Tony Judt has an important piece on today's Times Op-Ed page with bad news: the settlements are not going anywhere, they represent 10 percent of the Jewish population, and the belief that they are going away is "fictions on the ground" that delude us all about an eventual two-state solution. Key excerpts:
The Israeli authorities, whether left,
right or center, have no intention of removing [the settlements], and neither
Palestinians nor informed Americans harbor illusions on this score.
To be sure, it suits almost everyone to pretend otherwise — to point to
the 2003 “road map” and speak of a final accord based on the 1967
frontiers. But such feigned obliviousness is the small change of
political hypocrisy, the lubricant of diplomatic exchange that
facilitates communication and compromise.
There are occasions,
however, when political hypocrisy is its own nemesis, and this is one
of them. Because the settlements will never go, and yet almost everyone
likes to pretend otherwise, we have resolutely ignored the implications
of what Israelis have long been proud to call “the facts on the
ground.”..
[Last week] the
prime minister restated the unvarnished truth: His government has no
intention of recognizing international law or opinion with respect to
Israel’s land-grab in “Judea and Samaria.”…
[I]f I am right,
and there is no realistic prospect of removing Israel’s settlements,
then for the American government to agree that the mere nonexpansion of
“authorized” settlements is a genuine step toward peace would be the
worst possible outcome of the present diplomatic dance. No one else in
the world believes this fairy tale; why should we? Israel’s political
elite would breathe an unmerited sigh of relief, having once again
pulled the wool over the eyes of its paymaster. The United States would
be humiliated in the eyes of its friends, not to speak of its foes. If
America cannot stand up for its own interests in the region, at least
let it not be played yet again for a patsy.
Two responses:
Adam Horowitz: The Judt piece seems to reflect an interesting mini-trend to the
recent reporting on US policy on Israel/Palestine – Israeli
intransigence might harm Obama's international credibility. This was
also echoed this weekend in the LA Times "Tussle with Israel puts Obama credibility on the line, observers say."
It is
widely expected in Israel and the Arab world that the administration
will give ground and support at least some growth in the 120
[settlement] communities.
Opponents of such a move say the concessions
will not only disappoint the Arabs whom the president has courted, but
also will be read by adversaries around the globe as a signal that the
president can be forced to back down.
Along with debunking the natural growth argument (which Americans for Peace Now has been
doing a great job at doing), this could be another interesting line of
argument to reframe the issue in US interests and prod the
administration into action.
Weiss: Grim, wonderful piece, it suggests that the sooner American intellectuals wrap
their heads around a one-state future (the moral-realist vision Judt offered in 2003), the better. Judt seeks to blow away a ton of hypocrisy surrounding the goodness and likelihood of the two-state-solution, in
which innocent friends of mine are recruited. Though
yes, I also am engaged by the two-state talk, and think, Maybe Palestinians
should accept a state on any terms now, so that a new struggle can begin, in Israel and Palestine, without all the "existential" blackmail.
The arab villages were once facts on the ground, didn't stop them being 'wiped off the map' in 1948. Hopefully the next generation of Americans and Israelis will tear off their blindfolds and agree to abide by international law.
Weiss: "Maybe Palestinians should accept a state on any terms now…" Did you omit the word "not"? I support the two-state solution because I believe the Israelis would engage in genocide before they would agree to a binational state. Can anyone who watched the IDF in action in Gaza honestly disagree?
Hamas' stance justified once more. No one sees more clearly than they: nothing of value will come from the bleeding hearts and hand-wringers.
Talk Radio is beating the war drums against Iran as I speak; they've been doing it all day, one show after another. "Israel has no choice but to act (against Iran,Hamas, Hezbullah). Israel should act now during this turmoil; not wait for the Iranian dust to settle. Israel needs bunker-busting bombs from Obama to take out Israel; it doesn't matter if the USA gets blamed as the USA will get blamed by the Muslims anyway, both Persian and Arab. It's 1938. The West needs to support Israel, the last bastion of Western values. Send your sons and daughters to help Israel, set aside more of your budget for Israel, Israel is the key to civilization as we know it. Non-Stop, all over Talk Radio. Obama must fly up in the air for truth, justice, and the American Way–anyone who says differently is a hate-filled anti-semite!
Hamas has been a real failure. They have brought the people they rule miserable lives.
Ooops, I mean bunker-buster bombs to take out Iran. Pardon my freudian slip.
So American taxpayers are subsidizing Israeli immigrants getting a house? Our tax dollars can’t help families in the Bronx or Michigan, Sacramento or South Vegas but we can pay émigrés to Israel to live illegally and well? There’s your argument for the American people at this point in time. And it will have nothing to do with Israel, semitism, anti-semitism, Judaism, or the Holocaust. It will be outrage over money. Most Americans do not know that we pay for this. Not any of the ones I've asked over the past five years. They think we give them money for a wall. Actually, in my informal extended survey, the majority dont even know we give money to Israel. But I've seen signs this is changing.
A question: If Israel was created so that persecuted Jews would always have a safe place to go, what's the problem with over half the population being Palestinian? Israel has yet to produce a constitution. It can protect Jews when it writes one. If its goal is something else, then what is it?
They cry, You're drowning!, while holding your head underwater a Cuban
Yep, Hamas were real jerks when they bombed Gazan power plants, roads, schools, sanitation facilities, port facilities, police stations, factories, bakeries, warehouses, the international airport, and other civilian infrastructure. The construction of some of these buildings was financed by US taxpayers, and the damage to and destruction of those that have been bombed was entirely paid for by US taxpayers. Since Hamas is responsible for the misery of their destroyed civilian infrastructure, that mean that we paid Hamas to do it. But we couldn't have given money to Hamas! Something isn't right with my logic. Hmm … I wonder what it could be?
It's a blue monday for America. Obama has gone negative in the polls due to endless spending and not giving Israel bunker buster bombs, not killing more Arabs in Darfur, overlooking Iranian ballot stuffing–an unknown junior senator aligned with unprotested Acorn, is being show as the fraud and shame he is; the eight year cycle exchange of Dems and Repubs is all just a Ponzi scheme overall; McCain needs to copy Arlen Spector to reveal his true colors. Why do we glorify HItler Iran and degrade Michael Savage? Hear, hear Professor Washington, a real black American. Goldman Sacks runs America for the last three regimes; it is giving out record bonus payments to its officers; the thieves on Wall Street are stuffing their faces with taxpayer dollars. Father's Days has been attacked once again by the feminists. Nobody could build the Golden Gate Bridge today–they'd still be talking about who should build the pilings. Talk Radio is totally far right, while the MSM is leftist–except for Israel. America is inundated 24/7 with hasbara talking points from everywhere. Iran needs to be attacked. The Iranians will welcome us with flowers. Americans are getting on board; they've never heard this before. No jew ever got sick from eating a matzo ball. Real Americans can only benefit from eating kosher hamburgers. Trust me. I only want what is best for you and your children, 98% of the USA. So it is written, so G-D's will be done.
Israel has the best drivers and cars at all NASCAR events. Also, on all three History Channels.
I know Phil has been a long-time advocate of the one-state solution and it's the only thing on the Mondoweiss website that I can't understand. We see how the IDF treats Palestinians now — like animals. We see how Lieberman pushes a "loyalty vow" to disenfranchise the Arab population. We see how Netanyahu calls Israel a "Jewish state" meant to prevent the right of return from Palestinians. We see the bulldozers destroying Arab homes in Jerusalem. We see the inhuman treatment of Palestinian citizens in Operation Cast Lead. . . . Phil, my friend, how can you trust the Israelis to have a one-state solution? It will be South Africa all over again. And more to the point, it rewards Netanyahu with the Greater Israel he believes he was born to achieve. Why not bring NATO forces to patrol the borders? Why not re-annex the settlements within a pre-1967 border of Palestine as suggested by some of its politicians? Why reward Israeli intrasigence by redrawing the borders in a way George W. Bush verbally agreed winkingly upon to subvert Annapolis? Two states, side by side — using international troops to administer — why not?
