One State for Palestine Conference – ‘Who are the realists and who are the dreamers?’

Israel/Palestine
on 50 Comments

Day one at the "One State for Palestine/Israel: A Country for All Its Citizens?" conference is over and here are some early thoughts:

One of the most striking things about the conference is simply the audience and energy. The energy of new ideas and a growing movement. It had more the feel of a blockbuster opening night than an academic conference. People wanting to make sure they got their seats, anticipation for it to start. The room is filled to capacity at around 500 people and many got turned away. The organizers announced over 9,000 people had visited the conference website since it went up three months ago. A few months ago Phil wrote about what it feels to be inside an insurgent political movement. I think this is it.

Professor Hani Faris, one of the organizers of the conference, made the observation during his introduction that
during the 16 years of the two-state peace process the situation on the ground has only gotten worse for Palestinians, and the
process itself has given Israel the cover to continue with
colonization. Ali Abunimah also pointed out that peace plans continue to serve as a legitimization for the Israeli land grab. He specifically pointed out the realist plan that we talked about on Friday. He said a plan that allows Israel to retain control of parts of the West Bank and allows Israeli troops to stay in the occupied territories is not a plan to end the conflict, it's using the two-state solution to save Zionism and Jewish supremacy in Israel/Palestine. It's hard to argue with that summary.

Meron Benvenisti, who was Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem during the 1970s,
said it doesn't make sense to talk about a one-state or two-state
solution – it is already one state. The question before us is what kind
of state is it going to be? Abunimah agreed and pointed out that both he and Benjamin Netanyahu support the one-state solution. The difference is that Netanyahu
wants a Jewish supremacist state and Abunimah wants democracy.

Finally, Professor Faris
made another point that stood out to me. He acknowledged that one of
the frequent criticisms of the one-state solution is that it's too utopian, and its advocates are ridiculed as dreamers. It is the two-state
solution that is inevitable and realistic. But then when you look at
the two-state solution you find expanding Israeli settlements, plans
for ethnic cleansing, gross inequality, legal discrimination and
perpetual violence. After 16 years of trying to justify these policies
as constituting the two-state peace process, the solution is as far as ever. Meanwhile
advocates of the one state solution continue to gain support by calling
for equal rights and democracy. Looking at this Prof. Faris simply asked – who are the realists and who are the dreamers?

Listening to these postmortems, you don't have to look any farther to see what killed the two-state solution. The international community stood by and patted themselves on the back while Israel expanded the settlements and instituted a system of racial separation with exclusive rights for Jews. And this was called the peace process. Case closed. The question becomes not whether the two-state solution was ever possible, but whether it was ever preferable.

50 Responses

  1. MRW.
    March 29, 2009, 12:27 am

    Good report.

  2. MRW.
    March 29, 2009, 12:28 am

    Completely Off-topic.

    Wanna see some Class A propaganda churned up by Israel? Take a look at this crapola:
    link to huffingtonpost.com

  3. John
    March 29, 2009, 12:34 am

    Adam
    The arrogant construction of the Jewish State has resulted in a prison for its Palestinian inhabitants.The ideology of Zionism has resulted in ordinary Israeli people becoming possessed with a secular and religious fury as well as a fanatical nationalism that has no boundaries.
    A democratic One State that Ali Abunimah envisages will have to overcome this intransigent, superior and arrogant component.
    I cant see that happening.
    It is too Utopian for a nation of hard hearted citizens.
    John.

  4. Rowan
    March 29, 2009, 12:42 am

    What a pity this isn't true:

    … DEBKAfile’s Washington sources report that the Obama administration is on the threshold of a major rapprochement with Tehran, a reversal of US policy dramatic enough to block out international sanctions. Iran will be allowed to keep its nuclear program, including military elements and enriched uranium stocks, up to the point of actually assembling a weapon. Washington will continue the Bush practice of publishing “reports” that Iran is still years away from a weaponizing capability. Tehran will hold the upper hand by retaining the option to go forward and build a bomb within one month of a decision to do so and mount warheads on ballistic missiles already standing ready, as revealed last Sunday, March 25, by Israel’s military intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin. Because of the Olmert-Livni policy position in the last two years, Israel no longer has any say in Washington and international forums on the nuclear-arming of Iran. The outgoing prime minister mentioned that Israel has a long-range operational arm able to strike anywhere. But he forgot that, on his watch, Israel lost the ability to employ it …

  5. dance
    March 29, 2009, 12:47 am

    Didn't Phil say in a previous post that Barghouti also said that a one state solution would be a tragedy for the Palestinian people, despite the concept of it being laudable? But then, what is the alternative[s]? Sorry if I'm wrong. I tried to search the site, but the Google reader did not let me.

