If there are Israeli Arabs, why not Palestinian Jews, right– living in the West Bank portion of the Palestinian state. Scott McConnell writes: "James Woolsey (the neocon author) is right of course, but from his perspective is opening a can of worms. The settlers would not in a million years wish to live in a Palestinian state where they had equal rights with their Arab fellow citizens. But calling their bluff would be educational."
-
-
- Fear, the African refugees and the cost of maintaining Israel … 0
- Netanyahu govt to impose fines on mayors of cities that … 18
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians … 30
- UN Committee: Israeli system ‘tantamount to apartheid’ 0
- Slater on Beinart 25
- And we live on… 4
- US official — we went to Israel first 15
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status … 40
-
- BDS victory: South Africa strips Ahava’s ‘made in Israel’ label 714
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 479
- Day after pogroms, Likud MK calls for internment camp for … 436
- ‘This is not fair play’: Mahmoud Sarsak’s family demands his … 399
- March of the Flags 349
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm … 327
- Nabi Saleh’s Bassem Tamimi convicted by Israeli courts based on … 294
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status … 236
-
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the … 237
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need … 156
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their … 148
- March of the Flags 127
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism 120
- Feeling the hate in Long Island 97
- Israeli judge to issue verdict in Rachel Corrie case 94
- WaPo’s Walter Pincus says US is ‘going above and beyond … 87
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism (120)
- Woody Tanaka: “Jews did not “go” to Palestine. They we always there. At a pont in history many were forced to...
- Bob Simon misses the story on Tel Aviv (20)
- Woody Tanaka: Of course they think the war is ‘very much still on’ because the Jews are still fighting it...
- US official — we went to Israel first (15)
- Woody Tanaka: Oh, this is disgusting. When US officials act in such a blatant way as agents for foreigners,...
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status for millions (40)
- Woody Tanaka: “The “Roots” of both Jewish peoples and Arabic peoples can be traced back to Abraham,”the Father...
- Woody Tanaka: “Zionist propaganda likes to use the Six Day War as a cut-off point for Palestinians, but the...
- Netanyahu govt to impose fines on mayors of cities that employ migrant workers (18)
- Woody Tanaka: “or can somebody say when it was that the state of Israel outlawed irony?” Fascist and...
- tokyobk: Sharon, whatever legacy he (de)merits, was born in Palestine.
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (30)
- OlegR: One possible explanation is that the massacre was a retaliation for this. “Arabian network Al-Arabia...
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their descendants (148)
- Woody Tanaka: “It’s as much a form of corporate welfare as it is foreign aid.” Better to just give it to...
- Woody Tanaka: Caterpillar is a weapons manufacturer.
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism (120)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Annie Robbins
- Allison Deger
- Alex Kane
- Today in Palestine
- Kate
- Paul Mutter
- Adam Horowitz
Blogroll
I for one think its a great idea. It would solve many of the disputes about the West Bank, ownership of the land, etc.
We all know the looney settlers wouldn’t be down, but I agree with Phil, lets call their bluff.
Wouldn’t it be easier to simply let all of the displaced people come home and make everyone citizens of one country? Then true democracy will prevail.
That would be great, perhaps you could start by being a proponent of equality in your own backyard:
link to news.bbc.co.uk
It’s ironic at best. Not only does no country recognize Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem, but Israel demolishes Palestinian homes, willy-nilly, claiming they require permits. Dare ask for a permit and you’ll be denied until there are no more trees on the face of this planet as they were all cut down to produce enough paper on which Israeli authorities can stamp “Denied”.
The probability of the Mashiach (Messiah) returning next month is actually higher than the probability of any Palestinian getting a construction permit from Israeli authorities.
So, someone invades your house by force, takes over it and when you dare pick oranges from the trees in your front yard, he accuses you of not asking for permission.
I don’t know about this–haven’t the settlers grabbed some of the best land? Why should they be allowed to keep it?
If that’s wrong and in some cases they obtained land legitimately (though how one does so under a military occupation I don’t know), then that’s another story.
