From my inbox. Read and enjoy.

_____________________________________________________

Democracy: An existential threat? - By Ali Abunimah

As two of the authors of a recent document advocating a
one-state solution to the Arab-Israeli colonial conflict
we emphatically intended to generate debate. Predictably,
Zionists decried the proclamation as yet another proof of
the unwavering devotion of Palestinian -- and some radical
Israeli -- intellectuals to the "destruction of Israel."
Some pro-Palestinian activists accused us of forsaking
immediate and critical Palestinian rights in the quest of
a "utopian" dream.

Inspired in part by the South African Freedom Charter [1]
and the Belfast Agreement [2], the much humbler One State
Declaration, authored by a group of Palestinian, Israeli
and international academics and activists, affirms that
"The historic land of Palestine belongs to all who live
in it and to those who were expelled or exiled from it
since 1948, regardless of religion, ethnicity, national
origin or current citizenship status." It envisages a
system of government founded on "the principle of equality
in civil, political, social and cultural rights for all
citizens."

It is precisely this basic insistence on equality that is
perceived by Zionists as an existential threat to Israel,
undermining its inherently discriminatory foundations
which privilege its Jewish citizens over all others.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was refreshingly frank
when he recently admitted that Israel was "finished" if
it faced a struggle for equal rights by Palestinians.[3]

But whereas transforming a regime of institutionalized
racism, or apartheid, into a democracy was viewed as a
triumph for human rights and international law in South
Africa and Northern Ireland, it is rejected out of hand
in the Israeli case as a breach of what is essentially
a sacred right to ethno-religious supremacy (euphemist-
ically rendered as Israel's "right to be a Jewish state."

Palestinians are urged by an endless parade of Western
envoys and political hucksters -- the latest among them
Tony Blair -- to make do with what the African National
Congress rightly rejected when offered it by South
Africa's apartheid regime: a patch-work Bantustan made
up of isolated ghettoes that falls far below the minimum
requirements of justice.

Sincere supporters of ending the Israeli occupation have
also been severely critical of one-state advocacy on moral
and pragmatic grounds. A moral proposition, some have
argued, ought to focus on the likely effect it may have
on people, and particularly those under occupation,
deprived of their most fundamental needs, like food,
shelter and basic services. The most urgent task, they
conclude, is to call for an end to the occupation, not
to promote one-state illusions. Other than its rather
patronizing premise, that these supporters somehow know
what Palestinians need more than we do, this argument is
quite problematic in assuming that Palestinians, unlike
humans everywhere, are willing to forfeit their long-term
rights to freedom, equality and self-determination in
return for some transient alleviation of their most
immediate suffering.

The refusal of Palestinians in Gaza to surrender to
Israel's demand that they recognize its "right" to
discriminate against them, even in the face of its
criminal starvation siege imposed with the backing of
the United States and the European Union, is only the
latest demonstration of the fallacy of such assumptions.

A more compelling argument, expressed most recently by
Nadia Hijab and Victoria Brittain, states that under
the current circumstances of oppression, when Israel
is bombing and indiscriminately killing; imprisoning
thousands under harsh conditions; building walls to
separate Palestinians from each other and from their
lands and water resources; incessantly stealing
Palestinian land and expanding colonies; besieging
millions of defenseless Palestinians in disparate and
isolated enclaves; and gradually destroying the very
fabric of Palestinian society, calling for a secular,
democratic state is tantamount to letting Israel "off
the hook."[4]

They worry about weakening an international solidarity
movement that is "at its broadest behind a two-state
solution." But even if one ignores the fact that the
Palestinian "state" on offer now is no more than a
broken-up immiserated Bantustan under continued Israeli
domination, the real problem with this argument is that
it assumes that decades of upholding a two-state
solution have done anything concrete to stop or even
assuage such horrific human rights abuses.

Since the Palestinian-Israeli Oslo agreements were signed
in 1993, the colonization of the West Bank and all the
other Israeli violations of international law have
intensified incessantly and with utter impunity. We see
this again after the recent Annapolis meeting: as Israel
and functionaries of an unrepresentative and powerless
Palestinian Authority go through the motions of "peace
talks," Israel's illegal colonies and apartheid wall
continue to grow, and its atrocious collective punishment
of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza is intensifying
without the "international community" lifting a finger
in response.

This "peace process," not peace or justice, has become
an end in itself -- because as long as it continues
Israel faces no pressure to actually change its behavior.
The political fiction that a two-state solution lies
always just around the corner but never within reach is
essential to perpetuate the charade and preserve
indefinitely the status quo of Israeli colonial hegemony.

To avoid the pitfalls of further division in the
Palestinian rights movement, we concur with Hijab and
Brittain in urging activists from across the political
spectrum, irrespective of their opinions on the one
state, two states debate, to unite behind the 2005
Palestinian civil society call for boycott, divestment
and sanctions, or BDS, as the most politically and
morally sound civil resistance strategy that can
inspire and mobilize world public opinion in pursuing
Palestinian rights.

The rights-based approach at the core of this widely
endorsed appeal focuses on the need to redress the
three basic injustices that together define the
question of Palestine -- the denial of Palestinian
refugee rights, primary among them their right to return
to their homes, as stipulated in international law; the
occupation and colonization of the 1967 territory,
including East Jerusalem; and the system of discrimination
against the Palestinian citizens of Israel.

Sixty years of oppression and forty years of military
occupation have taught Palestinians that, regardless
what political solution we uphold, only through popular
resistance coupled with sustained and effective
international pressure can we have any chance of realizing
a just peace.

Hand in hand with this struggle it is absolutely necessary
to begin to lay out and debate visions for a post-conflict
future. It is not coincidental that Palestinian citizens
of Israel, refugees and those in the Diaspora, the groups
long disenfranchised by the "peace process" and whose
fundamental rights are violated by the two-state solution
have played a key role in setting forward new ideas to
escape the impasse.

Rather than seeing the emerging democratic, egalitarian
vision as a threat, a disruption, or a sterile detour, it
is high time to see it for what it is: the most promising
alternative to an already dead two-state dogma.

Ali Abunimah is co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and
author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-
Palestinian Impasse. Omar Barghouti is an independent
analyst and a founding member of the Palestinian Campaign
for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel. This
article was originally published by the Guardian: Comment
is Free and is republished with the authors' permission.

See also The One State Declaration:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9134.shtml


Endnotes:

[1] The Freedom Charter
(http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/charter.html)

[2] The Belfast Agreement
(http://www.nio.gov.uk/the-agreement)

[3] "Israel risks apartheid-like struggle if two-state
solution fails, says Olmert," The Guardian, 30
November 2007.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2219485,00.html)

[4] Nadia Hijab and Victoria Brittain, "Struggle for
equality" The Guardian, 17 December 2007.
(http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/nadia_hijab_and_victoria_brittain/2007/12/struggle_for_equality.html)

------------------------------------------------------------