To request that Hamas or any Palestinian group accepts Israel's right to exist makes as much sense as asking the NY Yankees to recognize Tanzania's right to exist.

Whatever this "recognition" business means, it has to be a mutual recognition between states. America and Mexico "recognize" each other, in a way, by establishing diplomatic relationships and having embassies. This is not something that a non-state actor can, by definition, do.

This is a perfect example of another red herring fousted upon us by Zionist propaganda scum. While Israel, a fully-fledged state, destroys the ability of millions of Palestinians to live a normal life in independence, it manages to convince its moronic supporters around the world to harp on about the nonsense of the need for Hamas to first recognize Israel before Israel even sits at a negotiating table to then contemplate possibly giving the Palestinians a bantustan. The racist hypocricy is mind-boggling.

Fortunately for Israel, the world is full of morons who are willing to repeat this bullsh1t over and over. The sad thing is that it is Palestinian children whose futures are destoryed because of this nonsense.

Saree Makdisi has an excellent article on the topic: link to latimes.com
/>

Anne Roiphe does not speak for me. When it comes to "dialogue," obviously I want to speak to everyone. Otherwise, why would I have anything to do with this blog?

You don't see your role as galvanizing any political activity or bloc, and that is your privilege. But my question is not, "Who do I want to talk to?" My question is, "Who are the people in both `camps' on the left who could work effectively on joint political activity?"

The camps were mentioned in remarks on June 21st, but I was not clear about the topic at hand:

I, for one, don't think someone needs to recognize Israel's right to exist or its legitimacy before we can work together effectively. They need not think there is any justification for Zionism. They just need to accept the fact that, right now, Israel is a reality –i.e., a majority-Jewish state is a reality that cannot be transformed into something else, like a bi-national state. They need to accept that it is here for the foreseeable future, and it is impractical to try to completely change the situation by working for a bi-national state. (we could argue about the impracticality forever, but I'm giving you my personal litmus test here).

Most Palestinians in the OPTs, I am quite certain, have this view. Now, if one accepts the premise that at a majority Jewish state will exist–at least for the forseeable future– then one needs to figure out how to help end the occupation and create a viable Palesitinian state, long shot though it may be.

So, with that as background, here is my bottom line:

I know there are pragmatic people on the non-Zionist left who, in their brains if not their hearts, accept the that a majority Jewish state is a reality that cannot be dislodged. For example, there are individuals actors in both United for Peace and Justice and Jewish Voices for Peace who accept that, although their organizations won't commit themselves to an end-game.

It is those pragmatists who should be able to make common cause with people like me. We should be able to push for evenhanded American policies. We should try to make American policy makers feel like they have more political leeway to criticize and lean on Israel on a host of matters –from targeted assasinations to settlement expansion to checkpoints…

All the rest, as they say, is commentary.

Part of what this "right to exist" language is about is a way of delegimitizing the Palestinian demand for a right of return. The simple fact is that the Israelis are not going to give up their majority Jewish state, so they're not going to allow an unlimited Palestinian right of return (or maybe even a token one). But it would be awkward to come right out and bluntly say "We're not going to give up the benefits we got from the ethnic cleansing of 1948". Instead, they talk about how some Palestinians won't acknowledge their right to exist, which is a brilliant PR move–it makes the Palestinians asking for their rights into the fanatical villains out to destroy the Jewish state.

As for myself, I sorta agree with Chomsky. In the forseeable future a one state solution doesn't seem to be in the cards, so the Palestinians should go for the two state solution. But (my view now, I don't know what Chomsky would say) from a negotiating point of view, they shouldn't take this dismissal of their right to return lying down. If they give it up, it should be clearly acknowledged that it is a huge concession they are making. There shouldn't be any of this nonsense about how generous it is for Israel to give up 90-97 percent of the 22 percent of the land Palestinians used to live on. It's as if the Palestinians are supposed to come to the bargaining table dismissing all their own claims right from the start, and should then be grateful to accept whatever crumbs are handed to them.

On a day-to-day living basis of comparison the occupation is much like slavery was in the US: 4 million people (must be) kept in subjugation so that another people can have all they want out of life.

If I were POTUS, I would organize a multi-national force (a la Gulf War I) to take back the Palestinian land — knowing that Israel would not dare fire on American troops or their allies. But that's megalomaniac me. :-)