01/16/17 – Ramzy Baroud on the death of an Israel-Palestine two-state solution – The Scott Horton Show

Alright, Charles Scott Horton here, and I got a great deal for you.
Anyone who helps support this show with a $50 donation, or more, gets a copy of the brand new Rothbard book, Murray N. Rothbard book, of long-lost essays from 1967 and 1968.
It's entitled, Never a Dull Moment, A Libertarian Looks at the Sixties.
Murray N. Rothbard, really Mr. Libertarian himself, on Vietnam, conscription, civil rights, LBJ, and Nixon, and all kinds of great stuff from back during those times.
Never a Dull Moment, and it's an exclusive.
It's not available on Amazon yet.
It's an exclusive, so far at least, for listeners of this show, so be the first to get it.
Help support this show at the same time, just go to scotthorton.org, slash, donate, and again, anyone who sends $50 on this way, along with a mailing address, and I will get this book right to you.
Thanks.
Alright you guys, Scott Horton Show, I'm him.
Check out the archives at the newandimprovedscotthorton.org, and at libertarianinstitute.org, slash, scotthortonshow.
Follow me on Twitter, at scotthortonshow.
Alright, so introducing our friend Ramzi Baroud.
RamziBaroud.net is one website.
PalestineChronicle.com is the other.
His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter, Gaza's Untold Story, and we run quite a bit of what he writes, at least, at antiwar.com as well, original.antiwar.com, slash, Ramzi-Baroud.
Welcome back to the show, sir.
How are you doing?
I'm doing well, Scott.
Thanks for having me again.
Very happy to have you here.
Always interested in talking about Israel-Palestine issues with you, and, well, I guess for a start here, well, okay, so the article is, Enough fear-mongering.
Only one democratic state is possible in Palestine and Israel.
And this is, I guess, basically, you know, more or less your reaction to John Kerry's big, way-too-little-too-late speech about how it would be in the best interests of the Israelis, never mind the Americans, if the Israelis would give up the West Bank and Gaza Strip to be an independent Palestinian state, like in the deal.
And you're arguing here that no such thing.
So I wanted to bring up one more thing before I turn it over to you here, because John Kerry's John Kerry, right?
So who cares what that idiot says?
But we run at Antiwar.com a lot.
I do.
Yuri Avnery, who, as I'm sure you're aware, is an Israeli leftist and peacenik.
He fought in the 1948 war, but he's been pushing for a two-state solution ever since.
Maybe there's a lesson in futility there.
But he strongly believes in peace.
He strongly believes in the rights and dignity of the people of Palestine.
He wants them to have independence and safety.
And he thinks it's got to be two states.
He says it's the only game in town.
And a one-state solution, you know, man, okay, I understand how you feel about it and everything, but in practice, my God, it would be a worse nightmare than even having a fake, rump, demilitarized two states.
Maybe it'd even be worse than this peace process and the second state that never comes.
So it's not just John Kerry, the fool who may be easy for our listeners to dismiss, but Yuri Avnery, he seems to have a pretty good case.
He seems to have thought about this pretty well.
And I guess he seems to think that if the Israeli Jewish population had to choose between equal rights for everybody, or another Nakba at that point, forced to choose that it would be another Nakba before they would actually allow there to be a one-state solution and equal rights for everyone between the river and the sea.
So go ahead, sir, and tell me how you answer to that.
Well, to begin with, I do not think that John Kerry is an idiot.
I think that he knows very well the nature of the game that the Obama administration has been playing, which is kind of keeping the pro-Israel camp at bay, pacifying them at any cost to keep things moving forward, because they can't afford confronting the Congress.
And as we know that the Congress is more Israeli than American, sadly.
And they waited until the last few weeks in the Obama administration to really show a little bit of guts, so a little bit of integrity.
That's when they did not veto the UN Resolution 2334 condemning Israeli settlements.
They supported the Paris Peace Conference yesterday and so forth.
But again, it really is too little too late.
He understands fully the nature of the game.
Whenever criticism of the Israeli settlements are being presented, the context is not, listen, this is really a violation of human rights.
It constitutes war crimes.
You can't be transferring your population into someone into unoccupied territories.
You are violating the full Geneva Convention.
