The back-story is set. The history has been told. The players identified. So what’s the latest? In my last regular post for this blog, that’s the exact question I asked. According to this New York Times article, the situation remains relatively the same, but the relationship between the players has grown worse for wear. As the authors point out, Netanyahu made statements that he would not support a Palestinian state, and then quickly retreated saying he doesn’t think the current situation allows for such. At the same time, he made racist comments towards the Arab population of Israel. As the article states, this wavering stance and indecent treatment has led the US to reassess its position within the matter. A part of that reassessment, the article states, is the US’s position towards UN recognition of Palestine. According to the article, the US has made moves towards supporting such a decision. In the end, the author states, the US is still strongly supportive of a two-state peace agreement and that the recent actions of Netanyahu have nearly affirmed suspicions of his true intentions never to support such.

Along the same lines as the above New York Times article, this NPR publication seems to reaffirm the questioned current state and strained relationships. Discussing the current state of affairs (the publication was released just before Israel’s election) with several Palestinians, the presenter identifies a mixed outlook for the future, but an agreed upon sour look of the present. As two of his interviewees confirm, the Palestinian government is in dire straights and is not what the country needs to be able to advance its efforts for peace with Israel. While the men interviewed agreed there, their outlook for the future was split in favor of a single-state and two-state solution. The first interviewee called for a single, democratic state, saying that Israel’s advances into Palestine have gone so far that no two-state solution was possible. The second interviewee though, disagreed, and reaffirmed his position for a two-state solution. To reach that though, he stated that the current government needed to be completely overhauled and become a model of democracy. In doing so, he argued, Israel would have no choice but to recognize the State of Palestine.

The here and now is this: Netanyahu has been re-elected; Abbas continues to struggle with Hamas and wavers in his weak corner position; and Hamas is rumored to be in discussion with Israel to make Gaza its own state. So what’s new in this one-state, two-state, no-state solution debacle? In short, not much besides a worsening situation. As the above New York Times article states, relations between long-term allies are actually weakening as all sides continue to dig their heels in further. Abbas, once a revered leader, seems to be faltering in his position and continues to put off further democratic moves he agreed to years earlier. Hamas continues on its path of religious led terror. Netanyahu continues to play games as I think he pursues his ultimate goal: power (I think he doesn’t much care for the situation so long as he continues to reign supreme). And finally, the US is now being forced to re-evaluate its position as it continues to strive for a two-state solution. And yet, all of this, I think, is of little significance. For, politics aside, I think the true heart of the matter lies in the culture and education of the people on both sides of the issues. And on that bombshell, goodnight and see y’all next week!

After stewing on last week’s entry, I felt disturbed for two main reasons: Netanyahu and his government’s treatment of Palestine, and the one sided entry. As I committed to at the onset of this blog, I felt that I needed to dive deeper into the other side. Hence, for this week, I look into Hamas. According to this BBC News article, Hamas is a relatively new organization that was founded during the first Intifada in 1987. An offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization was originally chartered to provide aide and social services to Palestinians, and to fight against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. As the article describes, that second resolution came to drastic fronts when Hamas carried out a series of vastly deadly suicide bombings in the mid 1990s. Political practices though, as the article states, did not become prevalent until the mid 2000s when the organization was voted into power in the Gaza strip. Since then, Hamas has led numerous violent attacks on Israel that have led to the mass killings of innocent Palestinians.

Looking towards more recent news, this Atlantic article skips straight to the underlying issue with Hamas. As the article so eloquently states, “While Hamas is expert at getting innocent Palestinians killed, it has made clear that it would rather kill Jews.” Just as the above article stated, this Atlantic piece identifies Hamas as a terrorist organization that has but one goal in mind: the destruction of the Jewish people.

After spending so much time investigating the atrocities levied against the Palestinians by the Israelis, it is easy to gloss over the terrorist organization that is Hamas. Yet in digging through the various articles, I am saddened just the same by the actions that this group partakes in. As evidenced above, Hamas could even be considered worse than the Israelis as this organization would knowingly bring death to its people to further its religious agenda. A far cry from withheld tax reimbursements, or rolling power “outages,” Hamas’ deadly attacks, mixed with their chartered, and continually restated organization goals, are exactly the opposite of what needs to take place for the Palestinian people and their plight towards recognition and fair treatment. Furthermore, just as Israel shall be held accountable for their actions, Hamas should be to.

