The other day I was having coffee with a well-connected neighbor, and going through the litany of Palestinian suffering in the occupied territories, when she nodded impatiently and said, "What's the answer?" Then: "Do you believe there should be a Jewish state?"
Good questions. This is a special moment for this website because non-Zionists and anti-Zionists are being included at last in the national discussion. Americans are beginning to understand that Israel's human-rights record is outrageous. We have accomplished that work.
It's time for contributors to his site to be more forthright/positive about formulating our answers to those big questions. To be forward-looking and positive. A few months ago, Adam Horowitz did just that at a forum, when he was challenged, Do you believe in the two-state solution? and said in essence, We need to find a just solution with safety and equality for two peoples; and I don't believe a Jewish state is part of that answer.
I asked a couple friends my neighbor's question. Two answers:
Jack Ross:
I'll defer to others' judgment about whether or not to come out unambiguously for one state, which I would be in favor of, but I think Adam's statement of a while back remains the bottom line – that if it's not our place to dictate what the parties themselves feel is best, we should draw the line against "preserving Israel as a Jewish state" because of all that that means in practice.
As an Israeli-American Jew who wanted to do something proactive I was drawn to Ta'ayush because I believe that direct action is one of the last frontiers for us regardless of one state solution or two. I often tell people here, imagine if only 2 % of the people that voted for Hadash, the small liberal party in Israel, join us in the territories once in a month. 300 maybe 500 hundred Israelis standing in Safa or at an illegal outpost. I think that would an effect that would be difficult to ignore but even this seemingly easy endeavor feels impossible in the current climate. Anyway, here is the Ta'ayush thoughts:
From its earliest days, Taayush has produced action only, neither manifestos nor ideological debates. The group that consolidated wanted to reverse the usual scale of priorities: after realizing that declarations do not always stand the test of ‘moments of truth’, action was chosen as the way to demonstrate a refusal to accept the repetition of incursions, and to be present where things took place. Direct, non-violent action was the path chosen, as well as decision-making by consensus. Taayush formulated a position paper by the end of December 2000, but its fine-points took up too much time and energy. It was decided to put off this task, and gain the participation of everyone who identified with the actions that were planned to express clear positions. Protest by actual doing, by outspoken negation of the separation between Arabs and Jews in Israel in every realm of life, and of the Occupation itself, of starvation, closure, movement limitations and military incursions that Israel practices in the Occupied Territories.
The name Taayush expresses the desire to upend conventional categories. The word Taayush usually translates the term “co-existence”, but its real meaning is “living together”, “sharing life with one another”. The difference between living together and co-existence is perhaps not very significant for those who are not familiar with the dialogue groups, peace encounters, peace tents and creativity workshops that characterized the dialogue style of the nineties, but the difference is enormous. It means living together, struggling together against alienation, against the separation wall, discrimination and racism, mastery and patronism, humiliation and boycott, exploitation and occupation.
Related Posts
- ‘Times’ sympathizes with Israeli athlete hurt by international politics, but not the 100s of Palestinian athletes in a similar situation
- ‘Times’ says there are equal #s of Jews and Palestinians between river and sea; Mearsheimer says, more Palestinians
- Aboelela: ‘detribalize’ the narrative and Americans will start to empathize with Palestinians
- ‘Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians? What About the Arab Jews?’
- ‘Encountering Jews Who Are Progressive about All Issues but Palestine Is an Awful and Uncomfortable Situation for Non-Jewish People’ –Anne Silver
{ 88 comments }
Please more Joseph Dana. he is absolutely hilarious. I read his left wing psycho babble aloud in my office and people were rolling on the floor in laughter.
"The difference between living together and co-existence is perhaps not very significant for those who are not familiar with the dialogue groups, peace encounters, peace tents and creativity workshops that characterized the dialogue style of the nineties, but the difference is enormous. It means living together, struggling together against alienation, against the separation wall, discrimination and racism, mastery and patronism, humiliation and boycott, exploitation and occupation."
Peace encounters, peace tents, creativity workshops. You just can't make this stuff up.
Please more Joseph Dana. he is absolutely hilarious. I read his left wing psycho babble aloud in my office and people were rolling on the floor in laughter.
"The difference between living together and co-existence is perhaps not very significant for those who are not familiar with the dialogue groups, peace encounters, peace tents and creativity workshops that characterized the dialogue style of the nineties, but the difference is enormous. It means living together, struggling together against alienation, against the separation wall, discrimination and racism, mastery and patronism, humiliation and boycott, exploitation and occupation."
Peace encounters, peace tents, creativity workshops. You just can't make this stuff up.
I have a suggestion. Why don't we seek to bring justice. In order to have justice we need the truth first.
1. The refugees were created as a direct result of Arab nations invading Israel. Where compensation is due it is owed by the Arabs.
