Tony Karon has a moving piece about Mandela, and his ability to unite blacks and Afrikaaners in a new idea of what it meant to be South African:
Today Mandela is often invoked as an exemplar of non-violent change –
nowhere more frequently than in the conflict between the Palestinians
and Israel, whose partisans love to bemoan the absence of a
“Palestinian Mandela”, as if such a figure would be more willing than
the current Palestinian leadership to accept Israel’s terms. But the
South African Mandela has always insisted that in Palestine, just as in
South Africa, justice is the key to peace and reconciliation.
nowhere more frequently than in the conflict between the Palestinians
and Israel, whose partisans love to bemoan the absence of a
“Palestinian Mandela”, as if such a figure would be more willing than
the current Palestinian leadership to accept Israel’s terms. But the
South African Mandela has always insisted that in Palestine, just as in
South Africa, justice is the key to peace and reconciliation.
Karon implicitly raises the point: If a Palestinian Mandela does emerge (and the English Prospect has suggested that might be Marwan Barghouti), what type of division of the West Bank could he possibly accept? Aren't we waiting equally for an Israeli Mandela: an Israeli who will bring an enlightened view of majority (Jewish) rule to Israel/Palestine, and an end to apartheid conditions? Isn't the idea of a Mandela the idea of one state?
If a Palestinian Mandela shows up you can be sure he will be assassinated by Israel pdq.
A.n.y.o.n.e who doesn't get that Israel doesn't want peace, will never make peace either hasn't been paying attention or is seriously retarded.
We could settle for an Israeli de Klerk, not that there seems to be one on the horizon.
Were waiting above all for the powerful world outside Israel – Europe and the US – to decide what outcomes it wants in the area. The Afrikaaners etc had all the guns, selfishness and ruthlessness, but it became clear over time that the US and UK were going to pull the plug if they kept just shooting the native population and congratulating themselves for being better than Congo. That set the environment for Mandela and even De Klerk. Right now, the US and Europe is split on what it wants for the native arabs of Palestine, with the best organised groups seeking varieties fo apartheid and even arab explusion (under the guise of 'resettlement' in the rest of the arab world) but that hold on policy-making has the mixture of strength and weakness of any iron-triangle and has certainly lost its 100% secure position in Europe.
What the Israelis want is quisiling rule and (yet further) expulsion. What the native arabs want is the end to jewish colonialism. The outcome will, as in South Africa, be determined in Washington, London and elsewhere.
Is there an Israeli Frederik Willem de Klerk?
Or is that too much to ask of our Hebrew brethren?
War in the middle east. That is what we are going to get with the next administration. More war, more high oil prices. There is a bipartisan editorial in the Washington Post this WE, that explains that the only option the next president will have is to bomb Iran. When you have that consensus, and when you have Biden saying that Obama will face an international crisis during his first 6 months, you know what is coming.
Those of you supporting Obama are quickly going to be cured of your naivete.
Ooh!! Ooh!! Ooh!! A "bipartisan editorial in the Washington Post … that explains that the only option the next president will have is to bomb Iran." Well, that settles everything! LOL, and you are calling the rest of us naive? Anyone who starts a war with Iran when it is so obviously not in AMERICA's best interest is a brazen traitor. Obama's got some smarmy folks in his coterie, but I don't think they cross that line, and if I'm wrong about that, I have complete certainty about two things: Obama doesn't owe the lobby remotely enough to persuade him to declare war against Iran if he thinks it is a bad idea for America, and he's far far too intelligent to be snookered into thinking that it is in America's best interest. Let's see, we are fighting two wars now, neither of which are going well, Pakistan is nearing collapse, and their cooperation with us is dissolving even faster (hint, hint: 99% of our supplies to Afghanistan are trucked and railed up through Pakistan), the vast majority of our supplies for Iraq are shipped through the Gulf of Hormuz (can we say hundreds of speedboats filled with explosives and mines, mobile shore batteries of advanced SSM's, 4x DIESEL Kilo submarines, and our navy is still configured to fight the Russians in the North Atlantic) to Kuwaiti and Iraqi ports, and then trucked up through Shiite areas near the Iranian border, our economy is tanking, and the majority of Americans are torqued off about it, and you think any sane loyal American is going to start another war when there is NOTHING in it for us? LOL You are falling for (or desperately want to believe in) some really pathetic attempts at 'perception management'.
I, for one, expect very little from Obama, but the chance of war with Iran would be higher with McCain or Hillary. But it's not zero with Obama, that's for sure.
otto, yep; i agree on your probabilities.
Being a Jew is not remotely like being a Christian or Muslim.
What does that mean anon?
Israel had a De Klerk, but rejected him and her.