  6. Michael
    March 29, 2009, 12:52 am

    The Two-State Solution is so fucking over that it never even really had a chance. "Peace process"? What a fucking sham.

  7. Duscany
    March 29, 2009, 1:00 am

    ". . . it doesn't make sense to talk about a one-state or two-state solution – it is already one state."

    This is uncommon good sense. I would sure like to see this observation in the NY Times or Washington Post.

  8. kylebisme
    March 29, 2009, 1:10 am

    The two state solution could be imposed at any time, if only the US public would stop letting our UNSC veto power be exploited to prevent it. The only way Israel could accept the one-state solution is with much more ethnic cleansing. Those are the only two end games here.

  9. Laurie
    March 29, 2009, 5:49 am

    The Palestinians I've met would have no problem living with the Israelis as equals.

    If Ze'ev Jobotinsky, the arch Zionist, believed this: In 1934 he wrote a draft constitution for the Jewish state which declared that the Arab minority would be on an equal footing with its Jewish counterpart "throughout all sectors of the country's public life." The two communities would share the state's duties, both military and civil service, and enjoy its prerogatives. Jabotinsky proposed that Hebrew and Arabic should enjoy equal rights and that "in every cabinet where the prime minister is a Jew, the vice-premiership shall be offered to an Arab and vice versa." Wiki, then there is no reason others can't be brought along.

  10. bar_kochba132
    March 29, 2009, 5:58 am

    Abunimah does not want "democracy" as Adam reports. That is said in order to sound good for "progressives" like Phil and others. Abunimah wants an ARAB SUPREMACIST state. There are no democracies in the Arab world. Democracy is derided there as a degenerate, Western concept at odds with the Arab/Islamic world view. Minorities are suppressed throughout the Arab/Islamic world (why is Christianity in such sharp decline in the Arab/Muslim world if Islam is so "tolerant" as its proponents keep claiming?).

  11. dance
    March 29, 2009, 6:20 am

    India, another hailed democracy, does pretty well with its minorities, too, bar_kochba132. Not too mention what the Christians, I guess they were, did in Bosnia. On another tack, I seem to recall that Palestine had some elections that were deemed to be fair as well, and that were in fact overseen by the Americans. Palestinians are Arabs, aren't they? What happened to recognition of their democratically elected government? And on yet another tack, I worked with Muslims and Christians in the M.E. They seemed to be pretty tolerant of one another.

  12. Richard
    March 29, 2009, 6:27 am

    A one-state solution will not work if Jews feel threatened that they become the minority.

    A one-state solution will not work when one diaspora has the absolute right to settle there, and the other doesn't.

    kylebisme is right, but doesn't go far enough. The US will never exert enough serious pressure on Israel to accept it, since they honestly believe Israel is a sacred project.

    Israel will continue to use every opportunity to expand its influence throughout Mandatory Palestine, until it has cleansed it of Palestinians. It will then start on Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. The natural resources of Israel proper are too few for its ambitions.

    This will take long enough to ensure Phil has a blog subject for at least the next 30 years.

  13. asiswhen
    March 29, 2009, 6:44 am

    The conference does have a feeling of upswelling, with large tectonic plates of a movement grinding steadily into place. There was so much data covered, I was dizzy from trying to keep up. many of the themes overlapped, but it felt like each speaker carried an important piece of the puzzle.

    Kylebisme, the two-state solution is not supported by zionism, except in a desperate compromise to save the jewish state. As pointed out by the speakers yesterday, its failure to provide "parity of esteem" would not end the conflict. Refugee return and rights of non-jews in Israel would merely change the parameters of struggle.

    One of the biggest surmountable issues highlighted was the fragmentation of the Palestinian people. Ali Abunimah also pointed out that in Palestine-Israel and the Diaspora, Palestinians are the majority and have to set the agenda.