2. There is no precedent in human history the shares the definition of what an actual refugee is with the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians. If we take away the incentive to remain a refugee most of the problem will evaporate. The actual number of real refugees is quite low and Israel has repatriated 150k or so of them. Time for the Arab nations to stop the charade.
3. There is no such thing as a 1967 border. It was a demarcation line and nothing more. Israel has just as much right to govern the land that is not private property as any Arab terrorists demanding a state.
Is there anything to be learned from a conflict that is less ethically centered? Just to get a start towards the better strategic plan? Maybe–Korea? Right now the two states are co-existing, rather than living together. US troops at the border provide the insurance, such as it is. I wonder how many Koreans would rather have one state, deep in their heart? How do you get past the elite's vested interests on either side? What would happen if the US troops were pulled out? What larger powers with interests in the area would agree to a referendum on each side? I can't see North Korea ever allowing that. I see I'm getting nowhere fast… And that's with a scenario with many extended families living on both sides of the divide.
Americans, regardless of their religion or ethnicity, should have no say in the affairs of Palestinians or Israelis. It is not American territory that was confiscated to make an Israeli state, nor were Americans treated so horribly by the Nazis. America is only involved in the Israel – Palestine conflict because of its subsidy of Israeli aggression. The subsidy must end so that Israelis and Palestinians can sort our their differences without the undue interference of such a huge materiel facilitator to one side of the conflict. If the US had not become Israel's major economic and military weapons benefactor after the 1967 War, the expansion of settlements and the continuous oppression of the Palestinians and Lebanese could not have taken place as they did. The first thing that must be done is to end all US aid to Israel, before any reconciliation can begin between the Israelis and Palestinians. The second thing that must be done is to stop the meddling in each nation's affairs. Americans started the conflict with their UN Mandate in 1947, that Truman rammed through that nascent organization. The best way forward is for the US to renounce any involvement with Israel, and to prosecute its own citizens for their unlawful involvement in the settlements outside the Green Line. Ending the US special relationship with the rogue state of Israel will do more to end the conflict than anything else the US could do, with the exception of arming Palestine as generously as it has armed Israel, which would only result in more bloodshed.
The answer: the U.S. and international community should be guardians of human rights and int'l law, not be forcing a solution down the parties throats. Our primary role should be monitoring negotiations to make sure they are being carried out in accordance with principles of human rights and international law. Instead, the role we are playing is to ensure that one party has coercive power over the other party. We are currently playing an extremely negative role. END THAT. Then let's talk about what our favored solution should be: http://www.endtheoccupation.org
re: "Do you believe there should be a Jewish state?" Answer: no. It's time for an immediate South African style solution, with equal rights for all, and the end of Jewish Supremacism.
Jack barely answered your question. Joseph didn't at all (except in the activist/anarchist slogan, "the means are the ends"). I guess they're unwilling to form actual goals, "eyes on the prize". For all the comparisons with the American civil rights struggle, THAT was the dominant theme "eyes on the prize", not complain and reject anyone that doesn't go through the same political path as you to get to mutual decency. The dissenting path as prerequisite puts fascists in the same march as humanists. In contrast, the peace/justice path puts humanist Zionists in the same march as humanist Palestinians, actually creating something. I found it interesting that in the Nelim interview with Naomi Klein, she referred to attempting to affect the investment decisions of the big money players, college endowments, pension funds. It struck me as a denial of the grass-roots, that the only significance of community action was to create political pressure that the elite followed, rather than to be able to create something at the grass-roots themselves. Its consistent with the dissatisfaction that the mass media doesn't report your message, as you would hope. Its a disempowerment, an urging of passivity rather than an urging of empowerment and responsibility.
A Jewish state is totally incompatible with regional peace. It has to be dismantled. Every honest observer recognizes this.
Historically, non-Zionists and anti-Zionists were prominent in the debate, and from all perspectives. Even the Lubavitch movement, that is often ridiculed was anti-Zionist until 1948, and then indifferent-Zionist until 1967. They only became pro-Zionist connected to the settlement movement, and there is some contreversy about that. The socialists fought, literally, with the Zionists of all stripes prior to 1948. If your goal is anti-Zionism in all respects, meaning no Jewish haven, then we are at odds. If your goal is equal due process under the law for Palestinians, and viable self-governance, then we are allies. As many others have stated, its not just an intellectual game.
The deaf, dumb and blind kid, sure wants to direct them all. Notice: decision making by consensus. That means input from everyone. No one is looking for you to lead them. So they are "fascists" if they aren't as complacently disinterested about the injustice against Palestinians? Interesting definition of fascists. It's interesting that you always have to criticize people that actually don't look the other way but act. Would you call Germans in the 30s/40s that tried to help some Jews "fascists" too, if they didn't have an elaborated manifesto first, but simply decided it was more important to help?
