidates in a long while*, because his Iraq and

Iran policies are the work of the most hawkish

neo-conservatives who promoted the Iraq quagmire and now want to

bomb Iran as soon as possible. Though far better than Giuliani,

Sen. Joseph *Biden is the worst Democratic candidate because of

his demand that partition be imposed* on Iraq. The

front-running Democrat, Sen. Hillary *Clinton, is so ambiguous

on Iraq that she risks losing the general election by driving

enough of the progressive vote to inevitable third party

candidates. **

*Giuliani is advised by a network of neo-con hawks led by Norman

Podhoretz who call for a Cold War-type struggle against

"Islamofascism", the immediate bombing of Iran [_Commentary_,

June 2007], the right to assassinate the leaders of Iran and

North Korea, and the assumption that all American Muslims are

suspect. [NY Times]. They are a well-organized machine with

millions of dollars available to attack MoveOn and bankroll

campus campaigns against the new foreign enemy of Islamofascism,

which they believe can and must be militarily defeated.

Principled Democrats with single-digit support at present should

be considered as strong voices against the war, and possible

contributors to a long-term progressive movement, but not as

likely nominees. Among them, *Biden, who could become secretary

of state under a Democratic president, takes the most dangerous

position, favoring a de-facto breakup or partitioning of

Iraq, *with each religious group policing its own areas. That

would mean forced migration for millions of Iraqis from their

homes in Shi'a-dominated Basra, for example, to Sunni-dominated

Anbar province. *Sen. Chris Dodd*, while taking a strong

position against the confirmation of Bush's nominee for attorney

general, has been murky in his anti-war views during the

campaign. While supporting a 12-18 month pullout, he also wants

American troops redeployed away from major Iraqi cities to the

border regions and to Kurdistan, Kuwait, Qatar, and Afghanistan.

[speech Oct. 12, 2006]

*Bill Richardson, another candidate for a future cabinet

position, takes the cleanest position of all *on Iraq, promising

to remove all American troops within one year while launching

diplomatic efforts towards regional stability. And of

course, *Dennis Kucinich* is an anchor for the anti-war community.

*Among the current front-runners, John Edwards takes the

strongest anti-war position,* calling for an immediate troop

withdrawal of 40-50,000 US troops, a withdrawal of remaining

troops in 12-18 months, and diplomatic peace initiatives.

Edwards' position includes a significant loophole, however, for

"sufficient" US troops to remain in the region to prevent a

terrorist haven or ethnic genocide. Edwards also is on record

favoring the intensifying of training for Iraqi security forces.

[NYT, Feb. 26, 2007]

Sen. Barack *Obama's position has somewhat improved with its

latest nuances*. He favors a steady withdrawal taking 16 months.

[NYT, Nov. 2]. Backing away from open-ended support of American

trainers in the midst of a dirty sectarian war, Obama says he

would support trainers only if the Baghdad regime commits to

political reconciliation and reforms its sectarian police, an

almost impossible scenario to imagine. Further, Obama would not

allow American trainers to be placed "in harm's way." But he

also favors an unspecified number of American troops in the

region able to conduct "counter-terrorism" or return in the

"short term" to Iraq in the event of genocide against civilians.

Obama seems trapped between his tendency to build a "new center"

and the need to sharpen his differences over Iraq with Hillary

Clinton.

Obama correctly links a withdrawal plan with motivating other

countries to engage in regional stabilization: "Once it's clear

that we're not intending to stay there for 10 years or 20 years,

all these parties have an interest in figuring out how do we

adjust in a way that stabilizes the situation." And *Obama has

toughened his stand against escalating the conflict to

Iran.* Instead he would engage in "aggressive personal

diplomacy" including a promise to end bush's policy of regime

change in exchange for Iranian cooperation in regional stability.

Sen. Hillary *Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee at this

point, remains the most indecipherable of the candidates on

Iraq.* On the one hand, she pledges "to end the war" and has

voted against the Bush surge and in favor of a March 2008

withdrawal deadline for combat troops. She has suggested, but

not insisted on, cutting off funding for Iraqi security forces

and private contractors unless reforms by the Iraqi government

are guaranteed. [NYT, Feb. 26, 2007] On the other hand, she most

clearly favors leaving a large number of Americans, a "scaled

down force", in Iraq indefinitely to fight al-Qaeda, train the

Iraqi army, and resist Iranian encroachment. [NYT, Nov. 2,

2007]. She cast an unsettling hawkish vote to define the Iranian

Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group, which may have

reflected her positioning for the November election, and has

telegraphed a message that Iraq is "right in the heart of the

oil region...[and] directly in opposition to our interests, to

the interests of the region, to Israel's interests." [NYT, Mar.

