As much as I try to avoid thinking too much about ol' "One State" too often, Ahmed Moor's latest article in which he tries to deny and then complains about West Bank economic growth continues to make me think. Which I suppose was his goal, but not in the way that he was hoping.
You can go back and read the article again if you like, but in short Ahmed Moor doesn't like even the idea that the Palestinian people should be prosperous if it means that the occupation continues. To put it into a cliche, they cannot be bought off, in his words. Of course, part of this rests on an assumption that Netanyahu's government is in fact trying to "buy off" the Palestinian people and not merely trying to counter the "desperation" argument for terrorism. But if it's not, then what I see is Mr. Moor complaining that the Palestinian people are succeeding without the occupation ending.
So then this begs the question of which is more important: The Palestinian people or the Palestinian cause (whatever it is)? In this article Mr. Moor seems to indicate that he would rather have the Palestinian people impoverished and fighting then rich and passive, but interestingly enough he feels otherwise when talking about Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. This question in turn leads to another "What does it mean to be pro-Palestinian?" I feel like we have covered this question before at some point but it bears repeating.
People like MJ Rosenberg, who are very critical of Israel, claim that they are in fact the most pro-Israel people around because they are diverting Israel from a self-destructive course. But if that's the case then what to make of Mr. Moor's article? He is actively encouraging the Palestinians to keep fighting, and we know that he doesn't support a two-state solution. Is throwing the Palestinians against an enemy that they will never defeat without much suffering (at best) really what it means to be pro-Palestinian? It certainly doesn't sound like the attitude of someone who really cares about the welfare of the Palestinian people as a whole, especially when Moor isn't there himself.
I thought about this a lot, but came to the conclusion that it really can't be answered except by people who high-up in the "pro-Palestinian" movement. I am pro-Palestinian in the sense that I want them as a people to succeed and prosper, but I reject their demands for "rights" over the heads of Israel. How bad is the pro-Palestinian movement willing to let things get before they are willing to make concessions? Or are they willing to make concessions now? How much suffering are they willing to subject someone else to for their own gratification? Unfortunately, if the pro-Palestinian movement is anything like the Palestinian people, they are going to be incredibly divided on all these questions. Better just to blame Israel for the impasse, though.