Search the GAIA - Site   powered by FreeFind insert here Site Map    What's new?    Search

The Israelis' right to a home land is by no means a justification for depriving others of their home.
Peace in Palestine is possible only in a cooperative community comprising all people who live there.

PEACE ON EARTH IS POSSIBLE ONLY IN A COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY COMPRISING ALL PEOPLES

see also: "Facts on the ground", by Sean Gonzalves, about peace process and Palestinian land
Genocide as the Solution to "Terrorism" in the Occupied Territories, by Edward S. Herman
Media Spin Remains in Sync with Israeli Occupation, by Norman Solomon
The Godfather As "Honest Broker", by Edward S. Herman (03. 2001)
The Only Alternative, Apartheid in Palestine, by Edward Said
Visiting GAZA, by Alison Wier
Want Security? End the Occupation, by Marwan Barghouti (01. 2002)

As the occupied Palestinian territories suffer their worst paroxysm of violence in years, with the casualties, as always, overwhelmingly Palestinian, the mainstream media, also as always, focus on peripheral questions, offer misleading answers, and ignore the underlying causes of the conflict. The fundamental, neglected reality is that the Palestinian people have been denied their basic rights for years by the Israeli government, aided and abetted by its Washington ally.More than half a century ago, the United Nations (which at the time had comparatively few Third World members) recommended the partition of Palestine into Palestinian and Jewish states, and an internationalized Jerusalem, with the Jewish minority to receive the majority of the land, as well as most of the fertile land. A civil war and then a regional war ensued and when the armistice agreements were signed there was Israel, the Jewish state, but no Palestinian state and no international Jerusalem, both of these being taken over and divided between Israel and Jordan. The occupying Israelis, however, were not content to block the emergence of a Palestinian state; they wanted as well to expel as many Palestinians as possible. This ethnic cleansing - forced expulsions facilitated by acts of terror - drove hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their ancestral lands, to refugee camps where they lived in squalor, longing to return. In 1967, Israel conquered Jordan's share of Palestine, creating a new wave of Palestinian refugees, and subjecting many more to ruthless Israeli rule in the occupied territories. Through all the peace plans and negotiations this is the central question: how can Palestinians achieve the right of self-determination that has so long been refused them? To the Israeli government, justice for Palestinians has always been subordinated to the Israeli desire for land, for scarce water resources, and for military supremacy in the region. And the United States government has likewise disregarded Palestinian self-determination and human rights, motivated by its desire to see a dominant Israel that could help keep radical Arab nationalism in check in a region of great economic and strategic value.

This past week's violence was sparked by the visit of the leader of Israel's right-wing opposition Likud Party, former general Ariel Sharon, to Haram al Sharif, a Muslim holy site in Jerusalem, revered by Jews as the Temple Mount. The media has asked what Sharon intended by his visit, what role Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak played in Sharon's decision to go there, and whether the Palestinian response was spontaneous or orchestrated by the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Yasir Arafat. But these limited questions cannot be answered without considering the recent history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Yasir Arafat was Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1974 when it was recognized by the U.N. (and by nearly every survey of Palestinian opinion) as the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. But, by the mid-1980's, Arafat and his lieutenants had been away from Palestine for many years, and their connection with Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip began to weaken. In December 1987, after 20 years living under the systematic violence of Israeli rule, Palestinians in the occupied territories began wide-spread resistance known as the intifada. The intifada, often remembered for its vivid images of Palestinian children throwing stones at Israeli soldiers who responded with automatic weapons, included, in fact, highly organized non-violent resistance in addition to the more spontaneous stone throwing. Impressively, the intifada with its remarkable self-discipline and courage was an indigenous uprising &endash; neither initiated nor controlled by the PLO leadership-in-exile - indicating that Arafat no longer spoke for the Palestinian people.