15, 2007]

*Clearly, anti-war opinion in the early primary states will be a

major factor determining the candidates' positioning*. Edwards

has put pressure on Obama and Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire,

and Obama puts pressure on Clinton across the board. But Clinton

already is trending towards her general election platform

against another "vast right-wing conspiracy." In the short-term,

she wants to be positioned as sufficiently anti-war and leave

Edwards and Obama appearing more "extreme", which may be a

misreading of public opinion. The other Democratic candidates

will seek to appear more anti-war than Clinton because the issue

is their only way to gain traction with the multitudes of

anti-war voters in the primaries. Clinton depends on rallying

Democrats and independents to her side by contrasting herself

with Giuliani, Mitt Romney or John McCain. Whether that approach

can prevail, or seem too frustratingly evasive, remains to be

seen in the long campaign ahead.

If Clinton gains the nomination on an Iraq platform that

disappoints enough independents and Obama or Edwards

supporters, *a two-percent space will open for Ralph Nader

and/or Cynthia McKinney *to possibly make the difference in the

November election. Recent polls show Clinton in a virtual dead

heat with Giuliani among independent voters who otherwise lean

Democratic. If she refuses to take a more forthright stand on

Iraq, she may try returning to her domestic strength by arguing

that unlimited and wasteful Republican spending on Iraq will

prevent her from achieving national health care, a priority

issue for a majority of Americans where Giuliani is clearly on

the wrong side. As president, she could describe her slow troop

withdrawals as a peace dividend, a transfer of resources from

war to health care for veterans and all Americans.

Or worst case, her appearance of wobbling on Iraq/Iran could

reinforce a voter perception of such principled and

unpredictable opportunism that the Democrats could lose a close

election once again. #

/

TOM HAYDEN is the author of _Ending the War in Iraq_ [Akashic,

2007]. He has not endorsed any candidate for president. He is a

national board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and

the editorial board of the _Nation_ magazine. /

Studs Terkel

LANDSCAPING

Illustration: Since our illustrator has left a few more illustrations, I will feature them in coming articles. Right now, and he is watching, I share with you a view of my back yard. You are looking at the left field foul line. They dying shrubbery in the foreground is in right field to confuse the fielders as your writer bats left handed. It has taken over a quarter of a century of hard work to get it to this state. I hope you appreciate the rustic functionality. If not, you are invited to get into the batters box (near the end on the clothesline) and I will personally throw 7 inch baseballs at you. Or perhaps our illustrator will relent. I certainly hope I don't have to vist him personally and throw seven inch baseballs at him.

This is another opportunity to introduce someone I admired for years. I first heard and then latter met him at the studios of what was then the finest community centered fine arts radio station in the country, WFMT, back when it was located in the Lasalle-Wacker building. He had a regular show, Monday through Friday at 10:00 am during which he interviewed Pete Seegar, Lord Richard Buckley, Miles Davis, Chicago gang leaders, Big Bill Broonzey, and an impressive list of classical performers and serious writers. That was back in the late 50s, and I understand his relationship with the station that gave us Mike Nichols went far back. However, this was in the very early days of FM radio and so not as accessible as any FM station today. It was the day of AM radio.

Since then, he has become very well known. His article speaks for itself. Personally, I find it a bit frightening as I was aware of the governmental atrocities he had listed and gone through, but was too young to have first-hand knowledge of them. Now I learn that he finds the government today frightening. Well, as the saying goes, if he is frightened, I'm frightened.

He is also a Law School Graduate from the University of Chicago when it still counted. :)

About his discussion on the petition signing, his official statement was "I never met a petition I didn't like."

That attempt to blackball him from the media happened when Mahalea Jackson had a special on CBS and wanted Studs to MC. The reason was that she knew he has interviewed and supported Martin Luther King and had helped her in her career. When they tried this, she refused to go on. Suddenly, Studs was no longer a "communist."

The only time I had heard him properly ridiculed was when he had Big Bill Broonzey on and asked him "When you sing the blues, why do you repeat the first line?"

The answer was "Oh thas so in if ya miss it the first time around yew kin git the next time."

Far from being chagrined, Studs just emitted his characteristic cackle.

Sometimes today he is heard on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman.

*ZNet | Repression*

*The Wiretap This Time *

*by Studs Terkel; NYT

; November

07, 2007*

EARLIER this month, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the

White House agreed to allow the executive branch to conduct

dragnet interceptions of the electronic communications of people

in the United States. They also agreed to "immunize" American

telephone companies from lawsuits charging that after 9/11 some

companies collaborated with the government to violate the

Constitution and existing federal law. I am a plaintiff in one

of those lawsuits, and I hope Congress thinks carefully before

denying me, and millions of other Americans, our day in court.

During my lifetime, there has been a sea change in the way that

politically active Americans view their relationship with

government. In 1920, during my youth, I recall the Palmer raids

in which more than 10,000 people were rounded up, most because

they were members of particular labor unions or belonged to

groups that advocated change in American domestic or foreign

policy. Unrestrained surveillance was used to further the

investigations leading to these detentions, and the Bureau of

Investigation - the forerunner to the F.B.I. - eventually

created a database on the activities of individuals. This

activity continued through the Red Scare of the period.