    Then Oren Ben-Dor confused everyone by pointing out the uselessness of the zionist-left, and the tribalism of the jewish anti-zionists.. is that what he said?? lol

    I've commented here before that it's a lonely road from being a progressive zionist to becoming an anti-zionist jew, especially in the USA. Norton Mezvinsky's prescription for "prepping the base" of jews through dialog and quoting pre-1948 jewish opponents of Jewish state is an arduous process of kvetching with hard-headed PEP's about the fallacy of the Jewish State, who are hard-wired pro-israel. To get "unwired" is a personal journey, that all must take. To encourage other Jews to take the trip down the rabbit hole, they need to see more of us on the other side waiting for them, standing in solidarity with Palestinians and building Eretz Palestina.

  14. Richard Witty
    March 29, 2009, 7:19 am

    The points that you've made have been repeated and repeated, but still ignore the reality of 8 million Jewish Israelis that regard it as home, regard their home as deserving self-governance. Some love a fully civil democracy, prefer it over any vestige of any theocratic involvement (which is still minor in Israel).

    But, MOST remember the repetition of persecution, the willingness TO persecute Jews, and won't easily drop that.

    Only those that are isolated from the Jewish community for some reason, or have chosen to assimilate (in their thinking, their "I"), adopt the civil ideal solely.

    They have a conversion process to complete to convince (rather than coerce) the 8 million Zionists (whatever proportion of the whole Jewish population in Israel). And, that requires a VERY high level of confidence of the preference for a fully democratic state permanently, and that they will NEVER be persecuted within it.

    Ali Abunimeh cannot promise that. He doesn't even want it, if his comments about Palestinian majority are to be taken seriously.

    He doesn't know what he is committed to. The criticism of the single-state as a FRAUD to invite gullible "progressives" to believe that the single-state represents a better realization of self-governance or self-determination than the two state.

    It ain't necessarily so.

    They don't yet have a better idea, nor a just means to one.

    Better to actually make a fair and vibrant two-state happen. Focus on it. Do what is necessary. Make it happen. Don't get lazy.

  15. Richard Witty
    March 29, 2009, 7:45 am

    The two-state is the only possible solution that is not permanent civil war.

    That is because it is based on the concept of self-governance, acceptance of the rights of minorities, civil law, good neighborliness.

    Its obvious that the present likud oriented governance, and rational failure to courageously embrace a just peace with Palestine (rational for the absence of substantive support for it among a concensus of American/European, Arab, dissenters, UN in committed action).

    Among BOTH likud Zionists and nationalist Palestinians, there is the refrain of "the two-state solution is impossible", citing the evidence of "it hasn't happened yet. Its been distorted by this thing, then that thing." "Oslo was a failure" (You can hear that at right-wing Israeli and right-wing Palestinian and at "left-wing" solidarity rallies.)

    But the fact is that it hasn't been tried. Its an evaluation of an experiment to measure the transformation of ice to water, but abandoning the test when the temperature rises from 20 degrees F to 31. "We've gone far enough. We know everything we need to know."

    Not really.

  16. Asiswhen
    March 29, 2009, 8:17 am

    Witty, is that the best you got? more fear? Speaking of vibrancy, two points:
    1. Ali Abunimah's was the most vibrant oratory of the day, and his point of skewed alliance with Netanyahu, was a well cadenced climax, and an elegant reduction of the zionist conflict.
    2. George Bisharat pointed out how the two-state solution is far from vibrant and inspires no-one, as compared to the one-state solution… actual democracy and ideals, as Joel Kovel called the "true emancipatory legend".

  17. Judy
    March 29, 2009, 8:50 am

    "Don't get lazy."

    Richard Witty, please explain what you understand to be the barriers to 2 states? Your exhortation to action makes it seem as though activists in the US aren't working hard enough.

    I would truly love to hear you explain what has to happen in order to bring about 2 states. What would the process look like?

    Richard, what you really mean is that a *democratic* state won't work, because Jews will be the minority.

  18. stevieb
    March 29, 2009, 9:31 am

    The only thing semi-realistic is to work on changing the U.S political process. Without that I agree with Richard – that's what we're looking at.

    Until campaign reform becomes a reality, i.e congress and zio-money – it's almost a waste of time.

    Almost because the other option is to watch Israel destroy itself which will, of course, take down any Palestinian aspirations with it.

    Which with all the brass coming from the pro-Israel crowd would almost be fun to watch.

    Almost.

  19. stevieb
    March 29, 2009, 9:38 am

    That's 'Richard' – not Witty…

  20. Joshua
    March 29, 2009, 10:18 am

    Personally, I believe that the West Bank/Gaza residents can choose whatever form of statehood or lack thereof that they want, so long as any confederation or such was on consent of those that they wished to confederate with.