Though calling their bluff does have its appeal.
Not only that, they are on land seized from Palestinians, in many cases even contrary to Israel law. The rightful owners would certainly want to claim it.
This is something I’ve suggested in the past in comments on Mondoweiss. Give the settlers the option to stay where they are, on condition that they give up their Israeli citizenship and become Jewish citizens of a Palestinian state with the same legal rights as anyone else. Not many would make that choice, I think, but at least the existence of that option would make it clear that Jews were not being “ethnically cleansed” from the West Bank.
No they (Palestinians) would not mind staying in the valley areas taking the daily waste of the settler as it flows down hill…nor gazing at their land from afar…
Just an aside…great website you have V; very powerful.
That article you posted from the NY Times 1919 is stunning. I read one of Alfred Lillienthal’s books several years ago; it was so profoundly different than the currently accepted story…I almost feel like I was in an alternate universe while reading it.
But the question I always have nagging at the back of my mind is…what is an appropriate role in all of this for a Christian? (keeping in mind we did more than our fare share in bringing this craziness about).
I would be curious if you have any thoughts about this.
It would allow the Arab League proposal to get the light of day.
You guys are aware that that is exaclty what I’ve been proposing here and elsewhere for three years, to your contempt.
Phil should give me credit rather than Woolsey.
For what its worth to Scott, likely about a third of the settlers would likely stay in a Palestinian West Bank.
The truly orthodox don’t care whose sovereign over the land, but just desire the legal and social right to stay there.
Those settlers are camping on land they stole. What do you propose for the people who were run off that land to make way for Jewish exclusive colonies, exactly?
I for one am perfectly aware of it. Of course, Witty, you make false accusations against me in your responses, when I catch you employing double standards on human rights, so allow me to play the world’s smallest violin in acknowledgment of your pain. By and large, you spout so much hypocritical nonsense, on those occasions when you do say something that might be of merit the idea tends to get tainted by association with you. That is unfortunate–it’s why we need someone better than you making the liberal Zionist case around here. In this case, if any of the settlers obtained their land in a fair and just manner, then they should be given the choice of staying or leaving
The rest should have their asses kicked out.
To bring about a 2-state solution, Israel must be forced to made the necessary concessions. Why only Israel, why not the Palestinians? Because they have nothing, they have nothing to concede.
Donald,
Your comments are a repitition of “you are not credible”, rather than a discussion of differences in perspective and conclusion.
Try another approach.
Well if that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, Witty! Ha!
No, its not Chaos.
I respond seriously to seriously and respectfully presented comments.
I respond dismissively to personal attacks, whether incidental or habitual.
“Donald,
Your comments are a repitition of “you are not credible”, rather than a discussion of differences in perspective and conclusion.
Try another approach.”
I have. I thought that someone who employs the rhetoric of reconciliation is someone that could be reached, someone that could be persuaded to use a single standard for both sides on human rights issues. In your case it appears I was wrong. You won’t stop with your apologetics for Israeli crimes–you won’t stop employing double standards on human rights. You won’t stop evading issues or countering accurate criticism with lies. I can meet honest Zionists who are concerned about human rights halfway and more than halfway–if they don’t whitewash Israeli and Zionist crimes I take their position seriously and on pragmatic grounds I admit that a two state solution still appears to be the best achievable for now. I concede their good points, I’ve even conceded yours, when you make them and will continue to do so.
But your hypocrisy and your double standards and your evasions and self-promotion can’t be treated as merely opposing views–I have expressed disgust for the views of people who defend Hamas atrocities as “freedom fighting” at other blogs and your views are equally loathsome. I don’t engage you any more with any illusions about changing your mind–you are a hypocrite on human rights and you chose to be one and you’re the only one who can change that. The main reason for responding to you is that your opinions and statements need to be refuted. Furthermore your views are the norm in US discussions. Lots of pretense at concern for both sides, and then, invariably the Palestinian crimes are treated far more severely than those of Israel. Your bigotry is representative of a larger problem.
Donald,
If you look at what you advocate for, if you take the risk to express it clearly, you will find inconsistencies.