My comment has not been posted as it awaits approval by the site admins.
No scenario is in the cards except continued settlements, apartheid. Think about it. The Jews hold the hole card–new or continued congressional or white house office. The elephant in the room is that 2% of the USA population hold the hole card, but if you mention it, you are an official nutcase. The USA is the new and improved USSR, and going down the same economic drain. The jews will bring the whole world to a new WW3, as they did WW2, and WW1. Study RICO acts, both federal and state versions. Mafia never existed, right?
"In the 'Times,' Judt hints what he said baldly in '03: 2-state solution is finished" It's funny but when Judt or anyone else (not to mention moi) observes something like this, noting the reality of just that one issue about all those settlers and the impossibility of moving them much less the obvious lack of will to do so on the part of Israel, nobody really disagrees. The facts are just too glaring. Israel would have a civil war if it tried to give away any substantial portion of the West Bank, which it never will. (And the anti-giveaway forces would win anyway.) But certainly nobody in power seems to ever grapple in the slightest with those facts, including amongst the Palestinians and arabs, and everyone else such as in the blogosphere and elsewhere seems to just forget them instantly too and go back towards cheering or booing this or that event or development as it relates to the supposed 2-state solution. So instantaneously we go back to parsing Netanyahu's speech to see if he has moved in Obama's ostensible two-state direction and blah blah blah as if that reality just didn't exist. And nobody thinks about what it means to continue to go down this path further because of necessity what it means is that while it seems Obama is turning the screws on Israel now a bit, just think of the enormous pressure and bribery that the U.S. will inevitably feels it must exert on the Palestinians "officials" to get them to accept the only crappy kind of deal possible. No wonder we want nothing to do with Hamas; not 1/8 as corrupt as the PA and susceptible to us hustling it into some garbage deal. Plus, what it means is that even if there *is* such a crappy, corrupt deal, is that the Palestinian *people* aren't likely to support it in anything like the long run anyway, meaning everything would go back to square one soon enough, except that then there really *would* be a more legitimate argument that Israel has no partner for peace. The only thing is … Israel seems to be the only party that knows damn well what the reality is, which is why it's so committed to continue settlement building even in the face of Obama. Otherwise, if it truly thought a two-state solution was at all possible in the foreseeable future it wouldn't matter and it would stop since with the signing of any such deal they would immediately have the *unlimited* right to expand all it wanted within its agreed-upon bounds. Ever more it can seem that the most valid lens through which to view this whole issue isn't political at all but psychological. The "psycho-pathological" in particular, involving the study of those who have lost of contact with reality, seeing and hearing things that aren't there, believing in fairy-tales and other fantasies and etc.
The settlers nor the settlements need go anywhere. What is needed is that this land be declared and recognized as Palestinian land on the basis of a Palestinian states right to exist – a right that requires sufficient land and resources to be viable. Just because the Israelis have thought themselves so crafty for systematically stealing Palestinian land is no reason to give it to them. As far as anyone should be concerned, the Israelis are contributing to the infrastructure of a future Palestinian state. That is the Palestinian land they are building on. Thanks. Much appreciated. We'll govern from here. The settlers would become defacto Jewish-Palestinians with the freedom to give up this citizenship if they chose to move into Israel proper.
A somber, sad prediction. Although I could equally foresee–without a two-state solution–the slow merging of the two peoples into one state, but only after another 50 years of of the past 40.
Thank you.
The American electorate rarely seems to be aware of its interests, and even more rarely, act upon those interests in elections.
I guess I'm speaking for Phil when I say this, so I'm probably out of line. But I think when most people speak of a one-state solution, they are speaking of one state with absolutely equal rights for all. The one-state you seem to refer to is essentially the "one-state" that presently exists–total Israeli control over the Palestinian population.
Agreed. Let the settlers come to some honest payment for the stolen land, and then let them stay. If the idea of the "Land" is as something holy as they proclaim, it should not matter a whit what political entity controls that land.
"The settlers nor the settlements need go anywhere. What is needed is that this land be declared and recognized as Palestinian land on the basis of a Palestinian states right to exist…." Theoretically. But the possibility of the Israelis abandoning those settlers is just a tad less than the possibility that it will forcibly remove them, meaning just 1 jot less than utterly impossible.
Judt neglected the leveraged profitability of the settlements. AIG was involved, and TARP money has kept the settlement enterprise going. Scamming Americans, Robbing Palestinians Followup: Scamming Americans, Robbing Palestinians
The Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves too, right Dimwit?
Unless Israel says 'for every every Israeli who becomes Palestinian, we will allow a Palestinian their right of return'. Cynical and crass as no settlers will take up the offer.
I don't think Israelis can stand treating a goy as an equal. Israeli society is profoundly racist and when you put it in context with how 'free' it is in comparison to for example, Saudi Arabia, it's quite telling. Kind of like Nazi Germany being the center of Europe and still being this back-wards racist fascist State. Israel = modern day Nazis.
I don't conclude AT ALL that the two state solution is dead from the Judt article. I conclude that if anything the green line as border with accepted minorities within both Israel and Palestine is the way to go. Let the settlers stay in Palestine if they like, as Palestinian citizens.
The only two state vision that is dead is the one with 20% Arabs in Israel, and .5% Jews in Palestine. That vision should be dead.
You know what though? I think the possibility exists that Israel could change into something else. Likely? Maybe not. I will say this–I am 58 yr. old and grew up in the American South. As a young kid, it was absolutely beyond my worldview/comprehension/understanding, etc., that racial segregation could ever end. It was considered the natural or normal state of things, accepted by every power that was. To think that blacks could be elected mayors, congresspersons, etc., could eat in the same restaurants as whites, drink from the same water fountains, was something unknown. I am describing my take on things when I was 10 yr. old in 1961. Within 5 or 6 yrs., all those things occurred, and within 10 yrs. integration seemed perfectly normal. Not to say that everything was hunky-dory, but integration became a normative value for the most part.
Do you agree then that Israeli Arabs would have full equality within Israel, commensurate with Israeli Jews having full equality within Palestine? I am referring of course to the religiously based strictures on Israeli Arabs' rights in terms of citizenship for spouses, and the like.
Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the PLO/DFLP/Hamas/Jihad in West Bank have all tried to impose a one-state solution by making a physical separation impossible, so far Gaza and Lebanon have largely failed, although the combination of rocket terror, non-recognition, and kidnappings allows indefinite pressure to be brought on Israel. Future local arrangements of micro-partitions like Ghajjar, combined with UN-certification of a border that the Arab party does not recognize, in tandem with withdrawal to the '49 border wherever possible, is likely to be the response. There is enough "dead ground" that Israel can set up a security border not-coterminous with the '49 border, while making it clear to the UN that real recognition and real peace will yield a withdrawal to the negotiated border. The PA does not get to govern Israel just because of Area A of the West Bank, sorry. Areas B and C are not under Israeli sovereignty or effective Israeli control, and Area A is not under Israeli civil law or sovereignty. Even if the PA declares Israel sovereign over the entire West Bank in an attempt to annex Israel, that is not the PA/PLO/Hamas/JIhad's choice to make. If necessary, Israel can withdraw to an unrecognized border in a state of continued war, as with the Blue Line in Lebanon and with Gaza, and force the PA to admit any continuation of the dispute as a reflection of the Palestinian claim to all of Israel.
