Important sign. Respectable Roger Cohen--"fiercely" attached to the security of the Jewish state--has a good piece in the IHT echoing Olmert's warning about Israel's fate. Cohen is pushing the Olmert speech that the NY Review of Books republished in an effort to stir the American discourse. Cohen makes a couple good points, which I summarize here:
The thrust of the piece is Olmert's thrust and, I sense, Obama/Emanuel's consensus: Two states now, goddamnit, and No right of return! Readers of this blog know that I largely share this consensus, with the proviso that no one can order the Palestinians to give up the right of return. It is a just principle, and it is up to the Palestinians to extinguish it and accept a fragment of the state the U.N. assigned them 61 years ago. And certainly acknowledgement of the Nakba, apologies, reparations for confiscated property--everything we Jews obtained from Germany in a timely manner (yes after genocide) ought to precede everything else.
The political question here is: Since when is Olmert a moral leader for Jews in the U.S.? As Antony Loewenstein notes, this guy has been an occupier his whole life. And: Why did Olmert play FW DeKlerk after the fact, a role De Klerk played while in office? Because he knows his society is more wed to the occupation than South Africa's was to apartheid? Because he thinks there will be civil war? I don't know. But I wonder.
Thanks to Loewenstein, who is visiting the States, for the tip. I'll have more to say about the energetic Ant in the minutes and years to come.
"It is a just principle, and it is up to the Palestinians to extinguish it and accept a fragment of the state the U.N. assigned them 61 years ago. And certainly acknowledgement of the Nakba, apologies, reparations for confiscated property–everything we Jews obtained from Germany in a timely manner (yes after genocide) ought to precede everything else."
I see no reason why the Palestinians would not want the eventual return of all land and compensation for lost or destroyed belongings. Why not? I just hope that the U.S. taxpayer doesn't wind up paying the bill for reparations. And while we're at it, how about making sure that Israel compensates the U.S. taxpayers for the "loans" that have never been paid back? Of course, U.S. funding of Israel would have to stop before rapayment of loans would start. There should also be some way to make sure that the people in the U.S. who ran interference for Israel will be justly punished. Would trials for war crimes or crimes against humanity be out of the question? If the shoe fits!
I'm with Todd. The only moral justification for a "Jewish" state is as a refuge from persecution. The proximity to holy stones is irrelevant. The whole project was wrong from the start. It was imposed on the Palestinians, who played zero part in the Holy Coast(tm)because they had no say in the matter. If justice had prevailed it would have been carved out of France or Germany or Rumania or… That's the way the law works: the guilty pay.
I say dismantle the whole thing and move it to Nevada. Plenty of open spaces, no jihad, lax gun laws, casinos. It's even the same latitude as the Holy Land. If AIPAC can ensure that Israel is the 52nd state they can surely twist a few arms to hive the proud state of Judonia out of a little-used piece of Nevada.
Sadly there is no post neocon anything, just more of the same …. IMHO
How the bleep can an "establishment" consensus arise without everyone having the right to discuss the issues?
What can we expect from Hillary on this? Tough Love for Israel? Seems unlikely, given her NY constituency base for 2012, her long
AIPAC connections, her veiled threat in terms of cando regarding nuking Iran back into the stone age…
However, Obama may be able to finesse her, given Jones and Gates…
but what will he decide, in view of 2012 also?
Israel paying reparations and compensation to the Palestinians in lieu of Nakba & Right of return? Meaning in fact the USA taxpayers
to shoulder this recompense indirectly in a myriad of ways, including checks with strings attached–but much larger checks?
What strikes me about what Olmert has said—any number of different times now, in any number of different ways in different forums—as well as the sense that comes about Cohen too somewhat, is the pure … functionality of their thinking. Almost as if the reason they are against, say, feeding Palestinians into meat grinders is only because it wouldn't work very well because of PR reasons or etc.
Where was Olmert and Cohen, just to take one single, tiny little thing for instance, which is even a recent one, when Israel was carpeting northern Lebanon with a million anti-personnel bomblets?
@ Todd: "I just hope that the U.S. taxpayer doesn't wind up paying the bill for reparations…There should also be some way to make sure that the people in the U.S. who ran interference for Israel will be justly punished."
The bill should go to those who materially benefited (Jewish Zionist Israelis) and those diaspora Zionists who are on record as having materially supported the theft, including members of the US Congress who have voted for the underwriting of Zionism, members of AIPAC, Jewish Zionist groups from around the world, and Christian Zionists like John Hagee. Between them all, (a very wealthy subset) there should be plenty of private money to both pay fair market value for the stolen land, and pay reparations to generations of Palestinians. Of course, few or none will part with their cash voluntarily. It will have to be stripped by the courts and by the governments of their respective governments. But it is most definitely doable…or would be if the US government and many other Western "liberal" governments weren't already bought off by Zionists. No wonder so many Zionists donate so much campaign money: they can't afford NOT to.
The ridiculous presumption in the the argument that Palestinians "must" give up the right of return rests on the simple matter that no one has asked them — I mean the refugees — what THEY want.
In fact, the PA is required by the Oslo accords to foreswear any representation of the refugee population — that's why the refugees aren't allowed to vote in PA elections. And anyone who says the PLO still even functionally exists much less represents the refugees is crazy. So, the issue of the Right of Return cannot be negotiated presently — there is no justifiable representative of the victims of the Nakba with whom Israel may negotiate. So Cohen can say all day that the Palestinians "must" give up the ROR, but this can only happen once someone actually sits down with the refugees themselves and comes to an agreement with them, not with a bunch of fatcats in Ramallah.
one state now. no "right" of "return" for jews. no "right" to remain for jews. go. leave. and take your hell for yourself. no one else needs it or you.