If you don't cease and desist, we are going to infuse various articles in international law and punish you for it, as any other country experiences in these situations.
In the case of Israel, Israel, you are hurting yourself.
And if you don't stop, you are going to hurt yourself even more.
Screw the Palestinians, you know, those people who have been suffering for 70 years.
They are not really the main point of concern here.
It is Israel's well-being.
It's Israel's Jewish identity that matters.
It's Israel this, Israel that.
That's what really I find infuriating as a Palestinian, not just as a Palestinian writer, but just as your everyday Palestinian.
You never really feel like your well-being, your concern, your collective rights as a nation is ever really paramount to anybody, anywhere in this debate.
Sadly, also sadly, I think Yuri Avnery is coming from the same point of view.
Don't forget that Yuri fought in the 1948 war.
And he fought as part of a group that we as Palestinians consider, you know, Zionist terrorist militia.
And when you read Yuri's writing about that particular generation, he looks back at those days in this kind of emotive, reminiscing nature.
I mean, his writing about it's not, we are ashamed of what we have done, people.
You know, don't forget our country has been based on ethnic cleansing.
Israel would have not existed if it were not for the fact that Palestinians were, you know, were kicked out of the country.
No, he really looks back at those days as days of honor and greatness for Israel.
And that's why many of us Palestinians, even though I am in touch with Yuri once in a while, but we have a serious problem with the foundation of his intellect, which is the idea that the past was okay and we don't need to talk about it.
Let's just talk about the 1967 borders.
For me, the 1967 borders is just an outcome of the original sin that took place in 1948.
That's the Nakba.
The 1967 border and the 1967 war is not the origins of the problem.
The genesis of all of this is 1948.
And Yuri doesn't want to talk about it.
For Yuri and many in the Israeli left, they still talk about, you know, Palestinian people that we need to somehow remedy their problem.
They don't address us as a nation that has been wronged throughout history.
He still feels that the Jewish identity of Israel is the central piece of any future solution to the conflict, which, again, we have a serious problem with it.
Because even if we are to say that the two-state solution, Scott, is still practicable for any reason, which is not at all, but if we are to accept that premise, that a two-state solution is still possible, how do you count for the million and a half Arabs, hundreds of thousands of Jews and Bedouins and Christians who are still living in Israel and will continue supposedly living in that Israel under the auspices of a Jewish state where Jews have greater rights than everybody else?
So we haven't yet still addressed the fundamental problem and the fundamental error in Zionist thinking.
That will not even solve the problem then.
This is why we are saying for all intents and purposes and for all practical reasons and to really address the issue from its very, very roots, the fact is between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, right now live two people of different backgrounds and ethnicities and religions, and they are coexisting.
They are not tolerating one another, but they are coexisting.
Palestinians are separated by checkpoints and settlements dotting the Palestinian landscape and two sets of laws, one that prefers one over the other, exist.
And we need to change that.
We don't need to change the reality.
They think it's impractical.
We think it's insane to think of any other path but this.
Because if you and I, Scott, are already living in the same neighborhood, but you are receiving certain privileges and I'm denying these privileges, I am advocating that you want I to be treated as equal instead of building a wall between me and you, separating me from my school and my farm and my people living on your side of the neighborhood.
That doesn't make any sense.
So Yori and the others in the Israeli left, they really need to get over this complex.
We are living in the 21st century now, and we do not separate people based on ethnicities anymore.
In this country, we call it racism.
In Israel, let's call it racism as well.
Well, it really does sound like almost a question of, boy, if you try to desegregate Mississippi now, with the Klan as powerful as it is now, the backlash is going to be so bad that really maybe they're better off pushing for a separate little rump mini-state for blacks in Mississippi because, boy, oh boy, can you imagine what the whites will do if they're forced to share power?
And that argument finally lost out in this country.
Precisely, Scott.
And what a lot of people just don't understand is that this is a very, very similar argument, if not even an identical one.
In fact, it's even worse, in a sense, because we are the original inhabitants of that land.
We are the natives of that land.
So not only are you denying us equal rights, you are denying our very existing and our roots because if a Palestinian leadership is compromising enough to come and say, yes, we do acknowledge Israel as a country for the Jews, it's a Jewish state, okay, fair enough.
But you know what this does to the Palestinian narrative?