I think that Richard is just hoping that Israel will dump its radical extremist Zionist Jews on the Palestinians…
"Future local arrangements of micro-partitions like Ghajjar, combined with UN-certification of a border that the Arab party does not recognize, in tandem with withdrawal to the '49 border wherever possible, is likely to be the response." Except that, among other things, the UN isn't going to certify a border that "the Arab party does not recognize." That is, if I read you right you seem to be saying the equivalent of "when it starts to rain upwards that's when there will be a two-state solution." And, after all, if the arabs don't accept it, it won't be a "solution" at all. It thus seems to me—and you certainly would have a better handle on this than I—that in the back if not in the front of the mainstream Israeli mind the "real" solution is indeed a two-stater if not a three-stater, except with Jordan being the "other state" instead of a Palestine on the West Bank, and Egypt taking Gaza. And indeed because of the greater clarity of thinking in Israel than elsewhere about the big strategic picture, it seems to me this is all looking less and less unlikely as the years go by, no matter what the Jordanians and Egyptians are saying now. And thus maybe some more thought ought to be given to looking into this and how to make it palatable to everyone rather than going down what seems the hopeless path we are on now. On the other hand it also seems to me that certainly Israel's demand to be recognized as a "jewish" state doesn't help this process. How in the world could Egypt or Jordan or any arab state agree to that given its possible meaning for Israeli arabs, and the "pig in a poke" problem of agreeing to what might then be at some impossible to predict time a huge exodus of even more countless numbers of palestinians into those countries.
The number would be much higher than the .5% Jews in Palestine that he quoted.
The elephant in the room is that 2% of the USA population hold the hole card, but if you mention it, you are an official nutcase. You are making the incorrect assumption that all American Jews are in favor of continued creeping ethnic cleansing, colonization, and eventual annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I don't have any quantitative estimates, but I think the numbers are substantially smaller. The problem, in my opinion, is that the majority who don't support continued colonization are not willing to break ranks politically with those who are. There is a 'circling-the-wagons' mentality that must be significantly overcome or the whole 2% will get blamed, fair or not.
"Let the settlers come to some honest payment for the stolen land, and then let them stay" if the Palestinians from whom the land for a particular colony was stolen are willing to sell. If they are not, then that colony would have to be removed. How likely is it that Palestinians will be willing to sell their stolen land to the thieves? How likely is it that the thieves will pick up and leave voluntarily if they can't buy the land?
Interesting you should say that mythbuster. I read this once, I thought it was a great idea. please read.http://www.pakistanlink.com/nayyer/08112005.htm
Israel cannot even fit all the Jews, what is it good for? Palestine can fit all the Palestinians and then some. Palestine makes sense, Israel does not.
YES!!
The number is the norm is green line as border, residence as definition of citizenship, is around 10% Jewish minority in Palestine. The settlers would have the choice of which nation they desire to be citizens of.
As would the Palestinians.
Do you seriously believe that the Israeli public and its overseas extensions are ready for the following scenarios: – Jewish homes in Palestine being demolished and their owners made to move elsewhere in Palestine to make way for communal projects? Like, say, a Mosque? – Jewish lawbreakers in Palestine, like those who stage violent "protests", arrested by Palestinian police, put before a Palestinian court, sentenced to serve time in Palestinian prison, or even, if said "protests" involve murdering people, hanged by a Palestinian executioner? (Not saying Palestine will have the death penalty. But they might.) I mean, let's be realistic. To even cut down the Settler-Palestinians' water consumption down to the level of their fellow citizens of Palestine will be viewed as intolerable.
Many Arab countries have already recognised Palestine as a state. We just need the Palestinians to declare it.
The Palestinians should declare their own state with borders declared as of pre-settlement era. Israel did so, without even declaring any borders or any absolute certainty of official recognition. What arab regime could afford to not quickly recognize a self-declared Palestinian state? The obvious would then be transparent: What are the settlements doing there?
The Palestinians need to tell Obama that allowing for natural growth is their speciality as anyone can see; they can offer their clever technique to the Israelis out of charity.
I agree. That circling of the wagons, that silence–you are still talking only about jewish wagons–how will those wagons overcome their own momentum? The end result is that hole card.
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict has to be looked at in geopolitical terms. What happens on that small bit of ground isn't important. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians are expendable to the greater cause of who controls resources. Neither the Israelis or the Pals will decide the out come. Right now the money men of the West are in control but the Chinese, are understanding the game better and they are not as passive anymore. They are teaming up with the Russians and the Iranians who have gotten the short end of the stick by the Western money boys in the past. Israel, AIPAC, Madoff, etc. are being exposed , like a red flag to a bull. They deserve our ire but they are not the only ones.
What Palestinians? Abbas the "moderate" holocaust denier who stated: "It seems that the interest of the Zionist movement, however, is to inflate this figure [of Holocaust deaths] so that their gains will be greater. This led them to emphasize this figure [six million] in order to gain the solidarity of international public opinion with Zionism. Many scholars have debated the figure of six million and reached stunning conclusions—fixing the number of Jewish victims at only a few hundred thousand." http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm How about Hamas? "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm No wonder they have turned down every offer for peace.
RE: "Opponents of such a move say the concessions will not only disappoint the Arabs whom the president has courted, but also will be read by adversaries around the globe as a signal that the president can be forced to back down." *** TELL OBAMA "FREEZE MEANS FREEZE" *** FROM J STREET: Following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's rejection of a full settlement freeze, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said…that President Obama "wants to see a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions." This is exactly the sort of leadership we need from the President and Secretary of State if we are going to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – the only way to truly secure Israel's future as a Jewish, democratic homeland. You can bet the Obama Administration is already hearing from hawkish voices on Israel – urging him to make exceptions, allow for more settlement growth, and to go slow. No way – a freeze means a freeze. We've got to make sure the President knows pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans support his strong line on settlements, for both Israel's and America's sake and security. Please send the President a message telling him you support his "Freeze means Freeze" approach to Israeli settlements. * TO SEND MESSAGE - http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/2747/t/3251/pet...
*** SETTLEMENT FREEZE NOW *** FROM 'Americans for Peace Now' (APN): Settlement freeze now. "No shticks. No tricks." We need you to send a message of encouragement to Secretary Clinton. Tell her that she and President Obama are right in calling for a settlement freeze and that they shouldn't take 'No' for an answer. Please print a letter and mail it to Secretary Clinton. TO PRINT LETTER – http://capwiz.com/peacenow/issues/alert/?alertid=...
"those who have lost of contact with reality, seeing and hearing things that aren't there, believing in fairy-tales and other fantasies and etc" This is what the absurdly-named "Middle East Peace Process" was all about. There was never any reality to it. It was an idiotic dream invented by that famous Israeli dreamer, Shimon Peres. The Oslo Process was never a Peace Process for several reasons. 1) The formula of Land for Peace never made sense to anyone. 2) The peoples on both sides were unprepared for it. At first, Israelis didn't want to give land and Arabs didn't want to give peace. Israelis are now willing to give some land but Arabs still refuse to offer any peace.
It was also never a "Middle East" peace process. Oslo ignored the many, murderous conflicts and underlying problems between Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, Libya – to name just a few. Calling the transfer of TINY parcels of territory inside Israel a MIDDLE EAST peace process was a dishonest fantasy from the start. It took truly intelligent but ridiculously Leftist people like Bill Clinton and Shimon Peres to fool themselves into thinking they had something. The Peace Process didn't die – it was stillborn and never lived. Oh, President Hussein-Obama actually seems to be worse in this regard than Clinton and Peres combined. Truly astounding.