In the 1950s, during the sad period known as the McCarthy era,

one's political beliefs again served as a rationale for

government monitoring. Individual corporations and entire

industries were coerced by government leaders into informing on

individuals and barring their ability to earn a living.

I was among those blacklisted for my political beliefs. My

crime? I had signed petitions. Lots of them. I had signed on in

opposition to Jim Crow laws and poll taxes and in favor of rent

control and pacifism. Because the petitions were thought to be

Communist-inspired, I lost my ability to work in television and

radio after refusing to say that I had been "duped" into signing

my name to these causes.

By the 1960s, the inequities in civil rights and the debate over

the Vietnam war spurred social justice movements. The

government's response? More surveillance. In the name of

national security, the F.B.I. conducted warrantless wiretaps of

political activists, journalists, former White House staff

members and even a member of Congress.

Then things changed. In 1975, the hearings led by Senator Frank

Church of Idaho revealed the scope of government surveillance of

private citizens and lawful organizations. As Americans saw the

damage, they reached a consensus that this unrestrained

surveillance had a corrosive impact on us all.

In 1978, with broad public support, Congress passed the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act, which placed national security

investigations, including wiretapping, under a system of

warrants approved by a special court. The law was not perfect,

but as a result of its enactment and a series of subsequent

federal laws, a generation of Americans has come to adulthood

protected by a legal structure and a social compact making clear

that government will not engage in unbridled, dragnet seizure of

electronic communications.

The Bush administration, however, tore apart that carefully

devised legal structure and social compact. To make matters

worse, after its intrusive programs were exposed, the White

House and the Senate Intelligence Committee proposed a bill that

legitimized blanket wiretapping without individual warrants. The

legislation directly conflicts with the Fourth Amendment of the

Constitution, requiring the government to obtain a warrant

before reading the e-mail messages or listening to the telephone

calls of its citizens, and to state with particularity where it

intends to search and what it expects to find.

Compounding these wrongs, Congress is moving in a haphazard

fashion to provide a "get out of jail free card" to the

telephone companies that violated the rights of their

subscribers. Some in Congress argue that this law-breaking is

forgivable because it was done to help the government in a time

of crisis. But it's impossible for Congress to know the

motivations of these companies or to know how the government

will use the private information it received from them.

And it is not as though the telecommunications companies did not

know that their actions were illegal. Judge Vaughn Walker of

federal district court in San Francisco, appointed by President

George H. W. Bush, noted that in an opinion in one of the

immunity provision lawsuits the "very action in question has

previously been held unlawful."

I have observed and written about American life for some time.

In truth, nothing much surprises me anymore. But I always feel

uplifted by this: Given the facts and an opportunity to act, the

body politic generally does the right thing. By revealing the

truth in a public forum, the American people will have the facts

to play their historic, heroic role in putting our nation back

on the path toward freedom. That is why we deserve our day in court.

Studs Terkel is the author of the forthcoming "Touch and Go: A

Memoir."

FLASH

Remember all those news reports about the declining number of American Deaths in Iraq? The fact is that 2007 is now the deadliest year EVER for Americans in Iraq.

In case you need more, there is evidence that this record goes back to BEFORE the time of Hammurabi.

Charles

More About Palestine

So Now what?

Here I Am

Some of you masochists wanted to see what I actually look like. Well, to tell the truth, I was afraid to post my own picture as so many people would become jealous at how young and happy I look - and there is no way I can hide the genius inside. (Well, I look better than Schopenhauer, you'll give me that much, won't you?)

Anyway, I'm in charge of absurdity around here and I'm doing my best to expose it. Frankly, I'm getting a bit fed up with it because it is so plentiful these days.

ON WITH THE SHOW - PALESTINE

ZNet | Israel/Palestine

Uncertain Outcomes: The Israeli-Palestine Question

by Jim Miles; Palestine Chronicle; October 29, 2007

After 9/11, 2001, when I first started examining the various landscapes - physical, political, cultural, military - of events relating to that day, I had no real idea that it would lead me into an advocacy position of Palestinian rights, but everything about the American empire at the time pointed towards Israel and Palestine as the then current focal point of the majority of the Middle East, European, and Asian political problems. I had long been familiar with American arrogance and patriotic jingoism, with its various wars of suppression supposedly in the name of protecting the free world from communism, with its corporate mentality as witnessed by the failed Multilateral Agreement on Investments as supported by the World Trade Organization and others in the group of the Washington Consensus, and with its military supremacy, its phoney antagonism to communism, but most notable in its formidable yet essentially unusable nuclear arsenal. I had a lot of the pieces for the puzzle, but had not put them together into a coherent framework. When that framework did materialize and I was able to see the big picture quite distinctly - yet still with puzzle pieces missing -

Palestine-Israel appeared to be the central focus. There are many other nuances in different areas of the globe, but the central feature remained Israel and the Middle East.

