P.L.O.: "PALESTINE SHOULD BE FREE OF JEWS"

AND... There we have it.

Saying that it would be in the best interests of all concerned, the P.L.O.'s Ambassador to the United States, Maen Areikat commented that the future Palestinian State would be "free" of a Jewish minority.

From Haaretz:

"Answering questions on minority rights in a future state, Areikat was quoted by USA Today as saying on the possibility of a Jewish minority: "After the experience of the last 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated."

This is significant in a number of ways:

1. For years "One State" advocates both Jewish and Palestinian talk about how the two peoples need to come together and can live together for a  "just" future. They pattern their philosophy on creating an idealized version of a "United States of Palestine" if you will. Now, some of these advocates are hardly sincere in their wish for Jews and Palestinians living together and really simply want to get rid of Israel... BUT for those that are sincere, they take a view that despite the history of the conflict and despite the intransigence found on both sides of this conflict people will somehow come together in peaceful co-existence.

Of course the main failing of the approach is it's complete ignoring of reality. America was founded as a non-religious, non-ethnic State. The ideal behind the U.S. was to create a society that was independent of ethnic, religious, or racial dogma. But the creation of Israel and the future creation of Palestine are based on providing homelands for specific ethnic groups of people. The divides between the sides are great and to think that these divides would be forgotten is naive at best.

In Europe (also touted as examples of modern tolerance), States only became multi-ethnic after years of strife and struggle a process that has not ended. Look for instance at the resurgent Right Wing in many European countries. Even in Scandinavia, touted as the most open societies on Earth, there is ethnic backlash and conflict.

2. This statement does not bode well for future peace efforts in the region. Only the most extreme members of the Israeli polity (National Union), advocate transfer of populations between Arab and Jewish States. Yes, Likud Coalition partner Yisrael Betainu has advocated positions similar to this, although even they don't go so far as to advocate that their can't be an Arab minority in Israel.

This comment by Ambassador Areikat seems to reiterate every talking point of the extreme right in the Israeli Polity and now gives them ammunition they need to say: "See, the Palestinians admit that they don't want to live with us, how can we make Peace with them."

3. More ominously, when the Palestine Liberation Organization (P.L.O.), the recognized body of the Palestinian people in the United Nations makes a statement like this what does this mean for a future in which Palestinians strive for a Right of Return to pre-1967 Israel. A return that would create another majority democratic Palestinian State next to the State of Palestine. Could Jew's live in that Israel as well? Using the P.L.O.'s logic the answer would be "Certainly Not". Given that how can Israelis/Jews think that there could possibly be a peaceful solution to this issue.

Of course, given this as well, how can Israelis take this statement as anything different from the Hamas statements calling for a Palestine from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River? Just today Hamas stated that they could not back the Palestinian move for the U.N.

Al-Bardaweel told the workshop that the consequence of getting the UN to recognize a Palestinian state would also be recognition of Israel's boundaries.

"Going to the UN draws the borders of Israel, which was established on stolen lands and still has no borders," he said.

Abbas' UN bid, he explained, would mean that the Palestinian state would exist only in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the territories captured by Israel in the 1967 war, and not in all of historic Palestine, as Hamas wants.

Moreover, he said, once a Palestinian state is ratified, "the Palestinian resistance won't be allowed to fire one single gunshot at the Israeli occupation."

Given Hamas' advocacy for ONE PALESTINIAN STATE and the P.L.O. insistence that the two sides cannot live together.... how can Israelis/Jews take this information than anything other than what it is. A call for ethnic cleansing from BOTH sides of the Palestinian Polity. Moreover, the last sentence is chilling and a reminder that should there be a Palestinian State, Hamas rejects that it can't still shoot at Israeli targets, particularly since it considers Palestine occupied since 1948 NOT 1967.

4. This statement shows that the Palestinian Polity simply does not have it's act together on the eve of their U.N. move in the General Assembly. They are promising the world an ethnically pure state in an area where conflict defined by ethnicity is a major problem. What amazes me is that the PLO thinks that the Israelis would compromise along lines that the Palestinians can accept given the potential message being sent to the Israelis. Can the Palestinians really think that the Israelis would dismantle every settlement and move 300,000+ people back into Israel when the Palestinians just stated that Jews would not be welcome in their country????

My question to other progressives and the world community in general is: How can one support the creation of a State that supports the ethnic cleansing of a minority and plans to have no presence of a given minority in that country? What is progressive or even sane about this policy? I understand what Mr. Areikat is saying but honestly, it is a policy that speaks to the worst in all of us.

I call on those people of good will and of conscience to reject this statement and all of it's implications.