My Other Blog

Older Posts

Search this blog

  • Google


« Arabs to the Crematoria | Main | The Destruction Of Israel »

01 February 2004



The Israeli discourse about the Right of Return, along with the fears of the "Demographic Time Bomb," brings into relief some of the true fears of the Zionist ideologues. And that is Israel's identity as a "Jewish" state. But the Zionist's can't have it both ways. If they want to control all of Mandated Palestine (and no one can convince me that that is not Sharon's ultimate goal), they will likely have a majority Palestinian population--not so subtle efforts to make Palestinian life intolerable in an effort to get them to emigrate (a form of creeping "Transfer")notwithstanding. In which case, The pretense that Israel is a democracy, will be even more risible. I already question Israel's status as a democracy given the second-class rights of Palestinians within Israel (or so-called "Israeli Arabs"). It's time to support the one-state solution. A secular state with equal rights for Jews and Palestinians. Apartheid is not the solution.


Excellent idea! I do positively support the author of this insightful article. For some interesting facts about national minorities go straight to -
a site dedicated to Endangered languages of Eastern European National minorities.

My best regards, Polit.Centr

Kurious Dude

I found your article very informative. I wanted to inquire about the current state of affairs. It seems that the article leaves off saying that all preconditions were met. The Israelis came back with an offer that acknowledged the Right of Return and offered a kind-of-a "sorry". The Palestinians put a reasonable cap on the number of refugees at 40K over a five-year period. This begs the question why the downward spiral after the negotiations at Taba which should have settled the last major issue?

L of C

Hi Kurious,

I’m glad you found the article useful. Unfortunately, the refugee problem was not the last major issue between Israelis and Palestinians; when the Taba talks were suspended, there were still gaps on Jerusalem and on borders (specifically, how much of the Israeli-settled areas of the West Bank would be annexed to Israel). The negotiators were confident though that if they had had perhaps another six weeks, they would have reached a final settlement of all issues. The talks were suspended because of the Israeli general election in Feb 2001, which threw out the Barak govt and brought PM Sharon to power. No Sharon government will ever return to Taba-type talks, because the Taba negotiations were leading to a genuine two-state solution, and Sharon simply does not believe in a two-state solution. (He envisages instead an imposed settlement that would give the Palestinians limited autonomy under Israeli control – kind of a one-and-a-half state solution). So, since PM Sharon came to power, there have been no talks at all on final status issues leading to a two-state solution – ie on the big issues like borders, Jerusalem and refugees.

The Geneva Accord grew out of frustration on the part of some of the Taba negotiators at the lack of real negotiations over the last three years. Basically, the Geneva negotiators resumed from where the Taba talks left off, and showed what a final settlement would look like if Taba had not been suspended. The Geneva Accord has not been formally accepted by either the Israeli or the Palestinian government – Sharon would certainly never accept it; Arafat (in my opinion) probably would, if he were facing an Israeli govt that would reciprocate.

Hope that answers some of your questions.

The comments to this entry are closed.