Now with events in Iraq and Afghanistan becoming predominant within the newscasts, Israel-Palestine has not seemed to be central to the picture. Unfortunately it still is, as the Jewish lobby in America has the ear - and foremost its wallets -of many Americans in its thrall, and those same groups are now clamouring for an attack on Iran because of Iran's alleged desire to completely destroy Israel and Israel's self-willed fear of Iranian nuclear power. Regardless of that global centrality, even if it were not there, the question of what will happen in Israel-Palestine remains.

That basic Palestinian-Israeli question relates to what will be the ultimate kind of country that rises from the current conflict. The 'status quo' has never held the same within Palestine-Israel except for the one factor of the power dominance of the Israelis in most aspects of life over the Palestinian people. The geographical situation has changed over time: from the initial Jewish immigrants; the rebellions against the British by both the Palestinians and the Jews; through the sudden and swift changes forced by the nakba and twenty years later the Six Day War (or the naksah); to the gradual and seemingly inexorable pace of settlement colonies in the occupied territories. It has seen government structures within Palestine grow and develop, from a relatively unconstituted state of subjection by conquest to an acceptance of the PLO as the Palestinian representatives, the creation of the Palestinian Authority, and finally the democratic victory of Hamas denied and subverted by everyone caught out on the weak limb of their own democratic discourse. Still the question lingers as there have been no political settlements, only vague negotiations for future status, roadmaps that lead nowhere, and 'horizons' that do as all horizons do by simply retreating as the searcher advances. The question remains. What will be the outcome of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?

It is obvious that the current situation will not remain that way for long. Events within and outside the area both provide momentum towards some kind of change towards some kind of settled outcome, of which there are several, some kind, some not.

Ethnic Cleansing

The worst possible scenario, the most repugnant of the choices, is that of genocide/ethnic cleansing. While few actually advocate this, the refrain is still evident in some Israeli voices. And while few actually advocate measures that would apply ethnic cleansing in one grand large gesture, it could be argued that most of the events that have occurred in Palestine-Israel over the past half-century are in essence a prolonged form of ethnic cleansing. The UN "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" states that genocide "is a crime under international law" which involves various acts "with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such." Of the five acts listed in Article Two the first three are apparent within Palestine-Israel: "(a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." Along with genocide, Article Three finds punishable, "(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide" [1] Obviously there will be arguments and rationales from the Israelis about defence of their country and the fight against terrorism, but the overall presentation of information coming largely from Jewish revisionist scholarship is that if the above three parameters are applied to Israel, then they are participating in genocide/ethnic cleansing. [2]

Even before the nakba the Zionist plan included settlements placed intermittently within the Palestinian population to prevent and block a contiguous Palestinian geographic area. The nakba provided a focus in which over five hundred Palestinian villages and towns were destroyed quickly and 'efficiently', if terror, murder and expulsion can be considered 'efficient'. After the 1967 Six Day War colonial settlements became the norm again, continuing the earlier Zionist plans to split the Palestinian areas into non-functional territories surrounded by a Jewish state. Certainly there have been incidents of killing, either in groups as with Tantura, Jenin, Sabra, and Shatilla or within the ongoing IDF interventions during either of the intifadas or as basic ongoing crime and punishment within the daily lives of the occupied Palestinian territories.

To date this settlement pattern has been successful for the Jewish state as the majority of Palestinians reside in small non-contiguous areas, many cut off from their former agricultural areas, water sources, cultural centres, and employment, having to communicate on back roads threaded under and around roads preserved for Jews only. The situation within these bantustan style cantonments very deliberately inflicts "conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part," with the Israeli voice expressing the idea that hopefully conditions will be made so miserable that the Palestinians will "choose" to leave. This 'status quo' will not remain; the pressures are much too great. Gaza is essentially an immense outdoor prison camp; the Westbank is divided up into three small areas, none of which have any control over any aspect of what could be considered state-hood, except when acting as proxies for the Israelis.

Guarding a series of prison-based cantonments is not a viable means of achieving peace for the region, nor of establishing a democratic state. While the situation with Iran remains tenuous, the direction that Israel will take is also uncertain, and while I am loathe to enter into conjecture about the future, an Iranian 'venture' on the part of Israel or the U.S. could open up the path to more severe and impulsive genocide/ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population.

While genocide/ethnic cleansing is an illegal and morally repugnant manner to have a final outcome (especially in consideration of the Jewish trauma from their own holocaust), the path to the other two main solutions are also highly problematic, although much more favourably arguable from a moral-legal perspective. Those two aspects, first the "two state" outcome, secondly the "democratic state for all the peoples" outcome, will require enormous efforts by both sides to make them agreeable, and while not everyone can be satisfied, the majority would hopefully improve the lot of both groups such that peace and a healthy social-cultural-political interaction could grow between the parties.