    So let's see. Israel has no interest in a single state with "Palestine." Nor does Jordan, which would be the most logical. Nor does Egypt.

    So any "one state solution" (i.e., coerced confederation) is out of the question.

    The idea that this conference is anything "inspiring" or "revolutionary" is bizarre. This is the same rejectionist call that the Arab leaders and their enablers have engaged in since the turn of the century. It has led to nothing but misery for the Arab population of Palestine.

    As for George Bisharat saying that the two state solution "inspires noone." I guess that doesn't surprise me. A Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza is hardly inspiring because it has little historical or cultural basis, and the governing entities such as the PNA or Hamas have proven to be utter failures in bringing about a better life for their people.

    Israel, on the other hand, was the most successful national liberation movement of the 20th century, and most definitely continues to inspire both Jews and non-Jews alike.

  21. Joshua
    March 29, 2009, 10:24 am

    Meanwhile…

    There was a great story just a couple of days ago about an orchestra made up of youths who live in Jenin who came to Israel to play a concert for elderly Holocaust survivors.

    Well, not surprisingly, when Palestinian authorities found out about this noble step toward coexistence, they disbanded the orchestra.

    link to haaretz.com

    Once again, the racism and hatred engendered by Palestinian authorities hurts their own people trying to do something right. How sad.

    What's also sad is that the conference goers referenced in this post are basically doing the same thing. Rather than try to build a better life and make peace between Israelis and Palestinians, they relegate Arab children to misery all because of their own pathological hatred toward Israel.

  22. aristeides
    March 29, 2009, 10:33 am

    A binational state with constitutional guarantees for both nations could be made permanent as a result of UN resolutions and a multinational military force on scene.

  23. Citizen
    March 29, 2009, 11:33 am

    How would such a binational state treat the law of return? What would be guaranteed in that respect?

  24. Richard Witty
    March 29, 2009, 11:37 am

    Joshua's point about consent of the governed is CRITICAL.

    To say that there should be a single-state, but without the consent of the governed is oppression.

    If those that propose it, do the WORK to create a cross-community consciousness that favors the civil OVER the national, then that might represent a success.

    That the reality that Israelis regard themselves as Israelis is a fact, and that Palestinians regard themselves as Palestinians is a fact, it is a FRAUD to propose that a single-state is a liberation, an improvement in democratic process over 67 bordered consented two-states.

  25. Asiswhen
    March 29, 2009, 11:44 am

    i believe in every paper presented here, the right of refugee return is seen as necessary. furthermore, realization of the BDS calls implies a very de-zionized israel-palestine that would have little use for a meandering green line/wall.

  26. Jacqueline_Hyde
    March 29, 2009, 11:57 am

    Two states is ludicrous. Two states with their own legislative assemblies, diplomatic corps, standing armies, banking systems, in the center of a cauldron…Does not cohere in one's brain. But as a useful fiction to while away the time until Palestine is "wiped off the map"? Priceless.

  27. michael
    March 29, 2009, 12:00 pm

    Do you people realise something if there is to be a one state solution it will come about when their is no choice so it will be something imposed by the world.It will still have Zionist elements and their will have to be a big compromise on the part of the Palestinians with regards to the RIGHT OF RETURN.The one state will look something like Bosnia a federation.You palestinians and their groupies will not get everything you want ie no six million coming back.Oh and is their anywhere we can read the papers that are being presented

  28. Richard Witty
    March 29, 2009, 12:06 pm

    Within a single state, Palestine would get wiped off the map probably quicker.

    That is because if a civil state there would have to be laws prohibiting sale of land and other property on ethnic or national basis.

    And, in that setting, those Zionists that are committed to settling in all of the land, will legally buy more and more land, until the whole land is dominated by Jewish communities.

    Its NOT a path to success of either peace, or Palestinian sovereignty.

    Not ideally, not practically.

    And CERTAINLY, not in the way the proposal has evolved and is planned.

    There are CLEARLY appealing features to the proposal, especially for someone that imagines that the democracy that would evolve would resemble confident European or American style democracy.

    The VERY REAL danger of devolution to Lebanese bi-nationalism haunts the proposal.

