She quotes some Palestinians, including ex-Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat, who are pursuing a "one state solution" instead of the peace process. It sure sounds to me like she is trying to make them sound more numerous than they are, but she doesn't get too far. But then I found this paragraph to be interesting (emphasis mine):
"Oded Na'aman, a member of Breaking the Silence and the New Israeli Left -- one of the most popular panels this weekend -- characterized the new Israeli Left as willing to accept either a one state or a two state solutions -- their concerns are more rooted in human rights than Zionism."When Alon Ben-Meir wonders why the Left is losing power in Israel, this might be a hint as to why. Also I looked up this fellow and I wasn't able to find an organization called "the New Israeli Left," but what I did find was that Mr. Na'aman had accused the IDF of “allowing Jewish settlers to poison Palestinian wells” and had called Palestinian terrorism a “perceived threat.” So there you go.
As for his statement, it only shows how far he is from the mainstream. And if the Israeli Left follows him, they will be far from the mainstream too. Because the mainstream still believes in Zionism and that the Jews should have their own state. They also believe that the Jews are human being and as such have the right to self-determination. I guess Mr. Na'aman forget that part. And really, if the Israeli Left are willing to help Israel's enemies destroy Israel in everything but name, then why should they be surprised when they have trouble gathering support? I'm looking at you, Mr. Ben-Meir.
Then Ms. Ramer fudges statistics a little bit:
"24 percent of Israelis and 29 percent of Palestinians were found to support a bi-national state, and 30 percent of Israelis and 26 percent of Palestinians supported a confederation."What this means is that 76% of Israelis and 71% of Palestinians were against a bi-national state, which is far and away the majority. Even the Palestinians were against it, which was interesting. But this is an example of how statistics (if they are even accurate) can be manipulated by people with an agenda. In this case Ms. Ramer's is to show that the "one state solution" has more backing than it really does, for the purposes of trying to prove that J Street is close minded for not supporting it. How ironic.
And then we have her grand finale:
"If JStreet does not have the capacity to now or in the future acknowledge that the two-state solution based on land-for-peace is no longer a solution, will the "pro-Israel, pro-peace" organization really be able to support the future peace process? When it comes to choosing between maintaining a Zionist state for the Jews or granting basic civil and human rights to all people in Israel/Palestine will JStreet draw the "red line"?"Nice to see that Ms. Ramer is finally coming out against the two-state solution just because some people told her that it couldn't work. As for the answers to her questions, I will respond with the same points that I made on the thread:
Why is this an either/or question, Ms. Ramer? Do you note believe that a Palestinian state could offer basic civil and human rights to its citizens? If not, why should the Jews be punished for it? Also, do you believe that self-determination is a basic human right?
Also, Israel is not a "Zionist state" whatever the heck that means. It's a Jewish state. And it sure sounds to me like Ms. Ramer has a problem with the Jews having their own state. Interpret as you will.