Yankee go home

The path would be made much easier if one of the main protagonists would simply 'butt out'. For while there are two cultures, two identities trying to achieve a peaceful home, it is compounded by a third group that is there only for the fortune of political and geostrategic considerations - the Americans, who really do not care about the Palestinians at all and are only supportive of Israel for their grand strategy towards the Middle East. To a lesser but still influential sector, the American Christian right simply wants the Jews to succeed and fulfill Christian prophecy so that they can come in afterwards and establish their own Christian kingdom. A further complicating factor is the Jewish lobby, most highly recognized under the acronym AIPAC, but extending into many more organizations and operations that influence American politics. Even with full and open ended approval of the Bush administration, the Israelis have not progressed to a Palestinian final settlement as expressed above, perhaps recognizing deep down the complete moral contradiction that would have in light of their own history; or perhaps as they recognize that the moral force behind the situation has turned against the use of more explicit violence and relocation, they hesitate to do so unless conditions become suddenly more catastrophic. One of my favourite refrains, "yankee go home", would not solve the situation but would facilitate - given other appropriate conditions - a more equal dialogue between the two identities.

The American-Israeli relationship is a tenuous symbiotic one with the Israeli government relying heavily on American military and financial subsidies along with the political support. American aid, mostly in the form of military aid, is generally calculated to be around the three billion dollar mark per year [3], with much of that going into military research that is then exported around the world. This constitutes one third of American foreign aid and makes up about seven per cent of the Israeli annual budget and supports an Israeli per capita income of twenty-six thousand eight hundred dollars [4]. Going the other way, AIPAC exerts great pressure within the U.S. electoral system with its ability to target legislators with financial assistance or conversely with electoral challenges. Arguments swirl around the two as to who has the most significant impact over the other, but regardless of that, the reality for others is of a double-headed monster threatening the countries and cultures of the Middle East.

I realize the likelihood of the duo self-extracting themselves from this relationship is minimal, making the chances of a successful resolution that is acceptable to both sides equally unlikely. It would require a politician/statesman of enormous personal presence - or maybe even enormous skills at subterfuge to get around his or her compatriots - in order to separate the two. However other peoples have resolved their problems, not perfectly, but at least beginnings towards peace and reconciliation have been made and the killings and subjugation of other peoples has been significantly diminished.

Israel, by it sheer military power, could readily prevail in the Middle East without U.S. support. The Arab governments are not united behind Palestine and never have been. Jordan has always played the geostrategic game to its advantage, never being a vociferous voice against Israeli atrocities or occupation, nor challenging or threatening in any way militarily. Saudi Arabia appears much closer in its ties to the Americans than it to the Palestinians. Egypt pursued and achieved peace with Israel, again with massive U.S. foreign aid ($2 billion per year) under a non-democratic government. Lebanon is so torn apart by its own internal factions that it will never be a threat to Israel other than that Israel seems to want the territory up to the Litani River, a mainly Shiite area mixed up with Palestinian refugees, natural antagonists to Israeli desires. Syria has never seriously threatened Israel and the recent incursion by Israeli jets, while still not fully understood as to its full strategic significance, does indicate an Israeli ability and readiness to intrude freely on their air space. Without the U.S., Israel would be able to defend itself against any regional challengers.

That would lead to the conclusion that Israel derives moral support and perhaps even moral 'diversion' for its actions in Palestine, while the world in general foments about the imperial hubris of the U.S. as it attacks various countries for its own strategic interests (control of oil, containment of China and Russia being foremost). The U.S. gains a military protégé that is capable of supporting its strategic efforts under the guise of a 'war on terror', provides intelligence information, and may or may not accompany the U.S. on an attack on Iran. The combination is lethal and in the short term makes a peaceful settlement in Israel-Palestine remote at the present, but the effort still needs to be put forward as to what that eventual outcome could be.

Two state or one state?

Regardless of the U.S. role, the two identities involved have several levels of definition for what will eventually become of whatever form of co-existence is imposed or chosen. Ethnic cleansing is still a possibility as discussed above. The remaining solutions concern the central idea of a two state or one state solution, with the two state solution carrying within itself several possibilities. The one state solution is obviously a singularity, but the internal workings of such a state could have many possible permutations.

Canada's CBC Radio talk show "The Current" recently hosted two authors, Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian refugee and American educated founder of The Electronic Intifada, and Akiva Eldar, a Ha'aretz diplomatic affairs correspondent. [5] The two duelled verbally about their respective ideas, Abunimah favouring the single state, Eldar supporting the two state idea.

Abunimah spoke first, arguing that a government was needed that represented the population of 11 million Arab and Jewish people, to provide "protection for all the communities" with "equal rights". His view of the current situation is that of a reality "intertwined and inseparable on the ground."

Eldar started by saying the situation had "nothing to do with religion" but with "national and personal identity" and insisted the one state solution was "not doable". He continued saying that "most Palestinians I know" support him and "after one hundred years of animosity, we need a good divorce lawyer." "If we wait any longer," he said, "we'll find ourselves in a one state and it's going to be hell."