  29. Rowan
    March 29, 2009, 12:15 pm

    It's so typical to see people rushing to poke holes in Ali Abunimah's credibility, while nobody bothers to inform Laurie that Z'ev ("the Wolf") Jabotinsky was an explicit and avoided fascist — he actually sent his youth squads to be trained by Mussolini — and like all consistent fascists saw no problem with lying in his teeth, as in that preposterous quotation.

  30. LanceThruster
    March 29, 2009, 12:18 pm

    To see the pictures at the conference web site was truly inspirational. To think that a beautiful land could be inhabited by those living in peace, harmony, and prosperity. The fact that so many fight the realization of such a 'dream' is itself why the nightmare continues.

    The "Visit Palestine" poster reminded my of another 'exotic' destination; Hawaii. There we find a native minority that has been assimilated as part of a greater whole, yet retains certain rights that help prevent them and their culture from being overrun by the swell of population numbers that are not native. Millions visit this 'paradise' whether they choose to explore the native heritage or partake in the implanted culture, or any combination thereof.

    I hope the 'dream' of a one state solution comes soon, and that we reach a point where everyone wonders why it wasn't done sooner.

  31. Saleema
    March 29, 2009, 12:51 pm

    @ Witty,

    Why are you lying? Why do you keep implying that the settlers and even many inside Israel proper *bought* the land, when in fact it was stolen and the inhabitants ethnically cleansed or killed? The land that was actually bought without coercion and threat to violence is far and in between. Within a one state solution, why would people sell their lands to the Jews when they haven't been doing so during occupation?

    The only one you are convincing with your lies and half-truths is yourself. Someone has brainwashed your quite well. Sometimes I think you actually believe the stuff you write here.

  32. Citizen
    March 29, 2009, 1:13 pm

    Saleema, you have to understand Witty grew up going to summer camps where the Israeli and American flags were flown always–as if the two states and their interests were always identical. He absorbed this fantasy from such early childhood; yet he also absorbed that jews were the eternal victims, that any day it could happen again, even as he grew up and prospered in a goy host nation–he just wants an eternal insurance policy (Israel) in case the goys go beserk again, looking for scape coats in patterns like bankers
    and prominent neocon IDs never subject to popular election. He'd be the first to drop some small change
    on the local cop organization that protects him from harm–and the last to accept his daughter marrying one.

  33. Rowan
    March 29, 2009, 1:34 pm

    Also, Witty's mentation process compares to real thought in much the same way that masturbation compares to real sex.

  34. Suzanne
    March 29, 2009, 1:38 pm

    Were there any Israeli centrists at that conference?

    I seriously doubt you're ever going to get the Israeli population to go along with this.

  35. r
    March 29, 2009, 1:39 pm

    joshua

    Why not put together an israeli children's orchestra to play for aging Nazis in their nursing homes?

    You wouldn't have a problem with that, would you?

    Vile hypocrite!

    Filth from the sewer!

    Go back to shithole Israel with your ludicrous tefillin and the hang out with the rest of the jewish outcasts and zombies in your filthy gangster state.

    You're not wanted here.

  36. r
    March 29, 2009, 1:44 pm

    Take Lazy Nazi Suzanne with you!

  37. r
    March 29, 2009, 1:45 pm

    back to your FILTH HOLE!

  38. Suzanne
    March 29, 2009, 1:46 pm

    Joshua wrote:

    "Israel, on the other hand, was the most successful national liberation movement of the 20th century, and most definitely continues to inspire both Jews and non-Jews alike."

    Very true…and…

    you just gave the rabid Jew haters here acid reflux. haha!

  39. r
    March 29, 2009, 1:53 pm

    How come you're not living in that magnificent sewer Suzanne, you Nazi mosquito??

  40. r
    March 29, 2009, 1:54 pm

    Yeah

    "Israel inspires both Jews and non-Jews alike."

    Yup.

    That's JUST what the international press has been saying!!

    People ALWAYS vomit when they're inspired.

  41. Joshua
    March 29, 2009, 1:55 pm

    Hi r,

    Actually, I'm not from Israel, and have no inclination to live there. I have visited and found it an incredibly inspiring and, yes, diverse, place. I wish its residents well.

    And I must ask again. Does r's comments fall within the civility guidelines set forth by Phil and Adam?

    Of course not. But I think we know what the real guidelines for the blog are. It reads someone like. "Phil's clubhouse, no Zionists or jooz other than Phil allowed."

  42. LD
    March 29, 2009, 1:58 pm

    No Joshua. It's only Jewish Zionists and right-wingers who like to play the antisemite card around here. Keep crying wolf you piece of trash.

