19 September 2011
Illinois Republican Congressman Joe Walsh has introduced a resolution in the US House of Representatives that seems to support formal Israeli apartheid. Or does it in fact support a one-state solution with equal voting rights for Israelis and Palestinians alike?
Walsh was elected last year in Illinoi’s 8th Congressional District (north and west suburbs of Chicago) with strong Tea Party support.
Walsh has also introduced legislation to cut $600 million of funding the United States gives to the Palestinian Authority.
Walsh’s House Resolution 394 calls for:
Supporting Israel’s right to annex Judea and Samaria in the event that the Palestinian Authority continues to press for unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations.
“Judea and Samaria” is the name Israel gives to the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
After a lengthy preamble setting out standard Israel lobby talking points, the draft bill declares:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives firmly supports Israel’s right to annex Judea and Samaria in the event that the Palestinian Authority continues to press for unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations.
There’s just one tiny catch. What happens to the almost three million Palestinians who live in the Israeli-occupied West Bank if they are annexed by Israel?
Does Israel then have the “right” to expel them? Do they live under permanent second class status, as African Americans did before US Civil Rights legislation, or like blacks in South Africa under apartheid?
Or is Walsh actually proposing a one-state solution in which Palestinians get to vote in Israeli elections?
Walsh is mysteriously silent on this crucial point. I have put the question to him via Twitter (@RepJoeWalsh):
He’s an avid and active Twitter user, so let’s see if he has an answer for this straightforward query.
Comments
Ask the 30 co-sponsors too!
Permalink Saqib Ali replied on
Ask the 30 co-sponsors too!
What happens in war?
Permalink harpazo replied on
If two peoples have a war, then the victor takes over the losers land.
Nazi rights
Permalink Aireck replied on
The same "right" Germany had to take over Czechoslovakia. (Of course, even Hitler waited to get the Czech's president's signature first).
Joe Walsh -Palestinian State
Permalink Shady_Grady replied on
We blogged on the statehood bid here.
http://www.theurbanpolitico.co...
I think it is an act of total desperation but I don't know if Abbas is in a position to do anything differently. Walsh is a simple reactionary; but he's no different than many other US politicians on this matter. The problem has been and is that most people simply don't know what's really going on over there.
There are many solutions, none viable for the Jews
Permalink Adel Helal replied on
There is a wide variety of solutions to the Middle East crisis that speak in the name of pure democracy, whether it be via a 1-state solution or a 2-state solution. As Netanyahu mentioned on Israeli radio: "the 1-state solution is the death of Israel".
Ironically, this proves the hypocricy of the legitimacy of a democratic Jewish State especially with an overwhelming Arab population. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. That is because of the underlying issue of the prophetic "Promised Land". This ancient tradition is no longer viable in today's demographics.
I have elaborated on this in my blog post: http://hubofmiddleeastpolitics...