Abunimah, by far the stronger and more eloquent of the two speakers, insisted "We're already in a one state solution, there's a fallacy that we have two separate states or entities. The fact that the Israeli government alone decides whether people in Gaza eat or drink, have light or darkness, is a clear indication that there is one government." He continued his argument along ethnic lines, saying "Right now it is a purely sectarian state, a Jewish sectarian state where just as in Northern Ireland you had a sectarian Protestant state and they've found there that total victory of one side or the other was impossible....The only solution was power sharing, and if you think a one state solution in Palestine-Israel is impossible, go to Belfast" where the shared government "between Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party...is the political equivalent of a Hamas-Likud coalition." Current events, he stated, are "leading to the destruction of both peoples. It's time for something new."

Eldar argued that Israeli-Arabs did not want to leave the Israeli state if given the choice to move to the occupied territories, to which Abunimah replied, "Of course Palestinian citizens of Israel don't want to leave, why should they? It's their country, they were born there, but what they are agitating for is....converting Israel from an ethnic Jewish state which gives special and better rights to Jews into a democracy of all its citizens."

When Eldar started to discuss the Jewish settlers in the occupied territories, Abunimah had to interrupt to get him to agree that one had to include the settlers in Jerusalem in the total. Eldar argued that by removing 50-70 000 of the settlers that a two state situation could be accomplished. Abunimah's counter argument derided both these aspects, "First of all, how can you exclude Jerusalem? Jerusalem is at the centre of this conflict....he is saying only ten to twelve per cent, fifty to seventy thousand, would leave. A Palestinian state with half a million settlers implanted in the middle of it is a bantustan as in the South African model and that's why the Camp David accords failed, it wasn't because of this myth that Arafat rejected a generous offer, it was because Palestinians understood that what they were being offered is a South African style Bantustan." Arguing that while Israel "is increasingly being recognized as an apartheid state...the solution...is not more partition and apartheid, it is to start to bring the people together in a situation where they have equal rights and protections."

Eldar's response, "is a one state solution doable? Israel is a democracy..." became entangled in both participants trying to over talk each other, with clarity returning when Eldar argued that the "right of return" was "another non-starter". Abunimah riposted quite vociferously, "What is a non-starter for you, it seems Akiva, with all due respect, is anything that approaches equality among all human beings regardless."

The show host,* **Anna Maria Tremonti, closed off by asking,

"What do you do? What happens?" When the two began overtaking

each other, Abunimah again grabbed the lead, talking pointedly

at Eldar's phrase that it is "just the bottom line is

different." Abunimah responded, "The bottom line is equality

and whether you can live with it and it sounds to me like you're

not ready but what we are talking about is the equality between

Israel as a superpower and Gaza which Israel cuts electricity

and water off from, that's not equality." *

* *

*"That's wrong," agreed Eldar. *

* *

*"That's a bantustan," Abunimah added a qualification. *

* *

*"A one state solution is a non-starter because most of the

Israelis will not accept it so we are wasting our time

discussing it," Eldar continued. *

* *

*"Most Israelis don't accept a two state solution...." *

* *

*"No that's not true..." *

* *

*...and the bell rang to end the round. *

* *

Lords of the Land

*From this radio discussion, the weight of common sense argument and clarity of argument would have to ride in Abunimah's favour, and it prompted me to go buy both author's most recent books to see how their positions were represented within.

*

* *

*Akiva Eldar's most recent work, co-authored with Idith Zertal,

is Lords of the Land - The War Over Israel's Settlements in the

Occupied Territories, 1967-2007 (Nation Books, New York, 2005,

2007). Eldar takes a very negative view of the settlement

process that he examines within the years indicated within the

title. He recognizes them as being illegal, with his chapter

that discusses the issue "analyzes the legalization

[legitimation?] of the basic illegality of the civilian Jewish

presence in the occupied territories." Further, while arguing

over the legality perspective he ironically supports Abunimah's

contention that there is already only one state, that by

"Imposing Israeli judicial authority on the territories, and in

thus expanding the authority of the Israeli courts beyond the

boundaries of the State of Israel, the army in effect annexed

the territories." Because the inhabitants had no other

recourse, they were "coerced....to recognize, whether they wanted

to or not, this legal annexation and the authority of the

Israeli judiciary system over them." In full contradiction to

what he tried to say to Abunimah on "The Current" he concludes,

"This single act also rendered the state of Israel and the

territories a **single** [emphasis added] judiciary-political

entity, blurring the borders of June 4, 1967." The actions of

the courts "eventually afforded the highest legal and moral

seal of approval to Israel's ruthless occupation in the

territories." At least for my way of thinking, he is in

agreement with Abunimah, that there currently is only one state,

"intertwined and inseparable," legally, politically, and

geographically. *

* *

*For the most part, the book is an excellent guide to a standard political style history of the development of the settlements. To their credit the authors find the process both legally and morally reprehensible. Their view of the future, should the settlement patterns continue, "will lead Israel along a sure path to more disputes, more hatred, and more bereavement."

