David Bromwich comments on Michael Walzer's piece in Dissent on the two-state solution:
What must be done on both sides has been clear for a long time. Many Israeli
commentators--among them Uri Avnery--have been saying it. Palestinians (both
Fatah and Hamas) must suppress terrorist acts against Israel; and Israel must
evict the settlers from the colonies on the West Bank.
The officious idea that any steps toward a resolution on either side must be mutually approved, agreed on, and guaranteed by a prior monitoring apparatus, was, as Walzer observes, a pedantry that stood in the way of initiating the solution as early as 1993 and again in 2000. Both Rabin and Barak could have begun to remove obstacles on the Israeli side as soon as they came to power. Of course, such a beginning will hardly be made voluntarily today by a far-right Netanyahu coalition ministry. That is why the relevant pressure must come from the U.S. The boldness of Walzer's article lies in its view of the intermediate goal of a non-expansionist Israel: to "defeat the settler movement." Nobody of comparable stature, among left-liberal supporters of Israel, has ever put the case so directly. And his formulation of the necessary methods is as plain as his statement of the goal: "move the settlers out and the army in."
Note that, in Bob Simon's 60 Minutes segment concerning the West Bank, Tzipi Livni spoke for one moment with the same directness. Israel is a state, said Livni; and, using the powers of the state, it must prove its efficacy by acting to control its delinquent citizens. Move the settlers out and the army in.
This will not be as easy as the grammar of a simple sentence makes it sound. Every Israeli ministry from 1973 on has been implicated in the spread of the settlements; and the reconciliation of fanatical settlers with the secular government of Israel in the queasy "unity" aftermath of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin was a strangely disturbing episode--a moment of false healing which had broad consequences. There are settlers in the IDF; the resistance here will be wilder and more tenacious than it was in Gaza. But the ground of the necessary resoluteness has at last been acknowledged.
The officious idea that any steps toward a resolution on either side must be mutually approved, agreed on, and guaranteed by a prior monitoring apparatus, was, as Walzer observes, a pedantry that stood in the way of initiating the solution as early as 1993 and again in 2000. Both Rabin and Barak could have begun to remove obstacles on the Israeli side as soon as they came to power. Of course, such a beginning will hardly be made voluntarily today by a far-right Netanyahu coalition ministry. That is why the relevant pressure must come from the U.S. The boldness of Walzer's article lies in its view of the intermediate goal of a non-expansionist Israel: to "defeat the settler movement." Nobody of comparable stature, among left-liberal supporters of Israel, has ever put the case so directly. And his formulation of the necessary methods is as plain as his statement of the goal: "move the settlers out and the army in."
Note that, in Bob Simon's 60 Minutes segment concerning the West Bank, Tzipi Livni spoke for one moment with the same directness. Israel is a state, said Livni; and, using the powers of the state, it must prove its efficacy by acting to control its delinquent citizens. Move the settlers out and the army in.
This will not be as easy as the grammar of a simple sentence makes it sound. Every Israeli ministry from 1973 on has been implicated in the spread of the settlements; and the reconciliation of fanatical settlers with the secular government of Israel in the queasy "unity" aftermath of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin was a strangely disturbing episode--a moment of false healing which had broad consequences. There are settlers in the IDF; the resistance here will be wilder and more tenacious than it was in Gaza. But the ground of the necessary resoluteness has at last been acknowledged.
You gotta admire Witty's shameless capitalist logic.
@ Witty
"The statements about international law and the state-sponsored settlement enterprise are both at least partially accurate and INCOMPLETE set of facts to determine justice in fact. (Justice defined as creating a reasonable basis of consent from a starting point of contention, from the present to the future, NOT referenced only to the past.)"
Well, Witty, here's an article throwing more light on the matter–seems the Israel government has long violated its own rule of law regarding the settlements:
link to jewschool.com
In light of that, how can we rely on even merely Israel's own laws and its courts to determine on an individual case basis? Further, wouldn't international law be a place to start, right along with Israel
law?
Richard, I basically agree with you. But I don't see any chance to order this from above without an accompanying creative process that has to address both sides, bring them together at broad grassroots level.
At the moment I can only see a wide gap between the two communities. Consider if you had lived under the circumstance, amply documented here, with settlers throwing stones on your kids, your wifes, your elders all the time. Would you want them to stay? Israel destroying your houses, fencing you in at the expense of settlers, whom you could watch move freely, while even a short distance took you a day, days? There isn't the least chance for such a scenario without a huge healing process.
As property rights can't be decided only based on Israeli law. Palestinian legal experts have to be involved in the issue.
@ LeaNder: "There isn't the least chance for such a scenario without a huge healing process."