It thus came as something of a surprise when Arafat joined with then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin to sign the 1993 Oslo Accords. The peace process agreed to by Arafat and Rabin called for the redeployment of Israeli troops from most areas of dense Palestinian concentration to other parts of the West Bank, but not for their full withdrawal from the territory. Israeli settlements - whose presence even Israel's closest ally, the United States government, had always considered a violation of international law - were to remain in place. Israel retained authority over most of the land, and all the settlers, roads, water, and borders, while the Palestinians gained civil control - not sovereignty - over a tiny portion of the West Bank, which essentially meant that they became responsible only for maintaining order over a population seething in grueling poverty and despair. While Israeli analysts saw this arrangement as more manageable than direct Israeli military rule over masses of Palestinians, it was clear that a peace process that did not provide justice and self-determination to a long-suffering people was unlikely to provide much peace either.

Why did Arafat accept this raw deal on behalf of his people? It appears that Arafat was more interested in being the ruler of a Palestinian State, whatever its condition, than in continuing to seek a just solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Since his return to Palestine in the wake of the Oslo process, Arafat has ruled the Palestinian Authority with a brutally authoritarian fist and, despite some public posturing, has made further concessions to the Israeli government - most notably giving up the refugees' right of return, something demanded by the U.N. since 1949, and the Palestinian claim to any part of Jerusalem. In so doing, Arafat has further alienated himself from the Palestinian people, who no longer see him as a brave freedom fighter but as a corrupt collaborator.

And what of the other players focused upon by the mainstream media? Ariel Sharon, who has received some criticism in the press, is no stranger to being vilified, or more precisely to being a villain. He is best-known for his role in Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, where - as even the Israeli Kahan commission found - he bore indirect responsibility for the indiscriminate slaughter of hundreds of Palestinians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. He has long been an opponent of any negotiations with Palestinians and rejects any Israeli territorial concessions. Perhaps his visit to Haram al Sharif last week was intended as a provocation to thwart any progress in the peace process (though no real progress was in the offing); perhaps he saw an opportunity to bloody some more Palestinians; or perhaps it was all part of a maneuver to secure his leadership of Likud against a challenge from former Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. But the exact mix of motives here doesn't really matter. No one could possibly have doubted that going to Haram al Sharif and proclaiming it eternal Israeli territory would ignite a firestorm.

As for Prime Minister Ehud Barak, also a former general and the leader of the Labor Party, he is portrayed in the press as a pursuer of peace, willing to make concessions on important issues. But his fundamental position allows no compromise. In 1998, Barak declared that Labor has a "set of red lines which it will under no circumstances cross.... A united Jerusalem must remain under full and unequivocal Israeli sovereignty; most of the population of the settlements will remain under Israeli rule in large settlement blocs; under no circumstances will we return to the 1967 lines" (Jerusalem Post, 13 May 1998, p. 1). So whatever other concessions Barak might be willing to entertain, any that might offer the Palestinians real justice has been automatically excluded.

What role did Barak have in Sharon's decision to go to Haram al Sharif? All indications are that Barak knew of Sharon's visit before it occurred. The extent to which Barak would have been able to prevent the visit had he so desired is not clear, but there is no evidence that Barak had any such desire. In recent weeks, even before the latest outbursts of violence, as Barak's support in the Israeli Knesset (parliament) had been waning, there had been rumors that he was seeking to form a coalition government with Sharon's Likud Party. His inaction did nothing to belie these rumors. In any event, however, the role Barak played in Sharon's visit is less important than Barak's overall role in the latest violence. In addition to his support for a peace process that offers no justice and thus no peace, it is he and his Cabinet who are ultimately responsible for the Israeli military's vicious lack of restraint during this past week: the killing of an unarmed, cowering 12-year-old boy, the killing of an ambulance driver who tried to save the boy, the killings of dozens of others (more than seventy at this writing), the maiming of many hundreds of others, the tank and helicopter gunships blasting apartment buildings.

As for Arafat's role in the latest violence, he can be viewed as the initiator only to the extent that his role in the Oslo process has made conditions in the occupied territories ripe for violence. What has inflamed the Palestinians - and world opinion, at least outside Washington - was the provocation of Sharon and the bloody actions of the Israeli military; no orders from Arafat were needed to bring thousands of enraged Palestinians into the streets. On the other hand, while not indicating a causal relationship as many of Israel's supporters have argued, it must be acknowledged that given Israel's savage history with respect to the Palestinians, Arafat might have anticipated this sort of Israeli over-reaction, perhaps allowing him to regain some of his lost credibility and putting some international pressure on the Barak government. But neither Arafat's attempts to keep up with Palestinian popular sentiment nor the occasional mindless excesses by some frustrated Palestinians (such as the trashing of Joseph's tomb, a Jewish holy place) change the basic situation: what has transpired in these past two weeks has been a legitimate, indigenous response to the denial of Palestinian rights, Israel's brutal occupation, and Arafat's capitulation.

