Comments on: 1948 Vs 1967

By: Jim Haygood

Jim Haygood — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

"My own sense is that both Israelis and Palestinians bear responsibility for the failure of the peace process--because neither side truly believes in the '67 (i.e., '49) borders." -- Phil

Probably a fair statement, and another reason that a two-state solution is doomed. In a single state, both peoples could feel that they had access to the whole territory. The stumbling block is Zionism; the demand for a Jewish state, where Jews are THE MAN, and 'Palis' is they niggahs.

As for the shirt, good graphics are important, especially in viral videos such as the one Phil posted yesterday.

From my limited vantage point, I'm guessing that Israel's 60th birthday celebration was a bit of a fizzle. Because this time, the Nakba got ... not equal time, but at least a mention.

Zionism lasted sixty years only because of managed information, via the stegosaurus Mainstream Media. The internet is killing the MSM sauri (Slimes, WaPo, et al), and it's gonna kill the murderous ideology of zionism too, as more folks see how zionism operates at the rifle-butt-in-the-face level.

There must be forty-eleven reasons to remember '48.

By: otto

otto — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

"I believe that going back to 1948 is essential from a moral and emotional standpoint--Israel must acknowledge and apologize for the Nakba"

Going back to 1917 is the essential point. 1917-1948 was exactly the same as 1949-2008, just with British rather than US patronage. It's racist settler colonialism as a project which needs to be apologised for, and more importantly, remedied. The Nakba as inherent in the Balfour declaration.

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Otto, your statement is useless. Why? Because I don't know how one can go back to 1917 any more than one can go back to pre-Mayflower days in the US. Jewish immigrants that came to Palestine since 1917 came mostly through immigration quotas set by the British mandate. They settled mostly on lands legitimately bought by Jews – yes, mostly form rich effendi, i.e., absent landlords which in turn drove away poor fellahin – but in a totally legit manner nonetheless. There was violence on both sides just as there was cooperation on both sides (see a fascinating article by Benni Morris on Arab cooperation with Zionists: link to tnr.com
/>
Going back to 1917 – what does it really mean? That all the Jews in Israel need to go to UK?

By: otto

otto — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Undoing 1917 means allowing all the expelled arabs back in, in the context of a one state solution with a de-privileging of the jewish colonists, just like post-Apartheid South Africa has de-privileged the Afrikaner colonists, within the context of native majority rule. And similarly with French Algeria's pieds-noirs. Its the obvious long-term outcome and we're best to ease it on its way. Colonialism is over.

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

In 1917 there were no expelled Arabs. I agree that 1948-1967 expelled Arabs should be by and large allowed in or compensated in some other way acceptable to them.

By: otto

otto — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

In 1917-1948, the arabs were colonised by those who planned to expel them. It's the one-state solution aka decolonisation, not compensation, which is only reasonable outcome, and the only long term one in any event.

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

I take issue with the sweeping statement "were colonised by those who planned to expel them", because while there were definitely those who intended to expel Arab to ensure Jewish majority in Palestine it was certainly not all and maybe not even the most of those who immigrated to the Palestine in the years 1917-48. That's a topic for a separate discussion, though.
I agree that long term preferable solution might be one state. I hope it will happen one day. How reasonable it is in the short term – short term being one generation at least – hardly anyone knows. I like bringing the example of Belgium – a country with one millionth of the problems that Jews and Arabs in Israel/Palestine face and that is on the brink of collapse along ethnic lines. From what I see a two-state solution seems to be a more realistic one in the short term. However, I will stress that it must be a just two-state solution, meaning that the Palestinian state will be fully fledged and independent and especially free of any kind of Israeli yoke. This will be extremely hard to achieve in the current situation, mostly thanks to the Israeli expansionist policy in the last decades. Still, looks to me a more solvable problem than making two people who by and large hate each other's guts and are of vastly different cultural backgrounds and economic standings to live together in peace on a tiny piece of land.

By: stevieb

stevieb — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

And I take issue with "My own sense is that both Israelis and Palestinians bear responsibility for the failure of the peace process--because neither side truly believes in the '67 (i.e., '49) borders."

I don't really understand what you mean in regard to the Palestinians - they've been quite consistent in advocating for a return to '67 borders.

And Israel has been very consistent in rejecting any form of Palestinian nationalism.

Professor Chomsky - despite his refusal to acknowledge the role of the Lobby - has probably done the best work at identifying that, in this particular case(and most others), Israel is the problem. His analysis of the Oslo accords with Clinton, Barak and Arafat in particular - demolishes the endlessly parroted 'Arafat never missing an opportunity to miss and opportunity" propaganda party piece.

But we don t really need Chomsky to see what is right in our faces, one would hope....

By: sword of gideon

sword of gideon — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Actually the Palestinians have been consistent in advocating the destruction of Israel. But I digress. Please explain to me the upside for the average Jew in Israel in disbanding the army and haveing those happy go lucky lads from Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah move in next door, rape his daughters and kill his sons. What's the selling point there.

By: stevieb

stevieb — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Actually, no. But you do digress. Most certainly you do.

It isn't really an issue what the average jew thinks either. What matters is that Israel illegally and immorally occupies Palestinian land.

So go peddle your limp wristed, pathetic bullshit somewhere else.

The fact is pre-Hamas a return to '67 borders is what they've called for(even Hamas has agreed to ANY agreement with which the Palestinian people find acceptable).

And then, as now, successive Israel governments and there backers find issue with a PLO charter calling for Israel's destruction. But we don't find Israel changing their rejectionism of any form of Palestinian nationalism - or various little 'charters' of there own calling for an Israeli state from Jordon to the Euphrates.

As usual this type of discussion is a diversion. But it's not working anymore Gideon. This isn't the 80's.