It means that my grandfather, my great-grandfather, my ancestors had absolutely no rights.
We were just passers-by in history.
We are nomads.
We don't belong to that land.
So it's our very identity is being shattered by making.
So this is not just about coexistence and about the future, but it's also about the past.
Hey, Al Scott here.
If you've got a band, a business, a cause, or campaign, and you need stickers to help promote, check out thebumpersticker.com at thebumpersticker.com.
They digitally print with solvent ink, so you get the photo quality results of digital with the strength and durability of old-style screen printing.
I'm sure glad I sold thebumpersticker.com to Rick back when.
He's made a hell of a great company out of it, and there are thousands of satisfied customers who agree with me, too.
Let thebumpersticker.com help you get the word out.
That's thebumpersticker.com at thebumpersticker.com.
All right, now here's the thing, though, too.
Right is right and everything, but politics is politics.
And in politics, the Palestinian Authority, way back in 1988, said, Hey, man, a fait accompli is a fait accompli.
You guys won.
You stole a bunch of the land, and you built on it, and you own it now, and we'll accept, I guess it's 22%, whatever it is, and we'll go ahead and recognize the State of Israel.
I've even seen, I don't know the leader, but leaders, a leader of Hamas on the Charlie Rose show on PBS say, Look, if you'll end the occupations and make a peace deal recognizing a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, then we will recognize Israel as part of that deal.
So it's not quite Arafat in 88, but it's, yes, we absolutely intend to do that as soon as you'll deal with us.
And so from the politics point of view, it sounds like what you're saying is what was good enough for Arafat and now even for Hamas is still not good enough for you, which seems to play into the hands of the Likudniks who say, see, what they want to do is completely destroy Israel altogether and make it, you know, Israel Stein or something like that, where, heaven forbid, the Palestinians might even one day have a majority vote and rule the place and make it no longer Israel at all, which is no different than invading the place and pushing all the Jews into the sea.
That would be their argument.
So are you actually in real life, no matter how right you might be about morality playing into their hands and making matters worse?
That's an excellent point, Scott.
And I think the key to the answer is what you mentioned, 1988.
The Palestinian Liberation Organization or the Palestine Liberation Organization, PLO, acknowledged Israel's right to exist as a state in 1988.
But what happened since then is really what changes the nature of the debate altogether.
Don't forget that our greatest intellectual of all times, Edward Said, the late Edward Said, had also at one point in his career, in his writing, acknowledged and supported the idea of a two state solution.
And if you look at my articles of 20 years ago, I also supported the two state solution, not because we were, you know, immorally or we were, you know, morally blind then.
No, to the contrary, we were using the same gauge of morality and values and ethics.
But what happened after 1988, in five years after that date, the Oslo Peace Accords was signed.
And according to the Oslo Peace Accord of 1993, the final status negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel, thus a Palestinian state, would be established five years from that date.
In other words, by now we should have had a Palestinian state that has been happening for about 20 years.
Not only that did not happen, but some numbers have changed so dramatically.
The number of settlers, the number of illegal Jewish settlers in the West Bank has doubled or tripled since then.
It has actually doubled in the last 10 years alone.
The number of the amount of land that was confiscated from that supposed Palestinian state has actually tripled since then.
Jerusalem, that was supposed to be our capital, has been completely annexed and cut off from the rest of the West Bank.
Not just that, the Israelis are now saying, not only I'm not going to even give you a tooth, they are saying that we do not believe in the two state idea anymore.
So they brought three times as much of their population into this Palestinian state.
Our land has shrunk so much and is sliced up like Swiss cheese with Jewish only roads, Jewish only settlements.
Our capital is completely taken.
And this is it.
Now, for me to come and, you know, just promote the two state idea, I would be the ridiculous one at this point.
I am not on the margins.
In fact, just last month, a Palestinian poll was published by a very respected polling center in the West Bank.
That said, 65 percent of Palestinians are now saying the two state idea is not workable, impractical.
They don't want it anymore.
They understand more than me and more than Mahmoud Abbas and more than all the intellectuals in their ivory towers that from their everyday routine and everyday life, that this is no longer permissible.
It's just not going to happen.
Well, even the major premise of Kerry's speech is that this is the last minute where time is running out.
If this is going to be possible at all.