Witty, your comparison is really disingenuous. As I've said before, your understanding of the Civil Rights movement is ahistorical and stereotypical in the extreme. Furthermore, the Civil Rights marchers had constitutional amendments and Supreme Court rulings on their side, so the articulated vision was already there, they just had to figure out how to actually get the local, state, and federal governments to respect it. On the other hand, the farmers of Saffa and Bil'in, the schoolchildren of Hebron and At-Tuwani, have no rights. Zero. They have no collective rights, no state rights, no human rights. You want positive visions? Here's a few: The people of Saffa should be able to get to their land, and farm it, without being attacked. The children of At-Tuwani should be able to walk to school without being attacked. The people of Bil'in should be able to get to their land and farm it. Here are a few more: International law and universal principles of human rights should be the guiding framework for any discussion. The coercive power available to an occupying power needs to be recognized and dealt with for any negotiation to take place on anything like even footing. It is such obfuscation to say that the issue here is that the Palestinians somehow haven't formulated a positive enough solution.
This is why I remain agnostic on the question of Zionism. Any term that can be as widely defined as "a Jewish haven," as Witty would have it, "a Jewish state in the historic land of Palestine," as Ben-Gurion would have it, or "a Jewish state in all of Biblical Eretz Israel," as others would have it, is a pretty useless term for discussion. What's a "Jewish haven," Witty? Does it respect the equal rights of all its citizens? Does it teach the history of not only its Ashkenazi Jewish citizens but of its Mizrahi and Palestinian citizens? Is its anthem and flag inclusive of all of its citizens? I think, since you are the great advocate of positive solutions rather than criticism, that you should articulate very clearly what your vision is.
I have to ask, Witty, since you are fond of bringing up the Civil Rights movement and the need for positive solutions. Would you have opposed suits against members of the Klan during the Civil Rights era as too "negative"? How about suits against local officials who aided and abetted murders of integrationists and civil rights workers? Would you have opposed the Montgomery bus boycott as negative and not articulating a clear enough grand vision? How about the lunch counter sit-ins? Would you have derided these, as you did the Free Gaza movement, as a "clever tactic," and then wondered out loud what the response of local law enforcement should be if the response was more "rioting" (what all of the Southern politicians referred to demonstrations and marches as, btw)?
Zioshmooze vs. Plain English
Two points to a pretty open ended topic. 1. There is a difference between zionism in general and the Israeli form of zionism. Yes, there are rights of self-determination that can lead to groups forming new countries, but that does not give them the right to take away other peoples rights. As I've posted before, if the Moonies decided they wanted their own state that would be one thing, but if they said it was going to be New York city and state and anyone who isn't a Moonie would be killed or ethnically cleansed that would be another. The start of the problem was the creation of Israel in Palestine without taking into account the majority of inhabitants of that region, let alone asking them. Other places had been considered as suitable, and if any other had been selected there would be no I/P issue – at the end of the day the zionists created the I/P problem not the Palestinians who just wanted to keep farming their land and fishing their waters. 2. The solution. I'm a one-stater but there might be different routes to get there. One possible solution would be a federal structure – "The Federal States of Palestine" which would be Israel, Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. There would be free movement of people between the states and equal rights. A Federal Government would have control of borders, currency, foreign policy, defence etc with a one person one vote structure. However some powers would be devolved to the regions. This would allow there still to be an "Israel", keep Jerusalem one political body, integrate all lands west of the Jordan, while recognising that all people should be treated equally however they answer the question "are you jewish". Ironically, Netanyahu's ideas of economic development and partial rights of a statelet for the WB and Gaza could actually lead to such a one state solution – not something I'd have thought he wanted.
I discuss the real meaning of Zionist refugeeism in
Its just a failure of dissent thats all. Its easy to criticize. There is much to criticize. More is needed is the point.
You didn't read my post?
You are not doing your work is the point. Again, it is easy to criticize, and difficult to create. Creating is what is needed.
The Free Gaza boats have not been burned and lynched, thankfully. I enthusiastically support Palestinians asserting legal claims. You spoke earlier that there was no court statement in the case of Israel that maltreatment of Palestinians was illegal, that the civil rights cases were then qualitatively different from the Palestinians'. Thats innaccurate. The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occassions that Palestinians are entitled to equal due process under the law, and have often not received it. The IDF has not enforced the rulings of the Israeli Supreme Court consistently, and Palestinians have valid and important legal claims which they should not shrink from. To the extent that they employ means that are perceived as physically threatening however, rock-throwing for example as individually symbolic as it is, they DELAY their respect and DELAY their liberation.
The current world there is two distinct peoples. They don't think of themselves as "Americans".
there is a frontier that has not been passed, even by our phil, and that is the glaringly obvious awareness that the idea of israel was ethically wrong from the get-go.
The next frontier is for the community that largely supported and forced Israel on the rest of us, while talking civil rights at home, to stop talking about their role in civil rights. It's way past looking like hypocrisy and political opportunism.
