While I find Michael Tarazi's rhetoric a bit extreme (i.e. his use of the word "colonies" to describe the settlements, which conflicts with his later claim that Israel and the Palestinian terrorities are already a single de facto state), I think the future of the peace process may be an "one state solution." While I do not doubt that the idea of one state is radical (another concept that Tarazi rejects), and directly opposed to the Sharon government's current policy of disengagement, it would certainly eliminate the conflicts over land allotment that had characterized previous peace negotiations.
If such an initiative were to succeed, a dramatic reconstruction of the region's identity would be needed. Instead of the traditional view of the region as two separate territories, one Arab and one Israeli, the new nation would have to define itself as indivisible, while maintaining its religious diversity. Since there is already a sizeable Israeli Arab population, the "Jewish identity" of the new state would not necessarily have to be lost. While the state would have to embrace secularism in order to succeed, the Law of Return could be expanded into a general statute allowing religious refugees of any faith the right to immigrate into the new state.
Political considerations aside, the greatest danger to the new state would be the threat of religious extremism similar to that which plagued colonial Palestine prior to 1948. However, I think if the resources that Israel currently devotes to terrorism were augmented by a hefty supply of international aid, including military forces if necessary, the new state could not only survive, but thrive. It would certainly be difficult, but the chances for success are greater than the current chaos, disorganization, and fear.
So basically you believe that one Jewish state in the world is
one too many?
When in the history of the world has a country been asked to
negotiate its own suicide?
I believe the correct response would be "never."
But hey, they're just Jews, right?
Dear Doug,
First, an apology to you and our other readers for not responding sooner. I will attempt to respond to your comment point by point.
Well, yes. Of course, replace "Jewish" with the religion of your choice, and the same applies. My reading of the Constitution and early American history suggests that any nation with a state religion will have problems with full religious tolerance. Indeed, one could even argue that the reality of the "Christian heritage" of the United States (which, while not established, is still pervasive) has impeded tolerance.
The first example which jumps to mind would be the dissolution of the multiethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire after the First World War (although I am not very familiar with Central European history at that time period, so I may be wrong). The argument could also be made that the radical changes which occured in Germany and Japan after their capitulation at the end of the Second World War qualify.
However, your use of the term "suicide" suggests that you implicitly accept that the Palestinians are part of Israel. Since you reject an "one state solution," I would be interested to hear your proposal for peace.
Again, I agree with you. Jewish people (I prefer to call them that instead of Jews) are people just like you and me. Therefore, we should treat them like anyone else - equally.