Consistent with the interview, Israel is seen as a democratic

state. Eldar's two state solution, whether supported by Zertal

or not, supports for the Palestinians the "non-starter" of not

recognizing the settlements that are effectively annexing Arab

Jerusalem, and another "non-starter" the denial of the right of

return to Palestinian refugees and diaspora. *

* *

*A two state solution has many permutations, from the

prison-like to the relatively autonomous. If the current

situation were stabilized 'unilaterally' there would still be

much division and separation, with minimal access to other

areas, and minimal control of access and egress. Some voices

have considered a Jordanian partner to help 'govern' the

bantustans, a form of governance that would be fraught with

difficulty, and still provide only a nominal autonomy - without

independence - and a nominal democracy - the kind imposed by an

external controlling power. *

* *

*The wall, presented as a defence against terrorists, and as a boundary to enclose settlements within Israel, may be presented unilaterally as a new boundary between Palestinians and Israelis. But as best described by Roger Lieberman a graduate student at Rutgers University, a unilateral declaration of the wall as a boundary creates a situation where "*The economic havoc wreaked by the Wall and hundreds of checkpoints is seen by many hawkish Zionists as the most "practical" means of carrying out ethnic cleansing."* That perspective is compared to the Golan Heights where "*depopulation, colonization, and annexation - is what a substantial and dangerous segment of the Israeli body politic (along with its enablers in America) has long had in mind for the West Bank." According to Lieberman the Golan Heights serves as a demonstration as to the efficacy of "how Israeli unilateralism effectively erased a substantial Arab community in the Levant without many people in the outside world taking notice and protesting."[6] The wall, and a two state outcome based on it, would not provide a long-term stable structure. The added complication of the Gaza Strip and how it would fit into the arrangement seriously compromises any two state solution at this level.

The most advanced and probably only truly viable acceptable form of a two state solution would be the withdrawal of the Jewish people to the green line, including the areas of East Jerusalem they have annexed and the diplomatic-legal unification with Gaza Strip. The return of the Jordan Valley to Palestinian control would be a good part of this arrangement. While Israel cries 'fear' for its security, Jordan has proven consistently that it has no true aggressive stance towards Israel and has been very accommodating in maintaining a peaceful neutrality with its Jewish neighbour. While all this in itself represents a major concession on the part of the Palestinians in consideration of the land occupied and destroyed in the nakba and its aftermath, it could present a 'realpolitik' outcome to the current situation.

When there was a tentative agreement reached in 1993, many Palestinians thought, "that this unprecedented historic compromise, though bitter, was necessary. Those who rejected the creation of a state limited to the Westbank and Gaza Strip...were relegated to the margins of the Palestinian movement.[7]" That the Israeli government was only interested in investing in more time to settle more territory became apparent not too much later.

It is the "enablers in America" combined with the ongoing

perception of all options being "non-starters" that makes this

argument academic today, yet at the same time essential. For

while there are many non-starters, and many negative enablers,

possibilities do exist and need to be kept up front where the

moral and legal weight of the rest of the world can perhaps

impose some form of saner view on the situation. **

* *

*One Country *

Ali Abunimah's book, _One Country - A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse_ is consistent with his arguments on "The Current". Before discussing the one state outcome, he provides a well-written precise of events leading from the nakba to the present. It is readily accessible, combining anecdotal material with a clearly delineated sequence of events.

Throughout it all he remains consistent with his message of

democratic and human rights principles for all people. There is

not really too much force behind his arguments until later in

the book: his arguments are rational and academically sound,

but seem to be just that, academic in the face of the real

situation on the ground. But then he enters his discussion on

South African apartheid and quickly demonstrates that this is

more than purely an academic argument, that if the situation in

South Africa - very similar to the one in Israel, from the

warring occupiers fighting against the British and then trying

to dominate and exclude the indigenous population - can be

changed so dramatically, then there is a very real possibility

that the same could happen in Israel-Palestine. **

* *

Abunimah begins this section with several recognizable arguments: first that the Africans and Arabs are seen as uncivilized peoples whose resistance to domination is irrational and motivated by hatred (the White Man's Burden again); secondly, the Zionist and Afrikaners "responded to resistance" by "rhetorically reversing the colonial relationship, claiming that they...were the true indigenous people; and that neither the Afrikaner nor Zionist would have gained control "without the benefit of British power, which crushed and deligitimized indigenous resistance on their behalf."

Abunimah defines two points of time in which the academic argument could become a viable reality. First is the "hope held out by South Africa...that when Israelis and Palestinians finally do conclude that separation is unachievable, there is an example of an alternative to perpetual conflict." Similarly, when "Israelis and Palestinians commit themselves to full equality, there is no rationale for separate states." Abunimah outlines several points as to how the unified government could sort out its binational, democratic, equal rights self. Hamas, much to the consternation of many, receives support as being the best group to lead any Palestinian identity within a unified state partly as they "have shown little inclination to implement far-reaching social changes along religious lines," and have genuinely acted at the democratic people's level, "while remaining remarkably open to peaceful coexistence with Israelis."