The discussion of one-state-two-state-Jewish-state absolves Israel of any commitment or participation. Force Israel to create a constitution. Then a real discussion can begin because the fault lines will appear. The discussion of one-state-two-state-Jewish-state then becomes real and has consequences.
Good idea, but who is going to do the forcing? I get the impression that many of the elites in the U.S. would rather see the U.S. constitution destroyed than see Israel forced to write one of their own.
Martillo – links of yours in the last few posts are broken
sorry – not these two but others
" You spoke earlier that there was no court statement in the case of Israel that maltreatment of Palestinians was illegal, that the civil rights cases were then qualitatively different from the Palestinians'. Thats innaccurate. The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occassions that Palestinians are entitled to equal due process under the law, and have often not received it." This is an excellent point. The hypocrisy comes in here: "To the extent that they employ means that are perceived as physically threatening however, rock-throwing for example as individually symbolic as it is, they DELAY their respect and DELAY their liberation." If this statement was made by a practitioner of nonviolent direct action, that would be one thing. But as it is, here's what I hear you saying: "I see that the Palestinians have legitimate legal claims and that those legal claims are being completely ignored by the Israeli military. However, I really can't grant the Palestinians their claims, nor can I advocate on behalf of these claims, because they are not asking nicely enough. So in the meantime, I'll need to give the Israeli government, which I just noted applies different systems of law to different systems of government, the benefit of the doubt, since they seem nice and rational, in that apartheid sense of the term rational."
here here
Send me an email at ThorsProvoni@aol.com and I will fix them.
Sanctions are the only way to bring Israelis to their senses. The Israeli standard of living is based on very fragile foundations. In the absence of any meaningful international response to the ongoing outrages of Zionism the Israelis will probably think they'll get away with another dose of ethnic cleansing to sort out the Arab problem once and for all. the consequences don't bear thinking about. Zionism must be defeated. It's not a responsible ideology capable of changing to meet the needs of the 21st century. The whole Middle East is frozen politically because of Israel.
As usual Witty has the cart before the horse; the horse is giving the American grass roots the whole story on the I-P conflict. That has yet to be done; it's like the grass roots doing something about Vietnam without the Pentagon Papers. BTW, Witty, humanists are humanists, not narrowed versions that makes the category an oxymoron. A qualifying adjective is not a noun. Twerp.
What are they, jews and gentiles? I agree, that's an old concept; Hitler was not a creator.
Exodus from Israel may well decide the question of a Jewish state. Ian Lustick writes: ‘Late in 2007, the director-general of Israel’s Ministry of Absorption … announced … that “between 18,000 and 21,000 Israelis emigrate each year.” In recent years, passionate discussions have been underway regarding the “brain drain,” emigration of talented Israelis, especially university professors. In 2006, a study … reported that 2.6 percent of all married, college-educated Jews who were in Israel in 1995 were classified as emigrants in 2002. In 2007, the first official estimate was released since the mid-1980s that emigration would exceed immigration. In April 2007 … only 14,400 immigrants (including non-Jews) were expected in 2007, while it was predicted that 20,000 Israelis would leave the country. In a widely cited study, a prominent Israeli economist published data showing that nearly 25 percent of all Israeli academics were teaching in the United States in the academic year 2003/04. This was the highest proportion of any other country’s scholars and twice as high as the next closest country, Canada.’ And he says elsewhere: ‘Thanks to ceaseless Israeli aggression, ‘Muslims in the Middle East hate Israel more than they love the Palestinians, while Israelis see the Middle East as a whole as … “botz” [muck] encouraging those who can to prepare future lives for themselves and their children in Europe, America, or Australia. Instead of moderates on each side exploiting the rational human desire to avoid losing everything in order to save something, extremists on each side are prevailing. Reinforced by despair at the apparent inhumanity of the Arab/Muslim or Jewish/Zionist enemy, their messages of “No, Never!” have helped turn both Israelis and Arabs toward styles of thinking that avoid even contemplating a future in which Israel is an integral part of the region.’
I agreee plus……. First establishing Israel was bad for Jews. The original idea was for jewish "seperateness" because they couldn't or wouldn't get along in other cultures or countries. The holocuast just gave a reason to UK and UN and US to allow it. Israel can now exist or not, up to them. BUT..since "seperateness" ..their "own" "jewish country" is the big thing with Jews for Israel let them have exactly what the UN gave them as Israel and nothing more. Then let Israel scrabble on their own…no aid, no arms. Despite trillions of dollars handed over to Israel and the Jews not a day goes by that they don't scream..:No body ever did anything for the jews!!!" So let's quit doing anything for them…way,way pass time. If the world hasn't solved the jewish or zioinist problem in 21 centuries and the jews haven't solved their own problem with the world in 21 centuries it's never going to solved. Time to wash our hands the problem..
"Again, it is easy to criticize, and difficult to create. Creating is what is needed." This statement HAD to have set off some kind of cosmic irony meter. If you really believe that creating is what is needed, then why do you let yourself off the hook and content yourself with easy and mostly meaningless criticism? Have you ever done anything OTHER THAN criticize others? Do you think you are exempt from taking your own advice?