You can call those inconsistencies “conflicts”, “natural”, “lies”.
If your purpose is mutual help, then “lies” are better than consistency for evil or negligence.
As a Zionist, there are three assertions that I make that are uncompromising,
1. Israel exists as Israel
2. Israel, as a state, has a responsibility to defend
3. Israel has an obligation to abide by its internal primary law
When “activists” imply that Israel does not exist, or does not have a right to exist, I fight back. When “activists” imply that Israel does not have a responsibility to defend its civilians, I object. When Israel implies that it does not have a responsibility to abide by its internal law (including international agreements that it has signed, making it its internal law), then I dissent.
BUT, and this is a big but, when activists assert that “Israel is violating international law or its fundamental internal law”, just by assertion or by name-calling, I question. I DON’T adopt it as my view yet. That in itself would be hypocritical, a lie to myself.
You’d have to persuade me, not browbeat me, not call names, not misunderstand my comments by taking them out of context (without inquiring into what is meant). And, to be intellectual sincere yourself, you’d have to acknowledge your own carrying of inconsistent or conflicting themes, not as a shame, but as a recognition of being human and even natural. (Nature is not perfectly consistent, certainly as understood through human perception. Politics even moreso.)
Richard, you can believe your three stated principles and if you are honest, you still end up condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza, not just in the most recent war, but all along. I’ve linked to two articles on this in the last two days–one about Israel choosing to start flying its warplanes over Gaza causing sonic booms and terrifying children right after they had evacuated settlements. The other was a Human Rights article from a few days ago outlining how the blockade is effecting Palestinian school children. There is plenty of material like this and it shows sadism and cruelty, a determination to impose collective punishment on all Gazans, including children. You don’t need me or anyone else to know this. You know it yourself or you deliberately choose not to know it. This is your problem. You have been given evidence, over and over and over again, of Israeli brutality that goes far beyond their legitimate right to kill people who fire rockets at their civilians, and you either ignore it or justify it. I am giving you far more respect than you deserve even bothering to explain all this to you, because the evidence available at Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, the Goldstone Report, and Amnesty International would convince any fairminded person that Israel is guilty of massive human rights violations which cannot be excused on the basis of self-defense and it has been this way for decades. Palestinian atrocities also need to be condemned, but they do not in any way justify most of what Israel has done. We’re not talking about unfortunate accidents of war that would happen if Israel had been acting entirely in self defense. We’re talking about war crimes, apartheid, collective punishment, and blockades meant to inflict suffering on civilians.
So when I respond to you it is not to convince you. You are too in love with yourself and your ideology to listen. I respond to your posts with harshness because they are often despicable. As for you, it’s up to you to change–I am not going to enable your self-love by pretending your apologetics for Israel are a legitimate viewpoint worthy of respect.
Your proposal of either opening the Israeli and Egyptian checkpoints indiscrimminately, or opening the Gaza port indiscrimminately, is an impossibility.
The path to Gazan well-being is through integration with the PA (not posturing), and then institution-building and hopefully collaborated declaration of Palestinian independance per the Geneva accords, or other consented agreement.
The temporary path is for consented international governance of the Gazan port (NOT Hamas).
You seek to cut a knot that can only be carefully untied practically.
Opening the Israeli and Egyptian checkpoints is a matter for the government in Gaza, not Israel. Israel have no claim to the border with Egypt or the waterways, The only reason Israel has any influence on these crossings, is due to it’s miltary power, but it’s authority is illegitmate.
The governement in Gaza has made repeated attempts to integrate with the PA, but these were obstructed by Israel. You keep harping on about institution-building as though it were a panacea, but institution-building is not going to happen without freedom and self determination, which Israel is detrermined to deny the Palestinians.
As for the Geneva accords, Israle have been in violation of those since 1967.
If you are going to insist on consented international governance of the Gazan port, then that international governance must also extend to aministering all the occupied terirtories.
The knot, liek the walls of stone, are there because of Israel’s extremist policies. The fact that they have been in place for a loing time does not legitimize them.
