Deaths of the "no-state" Palestinians are Proportional to Life of the Two State Solution.

is perilous and unbecoming to argue with and contradict the icons of our global society. Those who struggle courageously for the rights of others and speak eloquently with word and deed against war and tyranny deserve praise and comfort. They are beautiful people.

 

Uri Avnery, journalist, soldier, politician, Knesset member, peace activist, writer, wordsmith, master of the quip and Zionist is one of the nobles who warrant special consideration. Being human, Avnery can be faulted, and his fault is a rigid attachment to Zionism, which strays his thoughts from lofty objectives and guides him to instruct others toward confusion -- Isms and harmony don't go together; Zionism and peaceful relations are separated phenomena.

 

The failures that Uri Avnery commits in proposing what he calls "the only solution to the Middle East conflict" are similar to those from other individuals and organizations whose thinking is misdirected due to a conviction that the solution must consider Zionism and Zionism leads the solution. His article, The Donkey of the Messiah, published on May 11, 2013, and circulated throughout the Internet, solicits examination and rebuttal, and for more reason than because his arguments don't add up to his conclusions; the positions reflect a perspective from a broad spectrum of   peace thinkers, peace movements, and peace institutions whose thoughts and actions have been salutary but have failed to steer the Middle East crisis to a proper course. Confined outlooks have only reinforced Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands, perpetuated oppression of the Palestinian people and threatened the existence of the Jewish community. Spurious strategies that continually lead to cataclysm deserve careful evaluation.

 

The journalist turned politician turned peace activist starts his article with:

 

"THE TWO-STATE solution is dead!" This mantra has been repeated so often lately, by so many authoritative commentators, that it must be true.

 

Well, it ain"t.

 

Did not the 1947 United Nations (UN) Partition Plan, Resolution 181, establish a two-state solution for solving the bitter conflict between Zionist settlers and native Palestinians? What happened with that two-state solution? It resulted in decades of turmoil, wars, deaths, injuries, displaced persons and magnitudes more acrimony than existed before Resolution 181. Why would a new partition plan be different? True that the next two-state solution will consider the realities of the situation and be engineered by the involved parties, but by what parties and toward what two states?

 

Avnery is not talking THE TWO STATES; he is talking A TWO STATES. The displaced Palestinians, who considered that a non-elected agency had no legal right to partition their lands and award parts of them to foreigners, would probably be glad to restore the original Partition plan into THE TWO STATES. The jury is still out on who was responsible for rejection of the Partition Plan -- was it confused Palestinians who had no central leadership or the unified Israelis, who formed a government without any Arabs, although their territory contained a 40 percent Arab population, and then proceeded to systematically threaten the Arab populations who did not leave?

 

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).