Much of so-called "Palestinean" land was legally and clearly owned by Jews, either individually or collectively, before the LAND WAS STOLEN BY ARABS WHO LATER DECIDED TO CALL THEMSELVES PALESTINEANS. Many of the Israeli so-called "settlements" are merely JEWISH TOWNS AND VILLAGES THAT ISRAEL HAS RE-ESTABLISHED FOLLOWING ARAB ETHNIC CLEANSING THAT MASSACRED JEWS earlier in the previous century. When you confuse the rapist and the raped (as Islamic law does, officially), then you won't get any real justice. Perhaps you aren't really seeking true justice….
Palestine would have to establish its own color-blind law. It has elites that use more water than the average as well. You do know that?
Some think a one-state solution is impossible, that Israeli Jews would never accept it. In 1980, I met a man who had emigrated from apartheid So. Africa to Australia. The previous year, white-ruled Rhodesia had transformed peacefully majority-ruled Zimbabwe. I asked this man if So. Africa could follow suit, and he insisted it was impossible. The antagonism between the races was too great, and apartheid would only fall with violence. I know this is only anecdotal, but surely there were many similar pessimists at the time. Israeli Jews have been living with a sizable Arab minority for many decades now. A new future in which Arabs and Jews are more or less in equal numbers, and have full equality of citizenship – is that really impossible? It won't happen tomorrow, and it won't be easy. But I think it's inevitable. Fifty years from now, that is what I expect it would be. The two questions are when will it happen — the sooner the better — and whether it can be accomplished without violence, as in Rhodesia, So. Africa, and the Soviet empire. Perhaps another question is whether a two-state solution is a necessary intermediate step, if it is indeed still possible.
Thats a malevolent desparate distraction. There is no need to slander Abbas. Hamas is an unknown. The green line is still the most likely of all prpspective borders to optimize peace as a primary means to security. Can they get to good neighbor to good neighbor? Not if external militancy (supporting both sides) inject anger into what should be rational collaborative deliberation.
As long as the are unarmed. Once you take away the right of settlers to terrorize local Palestinians, most would flee behind the green line.
That would be their choice. If Palestine treated them fairly, then it would be only that. If Palestine attempted to apply racially screened laws, then it would be questioned, as it should.
I really don't get the one state solution fetish of Mr. Weiss and many of his readers posting comments. Why the antagonism towards Jewish self-determination? A true two state solution is still totally possible. The Jerusalem-based settlements become part of Israel, and that territory is made up by land swaps at a 1:1 ratio, ala the Taba parameters. The argument that states that the two state solution has been doomed by Israeli settlements gives too much credence to outposts and small settlements. Israel demonstrated in Gaza, and in the Sinai before that, that it has the capacity to dismantle settlements when it wants to do so. Perhaps commentor DaveS is right, that it may be theoretically possible down the road for both peoples to live in one state together. But why is that more desirable than two states? For guys like Weiss and Judt, it's not justice and freedom for the Palestinians that really drives them. At least not wholly. The real issue, it seems, is an antagonism towards Jewish self-determination. And I bet it has more to do with their own psychological and emotional issues with themselves and their Jewishness than anything else.
These aren't just a couple of settlements with a few people living in them. They're a couple of hundred settlements with a combined population of 450,000. The reason I prefer a bi-national state (although I'd fully support a 2 state solution too) is that it gives rise to real peace in reconciliation. I'm a person that thinks little of ethnic and national differences and I see no reason whatsoever why states should be separated on such a basis. As for the others, I don't know their feelings on the issue)
Does that mean that Palestinians can go to Israel and re-establish the 600 villages that were destroyed by Jews? And I see more of your historical revisionism. And I also see you have no knowledge of Islam whatsoever, but you carry on spreading lies anyway.
Again, Sin, I don't see the difference between war and war. Israel could get Lebanon-lite coming from the West Bank at the cost of potential civil war, or it could keep the Jerusalem and near-Green Line settlements in place and have a better chance of surviving the war. The Islamists among Arabs are consistent in their total non-acceptance, as the continuation of the Lebanon and Gaza wars–even with a UN-certified border in both places and no Israelis in situ–indicates. The Jordanian king is an infidel in the eyes of Hamas, and has no desire to import the problem. What is most likely is an Israeli withdrawal wherever possible, followed by the collapse of a Palestinian non-state. Hamas will rule as in Gaza, without the saving graces of Lebanon, a figleaf non-Islamist government, money, and hot chicks walking around uncovered. You cannot really impose a solution on people, and the Palestinian and Arab peoples, unless restrained by a centralized state that had peace as policy–in a way Palestine never can and never will, because Israel IS Palestine in Palestinians' eyes–have voted for war consistently after every Israeli withdrawal. Given the position of Egyptian Jews, involuntarily expatriated to the last man, and the "except for Jews" clause of the Jordanian Citizenship Law, there's not much wiggle room there except for the Arabs to admit that Israel, with its still-extant Arab population and actual rights of citizenship, is more liberal than they are. Circassians and Bedouin exist in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and the fact that they have the same non-rights to no real political representation as Palestinians, "Jordan" Jordanians, and everyone not the Royal Family is not an issue. I wonder why Israel IS?
Shafiq, I appreciate the reply. In response to your first point, I do not believe your statement is accurate. The 450,000 settlers (if that is indeed the correct total) refers to all settlers, including those in East Jerusalem, the main settlement blocs just on the other side of the green line, plus the outliers. The outlying settlements, i.e., the ones which are unquestionably necessary to remove, contain a small minority of settlers. I'm going to guess less than 10,000. The remaining settlers live in the main blocs, which under the Taba parameters in 2001 (which almost led to a deal), will become part of Israel as part of an agreed upon land swap. And all of this still allows for a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. As to your second point, I can totally respect your feelings about peace, reconciliation and what you believe is an overemphasis on national and ethnic differences. But those are value judgments, and specifically, yours. Who are we to try to impose that upon other people, to tell them how to live? Division of land is a solution often used in this context, see e.g., Pakistan/India and the various states formerly of Yugoslavia, or the former republics of the USSR. If Israelis and Palestinians somehow decide, many years later, that they get along so fabulously that national and ethnic differences shouldn't divide them, then that'll happen organically. And that basically seems to be what you're saying. But I really question the vehemence of guys like Weiss and Judt about the one state solution. They always trot out this idea with a thrilled defiance. It's about something else with these guys. Something personal.
Also, Israel can argue that Jordan deliberately made West Bank-resident Palestinian Jews apatrides in 1949-50, and that therefore it needs to recognize Israel's succession to the Mandate as the Jewish State of Israel, since Jordan expelled indigenous Palestinian Jewish holders of Palestinian Mandate passports (and previous Ottoman citizenship) in their entirety. A non-recognition would be seen as a deliberate Jordanian attempt to recognize Islamic (it will be Islamic) Palestine as sole successor to the Mandate, and Israelis–Palestinian Jews–as apatride sub-humans to be expelled. Israeli-Arabs, in contrast, continue to exercise citizenship in a Jewish state, and the developed constitutional law tends towards the protection of that citizenship, even in the case of convicted terrorists. So your citing the example of two Arab ethnocratic states with NO citizenship protection for minorities as potential objectors to Israeli self-definition gave me a laugh.
BTW, I have enough experience in Jordan to know that the peace is a legal fiction designed to prevent the overthrow of the Hashemite royal family by precluding another "war of obligation" as in 1967. (Scenario: Jordan obligated to join in, Arabs lose, King loses both crown and head.) Israel has been getting what it needed from Jordan since '70, when Jordan ceased being an active anti-Israel belligerent. Terror from Jordan has continued intermittently because of the infiltration of Jordanian security services by Islamists–cessation of terror is not really the point.