Unfortunately though, I can not say that I am surprised at Hamas’ rise to power. For in the absence of strong, corruption free, truly democratic leadership, the religious extremists in general are, and have been for recent years, quickly grasping at power. As most of the countries that were a part of the Arab Spring can attest, the rise of religious political powers is steering states in directions far worse than the overthrown governments that preceded them could ever have imagined. In the case of Israel and Palestine, such religious extremism, evidenced on both sides in the form of pro-Jewish legislation or Hamas and its goals, is continuing to degrade any hopes of a peace agreement.

Throughout my last several blogs, a common thread that strung them together was the various oppressions levied on the Palestinian people by the Israelis. So instead of skirting the issue, I decided to take a closer look into the more recent occurrences that have garnered media attention (please note that by focusing on Israel for this post, I by no means devalue the aggression that certain factions of the Palestinian people have levied upon the Israelis). In this Al Jazeera article, treatment of Palestinian children is highlighted. Known for throwing rocks at the separation wall and Israeli armored trucks, the article states that the children have been facing increasingly worse punishment and persecution. Instead of a night in jail and a fine, as used to be the norm, the article states that the children are now being beaten, coerced into signing statements in languages other than their own, and sentenced to numerous months in jail. Worse still, the authors state, is Netanyahu’s controversial Nationality Bill that currently awaits approval by the Knesset. For in the bill, and through various speeches given by the Prime Minister, Netanyahu has specifically included rock-throwing in his definition of terrorist acts levied against Israel. The future, the article alludes to, is even worse looking for the children of Palestine.

Continuing on the theme of Palestinian oppression, this article dives deeper into Netanyahu’s comments and speeches made in the lead up to his re-election. As the article states, Netanyahu blatantly dismissed the Palestinian people in the remarks he made urging his party supporters to vote. In a reversal of his previous position, Netanyahu declared that he would not allow the formation of a Palestinian state whilst in power. Even further though, as the article states, Netanyahu, on numerous occasions, made direct racial attacks on non-Jewish Israelis in proclaiming that “Arabs” were voting and that, should they win, they would “build a government with the Arab list.”

As time continues to roll by, and no peace agreement is reached, the tensions continue to rise between the two nations. Consequently, Netanyahu’s position on, and treatment of, the Palestinian people continues to worsen. Just a few years ago, Netanyahu proclaimed that he was, in essence, cautiously optimistic that a two-state peace deal could be attained. However, as deals continued to end in stalemates, and his own political outlook on the situation worsened, his entire position on the situation has drastically changed. As evidenced by the increased political moves against the non-Jewish residents of Israel, such as the Nationality Bill, and the outright denial of statehood to Palestine (admittedly, he did step back from this position directly after his re-election; however, such movements can only be suspicious), the oppression of the Palestinian people continues to worsen. Nearly every day, news flashes of withheld tax reimbursements, increased water control measures, and power “outages” scroll across my screen through both Palestinian and Pro-Palestinian Jewish news outlets. As the ending of the second article eludes to, the mis-treatment of the Palestinian people would not be tolerated within any developed nation, yet such actions continue to occur in Israel unabated. With this in mind, I am left to ponder the feasibility of any peace agreement, be it one or two states. For, I cannot remove from my head the mixed feelings of apartheid actions, and the ultimate thought of the oppressed people becoming the oppressors. As the authors of this Wall Street Journal opinion state, the actions of Netanyahu and his regime ” . . . fosters the impression that Israel has moved away from its firm commitment to democracy and sends a message that the full-fledged rights of all its citizens—the 20% of its citizens who are not Jews—are diminished in the eyes of the law.” How then, is peace possible when the status of one people is diminished to second class?