What will come of this latest violence is unclear. Certainly the dire poverty in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the repression by Arafat's police, and the hopelessness of the Oslo process are factors which make another intifada possible. And Barak has made clear how he would answer any such uprising: the Israeli military would use "all means at their disposal" and they would do so "[e]ven if it is against the whole world." (Karin Laub, Laura King, both AP, 7 Oct. 2000) And indeed Israel is unlikely to concern itself with international pressure as long as the United States continues to flak for Israeli barbarism. U.S. officials may work to quiet outbursts of violence, but they still fail to insist that Israel offer justice to the Palestinians. Peace and justice in the Middle East will never occur until Washington stops giving Israel a blank check. And that will require decisive action by the American people.

Alex R. Shalom spent five months in 1998 studying in Jordan, Israel, and Palestine; Stephen R. Shalom teaches political science at William Paterson University

The formula for American media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is simple: Report on the latest developments in the fragile "peace process." Depict U.S. officials as honest brokers in the negotiations. Emphasize the need for restraint and compromise instead of instability and bloodshed.  

In the world according to news media, the U.S. government is situated on high moral ground - in contrast to some of the intractable adversaries. "The conflict that had been so elaborately dressed in the civilizing cloak of a peace effort has been stripped to its barest essence: Jew against Arab, Arab against Jew," a New York Times dispatch from Jerusalem declared as fierce clashes in occupied territory neared the end of their second week.  

Soon afterwards, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright proclaimed: "The cycle of violence has to be stopped." Such pronouncements from Washington get a lot of respectful media play in our country.  

Rarely do American journalists explore the ample reasons to believe that the United States is part of the oft-decried cycle of violence. Nor, in the past couple of weeks, has there been much media analysis of the fact that the violence was overwhelmingly inflicted on Palestinian people.  

Within days, several dozen Palestinians were killed by heavily armed men in uniform - often described by CNN and other news outlets as "Israeli security forces." Under the circumstances, it's a notably benign-sounding term for an army that shoots down protesters.  

As for the rock-throwing Palestinians, I have never seen or heard a single American news account describing them as "pro-democracy demonstrators." Yet that would be an appropriate way to refer to people who - after more than three decades of living under occupation - are in the streets to demand self-determination.  

While Israeli soldiers and police, with their vastly superior firepower, do most of the killing, Israel's public-relations engines keep whirling like well-oiled tops. Days ago, tilted by the usual spin, American news stories highlighted the specious ultimatums issued by Prime Minister Ehud Barak as he demanded that Palestinians end the violence - while uniformed Israelis under his authority continued to kill them.  

Beneath the Israeli "peace process" rhetoric echoed by American media, an implicit message isn't hard to discern: If only Palestinians would stop resisting the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, it would no longer be necessary for Israeli forces to shoot them.  

"Israel Extends Time For Peace," said the lead headline on the Oct. 10 front page of USA Today. "Israel early today extended a deadline for Palestinians to end rioting," the article began. At this rate, we may someday see a headline that reads: "Israel Demands Palestinians Stop Attacking Bullets With Their Bodies."  

Of course, amid all the nifty Orwellian touches, the proper behavior of people whose homeland remains under occupation has never quite been spelled out. But U.S. media coverage has reflexively mimicked the themes coming out of the White House and State Department. It all makes sense - as long as we set aside basic concepts of human rights - as long as we refuse to acknowledge that without justice there can be no real peace.  

For American journalists on mainstream career ladders, it's prudent to avoid making a big deal about Israel's human rights violations, which persist without letup in tandem with Israel's occupation of land it captured in the 1967 war. Many pundits are fond of cloaking the occupiers in mantles of righteousness. And we hear few questions raised about the fact that the occupiers enjoy the powerful backing of the United States.  