My father in law always asks for "National Hebrew" frankfurters. He says they are the only kind he eats. Maybe that's why he didn't object too much when his favorite daughter married a Jew. He thought I might be a source of bargain hot-dogs. And I don't care what my MIL says, that's not the reason he went into a decline post-nuptial.
What I am most concerned about is equality for all in their treatment by the state. What you call "Jewish self-determination" has resulted in massive and unconscionable inequality and injustice towards those who who are not a part of the Jewish majority in Israel and the Occupied Territories(Gaza and the West Bank). Ask yourself if you would consider it merely "Christian self-determination" if the US decided that it should treat its non-Christian citizens and those non-citizens under its control as either second class citizens or as subjects with no legitimate rights in the US and subject to military control and a separate military "justice". If you think that it is merely a question of "Jewish self-determination", i.e. that it is OK for the Jewish majority to treat its minority in whatever fashion it chooses, with two or three different levels of justice and human rights depending on ethnicity and religion, then you can't honestly and non-hypocritically complain about mistreatment of Jews over the centuries when they were the recipients of unjust treatment as the result of similar "Christian self-determination. You really can't have it both ways. And as Shafiq has said, the settlements involved are quite large, and they are the problem, not the outposts, although if you have a sense of the history of the Israeli colonization of the West Bank you would know that yesterday's small outpost is today's Modi'in Illit and Ma'ale Adumim, both with tens of thousands of settlers. The project has been ongoing for decades and shows no signs of stopping. The cantonization of the West Bank is the result of the large settlements, not the outposts. My view is that a one state solution is the only viable one, because Israel can not and will not evacuate such a large number of Israelis. The Sinai evacuation was less than two thousand and only came after the Yom Kippur War and an additional five long years of negotiations with an independent country of greater size (but less military might) than Israel, and the constant pressure of the US. The Gaza evacuation of less than eight thousand was, according to those in Israel who planned it, meant to freeze any further evacuations from the West Bank, and in fact and plan was intended to help increase the number of settlers in the West Bank. The vast majority of Gaza evacuees ended up in the West Bank, as did many thousands of additional settlers, in response to financial incentives from the Israeli government. The problem as I see it is that most Jewish Israelis, as illustrated by their government's actions, and by their own attitudes and actions, do not believe in equality for the minority and without this they will never be able to provide a just and lasting peace. You can't honestly make peace with, or provide justice for, a group of people you consider to be inferior to your own. And yet, many Israelis, and sadly, quite a few American Jewish supporters of Israel, can't even detect their own sense of superiority and how it prevents a just outcome. That is why the talk of a one state solution is so important. Israelis, and American Jews, need to be able to view this from a perspective of justice and equality rather than solely from a "longing for peace", or, in other words, a lack of violence from those it mistreats. "And I bet it has more to do with their own psychological and emotional issues with themselves and their Jewishness than anything else." I think its been pretty apparent that Phil views his Jewishness as a call to support justice and equality for all. I see nothing wrong with that, although for myself I think the call for justice and equality should be seen as stemming from a more basic sense of one's own humanity rather than one's ethnicity or religion or background. If you support equality and justice for one, you should support it for all, and simply because a majority thinks that their "self-determination" allows them to oppress and discriminate does not make it so. I'm reminded of those who accused whites who were opposed to segregation and anti-black discrimination in the US of being "n—– lovers" and "race traitors". I think being called a "self-hating" Jew, or having "emotional issues" with their Jewishness is akin to whites calling another white who believes in human equality a "race traitor".
In other words, Palestinian Jews weren't good enough for them, and recognition as "Israelis" doesn't provide enough protection for Palestinian Jews in Israel or Palestine, Jordan needs to recognize Palestinian Jews as "Palestinian Jews of the Jewish State of Israel, of Israeli citizenship", since Palestinian Jews and Israelis were expelled from Jordan and Jordanian-annexed Palestine in their entirety.
Phil will not let go of the idea that when we are dealing with Israelis, we are dealing with Jews. No, we are dealing with people who use Judaism for a hostage. He can't seem to grasp the idea that anyone, well almost anyone, could take any idea or project and call it "Jewish" and there is nobody to tell them "No". He refuses to grasp all the ramifications of that. Well, that's what I think. But I'm sure the Israelis can convince him. It may take a while, but I have great faith in their abilities.
The settlements are, in truth, the biggest collection of human shields ever. And if things go wrong, slaughter in the settlements. What a great country, to allow this situation to develop and use it for political gain. And if the settlers get murdered, the Israelis will just use their corpses, Jewish corpses, to gain sympathy and support. What ghouls they are! The Israelis seem to think there are way too many Jews, so let's use some of the nutty ones as human shields. After all, they volunteered. Oy Gevalt!
I caqn't get over how much you enjoy being raped, Jake. For God's sake, cut it out! It's embarrassing.
What I am most concerned about is equality for all in their treatment by the state. What you call "Jewish self-determination" has resulted in massive and unconscionable inequality and injustice towards those who who are not a part of the Jewish majority in Israel and the Occupied Territories(Gaza and the West Bank). Ask yourself if you would consider it merely "Christian self-determination" if the US decided that it should treat its non-Christian citizens and those non-citizens under its control as either second class citizens or as subjects with no legitimate rights in the US and subject to military control and a separate military "justice". If you think that it is merely a question of "Jewish self-determination", i.e. that it is OK for the Jewish majority to treat its minority in whatever fashion it chooses, with two or three different levels of justice and human rights depending on ethnicity and religion, then you can't honestly and non-hypocritically complain about mistreatment of Jews over the centuries when they were the recipients of unjust treatment as the result of similar "Christian self-determination. You really can't have it both ways. And as Shafiq has said, the settlements involved are quite large, and they are the problem, not the outposts, although if you have a sense of the history of the Israeli colonization of the West Bank you would know that yesterday's small outpost is today's Modi'in Illit and Ma'ale Adumim, both with tens of thousands of settlers. The project has been ongoing for decades and shows no signs of stopping. The cantonization of the West Bank is the result of the large settlements, not the outposts. My view is that a one state solution is the only viable one, because Israel can not and will not evacuate such a large number of Israelis. The Sinai evacuation was less than two thousand and only came after the Yom Kippur War and an additional five long years of negotiations with an independent country of greater size (but less military might) than Israel, and the constant pressure of the US. The Gaza evacuation of less than eight thousand was, according to those in Israel who planned it, meant to freeze any further evacuations from the West Bank, and in fact and plan was intended to help increase the number of settlers in the West Bank. The vast majority of Gaza evacuees ended up in the West Bank, as did many thousands of additional settlers, in response to financial incentives from the Israeli government. The problem as I see it is that most Jewish Israelis, as illustrated by their government's actions, and by their own attitudes and actions, do not believe in equality for the minority and without this they will never be able to provide a just and lasting peace. You can't honestly make peace with, or provide justice for, a group of people you consider to be inferior to your own. And yet, many Israelis, and sadly, quite a few American Jewish supporters of Israel, can't even detect their own sense of superiority and how it prevents a just outcome. That is why the talk of a one state solution is so important. Israelis, and American Jews, need to be able to view this from a perspective of justice and equality rather than solely from a "longing for peace", or, in other words, a lack of violence from those it mistreats. "And I bet it has more to do with their own psychological and emotional issues with themselves and their Jewishness than anything else." I think its been pretty apparent that Phil views his Jewishness as a call to support justice and equality for all. I see nothing wrong with that, although for myself I think the call for justice and equality should be seen as stemming from a more basic sense of one's own humanity rather than one's ethnicity or religion or background. If you support equality and justice for one, you should support it for all, and simply because a majority thinks that their "self-determination" allows them to oppress and discriminate does not make it so. I'm reminded of those who accused whites who were opposed to segregation and anti-black discrimination in the US of being "n—– lovers" and "race traitors". I think calling someone a "self-hating" Jew, or insisting they have "emotional issues" with their Jewishness is akin to whites calling another white who believes in human equality a "race traitor". Really, do you think that your "Jewishness" requires you to think only of Jews? Is that what you want Jewishness to stand for?