  43. LD
    March 29, 2009, 2:05 pm

    Don't give Witty so much credit. He's damn near 60 years old. The old dog has been around and knows the other arguments.

    He knows but willingly ignores them.

    Notice how he INSISTS on his arguments. He never answers to people when they've clowned him like for example his comments on a possible dismantling of the settlements and transfer of the colonists back into Israel.

    These colonists who are paid to colonize what's left of Historic Palestine.

    These colonists who do not have to serve in the army (right?).

    He called that transfer, which would only be carried out by Israel itself, an ETHNIC CLEANSING.

    This stupid bastard was giving people shit for calling the Gaza massacre a genocide. Because to an ethnocentric bourgeois piece of shit like Witty, only Jews suffer.

    He has no shame and will use this rhetoric without justification.

    To call the transfer of colonists back to their own State by their own State, an ethnic cleansing is morally bankrupt.

    He also called the rocket attacks on Southern Israel 'shelling'.

    The guy is a scam artist. He doesn't debate, he just delivers soliloquies.

  44. Suzanne
    March 29, 2009, 2:07 pm

    Sometimes I wonder if pro-Israeli elements are paying Pischer and r (Rykart) to post here. They make my point beautifully about the hostile, irrational, seething presence on this board.

    No one on their side interacts with them much either…so perhaps some of the regulars here suspect the same thing? :-)

  45. r
    March 29, 2009, 2:14 pm

    Joshua

    I wish the Israelis well too. I hope they can have as wonderful a life as they have provided the residents of Gaza. I hope seeing their families burnt alive and their homes blown to bits will hearten them in the same way Palestinians have been inspired by Israeli benevolence for 60 years. I hope to live long enough to see the Israelis repaid for all of their acts of kindness, all of their compassion.

    I hope they are repaid with interest.

  46. LD
    March 29, 2009, 2:18 pm

    I like how Joshua says he saw diversity in Israel LOL.

    I wonder if the prick has ever been to the OT.

  47. Richard Witty
    March 29, 2009, 2:20 pm

    "Saleema, you have to understand Witty grew up going to summer camps where the Israeli and American flags were flown always"

    Ironically Citizen, I spent a few of my formative summers with Phil.

    LD,
    I'm 54, about six months older than Phil. I consistently opposed occupation, actually since I was 14 (1968) and visited the West Bank and Golan and argued with right-wing tour guides about "what about the Palestinians".

    When I lived in Vermont, even though I had been there 5 years (which seemed like a long time to me), I was told that I was not a native and that I should "shut up" at town meetings. (I was told the same at a teamsters union meeting when I asked why new bus drivers were paid minimum wage, but still had to contribute their union dues in a closed shop.)

    You've never debated LD.

  48. tree
    March 29, 2009, 2:23 pm

    To say that there should be a single-state, but without the consent of the governed is oppression.

    Which is EXACTLY what we have today, and have had for the last 61 years. Its quite silly to warn us about oppression when you have been issuing apologetics for it all along. What is needed in Israel/Palestine is equality under the law for both Jews and non-Jews. Whether it occurs as one state, two states or twelve states doesn't really matter. What is necessary is equality and justice. Israel has, by all measures, been the governing body of Israel/West Bank/Gaza since 1967. The overriding problem, both prior to and after the start of the occupation, has been the lack of equality and justice across ethnic and religious lines within Israel-controlled territory. That is the source of all violence on both sides. If you really seek an end to violence, then work for justice and equality.

  49. LD
    March 29, 2009, 2:24 pm

    Witty, don't tell me your life story.

    I debated you (as did every single other person) on Richard's blog on the truce and you were equally pathetic as you are here – dishonest rhetoric / whitewashing / "point scoring" Hasbara tactics / etc.

    Keep living in your bubble, scumbag.

  50. Joshua
    March 29, 2009, 2:25 pm

    LD,

    Actually, I had a chance to go to Bethlehem, but passed it up to have dinner in Abu Ghosh, which was one of the most enjoyable nights I had on the trip.

    Phil,

    You may not have noticed, but you now have a participant on this comments section explicitly calling for Israeli families to be burnt and bombed. You have the subsequent commenter engaging in outright obscenities and personal attacks.

    The real question is do you have a scintilla of integrity to follow through on your principles and ban these racists from your site, or do you give people a mulligan if they adopt your side in a political argument?

Leave a Reply