The silence is usually deafening, even among journalists who write opinion columns on a regular basis. The U.S. government's economic and military assistance to Israel adds up to a few billion dollars per year. Among media professionals, that aid is widely seen as an untouchable "third rail." To challenge U.S. support for Israel is to invite a torrent of denunciations - first and foremost, the accusation of "anti-Semitism."  

Occasionally, I've written columns criticizing U.S. media for strong pro-Israel bias in news reporting and spectrums of commentary. Every time, I can count on a flurry of angry letters that accuse me of being anti-Semitic. It's a timeworn, knee-jerk tactic: Whenever someone makes a coherent critique of Israel's policies, immediately go on the attack with charges of anti-Jewish bigotry.  

Numerous American supporters of Israel resort to this tactic. Perhaps the difficulties of defending the Israeli occupation on its merits have encouraged substitution of the "anti-Semitic" epithet for reasoned debate.  

Like quite a few other Jewish Americans, I'm appalled by what Israel is doing with U.S. tax dollars. Meanwhile, as journalists go along to get along, they diminish the humanity of us all.  

"Ask not for whom the bell tolls."  

Norman Solomon is a syndicated columnist. His latest book is "The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media."

JERUSALEM - I was humbled by my ignorance. But even the ignorant quickly learns that studying maps and learning the lay of the land is central to understanding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"If you only look at what is called the 'peace process,' from the political point of view, you get a certain picture," Jeff Halper explained in his Jerusalem living room.

Halper, an American-born Israeli Jew, is a professor of anthropology at Ben Gurion University. He's been part of the Israeli peace movement for over 25 years and now heads up an organization called the Israeli Committee Against (Palestinian) House Demolitions.

Without dismissing the good things that have come from the "peace process" Halper, with humility and painstaking thoroughness, illustrates that if you focus only on the political rhetoric the picture you get of the conflict is severely distorted.

"Look at the generous offer that Israel made the Palestinians - 95 percent of the West Bank, dividing Jerusalem" - a typical American (and Israeli) reaction to news reports about the "peace process," Halper said.

Then he asked, "How do you explain the Palestinian reaction to that?" When the Barak government first started negotiating, they were offering 42 percent of the West Bank and the Palestinian negotiating team rejected the proposal. "You see or hear about these advances and think Israel has come around and then the Palestinians start shooting. It doesn't make any sense to people," he continued.

What you have to plug into the equation is what's happening on the ground. "Unless you can understand the maps, unless you can understand why 95 percent isn't a good deal for Palestinians, or what the other five percent means, then it's impossible to evaluate what's going on. Why are the Palestinians behaving the way they are? Is Barak really generous?"

We left Halper's house for a three-hour tour of parts of "Metropolitan Jerusalem," which I later learned encompasses, not just the city of Jerusalem, but 40 percent of the West Bank, including large Palestinian towns and villages - Ramalla, El Bireh, Beit Sahour, Bethlehem and Beit Jalla, to name a few.

What one has to understand about Jerusalem is that it is being transformed from a city into a larger region by the Israeli government. This has three effects.

1) It divides the northern part of the West Bank from the southern part.
2) It isolates Jerusalem's Palestinian population from fellow Palestinians and
3) it creates a corridor from Tel Aviv to Amman, Jordan. All of this ensures Israeli control over any Palestinian state that might emerge from the "peace process."

Then Halper started talking about something called E1 - an Israeli government plan that annexes Palestinian land to create a contiguous urban strip between Jerusalem and the West Bank settlement of Ma'aleh Adumim. E1 effectively cuts the West Bank in half, which, when and if its completed, will prevent the free movement of Palestinians and their goods and therefore make a viable Palestinian state impossible.

According to the Master Plan approved by former Defense Minister Moshe Arens, E1 calls for 1,500 exclusively Jewish housing units, an industrial park, offices, entertainment and sports centers, 10 hotels, health and academic facilities and a regional cemetery.

Many of the Israeli "settlers" are being used as pawns, Halper said. The Israeli government builds these subsidized settlements for poor and working-poor Israelis as an incentive for them to move into Palestinian areas. "I call them economic settlers. They're not religious settlers as in other settlements. If the government built homes for them inside Israel proper, they would move."