A big part of the problem is that Israel has no Constitution and thus no requirement that the executive branch enforce Israeli Supreme Court rulings. For the most part they are meaningless expressions that have no relationship to reality. As I said before, it is as if Brown versus Board of Education was only applied to Linda Brown and every other black child who wanted an equal education had to separately sue for enforcement of their rights. In actuality it is even worse, because oftentimes the Israeli Supreme Court decisions are not even enforced in the specific case on which they rule. In the US a Supreme Court ruling means a lot and can and has often altered the course of the US political life. In Israel a ruling means next to nothing if the government is not already inclined to agree with it, so it has no real independent power.
"To the extent that they employ means that are perceived as physically threatening however, rock-throwing for example as individually symbolic as it is, they DELAY their respect and DELAY their liberation." This was not the case for the nascent state of Israel, which actively pursued its liberation through violence, nor was it the case during the fight for independence in the US. Its a moral equivalency type of argument. YOUR throwing stones is merely a struggle for independence and self-determination. THEIR throwing stones shows a propensity for violence and a reason to delay THEIR liberation until every last one of them behaves the way you want. Its not the act that you mind, its who's doing it that bothers you.
That's exactly what the Palestinians ask for! And my dream would come true which is to watch the Zionists run screaming into the sea!
I like this from the new England Committee to defend Palestine: The only just solution is the establishment of a unified and democratic state of Palestine that includes all of Historic Palestine (most of which is today called Israel). This State would be populated by the displaced Palestinians and their diaspora and be open to people of all religions, races, and ethnicities, including Jewish people. The "two-state solution" legitimizes the colonization of Palestine and the existence of a state founded on the forced displacement of another people. It requires that the history of Israel's creation, the plight of the indigenous people, and what existed before be erased and forgotten. It is unjust and will not bring peace. A unified and democratic Palestine would recognize the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to full self-determination and the right of all Palestinian refugees to return to and repossess their original homes and lands. It is the only legitimate basis for peace and justice.
It has reached the point of hopelessness. Israelis couldn't leap frog to the type of awareness required for a peaceful solution. They've been led to thuggery. No doubt from being nurtured on myths, hidden agendas and untruths.
What I've done is to communicate the status and experience of Palestinians, to the extent that I'm aware in a compassionate tone, to communities that otherwise would not know of their experience.
The most effective approach is the one that actually ILLUSTRATES the specific question that you are attempting to raise. When you accept even light violence then THAT becomes the message conveyed and not the skillful selection of target of civil disobedience, nor the respect that courageous civil disobedience engenders.
Israel has a set of fundamental laws which function as a constitution. To say that it has no constitution is equivalent to saying the US is not a democracy because it has a Congress rather than a parliament.
On the contrary. I WISH so much that Palestinians would about concise methods of dissent that address single issues non-violently, SO that Israel would be forced to apply equal due process under the law in a color-blind manner.
It was referring to the difference between Jewish residents and Palestinian residents thinking of themselves as Jews or Arabs PRIMARILY, in contrast to Irish Americans and Italian and Jewish Americans thinking of themselves as primarily Americans. If you want to optimize democracy, you have to respond to the conditions that actually exist. If you want to create new conditions, then you have to think a bit further ahead.
Its TIME to take the risk to propose a solution and work towards a distinct positive goal. Health for example to some is the absence of malady. To others, most, its a positive value.
What a bunch of idiotic statements! All they have to do in Israel is to remove the Arabs to Jordan. That's it: no more blood. Hopefully, they'll do it the sooner the better and my government will contribute to this project.
Witty, again, it sounds nice, but once you get to the essence of it, I really disagree. Dozens of "solutions" have been proposes. What they've all lacked in substance was the recognition of human rights. I think human rights, as ensconced in international law, are a distinct, positive goal. For U.S. citizens, I think working to make sure that U.S. policy toward Israel/Palestine is consistent with human rights and international law is a perfectly valid positive goal. What this does is ensure that there is room for Israelis and Palestinians to negotiation on equal terms. But in order to achieve this, the massive power imbalance has to change. But as soon as you start addressing that massive power imbalance, some folks–not to name names–are going to tell you to stop being so negative and critical all the time. Baloney. Just as in S. Africa, just as in the civil rights movement here, power structures had to be challenged, critiqued, and isolated in order for meaningful negotiations and progress to take place. What will the solution look like? I put my trust in the creativity of those Palestinians and Israelis who work together for peace and justice to come up with a far better solution than the U.S. government will come up with while merrily funding one side with $3billion/year worth of high tech weaponry. Perhaps it will be a true two-state solution, although–having lived in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank for a year a half–this is looking less and less likely. Perhaps its a one-person, one-vote secular democracy. Perhaps its a regional confederation. But none of these options are worth arguing about as long as Palestinians' basic human rights are so completely and systematically denied, with our tax dollars and our UN vetoes protecting that denial of rights.