And you're saying, come on, even that is whistling past the graveyard here.
Exactly.
And you know what the idea, Scott, that the two state solution is dead.
If you go to Google and type two state solution is dead, put it between quotes.
You'll find that people have been saying this for about 15 years or so now.
And they are not saying it because they are promoters of a one state.
The same John Kerry narrative.
Two states is dead.
It's over.
Our last chance.
Our last chance.
Our last chance.
They've been saying this forever.
My children are now teenagers in universities and they have been saying this before they were even born.
So the question is, how long are we going to promote and perpetuate this illusion instead of focusing on building coexistence now?
Because that time that is being wasted, people are suffering.
People are dying.
That's the question.
All right.
But now.
So here we get back to the Mississippi example.
And boy, is the Klan powerful here.
Did I say Missouri the first time?
I forget which state I'm picking on there, boys.
Yeah, Mississippi.
So the deal is now if, I don't know, Wonder Woman came and put a magic lasso to Netanyahu's head and make him give up the West Bank.
I mean, pardon, make him go ahead and finish annexing the West Bank and make all the Palestinian citizens, then wouldn't there just immediately be a civil war?
Isn't isn't Israeli political society as right wing as it has ever been at this point where, as you say, even lip service to justice for Palestinians is now suspended?
And I mean, I don't know how many how many million people live in the West Bank and and wouldn't.
And aren't they all disarmed?
And and wouldn't the policy at that point be to simply just, you know, do a Cherokee trail of tears and force march them into the Jordan River or into the Sinai Desert or some kind of thing and just take it?
And it seems like what you're calling for makes perfect sense and all that, except for the people of Israel and especially their military and and their national security state are never going to stand for it.
You know, I've already answered this question in my last article, Scott, because, you know, the John Kerry was talking about this doomsday scenario.
If a two state solution is not possible.
And my argument is, as far as we Palestinians are concerned, that doomsday scenario is already in effect.
It's already happening.
You know what happened in Gaza and the wars of 2008, nine, 2012 and 2014, over 6000 people were killed, over 25000 people were injured.
The entire population was ethnically cleansed from one side to the other and back and forth.
And you still have about one hundred and fifty thousand people are homeless.
Right.
The West Bank is militarily occupied.
People are being killed every day.
People are being ethnically cleansed from their land every day.
So I'm not going to talk about a doomsday scenario or a possibility of this dark cloud that's going to happen in case, you know, if we continue to push for a one state solution, because that is already in action.
That's already in effect.
I want to stop what is happening right now.
I want to create a new reality, OK, that that allows us to stop the bloodletting that is already in effect.
If we are living in a state, not necessarily a state of peace, Scott, but a state of semi, you know, relative tranquility, I would say, you know what, maybe we shouldn't push such radical ideas to upset this existing scenario.
But the existing scenario is suffocating, is killing us.
So this is what we need to deal with.
The second thing is, if you want to use the Mississippi scenario, then OK, fine.
Do you think just because African-Americans would be terrified of the possibilities if they ask for equal rights, they should stop asking for equal rights?
Isn't this what happened during the civil rights movement?
I mean, they were asking for rights during a time that they were almost completely disempowered.
But they mobilized and they fought and they fought and the fight is going to carry on for God knows how long.
It will not end anytime soon.
For us, we have to start somewhere.
But my feeling right now is that we are completely on the wrong path.
We are entirely on the wrong path.
We need to reorient ourselves.
It's a marathon.
It's very long.
It's hard.
It's painful.
But we need a starting point.
And the starting point is start thinking in terms of practical solutions that are that are actually the most rational at this point.
You know, 60 percent of Israeli Jews are actually from Arab background.
Did you know that?
They are Mizrahis.
They are Sephardim.
They call them the Spanish Jews.
They are Arabs.
They are from North Africa, from Morocco, from Yemen, from Iraq, from Syria.
60 percent.
I mean, it's not like I am asking us to mix two elements that never mixed before.
Arabs and Jews co-existed in the past and the current Jewish race, actually majority of it in Israel are actually Arabs.
You know, I don't see why that would not be workable because I can't get Binet and Netanyahu and Levin and other radical right wing Israelis to accept the fact that they are like the rest of us.