The one state solution, while enviable as presented in the manner done by Abunimah, is far from being a timely proposal. As with South Africa, the two combatants would need to arrive at similar positions of recognizing that ongoing violence will do neither side any good. There are obviously huge obstacles, ranging from American involvement to the current insistence on the part of the Israelis that the Palestinians are terrorists, their state is fully democratic, and that their conquest of the land is a god given right. It will take some time, some significant about face in political ideology, to realize any stable outcome within Palestine-Israel.

There is a way forward

* *

Current prospects are dim for any actual settled, peaceful outcome in which human rights and democracy are basic to whatever the final arrangement would be. Still in a state of tension, magnified by American threats and occupations elsewhere in the Middle East, no settlement is likely to be found soon. There are three over-riding possible outcomes to the Israeli-Palestine problem: bantustan style cantonments; a two state solution of some kind; or a one state solution of some form.

The status quo may deteriorate further into the unacceptable and repugnant form of prison-like cantonments. There may be an imposed 'agreement' based on the current wall outlines and the current settlement patterns in the West Bank and Jerusalem, with Gaza complicating that arrangement. How does one reintegrate a 'hostile entity' of ones own creation into a Palestinian 'autonomous' territory? A withdrawal to the Green Line would more than likely prove acceptable to the majority of Palestinians, reluctantly, bitterly, perhaps necessary.

The one state solution, from an academic human rights -democratic argument is most strongly and effectively argued by Abunimah and has the examples of Ireland (as in the radio discussion) and South Africa (as well-defined in his book) to work with. Obviously, from the way this presentation is worded, I, at the moment, favour Abunimah's one state solution as the most significant humanitarian, egalitarian, and democratic manner into which the situation would hopefully evolve. It will not be an easy road to follow for either side as both have their internal factions to deal with as well as having external geopolitical interests imposing themselves upon the area. There are also many, many areas - religion, right of return for both groups, education, social structures and support, national and regional governance to name a few - that would need significant discussion and cooperation to facilitate a one state rapprochement. While chances at the moment seem highly improbable, the goal, the vision, the possibility needs to be maintained, for its own end, and also to guard against the bleak view of seeing only a prison landscape. A better world is possible and while it may be well over the horizon at the moment, the hope for it needs to be maintained.

[1] Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations

General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/prev_genocide/convention.htm

[2] Rather than footnote all this information, the sources I have read include the following books - see among others:

* Abunimah, Ali. One Country

* Baroud, Ramzy. The Second Palestinian Intifada

* Bucaille, Laetitia. Growing up Palestinian

* Cook, Jonathan. Blood and Religion

* Derek, Gregory. The Colonial Present

* Eldar, Akiva and Zertal, Idith. Lords of the Land

* Haddad, Toufic and Honig-Parnass. Tikva. Between the Lines

* Mishal, Shaul and Sela, Avraham. The Palestinian Hamas

* Pappe, Ilan. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

* Pappe, Ilan. A History of Modern Palestine, Second Edition

* Pappe, Ilan, Ed. The Israel/Palestine Question

* Rabkin, Yakov M. A Threat From Within

* Reinhart, Tanya. Israel/Palestine

* Reinhart, Tanya. The Road Map to Nowhere.

* Simons, Geoff. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

* Sorkin, Michael, Ed. Against the Wall

Many internet sites are also sources of information for anyone wishing to research more information on the Israel-Palestine question.

[3] Many web sources support this figure while providing a breakdown of the details, including:

* Zunes, Stephen. "The Strategic Functions of U.S. Aid to Israel." http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

* Francis, David R. "Economist Tallies Selling Cost of Israel to US." www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01.html

* de Rooij Paul. "U.S. Aid to Israel - Feeding the Cuckoo." Counterpunch, November 16, 2002. http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij1116.html

* Frida Berrigan and William D Hartung. *"**Israel**'s star-spangled arsenal", Asia Times Online, July 28, 2006. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG28Ak03.html** *

[4] 18 October, 2007.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html#Econ

[5]* "**One-State for Israel-Palestine," September 24, 2007.

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2007/200709/20070924.html

*

[6] Lieberman, Roger. "Annapolis and the Mandate of Heaven".

_Palestine__ Chronicle_, October 24, 2007.

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story-10240735218.htm

[7] Abunimah, Ali. _One Country - A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse_. Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company. New York, 2006. p. 11-12.

* 30 -

Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular

contributor/columnist of opinion pieces and book reviews to

Palestine Chronicles. His interest in this topic stems

originally from an environmental perspective, which encompasses

the militarization and economic subjugation of the global

community and its commodification by corporate governance and by The American government.