Spoken like a true female. I'm a little surprised you're not more partial to Christianity, LeaNder, given how effeminate it can be, too. That is, until things start getting overly chaotic and upside down, and by fate and necessity the men take it back over and throttle the transgressors into shape (think of Christ thrashing the money changers and accusing the Jews of being the spawn of Satan) in order to restore order and civilization back to their correct balance.
At which point in time the men go back to drinking beer and the women again begin quietly and inexonerably imposing their will.
"As property rights can't be decided only based on Israeli law. Palestinian legal experts have to be involved in the issue."
I agree. It doesn't seem that in any land claimed by Israel, there is even consistent law to afford a basis of appeal, and as the film in the video post later demonstrates, even if an appeal is possible, by then the land is ripped up and trees cut.
The state of the law is different in Israel proper, but still troubling.
The obvious observation is that a primary agreement to accept the other's existence, and to adopt consistent rule of law on a color-blind basis, is required.
I propose that such an agreement is so compelling to the west, that the Bantustan approach of Netanyahu will NOT be consented by the Obama administration. The current dynamic is seen and considered.
While incidents of violence in resistance are understandable and do not of themselves break the prospect of that eventual consent, the ideology and choice of resistance method of terror on civilians DOES break that prospect.
Just out of curiosity…am I the only person who finds Ed's comments (almost always) offensive, and fundamentally racist in nature? I thought comments like Ed's were going to be banned from this site?
I don't see any dirty words in them.
Ed, admittedly I had encounters between Palestinian and Israeli women in mind. As I know a bit more about their problems. But strictly this is not a gender issue. And what I wrote above was much more with Richard's settler friends in mind. Obviously he is more familiar with their tale than the story of the Palestinians.
Down to what point in history would he want to see property issues addressed? That's the big question.
The word "effeminate" may be another issue were you agree with the Israel hardliners here, who seem to object to a basis democratic approach too. Their vision seems closer to an annexation of the left over bantustans by Jordan, remember?
Concerning Jesus Christ and the money changers, I don't see him confronting "the Jews" (John?) only the misuse of the temple as place for changing money and selling sacrificial animals and "Jewish authorities". I thought about them when I came across business booths inside Catholic churches over here, or stalls were you had to pay entrance fees (Sacre Coeur, Paris) for that matter.
The more important point of the story is that he is challenging the authorities, and that is exactly the point were I see Christian hypocrisy.
BUT the most important point is, none of the gospels contains a reference to the devil in this context. That is something you add, as it is interesting in itself: the ultimate core myth underwriting the potency of the tale as a very efficient propaganda tool.
to hasty, to much repetition but I hope you get my repetitive "points". Especially the last.
I wonder if the hypocrite Ana Sanchez will have anything to say about Ed's sexist post.
In any case, Leander does sound a bit new agey, girly boy, with this talk of healing.
I do agree with his point though that there's too much water under the bridge…but I see it more that both sides need a serious time out from each other in order to cool off. Strict mama here–not this coddling crap. lol!
Suzanne, you sound drunk, but it's still a.m. in the US isn't it. If you're an alcoholic, you have my sympathy.
I think Witty and LeaNder's exchanges are very cogent. And LeaNder gets to the meat of any negotiating structure: "Down to what point in history would he want to see property issues addressed? That's the big question."
This get to the point I raised above: "On what moral, ethical, legal basis should the settlements remain? Please clarify"
I see in umbrella context that two issues that overide so much is the Israel settlements made and increasing under color of law, and unguided Palestinian rockets as the answer.
Does anyone know if HAMAS was asked to stop all rockets if Israel agrees to "move the settlers out and the army in"? Or, did HAMAS make the same proposal?
What I referred to as "Witty's shameless capitalist logic" is vigorously reinforced in the popular press: here is an example which to my eyes is just grotesque, like something from the period of the Enclosures (one of the things that caused emigration from Britain to the US and elsewhere, when millions of mere 'peasants' were driven off the land):
Village to be sold for up to £25m
BBC News – 2 hours ago
A Hampshire village, complete with a cricket club and manor house, is to go on sale for up to £25m. Linkenholt, near Andover, which is in an area of outstanding natural beauty, is to be sold by the Herbert and Peter Blagrave Charitable Trust.
Yours for £25million: Village complete with manor house, cricket … Daily Mail
Quintessential English village Linkenholt is on sale for £22.5m – Times Online
Telegraph.co.uk – Southern Daily Echo – Hindu – United Press International
all 30 news articles »
ED, Why did Jesus concern himself about money changers? why were there money cahngers in the temple to begin with?
Rowan, you still sound jealous.
Also @ Witty:
"While incidents of violence in resistance are understandable and do not of themselves break the prospect of that eventual consent, the ideology and choice of resistance method of terror on civilians DOES break that prospect."