That they are not particularly special, that they are not particularly chosen, that they are equal beings.
And for me as Palestinian, I am making the compromise here because that's my ancestors land.
And I am saying I want to share it with you.
I don't want to live in a cage.
I don't want my kids to be inferior for the rest of their lives.
Let's talk about the possibility of finding room to co-exist.
Share the water that you already taken from us without permission anyway.
Share the land that you already stealing from us without permission anyway.
Let's find a way, let's just change the rules and the laws that would apply on us on equal basis.
If they are going to react by start ethnically cleansing my people, well they have been doing this for 70 years anyway.
What difference is this going to make?
All right, now one solution that I've read of before and I don't know if there are precedents for this.
I think the article that I'm thinking of had cited some sort of historical precedents for what they call the binational state.
Where it would be one surrounding border but two internal police forces.
That would basically have jurisdiction over their own populations but not geographically designated.
Just on a subscriber basis almost.
But based on, I guess, it would be difficult to figure out exactly as you're saying all the Jewish Arabs there.
And all the Christians and everybody else.
But basically something like that.
Where it wouldn't be, I guess, the greatest fear being that Israeli Jews would be under the jurisdiction of Palestinian policemen.
And they'll never stand for that.
So maybe each side could have their own police force, something like that.
You know, I'm not entirely against the idea of a binational state.
As long as the ultimate objective is a one state for two people.
If everyone, every citizen is being judged based on his citizenship.
Not based on his race and his color and his ethnicity or religion.
How do we get there?
I think it's a subject that should be open for discussion.
I think there is a growing number of Israeli intellectuals that started really with Avish Lehman, Ilan Pape and these people.
Who are now thinking with us in the right direction.
And there are constantly conferences taking place in various universities around the world.
Really beginning to discuss the formulation.
We are going beyond the stage of one state versus two states.
We are not even talking about two states anymore at this point, Scott.
Really this is just something that's happening in Paris and in Washington and elsewhere.
But it's really not happening at an intellectual level.
We are now talking about the post one state.
What does it mean in practical terms?
If it's going to start as a two state within a transition, let's say, of three to five years.
To get us to where we want to be and to avoid any major disruption or clash or whatever.
I don't think it's a bad idea.
But again, the ultimate objective really should be one person, one vote.
And people should be treated equally regardless of their background.
Well, I think you're absolutely right, too, that this argument has made major progress here.
Maybe it's much more even than I realize.
But I'm certainly aware of many on the left in America, including many Jews.
And not just Jewish Voice for Peace, but all different writers and people all over the spectrum on the left in America.
Have, you know, very simply just kind of cut ties with their old idea.
As you said, you used to argue for the two state solution yourself.
And certainly Mondo Weiss and those guys are leading the way as far as that goes.
But they're not alone.
So, yeah, I guess I'm kind of behind the times, too.
But so I think it's important to kind of have this out for people who haven't heard it enough.
That's for sure.
Absolutely.
All right.
Well, thank you very much for coming back on the show, Ramzi.
It's always good to talk to you.
Thank you very much, Scott, for having me again.
You take care.
Yep.
All right.
So that is Ramzi Baroud.
RamziBaroud.net and PalestineChronicle.com.
His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter.
And you can find a lot of what he writes.
Not all of it because he really writes, you know, I don't know, I don't know, 10 or 15 or 20-something pieces a week or something.
I don't know.
He writes all the time.
But we run a lot of it at Antiwar.com, Original.
Antiwar.com, slash Ramzi-Baroud.
That's The Scott Horton Show.
Check me out at ScottHorton.org and at LibertarianInstitute.org, slash ScottHortonShow.
Sign up for all the podcast feeds there and all that stuff.
And follow me on Twitter at ScottHortonShow.
Thanks, y'all.
Hey, I'm Scott Horton here to tell you about this great new book by Michael Swanson, The War State.
In The War State, Swanson examines how Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy both expanded and fought to limit the rise of the new national security state after World War II.
If this nation is ever to live up to its creed of liberty and prosperity for everyone, we are going to have to abolish the empire.
Know your enemy.
Get The War State by Michael Swanson.
It's available at your local bookstore or at Amazon.com in Kindle or in paperback.
Just click the book in the right margin at ScottHorton.org or TheWarState.com.