Sorry for the duplicate. I realized I posted without logging in, and thus could not edit my comment. Please ignore this one in lieu of my edited comment below. Thanks.
Tree, You brought up some interesting points. In no particular order, my thoughts are as follows: 1. A good portion of your reply makes the argument that a one state solution is the only solution because Israel in fact won't evacuate settlements. But I'm operating from the premise that Israel will evacuate settlements. My question is if and when they do, then why is one state for two peoples better than two states for two peoples? If my premise is incorrect, and Israel stays entrenched in the West Bank, then yes, Israel will have brought about its own demise as a state representing Jewish self-determination. 2. Injustice and two-tiered system of justice. Same answer applies here. If and when Israel evacuates the settlements and clears the way for a contiguous and viable West Bank state, then the injustice and two tiered justice system of which you spoke (and with which I don't disagree) will be gone too. Yes, there is still the 20% Arab minority within Israel proper who suffer from discrimination. That will need to be addressed by Israel, as any upstanding democratic state should. But that's a separate issue. 3. Israel as a Jewish homeland is different than America as a Christian homeland. It's not an apt comparison. Jewishness is not just a religion. It's a people. And peoples have states. The ones who don't end up having problems. Like the Palestinians. Or the Kurds. 4. There could still be a viable West Bank state even with the large settlement blocs remaining in Israel (to be swapped at a 1:1 ratio). Moreover, anything created by men could be destroyed by men. If there was a true willingness for peace, the bulldozers can get to work. 5. I agree that more work needs to be done, on both sides, regarding the equality of the other. But I don't think that that leads to the conclusion that the solution is to throw both peoples together in the same polity. In fact, it's probably the surest way to disaster. 6. Regarding Phil's motivations, you're right in that I can't really know what they are. All I'm saying is that one can be motivated by equality and freedom for all, and still support a two state solution. In fact, a two state solution is the safer, less risky route. Given the history of the two peoples, a one state "solution" is downright utopian. They'll be killing each other left and right. So why the emphasis on a one state "solution"? It's because he is against Jewish self-determination. Is it just Jewish self-determination? Why stop there? Let's undo India/Pakistan, the Balkans, East Timor, etc etc. Let's undo the concept of countries entirely. The question begs itself why the Jewish state is being singled out for "no nation state" treatment.
Are we talking "equality of opportunity" or "equality of results"? Remember, most Israeli-Palestinians are the descendants of poor Muslim peasants who chose not to run from the war because they had no hope of ANYTHING, under any government, and Christian villagers displaced by the war, or Druze who threw their lot in with the State of Israel. The "social engineering" already accomplished is a testament to their intellectual capacities and tenacity (Arab women are represented at U of Haifa in proportion to population) and a few simple changes (in land law, in university admissions) would bring them into their own. That would not, however, lead to a demographic transformation that would eliminate Israel as a Jewish state, although mixed representation at higher levels would de-emphasize the "Jewishness" of the state, as well as provide Israeli Jews with a re-thinking of its necessity. I would suggest Chaim Gans, Yael Tamir, and Ruth Gavison as sources on the current intra-Israeli discussion on the balancing of rights/interests/preferences and state obligations. This is quite a sophisticated debate, occurring at the highest levels, and taken seriously by everyone.
The details of settlements are shown on this map: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&msa=0&... Maybe my opposition to partitions stems from the fact that I come from a family that opposed the partition of India and as a Muslim family chose to stay in the state 'designated' for Hindus.
Well as I said you would certainly have a better handle on the fundamental difficulties of Jordan taking some part of the West Bank that is negotiated as well as its Palestinians and Egypt taking Gaza and there's no doubt there are very substantial problems involved. It still seems to me to at least *try* to address what strikes me as the "discipline" problem, which is otherwise known as your adamant belief that no matter what the Palestinians are simply never going to stop agitating for the destruction of Israel. That is, subject them to citizenship in states that are larger than themselves. (Although I'll agree the problems in doing that for Jordan would be very sharp indeed.) As for laughing at the idea of arab states which have no protection for minorities refusing to recognize Israel as a jewish state I don't deny that there's hypocrisy there, but neither do I withdraw from my point that neither they nor most of the rest of the world will do it, and that it's an unnecessary obstacle. (And not somethe worse only if, as you say, it could never be used to justify some fierce anti-arab discrimination by Israel, which of course no-one can guarantee.) Otherwise all I can say is that it's a pretty hopeless situation when the only truly "just" or "right" solution—from your perspective—is for the the world/the U.N. to start imposing borders that Israel agrees with but the Palestinians and perhaps no-one else does. That's just not going to happen, and if as you seem to feel—which seems reasonable enough—the situation just continues on, with Israel's creeping de facto annexation, all that's going to happen is that Israel's international situation is just going to get worse and worse. And the reason for same is exactly that which Olmert foresaw; the pressure simply isn't going to be for some "border/separation imposition" solution as you seem to think is needed. Instead it's gonna be for a true one state solution, with Israel then looking to be the most racist no matter the countervailing considerations. As Olmert said, even U.S. jewry at some point is not going to support a never-ending apartheid. In short it seems to me the mistake Israel is making especially with this "jewish state recognition" demand" is playing for all the marbles, with the downside of such a tactic of course being that if you lose, you lose everything. Still not a bad tactic for those with few or no marbles to begin with, but not so smart for actors like Israel who already have quite a pile and which seems to me to always too easily risking them for that one more…. Who knows where exactly it is, but at some indefinite point the world and the pressure—even from the U.S.—is going to turn to the idea that everyone should just share all the marbles, and of course for jewish Israel, that's the end.
Shafiq, Interesting observation. But I think the necessity for partition in Israel/Palestine is greater than India/Pakistan. Israelis and Palestinians not only do not practice the same religion, but they are different peoples. They are truly two different nations. As divided as Indians and Pakistanis may be, that gulf is really much smaller than that exists as between Israel/Palestine. It really amazes me that Israel is the only country that constantly has to defend its very legitimacy. Not of the government, but of the country itself. The country has been an established UN member for over 60 years, and yet still has to make the moral case for its legitimacy. Not that that justifies the occupation, but I'm sure this insecurity doesn't help matters. It takes a level of inner confidence to take risks and expose yourself existentially, and Israel is wholly lacking in self-confidence. That's the problem with Philip Weiss. As someone who is attached to Israel and wishes it success, I desperately want it to end the occupation, for real. In that sense, Weiss does good work. But when he, and others like him, attack its very legitimacy, they end up undermining that goal because it tears at Israel's self-confidence in its own permanency. And it ends up perpetuating the status quo, which benefits no one, especially not the Palestinians.