Shingo,
You don’t know what the “Geneva Accords” are? (They are not the Geneva protocols, that is an entirely different agreement both made in Geneva.)
The Geneva Accords is an informal (unofficial) agreement on terms of reconciliation made between Israeli liberal Zionists and Palestinian liberal nationalists, that defined vaguely a 100% land swap (67 borders as basis) and some suggestions for pending issues (Jerusalem, right of return).
Yes I know what the Geneva Accors are:
“It would give Palestinians almost all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and part of Jerusalem, drawing Israel’s borders close to what existed before the 1967 war.”
link to en.wikipedia.org
Are you going to argue that Israel has not violated these accords since 1967?
Well, one can’t very well say that Israel has been “violating” the Geneva accords since it has never recognized them, much less agreed to them.
That said, two things about the Geneva Initiative:
1.) It’s advertised as a “joint Israeli-Palestinian” initiative. In fact, it’s mostly Israeli. Just check how many prominent Israelis vs. prominent Palestinians are involved.
2.) It does most definitely not envision a sovereign Palestinian state. The proposed entity lacks key sovereign powers (control over borders, airspace, defense) and this is to be permanently monitored by an international occupying force (not called this, of course.) Essentially the territories would be a protectorate of the proposed controlling group (US, Russia, EU and UN), with any change in status subject to Israeli veto.
This “state”, if you want to call it that, would have about as much sovereignty and independence as, for example, occupied West Germany had in 1950. In stark contrast to the German situation, however, the Geneva Accords mean this to be permanent.
3.) It did adress the refugees question, that’s true – by simply allowing Israel to take as many refugees as it would like. So we’re – at best – looking at a few thousand “humanitarian, family reunion” resettlements here.
Allegedly progressive Zionists often tout the Geneva accords as the be-all, end-all of just peace plans. Don’t be fooled. There’s plenty to criticize – especially if you approach this subject from the viewpoint of rights and freedoms.
This would be the only practical peace process that has been forwarded by anyone, acquiesced to by the vast majority of involved parties, and basically Israel is the only entity standing in its way? That peace proposal?
And you imply that it hasn’t seen “the light of day,” huh?
So you are saying that Hamas and the PA aren’t standing in the way of peace at all? its completely in Israel’s hands?
The Netanyhau government is a huge obstacle, they have set things back years, but I don’t think they are the only obstacle.
I am not totally against a 1 state solution, but the reality is its impossible, especially now. Who would assure peace and prevent civil war? There is way to much hatred and too many crazies.
The reality is the Israeli/Zionist entity along w/ most Western countries won’t allow it to happen. What can we do to create a 2 state solution?
Both Hamas and the PA have agreed to allow the Peace Plan to be implement. How about you stop putting words in mouth and lies on the table.
The reality is that the Israeli/Zionist entity and its powerful lobby have put the US in a death spiral. You can write off the “one state solution” all you want, but once the US veto power on the Security Council evaporates, actual practical solutions based on conformance with international law become possible.
The Arab League proposal doesn’t have anything against settlers taking Palestinian citizenship, and the PA has made the offer directly.
Yonira, the Palestinians aren’t the ones obstructing a peace deal.
Even Hamas, the most extreme of the mainstream Palestinian groups accepted the Arab Peace Iniaitive of 2002, again accepted it in 2007, and again accepted it in 2009:
link to haaretz.com
Hamas even removed its call for the destruction of Israel when it created its Government Manifesto:
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/12/israel
They even called for an end to suicide bombing:
link to haaretz.com
If the most extreme group amongst the Palestinians is this lenient, Israel should have no problem coming to peace, especially considering that Israel is the one holding all the cards. Seriously, think about it, the most extreme group amongst the Palestinians is willing to settle for a solution in which they would only obtain 20% of their historic homeland, can it get any better for Israel?
Lets also not forget that it is Israel that is maintaining a brutal military occupation over the Palestinian people, it is Israel that is maintaining a medieval siege on the Palestinian people in Gaza, and it is Israel that is currently forcing Palestinians off of their land.