"Do you believe there should be a Jewish state?" I believe there is an Israel, and it will and should continue. If by "Jewish State" is meant one where only people certified by certain religious leaders as members of the tribe get full citizenship, then I would say no, that is inconsistent with both American and Jewish civic values. So I think there is an Israel, it should continue, but it should stop treating its non-Jewish citizens as other than equals. As to the Palestinians, they should either have full citizenship in their own state, or in Israel. I suspect that two states is more palatable now to both sides, and is the likely outcome of a peace process, but neither one should be encouraged to practice racial or religious Apartheid. With two states and peace and justice, and religious freedom, and civil rights for all, a general prosperity is possible. Over time, two states could evolve into one, but that is unlikely. Moreover, I'm not sure this is the right question. Israel has been behaving badly for a long time, and has continually tried to avoid openly and honestly dealing with its neighbors and even its own citizens with respect to resolving things. It appears not to want to resolve things, so it can continue on its present course of absorbing land from the Palestinians, while encouraging them to leave, sometimes with "extreme prejudice". Do you believe there should be a Jewish State? may just be another way to change the subject again (and it also looks like just another repackaging of the existential threat meme.). What is needed is for Israel to stop behaving badly, now. Once that happens, various ways forward are possible.
I have a better idea. Send Ulf and his Judeo-Nazi pals back to Des Moines (or whatever shithole they came from before invading Palestinian land).
I like Dana's ideas of "dialogue groups, peace encounters, peace tents and creativity workshops" and singing kumbaya. Do I get to smoke a peace pipe in the peace tent?
When I see a phrase like "humanist Zionist" it reminds me of that old joke about "military intelligence" being a contradiction in terms.
I have even better idea for a dirty mouth of yours, lovelyisraelis : how about sticking a nice AK-47 into your shithole? You Arabs like having sex with camels and other innocent animals. Perhaps it will teach you and your Islamo-nazi pals a lesson. Jordan is a place for Pals and they should kiss Israelis asses. In any case, our government has supplied Israelis with submarines to carry nuclear missiles. Whatever the end for them, they will always strike back.
Sorry, more killing is not the desirable outcome. Respect Israel's legal borders and state even if you disagree with their mandate. They were established by a world governmental body and everyone must learn to live with the decision, especially the Israelis, who have militantly seized more territory for their state. The militant occupation of Palestinian, and other's, territory outside the UN established borders is the major cause of the conflict. US arms have been the primary component of Israel's military advantage, and mostly they are given as foreign aid. Ending the American subsidy of Israel's military is suggested with the hope Israel will learn to be happy with what has already been ceded to it. If Israel, after the US has stopped military and economic aid to Israel, continues a planned, mechanized and institutional expropriation of Palestinian lands with the same heinous crimes against humanity that occur now, then the US should consider defending the Palestinian side of the 1947 UN Mandate against Israel. But first the Israelis should be given the chance to reign in their terror, observe their borders and live peacefully with their neighbors in the land they are so lucky to call Israel. What Americans can do is stop giving Israelis weapons. American weapons turn people into monsters.
After studding these comments carefully, I see quite a number of little Nazis on these pages, lovelyisraelis, seafoid , matter, American (Yeh!! American Nazi-Arab or Black Nazi-Muslim?), just to name a few; and believe me guys, given my place of birth I know what I'm talking about. That Klan's ideas used to be my neighborhood as well. The things have changed for me though, but not for you my dear Klansmen. The good thing, however, is that nowadays, after the establishment of Israel, Jews are no any longer willing to swallow your anti-Semitic crap any longer. Hopefully, they will teach Palestinians and their supports a lesson (THE LESSON), something of a kind that Russians, Americans and Brits taught us more than 60 years ago. Good luck Israel! My friends and I will certainly help you if needed.
The UN established borders for Israel are 55% of Mandate Palestine and the Green Line is at 78%. So even if the settlements are abandoned, a large chunk of Palestine that was not in the original partition will wind up in Israel. It's an improvement over the current situation but it hardly seems fair.
The "Israelis" can keep expanding every which way and on their borders will be people on every side who possess a sacred vow to God to remove THEM. Right on their heels 247. Every single day. Breathing down their necks, watching, plotting, planning, making deals with others. The Israelis even now live like OJ Simpson after his acquittal. Hated, despised by the world with the exception of other evil ones who benefit in some way or another. Everyday more and more people come to know that Israel is the fruit of the devil himself.
Ulf Drezden I think you should post the phone number of your doctor, I am sure they are looking for you and worried sick.
David, that is a thoughtful and useful comment. Perhaps Israeli intransigence will diminish when the financial backing ceases.