You guys are aware that Tzipi Livni gave up on forming a coalition (requiring a majority of knesset seats in total) because of the insistence by Shas (sephardic religious party) that Jerusalem not be divided (also conducting a graft auction between Kadima and likud for subsidies for their religious education programs).
Its a BAD sign, in that likud will likely win parliamentary elections and Netanyahu will likely win the election for prime minister. But, that likud will likely NOT achieve majority seats in the knesset, but will likely lead a coalition of far right and religious parties.
The only hope that I see is that the Israelis will determine that likud (like the republican party) has LOUSY economic and foreign policies, and like McCain, Netanyahu is likely to make ideologically driven grave errors in economic policies. And, he is likely to escalate to enter a war.
The region needs deescalation.
Sharon changed his views. Netanyahu is unlikely to.
American, "peace" is a weasel word, like "democracy" and "freedom". It can mean pretty much whatever you want. Of course Israel wants peace. It wants the palestinians to lie down "peacefully" while the Israelis drive their panzers over 'em.
It sounds kind of smarmy to me. Calling a spade a spade is one thing, generalized innuendo like "being a Jew is not remotely like being a Christian or Muslim" is another. It contributes nothing to the dialogue on this post, and implies that there is no common ground. If you think that there is no common ground to be looked for, why are you posting on this blog?
The War with Iran has been a real underachiever so far. Although it's a bit older than it looks. She's already had many comers, no real takers.
Right now it's going through one of those difficult propaganda/economic warfare/clandestine special ops phases. Wars go through that phase. It's natural.
It may not look like it now, but this unspectacular war could still blossom into a real belle–bombs, boots, bases, broadcasts–the works.
But sadly, principal war backer Team America's credit isn't what it used to be.
Her zionist fans still ought to keep the faith, because in America, war is always just a bubble away.
Otto, I agree with you as far as I think the chance for war with Iran is non-negligible while President Bush is in office, and I think it highly likely if Senator McCain is elected. I just don't think that Senator Obama will make an unprovoked attack on Iran. He is a traditional Democratic Party establishment type, he wants to preserve what hegemony we have left, and recover as much as possible of what has been lost, and few things will unravel our dominance (which is fundamentally based on our economy, it takes huge stacks of cash to run our military, and we are currently borrowing ALL of it, no money -> no 'power projection') more quickly than an attack on Iran.
However, in the here and now, the neocoms in gov't and media are still doing their best to 'prepare the political battlespace', but in my opinion, our senior military folks have tried to be very responsible in avoiding any 'accidents' that might lead to an unplanned escalation. Efforts have been made to establish communications with the Iranians to prevent local misunderstandings, and Admiral Mullen left the Israelis with no doubt that another 'Liberty incident' would be unacceptable.
http://www.presstv.com/pop/print.aspx?id=65632
http://www.bruneinews.net/story/378628
If Arafat didn't threaten to kill every Palestinian peace seeker, we would have found a Mandela by now.
What difference would it make if there was a "Palestinian Mandela"? Wasn't Mandela condemned as a terrorist for the great majority of his struggle? Opinions here need to change rather than the movement in Palestine. Oooh they advocate violence; I don't recall Mandela ever denouncing the use of violence against the Afrikaaners. It's the same garbage that we hear over and over about a "Palestinian Gandhi". Well there are plenty of non-violent protests against the wall: where's the outrage and recognition for these braves souls? How many languish in Israeli prisons not getting their case heard?
As much as the Apartheid battle is an endearing example to evoke, it really does not parallel as much as we would like it. I don't recall anyone feeling sympathetic for the Afrikaaners nor the connection that thousands feel about Israel. It was easier to separate the horrors from the progress with apartheid than it is with the Israeli occupation. Here we have calls for nuance when back in the 90s public opinion could not tolerate the abusement of the blacks. Plus there was much more empathy for minorities in the West (ie blacks and Jews) to identify with the oppressed in South Africa rather than the horrible PR that the Palestinians have been given for four decades. Today does not represent a better time for all things Muslim either.
Lastly, the Palestinians have very little faculties in their disposal among the higher ranks in Western elite. Who will put their battle on their shoulders to stem the tide?
'If Arafat didn't threaten to kill every Palestinian peace seeker, we would have found a Mandela by now.'
There is no need to go looking for a Mandela. One already exists, and he has made his opposition to the Israeli occupation very clear indeed. Just as Gandhi did in 1947. So any Palestinian Mandela would be sure to condemn Israel too, no?
Also, Mandela was on far friendlier terms with Arafat than he was with any Israeli leader.
The other thing that amuses me about Zionists pretending to feel sad about the Palestinians apparent inability to produce such a moral exemplar (one more excuse to treat them like insects) is this – if you really think the Palestinians could use a Mandela or a Gandhi, then you must implicitly support their goals and oppose Israel's illegal occupation. Does that description fit you Michael Weis?