As the rhetoric of Israeli crimes against Palestine continue to intensify and gain worldwide support, connections to South Africa are also gaining strength. Many pundits and political regimes alike are comparing the apartheid regime in South Africa with Israel’s political agenda and regime. One such article referencing this connection, is this Electronic Intifada posting. In this article, the author references a 2009 report released by the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa (HSRC). The HSRC, composed of a team of international parties and funded by the Government of South Africa, investigated the actions of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). Working through the internationally recognized definitions, the team identified examples of Israel conducting both such behaviors, apartheid and colonialism, throughout the OPT.

Agreeing that social injustices were being performed, human rights activist Benjamin Pogrund disagreed with the above report and the labeling of such activities as “apartheid.” In this Times of Israel article, author Raphael Ahren interviewed Pogrund and broached the subject of apartheid in Israel. Pogrund, a staunch supporter against apartheid and one of Nelson Mandela’s strongest allies, begins his interview by addressing his involvement in South Africa’s revolution of its apartheid regime. Grossly familiar with the topic then, Pogrund continues on to address the current actions of Israel. While he stated that he did find Israel’s actions atrocious, and did agree with the colonialism label, Pogrund disagreed with the apartheid label for one main reason: intentionality. In this interview, Pogrund argues that Israel’s actions are not apartheidistic as they are not ideologically aiming to discriminate against Palestine.

As I’ve moved through this blog, and the underlying issue of a single or two-state solution, I’ve become increasingly aware of the injustices carried out by both sides. As solutions are thrown about with the same frequency of armed struggles between the two nations, increasingly strong rhetoric is being used to define the actions of the rival state. While I firmly believe that Palestine, and especially Hamas, is a far cry away from being innocent in this debacle, I strongly believe that Israel is continuing to increase both the quantity and scope of injustices placed upon the nation and people of Palestine. It is therefore of no surprise to me that connections between the apartheid regime in South Africa and Israel are becoming more and more prevalent. While my beliefs of colonialism by Israel are shared by many, the claims, and my belief, of apartheid actions are sadly less universal. While I’m glad that many can attest to the severity of injustices brought forth by Israel, the fact that the label is argued about due to technicalities of intentionality are saddening. Yet, as Pogrund points out in his interview, the technicalities of labeling are moot when all sides agree to the basis of actions. “You’re all lying, you’re all doing horrible things, and you’re all pointing the finger of blame at the other. And you’re all to blame. We’re all to blame.” he states. It is this crucial step that must be taken by the leaders of both sides before any such solution, or a simple peace agreement, can be ironed out. So in the end, is Israel an apartheid state? Likely yes. And if you don’t agree with that label, but can agree with the atrocities committed, then we shall set aside our labeling differences and work towards a solution.

As mentioned before, the call for a single state solution continues to gather widespread strength. In two articles this week, various advocates for the single state solution address concerns posed by high-level democratic leaders and pose arguments for the formation of a single state. In this Electronic Intifada posting, Ali Abunimah re-posts an open letter signed by a myriad of Israeli Jews calling for the end of the struggle and the formation of a single state. In the letter, the coalition of Jews address the very formation of Israel and the various catastrophes that followed the formation of the Jewish state. Beginning with the Nakba, as they call it (meaning catastrophe), this coalition of peoples identify the ruling members of Israel as Zionist crusaders who forcibly remove and punish the Palestinian peoples. They continue their letter by stating that the only way to do right by both peoples, the Jewish and the Palestinian, is to allow for the Palestinian people to return to their ancestral homes and for the Jewish to recognize their history of strife and allow such to occur.

Agreeing with this letter, this Al Jazeera America article calls for the abandonment of the two-state rhetoric and supports a move for a single state. In this article, the author, Musa al-Gharbi, repeats much of the same arguments that the above Jewish coalition stated: that the Israeli nation continues to barrage the Palestinian people with inhumane treatment and un-called for military attacks. Interestingly though, al-Gharbi recognizes the diminishing power of the PA and calls for that government to relinquish power and authority of the land to Israel; thereby forcing Israel to equitably deal with the Palestinian people.