No, they don't function as a constitution, because they don't set out the powers of the various branches of government. The Israeli executive has no written basic obligation to uphold the laws of Israel as they are interpreted by the Israeli Supreme Court. Thus, the Israeli Supreme Court rulings have little or no direct consequence on the actions of the executive UNLESS the Israeli executive CHOOSES to abide by them., which many times, especially with respect to the Palestinians, it fails to do. If the executive branch in the US blatantly ignored a Supreme Court ruling, it would be considered a major constitutional crisis, just as it was when Nixon sought to avoid turning over his audio tapes. The Israeli executive has consistently, for decades, ignored Israeli Supreme Court rulings it doesn't agree with and yet there is no constitutional crisis that threatens to tear the country apart simply because there is no Israeli constitution and the Supreme Court is toothless. This is one reason why the protestors in Bi'lin have to keep struggling for the IDF to acknowledge the Israeli Supreme Court's order to move the separation wall off their village land. Its also the reason why the villagers of Biram and Ikrit, all citizens of Israel, have never been allowed to return to their homes, despite an Israeli Supreme Court ruling in their favor in 1951.
Why do you place the responsibility and blame for Israel's refusal to treat the Palestinians with justice and equality on the Palestinians? Justice and equality are human rights not privileges that can be denied or taken away collectively just because an individual or individuals resort to violence. Blaming Palestinians for their treatment by Israel is the same as blaming Jews for Kristallnacht. If only Grynszpan hadn't resorted to violence and instead used "concise methods of dissent that address single issues non-violently" Germany would have been forced to treat its Jews justly, right? Good grief, what a load of bull! I see no indication that Israel is ready to apply equal due process, regardless of whether Palestinians react non-violently or not to the abrogation of their human rights, and I see even less indication that Israel is interested in true equality of treatment, which goes way beyond your very limited interest in "due process". This is a failure of Israel and of no one else, just as the failure of the US to treat its black citizens equally was a failure of the US and NOT of its blacks. If you can't acknowledge Israel's responsibility for its own behavior, then you are guilty of moral equivalency.
Of course it functions as a constitution. England for example does NOT have a constitution, but equal due process under the law is effective. And, (I'm sorry that you're not aware of this about the US), it took an assertive Supreme Court early to declare that it had the right to rule with any teeth on the constitutional process or legal questions. (Marbury vs Madison) You're desparately looking for rationalization to support revolutionary approach rather than reform, when reform is needed, and will only happen when motivated people pursue it.
Assuming for the moment that your description above of what you've done is accurate, you are doing very little and yet you have the chutzpah to criticize those who are doing much much more than you of failing to do enough and failure to have a coherent action plan towards a definable goal. Physician, heal thyself.
Justice is only applied when asserted. It takes Palestinians speaking up (not ranting up) to assert their legal rights. Its like that everywhere where there is active competition for anything. There is a basis and a means for them to do so. To rationalize rage (a form of passivity frankly) as an end point rather than rage as a beginning point of information to define what to actually do, is childish. There are wonderful Palestinians that are asserting their sovereignty by the degree of responsibility that they take for their own people, and for relations with others. And, there are Palestinians and solidarity that are primarily whining. The whining is emotionally satisfying to join for dissent, and utterly ineffective for any temporary or permanent improvement in Palestinian status and experience.
So work for human rights. FOR is the key word.
Ulf is like Chris Barrel (or maybe he's another of Barrel-roll's sockpuppet accounts). Zionists cry antisemitism while being anti-semitic. Zionists cry hypocrisy while being hypocritical. Zionists cry vulgarity while being vulgar. Try to ignore them. (I'm not one to talk though.) Also notice how often their insults have to do with sex. It's the same on YouTube with pro-Israel commentators and generally the European (white mainly) ethnocentric/nationalist crowd. Ashkenazi Jews are white and so the shortbus White nationalists on YouTube are now supporting Jews because they are fighting brown people. Funny how things work out. Just goes to show you that while it's important to understand the German fascists and their legitimate grievances against the Jewish community at that the time (without condoning 'the Final solution' this problem) – they were still just a bunch of racist/chauvinists. No wonder White nationalism is utterly defeated. It's simplistic/superficial/anti-intellectualism has been exposed. We need to do the same to Jewish nationalism and supremacy/racism. It's exactly the same. Jews can shovel the Holocaust down peoples' throats though. That's the difference, while they have white skin/chauvinism/ultra-nationalism AND are part of the Establishment.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, Witty you take the kosher cake. David offers astute umbrella analysis, the laws that should govern, and an initial list of relevant actions to take. He is doing his work, sharing constructive ideas towards positing a viable vision from which to act. What work are you doing? Nothing but nit-picking a well-made starter coat to put on to weather the storm.
The Israeli Supreme Court is not supreme; it is not in any sense an equal branch of government and is ignored at will. The Basic laws (since Israel has no constitution) are interpreted so that they in effect are discriminatory in a web of rules and laws that define higher rights by use of the catagory of those allowed the law of return as distinguished from those not covered by the law of return. The Nazi regime also had laws, courts, (conditional) privileges such as permits as distinct from rights, etc.