E1, also known as Plan 420/4 Ma'aleh Adumim, is illegal in international law to the extent that it promotes the settlement of an occupying power in occupied territories. It violates Israeli Supreme Court decisions that settlements can only be established for security purposes and it violates the Interim Agreement of Oslo that obligates Israel to preserve the status quo and territorial integrity of the West Bank pending final negotiations.

"E1 creates facts on the ground by unalterably integrating Israeli settlement and infrastructure on the West Bank into Israel proper," Halper said. "Keep in mind that the settlement population has doubled since the Oslo accords were signed."

None of this is to say that Israel doesn't have a right to exist or that fringe Palestinian violence is justified. But if you want to understand Palestinian rejection of Barak's "generous" offer, you must understand the "facts on the ground." Add to this the fact that it's all being imposed by US-supported military might and you'll understand a small piece of what it is that Palestinians are rejecting.

Breeding ground for terrorism

HEBRON - When talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the various perspectives involved, it doesn't take long for grown intelligent people to start talking like kids about who did what to whom, first.

But life in Israel and the Occupied Territories is not some John Wayne flick where the forces of heavenly good are up against pure evil. It's more like a Clint Eastwood western, where moral shades of gray are the norm; the protagonist and antagonist both fighting inner demons, even as they interact with one another.

Recognize: aside from divine intervention, the state of Israel is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. In talking with hundreds of Palestinians from across the West Bank and Gaza, it's clear to me that they too have accepted this reality. Time brings change. After all, 60 percent of the Palestinian population now living in the West Bank and Gaza is under the age of 30.

As I walked around the Old City of Jerusalem, and then in visiting the Wailing Wall, it struck me how wonderful it must feel to be a Jew in a place where you can revel in your Jewish-ness with the relative security that you won't be expelled or exterminated en mass for just being Jewish.

The flip side is: establishing the secular nation-state of Israel has brought with it the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian natives. And for Palestinians who didn't flee, it has meant 52 years under military occupation by a vastly superior military force. Think Mike Tyson in a fistfight with Elian Gonzales.

In the city of Hebron, which is in the West Bank, just down the street from where Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Jacob are buried, is the office and home of the Christian Peacemaker Team - a small group of American and Canadian Mennonites. Besides offering counseling services to Palestinians, CPT members patrol the streets engaging in nonviolent interventions whenever they see some physical violence about to erupt between Israeli "settlers" or soldiers and Palestinian villagers - a routine occurrence, most often being committed by the former against the latter.

Anita Fast, a CPT staff member, told us it is a common occurrence for "the settlers," many of them toting guns on their hips, to harass and intimidate Palestinian villagers by tipping over their vegetable carts in the market, throwing rotten vegetables, spitting or yelling racist insults at them. An American lawyer we met a few days later just outside Nazareth commented: "It's like Mississippi 1930 over here. apartheid. I had no idea it was like this before I came."

Of the 6.3 million Israelis who live in Isreal and the Occupied Territories, 195,000 of them are "settlers" who live in these beautiful "settlements" throughout Occupied Palestine, outside of Israel Proper. But the word "settlements" brings to mind some old-Western gold rush village. They're nothing like that - except for the guns. Picture one of those private-gated communities you see in suburban America surrounded by several thousand soldiers with guns, tanks, sandbags, US supplied helicopters and other assorted weaponry.

The "settlers," Anita explained, verbally and physically attack Palestinians on a regular basis. It usually goes the settlers' way, not because Palestinians are a bunch of Dalai Lamas (although Palestinians are very friendly and hospitable people). It has more to do with the presence of the Israeli Defense Force posted in strategic military outposts along the streets and on rooftops everywhere.

The IDF completely controls the roads, the air and the sea. So, let's say a "settler" is senselessly killed by a Palestinian gunmen. The typical IDF response is: road closures, trapping Palestinians in their village. A 20-hour, stay-in-your-house curfew is also imposed on every Palestinian in the village. This after the IDF shells an entire neighborhood suspected to be the area from where the gunmen fired. I'm talking tank and helicopter attacks for up to six hours - clearly a campaign not to catch the gunman but to terrorize people whose only crime is that they happen to live in the vicinity and are Palestinian.

This is known as "collective punishment," meted out because of the desperate violent act of some hope-lost Palestinian, unrelated to the Palestinians being bombed and shot at by IDF forces.