I’m reminded of all the literally US poor citizens who were given sub-prime mortagages (the modern day post Civil War Reconstruction Benefits); they lived
high on the hog while those things lasted, and there was nothing about the trransactions
that resembled economic reality; so too the Israeli settlers. Both top-down benefits, both
a rip off of USA taxpayers. Woolsey, with his ivy league background, is a shallow version of even the “best and the brightest” of the past, themselves totally evil in their educated ignorance: link to stanfordreview.org
Woolsey’s commentary is unbelievably ignorant or dishonest or both. Many people have proposed that with the creation of a Palestinian state, those Jews who wish to remain in the West Bank may do so, as long as they change citizenship and give up the protection of the IDF. There are some obvious problems, however. Many of these Jews are fanatics and insist on Jewish sovereignty over the land, and would not be willing to accede to Palestinian authority without putting up a fight. My guess is that the vast majority who are not fanatics would simply move back to the Israeli side of the green line, and the vast majority who stay would refuse to consider themselves Palestinian citizens. Also, they have taken the best land and diverted a grossly disproportionate share of water to their settlements. That, of course, would end, and I doubt it could be done peacefully. If war breaks out between Palestinian authorities and Jewish settlers who refuse to yield, even if they had been explicitly warned that they would be on their own, could Israel stand by and not send in the IDF to protect them? I don’t think so. It’s a great idea in theory, but maybe not so in practice. In any event, the problem will not be with Palestinian acceptance of Jewish citizens who wish to be simply equal citizens of the new state; the problem will be with those settlers who insist on staying in the name of Israeli/Jewish control.
Woolsey’s attempt to connect a settelement freeze to making a new state Judenrein is utterly dishonest. A freeze would merely freeze the status quo. No one is offering the Palestinians a state in exchange for allowing Jews to be a part of the state. Increased Jewish presence would change the dynamics before negotiations even begin. In the current state of affairs, the presence of Jewish settlers adds to the misery of the Palestinians. And Israel has never, ever said it would be willing to part with these Israeli citizens if they chose to stay. They would hate to reduce the percentage of their own citizenry that is Jewish.
So the two-state solution proposed by Woolsey is theoretically feasible but practically difficult. I think it would be rejected by Israel and the settlers themselves much more than the Palestinians. I used to favor the one-state solution as more fair but the two-state as more immediately achievable and perhaps an appropriate short-term (even decades long) step toward the eventual one state based on equality of all citizens. Now, I’m not so sure about which is easier to achieve in the short-term. But most importantly, Woolsey’s agenda is to allow full growth of the settlements under present conditions. His juxtaposition of current settlements and the two-state utopia he supposedly envisions for the future is nothing more than rhetorical sleight of hand.
One more thing. Jews would be allowed to live in Palestine as equal citizens, just as Arabs live in Israel? I would think that Jews in Palestine would be entitled to true equality, which would shine an unwelcome spotlight on the many ways the Arab citizens of Israel live similarly to black citizens of Alabama in the 1950′s.
I say, send all the European invaders back to Europe. Send the Poles back to Poland; the Russians back to Russia; and Avi and his goons back to Moldova. Everyone else back where they (or their parents came from). I feel sorry for Brooklyn…oh well!
Africa would be awfully crowded!
LOL! Point goes to potsherd, for making a good point.
Then again, I do rather appreciate what Matter is saying — the whole colonialism nonsense was being retired at the end of WW2, and Israel is one of the last vestiges to sneak under as the door was slammed shut (although, granted, the US has its share of imperialistic holdings it would like to grandfather in)
I’m sorry-ish to say that what is lost by violence can only be retrieved by violence.
It’s just the way it is.
Most Palestinians are by now convinced of this.
Well…
I hate to say it, but it doesn’t seem like Israelis are responding to arguments forwarded on the grounds of social justice, international law or human decency. I’m not going to go so far as to say that it will require violence, but I suspect Israel will continue to act like a bully as long as it has military and economic superiority.
That won’t last, however.