The final irony of course is that the Palestinians have produced far more moral exemplars than Israel – which Israeli can stand beside Darwish or Said?. All of Israel's moral giants inhabit that minority slice of dissent that shames the rest of the place – Avnery, Burg, Hass, Sternhell etc – and like their American counterparts over the last decade or so, they are pretty lonely souls, surrounded by moral pygmies or if you're feeling generous, by ignoramuses.
Israel would be flat out producing even a de Klerk – Peres fails in the comparison – but Sharon would have made a marvellous PW Botha.
To Condell,
I support a Palestinian state in most of the West Bank and Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem, and Gaza with possible transfer of land from Israel proper to offset some land Israel wants to keep, for political and security reasons. I hate the settlers, they are fanatics. But I'm fine with having military outposts in the West Bank till a peace deal is signed.
"I support a Palestinian state in most of the West Bank and Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem, and Gaza with possible transfer of land from Israel proper to offset some land Israel wants to keep"
That's nothing like enough. Israel should not keep any lands, and trying to get arabs out of Israel by 'transfers' as part of a 'swap' is just the old ethnic cleansing under another name. You need to support the removal of every settler planted after the 1967 war and an Israel with more arabs in it than now, or you just another supporter of colonial chauvinism.
"You need to support the removal of every settler planted after the 1967 war and an Israel with more arabs in it than now, or you just another supporter of colonial chauvinism."
That is a path to disaster and quagmire, as it an expression of ethnic cleansing.
In 1930, the moderate Jewish population of Hebron was ethnically cleansed. The residents were mostly NOT Zionists. They were simply orthodox that revered the multiple shrines in the region and particularly the Caves of Machpelah, where the patriarchs are reported to be buried.
In 1948, the ethnic cleansing was made permanent.
You can't really contest ethnic cleansing by proposing ethnic cleansing.
Either you support the civil rights of minorities or you don't.
If it doesn't happen as a principle, but ONLY selectively, you are not an advocate of justice.
The day in court for Palestinians in Israel is more important to preserve justice, than the ethnic cleansing and permanent prohibition against Jewish residence in the West Bank.
It should be sovereign Palestine, but not ethnically pure Palestine, as Israel should be sovereign Israel but is not and should not be ethnically pure Israel.
Can an Atheist (or even a consistent Agnostic) be simultaneously a Christian or Muslim?
What would the criteria embedded in a Christian or Muslim law of return look like?
On a different note… I've found it helpful to try to learn some Jewish history, and recommend these two books on the first and second revolts against Roman occupation. I have not been able to find anything on the 3rd and final revolt (probably not enough original source material to write a book). I expect that there are a probably short articles in academic journals, but I haven't had time to track them down. If anyone has third revolt books or articles, I'll be grateful if you could post titles, ISBN's, or weblinks. Thanks!
Apocalypse: The Great Jewish Revolt Against Rome AD 66-73 by Neil Faulkner
link to amazon.com
Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil, 116/17 Ce: Ancient Sources and Modern Insights by Miriam Ben Zeev
link to amazon.com
Mr. Witty, a few comments….
"You can't really contest ethnic cleansing by proposing ethnic cleansing." Of course you can. Any brief survey of world history reveals that ethnic cleansing was a key component of human migration up to the time of the Westphalian nation-state. This is not an endorsement, just an observation.
"Either you support the civil rights of minorities or you don't." I agree. I would also add that "either you support the civil rights of majorities or you don't", and "either you support civil rights or you don't".
"If it doesn't happen as a principle, but ONLY selectively, you are not an advocate of justice." I agree completely. What consistent set of guidelines/principals are you proposing to adjudicate ownership of land and water? It's not a simple issue and it requires delving into non-trivial political theory to evaluate completing claims based in the sovereignty of different states, some of which no longer exist, e.g. deeds issued by the Ottoman Empire or under the Mandate. I don't have an answer.
(Colin Murray = Richard Witty's love child)
It wouldn't be ethnic cleansing in the the case of Israeli settlers as they are there illegally – international law requires they leave. All settlements are illegal. Those too must go.
You're 'argument' Witty, is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. You convienently ignore the fact that those settlers should never have been planted there in the first place. And its a stone throw to Israel from the West Bank, so it's hardly a titanic struggle physically.
Did you feel the removal of settlers from Gaza was ethnic cleansing?
"Did you feel the removal of settlers from Gaza was ethnic cleansing?"
This is an interesting point. I do hope Richard answers it, because many of his his ideas have seemed inconsistent to me.
Witty, we are waiting for your most humanistic and rational answer…