Regardless of your background, or side you endorse, it is hard to diminish the fact that the two-state solution is dying. After decades of failed peace talks, and leaders who seemingly entrench themselves even further, the continued slaughter of innocent people on both sides demands an answer that the two-state solution simply can no longer address. The simple facts of the case are that Palestinians and Israelis have a right to the ancestral lands that each currently occupies. Additionally, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to diminish the fact that Israel is indeed focusing in on the banishment of Palestinian people from their lands and the creation of a single, Jewish state. The only recourse then, aside from an all-out war between the two nations, is to find some sort of democratic solution that is a single-state. The rhetoric put forth by al-Gharbi in his Al Jazeera article, while radical at a minimum, offers one way to force the political hands to deal with the situation. While it may bring forth more bloodshed, the same could be said of continuing down the current path of increasingly failing “peace” talks. In the end though, I believe the more realistic solution lies in history itself and the formation of a single state. As mentioned earlier, the connections to South Africa and its struggle with Apartheid are becoming increasingly more strong. So join me next week as I explore this connection and continue my search for a solution.

Over the past several years, as the outlook for the two-state solution continued to dwindle, the hushed rumors of a single-state solution have grown louder and gained multi-lateral, world-wide support. In this heated, and admittedly biased, Counterfire article, John Rees strongly calls for a single state solution. Examining the history that led up to last year’s war, Rees states that several key events have undermined the efforts for two states and in his view, negated that very possibility. Beginning with the gradual decline of Arab Nationalism that occurred after its zenith in the middle of the 20th century, Rees states that the nationalist movements that stepped in in the 1970’s began the erosion of the two-state idea. The revolutions of the Arab Spring, he states, further undermined the plight of Political Islam as the realities of the various revolutions, a mixed bag of unguided and semi-successful movements, sinks in. Adding in the continual encroachment of Israeli settlements, and ever-present losses at the negotiating table for the Palestinians, and Rees argues that the only way forward is a single, democratic, and multi-faith state. Again examining history, Rees states that the single-state solution has always been present, but glossed over. During the first world war, he states, the original plans were to pass the whole of Palestine on to democratic rule of the entire lands (a plan later scraped). Furthermore, Rees states, the original campaign of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the late ’60s was a single, unified state. It wasn’t until negotiations broke down that the PLO modified their goal. Lastly, Rees points to numerous surveys that all claim that a majority of Palestinians now want a single state.

Agreeing with Rees’ sentiments towards a single-state solution, this Times of Israel article references various polls conducted by the Brookings Institution that all show a continual increase of support for a single state solution by Americans. As referenced in the article, there was a 10% increase in support for a single-state solution, should a two-state solution fail, and more importantly, a good majority of the population polled, 63%, were against the continued settlement of Israelis in the Palestinian territories.

As decades of peace talks continue to fail, the outlook for the two-state solution is looking grim. Both sides, Palestinian and Israeli leaders, are locked in a near stalemate claiming that such a solution will not occur so long as the other side continues some sort of activity (be it continued land grabbing by the Israelis or the simple existence of Hamas in the Gaza Strip). Ironically, as Rees mentioned in his article, the recent revolutions of the Arab Spring have indeed seemed to undermine the efforts of Palestinians seeking their own individual state. As the initial rush of the successful revolutions subsides, the true hardship of the governmental change is taking light. The very struggles that the new leaders face dwindle the hopes of the revolutionaries in Palestine and more importantly, the new governments, in Egypt especially, are beginning to waver in support (the one border crossing on the southern side of the Gaza Strip that leads to Egypt is opening with less and less frequency). Hamas, torn and worn thin through several sieges from Israel, is even beginning to show signs of weakening (and the very fact that two parties rule the two separate lands leaves a two-state solution in shambles with such opposite ruling mantras). Combining all of the above together, the prospects for a two-state solution are indeed dwindling. However, the single-state solution, despite gaining world-wide support, is itself a mixed bag of complications. Who would rule such a state? How would two peoples, though composed of brothers and sisters, overcome years of strife to share a homeland? An interesting correlation has just recently begun to take root as these very questions are posed. South Africa, it seems, may well indeed hold the answer. Yet that will have to wait for another blog entry as I continue to examine the single-state solution.