I agree. And I think the ongoing settlement expansion in all its forms breaks that prospect at least as much as the rockets landing in Israel. The actual impact on lives by the former has been arguably much more corrosive to dove inklings on either side.
I think the settlement project does break prospects for peace, and the US should exert its influence to communicate that clearly to Netanyahu.
Rowan is trying to tell us–in his roundabout way–that he is an advanced stage alkie…and that's why he hallucinates about Jewish telepathy and lizard people from outer space.
He's probably too far gone to get help by the sound of his hallucinatory posts. Tragique!
We agree, Richard. So, do you have any suggestions for the Palestinians as to how they can assure they are not living (miserably) for the day Israel is extinct? I mean, while they simultaneously suffer all the things that have
preoccupied many people on this blog who see their hard earned tax dollars endlessly feeding things they object to honestly? Americans just lose money on the current trajectory going on for over 40 years. Palestinians live the misery day by day, and the Israelis, even if not physically suffering like the Pals, as you know, are subject to mind terror enlarged by a collective traumatic neurosis–which was NAZI Germany. With all that in mind, what should Obama do? At the very least, does that mean you agree
Freeman should be appointed? Anything else?
Just out of curiosity…am I the only person who finds Ed's comments (almost always) offensive, and fundamentally racist in nature? I thought comments like Ed's were going to be banned from this site?
In my opinion, absolutely not. Ed's comments are insightful, and he has never slandered anyone. He speaks AGAINST organized racism. His words are direct and without pretense, which is rare in this day and age.
Ed makes it a point to distinguish between "organized Jewry", of which he speaks often, and all people who identify as Jewish. That some don't understand, or intentionally misinterpret, his words, is not any fault of his own.
I don't agree with all of Ed's ideas (I'm not as convinced about the idea that Christianity is the greatest basis for a civilization, although in fairness to Ed, I don't know that he has ever stated this outright – it may be my own inference).
Ed's posts enhance the dialogue on this site immensely. If you disagree with some of his points, or care to call out something specific that you find offensive and why, I'm sure Ed will be happy to respond to your concerns. He has every other time he's been accused of being a racist.
For the record, here is a great example of a personal attack, something you will not find from Ed:
Productive discussion? With antisemites, neo-nazis, islamic fascists and their supporters?
With lying sacks of shit like you?
Oh. You were being funny. Sorry, I missed the irony.
Let me know when you can stop lying and then there can be dialogue. Until then, you are merely mentally masterbating, getting off on your antisemitic fantasy.
For the record, the above was posted by chris berel a few days ago. I brought it to the attention of Phil, who assured me that he and Adam would go over it and take appropriate action. He told me it certainly would seem to break the rules.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. The Zionists are raping the Palestinians raw, Western civilization is going to hell in a hand basket due to leftist subversion and shyster greed, and the left-liberals steering the ship are worried about violations of politically-correct speech codes. The whole thing is taking on the flavor of the Soviet Union, where Communist dogma prevailed over common sense until the entire entity collapsed.
Certain Marxist-hued minds seem to believe that building and sustaining civilizations is merely a magical trick, spreading around a few billion here, applying some fertilizer there, passing a few thousand laws and crushing a few thousand skulls; let's call it the Thomas Friedman delusion. But it's guys like Friedman (and Krauthammer and Murdoch, and Beinert and Goldberg and Peretz and all the rest of the Neocon/Neolib brain trust/apparatus) that have put us in the position we're in. And it was politically correct doctrine (shhh, let's not mention that they're almost all Jewish Zionists to a man) that paved the way for their ascension.
The juxtaposition of Kelly and Ed's post is hilarious! haha!
Rowan is trying to tell us–in his roundabout way–that he is an advanced stage alkie…and that's why he hallucinates about Jewish telepathy and lizard people from outer space. He's probably too far gone to get help by the sound of his hallucinatory posts. Tragique! Posted by: Suzanne | March 09, 2009 at 01:17 PM
haha, yes … got reptilians?
Thank you Dan. I'm glad there are others out there who get it.
Perhaps I'm behaving in a negatively stereotypical Christian-partisan way by pointing out that Jewish Zionists are behaving in a negatively stereotypical Jewish way. But then why is only the Jewish critique granted a hearing? The Holocaust only gives the organized Jewish perspective one sided rhetorical license for so long. (Isn't the Holocaust, after all, the sub text of every accusation of "anti-Semitism" used to shut down critique of Zionism or any other organized Jewish enterprise?)
And beyond that, why was the Holocaust ever allowed to be used as a rationale for Zionist abuses to begin with?
I think it’s time that Jewish ideologues get used to the idea that they can no longer “win” arguments by impugning critics as motivated by bigotry. Is criticizing a clear racialist ideological agenda really bigoted, or is it merely exercising political free speech?