David obviously did read your post, hence his questions. Now why don't you answer them, one by one? When you toss out phrases like "equality before the law" and "due process" for all, please acknowledge that those phrases mean one thing under US constitutional law as founded, amended, and implemented, but quite another under the Israeli law de jure and de facto matrix.
Hitler has been reincarnated? Good to know.
You're just as sick as him. Go get help.
Newsflash: It was the Palestinians who didn't accept the UN arrangement.
Because the UN took away 55% of their land.
England has centuries of common law and the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty that serve as a basis for Britain's unwritten constitution. Israel has no such legacy and has specifically failed to create a Constitution despite repeated attempts. To claim that the Basic Laws are the same as a constitution flies in the face of Israel's own prolonged attempt to create a constitution that can be agreed on and ratified. My main point is that citing Israeli Supreme Court rulings means next to nothing as regards the status of Palestinians( both as citizens and as the occupied) in Israel, because Israel has NO constitutional guarantee that its Supreme Court rulings will be enforced as law by the Israeli executive. So mostly they are not enforced, and when they are it is merely on an ad hoc basis, with no real improvement guaranteed on anything more than the specific case adjudicated. Why do you assume that I am not aware of Marbury vs. Madison, which proves my point and not yours? It was a part of a constitutional crisis that threatened the stability and core of the American system of government. No Israeli court decisions have ever done such a thing, nor has the failure of the Israeli executive to enforce a Supreme Court decision ever provoked such a crisis simply because there is no Israeli constitutional requirement that makes its Supreme Court rulings unignorable. Therefore, pinning your hopes and justifications of the Israeli system on such rulings are pointless. I don't consider what Ta'ayush and others are doing is a "revolutionary approach", and more than anything else they are the ones who I see have the greatest hope of reforming Israel . They are motivated people who are pursuing reform and all you are doing is criticizing them and rationalizing Israeli intransigence and injustice. I'm not sure who it was here who mentioned King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" but you ought to re-read it, because it was addressed to people like you.
As Bibi Netanyahu.
Palestinians have been speaking up to assert their rights for decades, and it has gotten them nowhere, because Israel is not interested in treating all its citizens and subjects as equals. (The same can be said historically for blacks. The problem wasn't that blacks didn't ask nicely enough for their rights until the 50s and 60s. No, the problem was that most whites were not even ready to consider treating blacks as equals until that time.The same could be said for the end of slavery. It happened not because blacks suddenly decided to ask nicely for it to end, but instead it happened because enough whites chose to question its morality and legitimacy. Until Israel changes, nothing the Palestinians do to secure their rights will work. That is why Ta'ayush and other groups are so important because they point the way to a change in Israeli society which will value all its people and seek to treat them all as equals. Only that will lead to peace on both sides. As the primary whiner here at Mondoweiss, you seem not to be aware of the irony of many of your statements. Perhaps you find your own whining emotionally satisfying, but it does absolutely nothing to improve the lot of either the Palestinians or of Israeli Jews, or of American Jews for that matter.
The discussion is between human beings who support the Palestinians and garbage from the sewer who support Israel. It really IS that simple.
So, don't hear my point about the inneffectiveness of assaultive dissent. There is more skillful possible.
I see that you feel despondent, that what has been done has not borne fruit. There are MANY reasons why hoped for or intended outcomes don't occur. An effective approach would be to analyze, coolly, NOT to whine about it, so as to rationalize more decibels, rather than more skill.
"thedhimmi who's not really a dhimmi. "
What exactly qualifies the United States to be a guardian of human rights and international law?
I am not despondent Richard. Perhaps you are and are projecting again. There are no decibels in an online forum, but perhaps you should analyze coolly why your posts are making no headway with anyone here.
Your point is like many of your "points" here. It is meaningless blather from someone who does nothing but whine and criticize others who are attempting to do something about injustice. Again, read "Letter from a Birmingham Jail". If you think that Ta'ayush is engaged in what you term "assaultive dissent" then so were King and Gandhi.
Actually, it was the Arabs who didn't accept the UN arrangement. They didn't start thinking of themselves as Palestinians until after the 6-day war.
That solution is not a just solution it is a Final Solution. As in, the Palestinians would exterminate the Jews. Thanks, the Jews will pass on being the Palestinians' dhimmis (and then a pile of corpses). "A unified and democratic Palestine", no doubt powered by magical elves who create food and electricity out of thin air. It is a fantasy. When I hear people talk like that I know they are too naive for their opinion to be worth anything. The Palestinians can't even get along with each other without Hamas slaughtering Fatah members and vice versa and you think they would be "just" and "peaceful" with the Jews in a country they control? You are delusional or lying, or most likely, both.
My best positive thinking.
Comments on this entry are closed.