Again, people think that Israeli statehood and nationality is provisional, such that 50% or 90% withdrawal from the OPT is not the essence of the question. Again, Gaza and Lebanon set the precedent, with the Blue Line accepted only by Israel and the UN. It may very well be that the entire world will turn against Israel, as in '82, but if the Palestinians do not rein in the terror tendency, they will be casualties of a generalized breakdown of society in Israel/Palestine first. Jordan and Egypt are out of it and are not coming back, ever, and they have constitutional law (in Jordan) and border guards (in Egyptian Rafiah) to that effect because it would mean citizenship and freedom of movement for thousands of Islamic terrorists who are also opponents of those regimes. Again, you ascribe too much altruism to the world's motives, given that the probable "interim" solution is going to look like Lebanon rather than Gaza. I think Israel is gambling that it will prevail, but with the clear perspective that empowerment of the Palestinians has led only to the war being brought to heartland Israel. Two withdrawals followed by war in the heartland on two fronts negate the possibility of withdrawal on a third front being followed by peace. I do not think there is much impetus for a creeping annexation of the WB, rather, this is a last attempt at grabbing what can be gotten before a final partition, non-negotiated and de facto rather than recognized and de jure. So Palestinians will be claiming that the 10% closest to the Green Line and the 200,000 Palestinians within the Separation Fence give them the right to rule all of Israel. The Separation Fence was not built with the idea that Israel would permanently settle land on both sides, not to the tune of billions of dollars, which was why outpost settlers were against it. The Palestinians are pretty clear about not sharing, ever, which makes your point moot. Hadash/Balad could mobilize a political center if Israeli-Arabs had stayed out of the terror business, but they haven't.
The world going out of its way to turn the Jews into helpless wanderers isn't anything new, part of the shock of Palestinian politics is that when the ARABS made a play for "business as usual", they failed.
If the Jewish people can define who they are and if they are entitled to their state then other peoples are entitled to their states. I see no difference between a Jewish state or an Aryan one. Certainly the Germans didn't base their Germaness on phenotype alone. The Germans had a very sophisticated debate which also occurred at the highest levels, if you would care to read A. James Gregor. The acknowledgment of ethnic and cultural differences are at the heart of David and Eurosobra's arguments. I think they are valid points. What I find irritating is that when Caucasian people put forth those arguments people like David and Eurosobra jump up and down screaming racism, antisemitism, etc, etc, and then proceed to bestow the virtues of diversity and multiculturalism. It's their hypocrisy I loath.
Laurie, I haven't said anything hypocritical, so I'd appreciate if you didn't ascribe points of view to me that I may not share. To your point, I agree that if a people living somewhere define themselves as a people, and then want their own state to reflect that self-determination, then that is their right. If this people presently exists within a state that does not wish to divest itself of territory for this state (see, e.g., Turkey not wanting a Kurdistan breaking away from its territory), then this people has a problem as a pragmatic matter.
Somehow when I proposed that for months, you thrashed it.
It occurs to me that we are somewhat talking past each other and indeed it's easy to lose track of the what specific issue we are talking about at times. But in stepping back from same it's interesting to me how your thinking always comes to focus on the more detailed aspects of things and how closely this parallels what seems to me Israel's approach over the last decades which has been so assiduously … tactical in nature. Not that this is any great criticism; obviously Israel has been spectacularly successful over these past decades by chopping things up into separate issues and dealing with things that way. But it does strike me that in general tactics don't win wars, strategy does, just as illustrated by the fact that while the U.S. could win every engagement it had with the North Vietnamese it could still lose that war. And indeed it seems to me we are at a point where you see many of the main currents of the big strategic picture starting to turn in any number of ways against Israel. For all of Netanyahu's rejectionism or subsequent acceptance of a two-state solution, the plain fact would seem to be that Israel doesn't really know what it wants to do with the West Bank Palestinians, nor even its own arab citizens and their demographic threat. And now, together with Bush's identical earlier call, Obama has now cemented in stone the U.S. position that Israel simply must accept a two-state solution, so Israel's wiggle-room about same has been confined to within that parameter. Plus, the persistence and ugliness of all of the conflict has started to call into question the very legitimacy of Israel proper even and what really happened in '47-48; every month sees what seems more successful tries at boycotts and etc. of Israel or Israeli goods, and etc. and so forth, on and on. So at any rate my point is that of course as to any sub-issue there are dozens of arguments that can be used to parry any suggested changes to the status quo. But indeed when you think about it the status quo—minus any terrorism attacks of course, or Hizbullah rockets—is indeed Israel's preferred position. (And not to criticize you, but if you step back and look at your posts what they can essentially seem to amount to are extended arguments why this, that or any other thing can't be done or changed or etc..) But status quo's can't last; one way or another things always change and to my eye they aren't changing in Israel's favor. For one, the U.S. is now far more committed to change, and this is something I think you (understandably) have not recognized when you speak about what Israel will do in the future if X or Y happens. That is, it's one thing to say Israel would *like* to do X or Y if A or B happens, but it's another to say that it will be *able* to do so if the U.S. won't support it. And we are only five months into Obama's likely 8 *year* term, and already we are seeing a rather big changes, with more in obvious store, and Israel simply isn't going to have the almost unlimited freedom of action that it has had in the past. And yet another example is that perhaps secondarily to Obama's opening to the arab/muslim world one of the most striking things to have happened lately was the comment from Mitchell or Clinton to the Palestinians that that U.S. is *not* going to insist that they recognize Israel as a "jewish state" as a precondition to talks. And I think that's possibly very portentous indeed. Thus I guess what I'm saying is that trying to maintain the status quo is just not going to cut it anymore and if it were smart Israel would start to think differently to steal a line from Apple Computer. In *some* way at least. For instance I just read a great article in Ha'artz suggesting that in any peace deal Israel *could* give up occupied land with settlements on it with the proviso that the settlers who remained, even though on Palestinian land, remained Israeli citizens, with Israel no doubt being able to protect them too. Now I don't know that this would work or fly, but it's damned interesting, that's for sure, and at least something other than the status quo which I think is becoming less and less tenable not just by the year, but almost by the week now. Especially given Obama's sly linkage of the Iranian situation with some movement away from the status quo on the Israeli/Palestinian issue.
Sure, the United States has periodically withdrawn support for Israeli expansion, causing the total débandade of Sinai in '56 and '82. It may very well force Israel back to the Green Line (with minor modifications for Jerusalem-area settlements on former Jordanian state land. Heck, with a real settlement, rent could be paid to the PA, as it currently is in West Jerusalem to the Greek Orthodox Church.) with a Palestinian "peace" that results in further war, as with Madrid in '90 and the functional results of Oslo. And I fully expect the EU, with the exception of Portugal, Germany, and the Netherlands, to commit to a "Juda Verrecke" total boycott of Israel within the next decade, including old-style oppression of European Jews, augmented by al-Qaeda-style terrorism by EU-citizen Muslims. That doesn't make it right. Certainly forced withdrawals in exchange for more war CAN be done, that was the case with Lebanon and Gaza, and the US has done it before, so I think the Israeli mis-reading of the Gaza withdrawal as allowing a West Bank expansion was erroneous. The question is whether the US will support a "Green Line plus Jewish East Jerusalem" Israel or a "Green Line plus 10%" Israel. I assure you that the partition into two states will resemble the Blue Line withdrawal, non-recognition and continued war, with the exception that the UN will not certify any "Green Line plus" border. Of course a US that forces Jews away from the Temple Mount, the Jewish Quarter, and the Sephardic Community holdings in East Jerusalem would no longer be an ally. Israel will not be able to protect settlers surrounded by an armed and hostile Palestinian state, and the PA has never protected any Jewish sites ceded as part of the Oslo process.
Okay, but my problem is that I don't see Israel even *beginning* to deal with all these issues you raise. Green Line/Blue Line/10%/ whatever %/the Temple Mount/Jerusalem and all the rest, on and on; except that all I see is a constant squirming and writhing and posturing 100 yards back from any serious talks about these issues with the obvious intent being to *avoid* any such serious talks. And in the meantime the settlements just keep getting bigger and bigger, don't they? It'd be a different matter if it was a guy like you Israel sent out to talk about these things; you obviously are concerned about the substance of these issues and would talk about 'em in good faith and etc. and there's always hope with that. But Israel keeps sending out guys like Dov Weissglas or this Lieberman guy and to me it's the equivalent of Israel giving everyone the broad wink while saying it really does wants to talk peace deal. As I noted before, Israel may not be perfectly happy with the status quo, but it likes it better than any change it can presently conceive which is only natural given that it's in the catbird seat right now tactically. However, as someone once said, the only certainty is change. and it is surely happening.
