August 16 there was in Haaretz the aricle of Akiva Eldar based on his interviewing Sari Nusseibeh*. It turns out that the years-long prominent Palestinian advocate of the two-states-solution sees time running out and suggests Palestinians prepare already for a struggle for equal rights in a one-state framework. Asked by Eldar whether this was an ultimatum, he says yes. August 23, Uri Avnery wrote a reaction to the interview** . After overcoming the first shock - as Nusseibeh after all still believes that in the present situation the two state solution is the best - Avnery argues that it is very bad tactics to confront Israel with an ultimatum and "holding the demographic pistol against the temple of the Israeli public."

It is a legitimate discussion among peace activists whether threats, arousing fear and therefore fueling aggression are tools nevertheless to be used in some circumstances or not. Of course, if one says it isn't one should avoid using it oneself.

Therefore, it was my turn to be shocked reading in the same Avnery article as a response to Nusseibeh's threat:

"99.99% of the Jewish population will fight against this tooth and nail. (...). Ethnic cleansing will become a practical agenda. Even moderate Israelis will be driven into the arms of the fascist right-wing. All means of oppression will become acceptable when the Jewish majority adopts the aim of causing the Arabs to leave the country before they have a chance of becoming the majority."

It is as if Avnery says that the tactics of intimidation should not be used by Palestinian peaceseekers to warn Israelis that time runs out for two states, but that it can be used by Israeli peaceseekers to warn Palestinians not to start a struggle for equal rights.

I am sure my fellow Gush Shalom friend Uri Avnery did not intend it this way. But I am also afraid this wasn't simply a slip of tongue but a sign of something deeper: we may have to face inconvenient facts, start a discussion which can no longer be avoided.

Gush Shalom was founded on the belief - not only that the two-state-solution is a good compromise, more than that: that it is the inevitable thing ultimately to happen.

Like socialists have to reinvent themselves after the "victory of capitalism" so we in Gush Shalom have to ask ourselves where do we go with our struggle against occupation and oppression now that a fair two-state solution more and more seems to be a fata morgana.

Our dream was to bring about a compromise between the victor and the victim in the wars of 1948 and 1967. Palestinians would accept the losses of 1948 against Israel giving up the gains of 1967. We were never opting for full justice as justice for the one brings about inevitably new injustice for the other, and is a recepy for war, not peace. But still, we believed that a somehow fair compromise was an option, worth to fight for.

Like all fighters one has from time to time to rethink aims and angles.

Our friends the Anarchists Against The Wall have it easy: they are against all states, whatever their number, and just fight a concrete struggle against something obviously wrong. The wrong thing being: the wall in whose name farmers are deprived from their lands. The fact that the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem aren't citizens in any state, and don't enjoy therefore civil rights shouldn't bother them as Anarchists too much. But for peace activists in the framework of states this should be of the essence.

I would like to propose therefore, especially to Uri Avnery but not only to him, to start accepting that the two-state solution, though the best in the present circumstances, and not yet off the political agenda, can not be considered anymore as inevitable, definitely not the fair two-states solution as we believe in. Therefore the old slogans start sounding bleak. We should start thinking about new formulations.

"Citizens in a State-Solution Now" is my contribution to this renewal of wording the principles. It means, we insist that all human beings under our responsibility, also Palestinians, must be citizens in a state and enjoy full civil rights. How this will take form, in how many states, is secondary. We have our preference, but since we are not to decide alone we have to confront our fellow Israelis with the fact: The situation that Palestinians are under military rule, are not considered citizens, not in our state, nor in any other, that is the core of the problem. This situation has to end, in one way or another.

*Akiva Eldar: There isn`t much time left for peace: Nusseibeh, Haaretz, Aug.16, 2008

** Uri Avnery:The devil's hoof, Aug.23 2008 http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1219526051/

Read also:

--Tony Klug: Two states for two peoples: solution or illusion?

--Gershom Gorenberg in Haaretz: The collapse began today

--Don't say we did not know by Amos Gvirtz

--Adam Keller, However long it takes

--Occupation Magazine - daily headlines + action updates

--The depiction of Bedouins as 'nomads' a myth

--Tony Klug: The enemy: eliminate it. Then - hey presto - there will be peace

--Adam Keller: The Banality of Opportunism