Posted by on May 04, 2012 in Blog
If you don’t remember who Congressman Joe Walsh (R-IL) is, he’s the Congressman who complained that the media gives President Obama special treatment because he’s black, who said Israel had the “right” to annex the lands it illegally occupies in the West Bank, and who’s upset with the American Jewish community for, in his view, not being sufficiently pro-Israel.
Well, Joe Walsh just put his mind to work again, and he came up with a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “There is no such thing as a two-state solution,” he declared in an Op-Ed, “The only viable solution for the Middle East is a one-state solution.” Given that it’s usually pro-Palestinian voices that call for a one-state solution (unhappy with a territorial compromise that would restrict Palestinian rights to all of historic Palestine), it’s a little surprising to hear a right-wing, anti-Palestine voice calling for a one-state solution. Is Walsh really eager to end Israel’s self-definition as a “Jewish” state in favor of granting Palestinians equal rights under one state? Well, not exactly. After suggesting Palestinians should move to Jordan, he says: “those Palestinians who remain behind in Israel will maintain limited voting power but will be awarded all the economic and civil rights of Israeli citizens.”
Would Walsh ever recommend “limited voting power” for a particular ethnic group in America? Actually, I wouldn’t put it entirely past him, but the media would react appropriately, denouncing and disparaging him. But apartheid is not entirely out of style when the Palestinians are its victims. We admittedly have a long way to go before our Congress starts behaving in an admirable and inspiring way, but let’s start with making it not okay for our members of Congress to endorse apartheid.