Walking up a central street in the old city of Hebron with a Palestinian journalist, we passed by two soldiers standing on the sidewalk next to two teenage Israeli "settlers." Smirks on their face, the "settler" kids gave the newsman the middle-fingered salute and said some nasty things about his father. He said something nasty about their mother.

"Do you know them," I asked. "No, I've never seen them before," he said, shrugging it off as if they were just saying hello to one another. Now I realize: They were saying hello to each other.

A 'settlers' peace settlement

EFRATZ - We went to the Efratz settlement to meet with its spokesman, Efraim Mayer. After having visited the West Bank and Gaza, we wanted to hear a Zionist viewpoint of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Many "pro-Israeli" Americans (some of whom have angrily emailed me in recent weeks) would argue that any talk of Palestinian oppression is mere propaganda. So it is revealing to note that Efraim - a former IDF soldier and now a "hawkish," conservative, religious, Israeli settler - confirmed what we had seen, that, indeed, Palestinians are forced to "live like dogs" in the name of Israeli defense.

We didn't get a chance to ask if he thought it a contradiction to speak in terms of "defense" while at the same time acknowledging that the enemy is being forced to "live like dogs?" Let's just say he wasn't exactly encouraging us to ask probing questions. He wanted to talk, hoping - knowing - that we would go back and tell our American friends his truth.

"Efratz came from the Bible," he said. "This is our document to show all over the world that we got this land from God."

We were sitting under clear blue skies in what looked like one of those picnic areas you see at a nice public park. Kneeling on the ground a few picnic tables away was an old Palestinian man, quietly replacing bricks under one of the tables.

"The Arabs believe this land belongs to them. But in the Bible, we can find the Palestinian people as murderers - descendents of Ishmael," Efraim said.

I'm still having a difficult time trying to distinguish between his feelings about Palestinians and the "Christian" American white supremacist who points to the biblical "curse of Ham" to justify black oppression.

"We have Rabin. We have Barak. This is what we call garbage. They break the proud-ness of Israel in the last generation." These political leaders have turned their back on God, Efraim explained. "They think that in talking to a murderer you can get peace."

"Israel has only one-way: to start to fight.It (doesn't make sense) to sit and talk with people when you know exactly that after the discussions, they are taking you and killing you - your children, your family, everyone in the world," he continued.

"I have two sons in the army. I tell my children - we tell our children in the schools, starting in kindergarten - to live in the fatherland you have to fight."

"We are very satisfied that Clinton isn't president anymore because we thought he brought problems here, the same thing with the father Bush - very anti-Semitic. We believe that friendship with the United States - friendship with other lands - must be on the basis that Israel belongs to the Jewish Israeli-nation. We are going to break this mindset all over the world that Israel can be split up with Palestinians."

Then he compared the formation and defense of the state of Israel as being similar to America's founding and what happened to Native Americans at the hands of the European settlers.

"Indian people in the United States are not going to ask for a piece of land. They are not going to do any intifada to pick up from the United States pieces of Los Angeles. I'm waiting for the moment when someone goes to the government of the United States and says: 'we are going to fight for a piece of land,' and then starts to take pieces of land in the capital of the United States. It will be the last time that this guy opens his mouth in the democratic land of the United States."

"Let me explain to you who are the Palestinian people - the people you are loving so much. We are talking about murder groups. Terror groups. Nothing else..Now if you are with me we are going to go up. If not, we are going to fight. Palestinian people are not a nation. Remember what I am telling you. They are group of terrorists and guerillas of nothing with nothing - also in the eyes of Arab nations."

Efraim told us that 55 percent of Israelis share his views. I hope he's wrong because if you follow the logical extension of Efraim's reasoning, Palestinians are not real people because they have no country and even Arab nations reject them. And a people with no land are prone to be violent, living, as they do, like dogs.

Three obvious options come to mind.

1) Accept all Palestinians, including refugees, as equal citizens in a single bi-national democratic nation.
2) Set up a sovereign, democratically viable Palestinian state or,
3) exterminate the enemy. Apparently, Efraim dismisses the first two options.

 

http://emanzipationhumanum.de/english/WTO046.html