Sure, Israel is gambling that it won't get a 1977-style ultimatum from the US, because of the potential for ceding territory for more war. The US basically gave a "get out of Sinai for peace" ultimatum, and peace really WAS in the offing. Obama can make a "get out of the West Bank for continued American support" demand, in which case we'll have the final political showdown. But not peace. Israelis with experience of the '29-'47 period have a feel for the interlinked micro-partitions of that period, with sometimes-warring settlements cheek-by-jowl, and rationalize the current ambiguities as being "not so bad." You could spit into Motza from Qalunya in 1929, and it didn't matter, what mattered was the attempt to BURN Motza. Qalunya and Kastel are no longer there, Motza is. The feeling is probably similar to that, with the feeling that the Palestinians will again overplay their hand no matter what, even with the US restricting Israeli settlement the way the British restricted Jewish settlement, and that the entire world will once again turn against Israel in the apocalyptic war that follows the American abandonment of the obedient restricted-settlement Israel's security. A combination of cynicism and despair. Again, I don't see how any power shift against Israel *won't* once again lead to a unified attempt to destroy the state and its population by its enemies, or why Israel couldn't, wouldn't, or shouldn't use extreme measures at that point. The temptation on both sides will be too great, given the way Hamas and Hezbollah's cost-benefit calculations work. Sure, Europe probably will threaten a second Holocaust of its Diaspora Jews to pressure Israel to surrender to an apocalyptic Islamic Palestine, but all that yields is the Tower of York.
Are you the real Richard Witty or not? In any case, you're stalling. (And don't give me BS about Palestinian Elites. You can bet any sum that the days of Jewish pools being filled while water is rationed in Palestinian neighbourhoods would be over in a Palestinian state.)
My humble apologies David, though I note you say, "that I *may* not share". Words are important to some. It's how they wiggle out of good faith agreements. This is how the Israelis operate, case in point, their 'natural growth' argument. And btw I said nothing about a peoples *right* to a state of their own, my point was that if one group can have it then logically other groups can have it, which is what the Jews need to understand when pushing for their Jewish state.
"The question begs itself why the Jewish state is being singled out for "no nation state" treatment." – Because the Jews have always been in the forefront of telling other people that they should be tolerant, accept diversity, embrace the fact we are all equally human, welcoming of the down trodden yearning to be free, yadda yadda yadda. It's time the Jews walk the talk. Is expecting the Jews to behave in the same manner they expect of others to the antisemitism you are implying in the last sentence of your last statement to tree? "All I'm saying is that one can be motivated by equality and freedom for all, and still support a two state solution." – the old separate but equal argument. You are not difficult to understand David.
"Again, I don't see how any power shift against Israel *won't* once again lead to a unified attempt to destroy the state and its population by its enemies" The absolute perfect encapsulation of what seems to me the dominant Israeli mindset, as well then as natural explanation too of its resistance to any real change in the status quo. And one doesn't quite know what to say in response: You have a friend who just simply and absolutely believes that all its neighbors are just insanely, implacably committed to its total destruction, and what can you say to them other than that trying to forever maintain the status quo and not provide for change is just a recipe for disaster? And the added problem for Israel is that the status quo has hardly been the purely defensive thing it insists on. In another even more recent thread than this, and despite the huge kerflluffle over settlements now, Phil has noted that Israel has just announced the likely legalization of some 300 new homes in the West Bank, which in addition to just taking the land those homes will sit on will cut off ever more Palestinians from their land because of roads they will be unable to cross and etc. And as usual Israel appears to be doing so with its signature word-games calling this "natural growth" or "already built growth" or this or that or the other thing. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/23/israe... In essence—and I don't know how you have fallen into it given that I know you are no big fan of the expansionists and settlers—the "Eretz Yisrael" crowd has somehow gotten its land-grabbing agenda included in the average Israeli's understanding of what's "defensive." So even the most friendly of persons (such as the U.S.), is saying that Israel is just deluding itself by seeing the status quo as purely defensive. And even worse ever more people are concluding that they simply don't care about Israel's defense anymore given that that has been how it defines it. It's not even like "the boy who cried wolf" anymore; it's "the boy who cries wolf and is meanwhile eating the sheep himself." Like I say, I just don't understand how you don't see this, and see that the status quo just isn't sustainable forever and that the attempt to do so is endangering not just Israel's present footprint but its very existence. But God knows it's a complex thing and who knows you may be right and everyone else is wrong, and in any event it's interesting seeing your perspective so thanks.
Do you even have to ask? Israel couldn't be a Jewish state without Jordan's very friendly maintainence of the Palestinian refugee camps. That Hashemite Kingdom is a logistical necessity for your majority population. And you want Jordan to liberalize and give citizenship to Jews. Why??? So thousands of Israelis can start a colony in Petra? But I thought the point was to keep the Jews in Israel! You should be THANKING Jordan for barring Jews from citizenship (which it actually doesn't; it only excluded them from the automatic citizenship granted to Palestinians in the West Bank. Live in Jordan for 4 years and give up your old nationality, there you go. But don't let technical accuracy get in the way of a good Ziocaine-filled rant). Jordan's iliberalism is a complement to yours. It's funny, I've heard thousands of times over that the Arab invasion of 1948 made the expulsion of the Palestinians necessary, but no one ever says likewise about the Egyptian Jews and the 1956 war. Don't look at me. It was like that when I got here.
You can't convert to Aryan. Also there is a German country. It's called "Germany". You need their permission to move there. They choose to give it, but that is their business. So do you object to the existence of all those Muslim countries? What about cities? Any moral problems with Mecca being Muslims only?
Maybe Laurie doesn't realize this but Israel has a substantial non-Jewish population. They vote, they have had members of the Knesset (Israelis Parliament) since the founding of Israel. They have the same legal rights as the Jews. They aren't required to serve in the IDF, like the Jews are, but they can volunteer if they want to. The non-Jews of Israel have more rights than most Muslims in most Muslim countries. Way more rights than non-Muslims in most Muslim countries. The Israelis don't execute you for converting away from Judaism. Many Muslim countries do execute people from converting away from Islam.
The Israelis aren't expelling the Arab-Israelis, though they are free to emigrate if they choose to. Their numbers are increasing in line with the population increase of the Jews (slightly faster actually). The Israelis aren't willing to allow unlimited immigration, but no other country does either. So what exactly is your complaint against Israel that doesn't apply to most or all other countries?
It's not unlimited immigration though is it? It's the right of return for refugees who previously lived there but left for fear of death, which is completely different. And as a matter of fact, it is racist to allow Jewish migration and not allow non-Jewish migration. No other country does this – the US doesn't discriminate on race, neither do any of the European countries, nor any of the Arab countries, the same immigration policy applies to everyone.
You can't convert to Judaism and expect Israel to recognize your conversion. The state Rabbis argue among themselves who to consider "Jewish," and the interior ministry has also rejected converts on technicalities like failing to live for a year in the community in which the conversion was carried out (this is for conversion abroad). And of course if you converted to Reform Judaism you have to convert to your own religion all over again. Here's a newsflash: The Nazis couldn't tell you what an Aryan or what a Jew is, and the Zionists can't tell you what a Jew is, either.