I don't know Freeman at all, so can't state an opinion one way or another.
Since Phil surely ranks first considering insults, I think we should not pay much attention to it. Fact is they are harming their camp with it. Would anybody care to spend so much time here, if he thought Phil deserves the invectives?
Defamation shows anger, prejudice and weakness, they are signals. Makes you aware of tender spots.
I appreciated Phil's open policy from the very start. As long as I am not completely sure if Rowan with his complaint at Typepad triggered Adam and Phil's new guideline, I don't care much about them, as I personally don't care about being called whatever name, see above.
As many people have repeated over and over again: Why don't you simply ignore whomever you don't like. And please before flooding Phil's and Adam's mailbox consider you are stealing time they could devote to more important issues.
I don't know Freeman at all, so can't state an opinion one way or another.
You don't know him personally, so you won't take a position? Or do you mean that you haven't investigated his positions at all? I would have to imagine the latter.
I don't know his positions.
Leander isn't ignoring me much…he's quoting me in other places apparently. haha!
Anyhoo…I think insults are the least of Phil's problems here. Piddling stuff compared to the mania of several individuals and the anti-semitic rhetoric of plenty of others.
Not exactly the dirty laundry you want exhibited when you start to get high rankings. :-)
A "non-expansionist Israel." Boy, I've never heard that before.
Wow, what a day! Good blogging, guys.
A taste of things to come?
Some people may not realise that the grey-out on the "post" and "preview" buttons is not removed until you have filled in the name and email address boxes and started a blinking cursor in the comment box as well!
and typed at least one character of the comment …
As I said, it only started being official US policy to push for a 'two-state solution' when it became apparent that any 'state' in the West Bank would be a 'Bantustan'. The reason I haven't made a point of this before is that recognising it leads us nowhere, except to the utopian idea of 'one state for all its inhabitants', which will require a protracted and arduous global anti-apartheid-type campaign to achieve, and which it is pointless to discuss here because the whole point of Phil's 'struggle' (like that of M J Rosenberg, Gershom Gorenberg, who still define themselves as zionists, unlike Phil himself), is to avert this 'one state for all its citizens' nightmare, which as they see it will lead to wholesale expulsion of Jews from the entire state. However, this interpretation of his 'anti-zionism' Phil will presumably dispute.
I don't believe that Palestine should evict all the settlers, but that the settlements that remain should not have any ethnic screens or privileges within Palestine, that they be semi-urban multi-cultural towns within Palestine.
Evicting all the settlers would be an effort at state-sponsored ethnic cleansing.
Some middle path should be pursued.
I don't think Messrs Obama and Clinton have any way of imposing such a utopian solution, Richard. Do you, seriously, think that they do?
On what moral, ethical, legal basis should the settlements remain? Please clarify.
Its their homes. Some of the people have lived there for 40 years. Some of the land was owned by Jews prior to the occupation. The status of Jordanian state land excluded Jews from establishing residence based rights on the same land that recent Palestinians have. The value of the construction on the settlements FAR exceeds the value of the land.
I get that these do NOT imply full title to the current Jewish residents, but defines PARTIAL title, same as Palestinians that have not lived on the specific land in question for fourty years have partial title.
Its up to courts to determine on an individual case basis.
The application of a strictly political logic to it, is a defining characteristic of both fascism and state communism, in contrast to equal due process under the law afforded by civil states, which Palestinians assert they desire.
IF a single-state solution emerges, then Jews will be free to purchase and develop land throughout the West Bank and Gaza, and if it is illegal to prohibit Palestinians from living in areas that are currently predominantly Jewish, then it would be illegal to prohibit Jews from living peaceably in areas that are currently predominantly
Arab.
CHOICES that establish precedents need to be made, rather than political angers from a single and one-dimensional perspective.
The statements about international law and the state-sponsored settlement enterprise are both at least partially accurate and INCOMPLETE set of facts to determine justice in fact. (Justice defined as creating a reasonable basis of consent from a starting point of contention, from the present to the future, NOT referenced only to the past.)
As if.
The eventual State of Palestine should mirror Israel, only to gentile advantage. Therefore the same institutional discrimination that Jews visit upon on non-Jews in Israel proper should be visited upon Jews in the State of Palestine. In fact, that's not a bad idea for the rest of the world, too. That way organized Jewry will (finally) be forced to take self-responsibility for its own behavior, instead of perpetually scapegoating the gentile.
Jewish self-determination: isn't that what Witty is always harping about?
Wait a minute, isn't that the Golden Rule? And that was the secret, all along.
I guess morality only gets confusing when fundamentally dishonest shyster-types start inventing elaborate rationales to justify their cheating and swindling. The Golden Rule stays the same, it’s only the shyster’s "justifications" for breaking it that “evolve.”
Good blog… very interesting!!!