I find this talk of violence deeply troubling. Since defeating the Israeli military is, of course, absolutely impossible, the only violence Palestinians can inflict on Israelis is indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population, that is, terrorism. To me, this is unthinkable in any context. Sure, you can argue that Israelis have been doing the same to Palestinians for decades, in far greater numbers and lying about it, but it is never, ever the right thing to do.
If you do not accept this moral argument, the practical one is just as important. Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians will never be effective. It will not bring down the Israeli state, will not get them to budge in their monstrous treatment of Palestinians. It will, however, give the Israelis the excuse they need to “retaliate” and continue their own onslaught. It’s stupid, plain and simple. The idiot rockets fired from Gaza on Sderot and other Israeli towns was effective only in mobilizing Israeli opinion in favor of military action, and giving US politicians the ammunition they needed to support Israeli uncritically.
On the other hand, both Taxi and Chaos are undoubtedly correct in assuming that Israel will not change out of the goodness of its heart. It will have to be forced to change. It cannot be forced militarily, or through terrorism, but it can be forced by international pressure to conform to modern-day norms of respect for international law and equality of all people regardless of ethnicity. I think the world is moving in the right direction but is still far from where it has to be. We should all try to nudge it along as best we can.
I don’t believe many people in the mideast are waiting on the zionist leopard to change it’s spots. Sorry to say but they’ve also kinda stopped waiting for Obama too.
There is no other way. The region is preparing itself for the inevitable big one.
And yes the mideast map will be redrawn again.
This is the will of the majority of the whole region.
Both sides of the fence.
David–
I think you’re right. The Palestinians can’t achieve a military victory, so violence just means more civilian dead on both sides (mainly on the Palestinian side). Nonviolence is the answer–though it might have to be accompanied by sanctions if Israel won’t be reasonable.
I should add that I hesitate to throw my lot in with the vast majority of people who complain about Palestinian terrorism, because they turn a blind eye to Israel’s more destructive actions committed in service to a loathesome and anachronistic ideology of ethnic domination. I think even-handed condemnation of both sides is too kind to Israel, but at least acceptable as a rational viewpoint. One-sided condemnation of the Palestinians is utterly appalling, yet still the rule among US decision makers with very few exceptions.
I think that David is right: Violence against Israel will not help the Palestinians, for a number of reasons.
BDS can help. Protest efforts can help. But to really improve things for the Palestinians, what is required is defeating the Israel Lobby in the US and mounting an effective offensive against the hasbara of the Zionist-controlled MSM.
Contributors to this blog can and do help in the effort.
True. I fear that perhaps we are too late to do this the “easy way,” though. I don’t see the United States lasting for very long in its present form. The deficit and debt are staggering, the economy has been cored out, and even meaningful health care reform is out of reach.
Right now, the only thing that’s poised to thwart the Israeli lobby is the inevitable implosion of the US under the weight of its corruption and folly.
I agree with Chaos4700, and with the commenters who pinpointed the USA’s Security vote and our continued lavish blank check to Israel as very influential factors in maintaining the horrible status quo. The second dip of the recession coming up (due to fact the bailout mechanics just dig us deeper in the hole, and the impending war on Iran will collapse the USA, and finally, the American people will start connecting the dots–the equivalent of making our foreign policy as much of an issue as our individal
health insurance.
israel’s piecemeal ethnic cleansing had more victims just today:
israeli ethnic cleansing [BBC]
the leadership of israel, funded by extremists mostly from the USA (Saban, Adelson, etc. and the hapless American taxpayer), are systematically taking over more land in the West Bank, forcing out Palestinians and other non-jews from East Jerusalem, and inflicting sustained collective punishment on the residents of Gaza
israel’s actions are evil, selfish, murderous, completely without any moral justification and are a textbook example of a bully state that commits serial war-crimes to achieve its strategic aims of extending its land area and its geopolitical influence
And the despicable President of the US rolls over and allows it without a squeak.
Imagine the screaming headlines if Ahmadinejad had ‘forcibly’ evicted Iranian Jews out of their homes in Tehran then proceeded to demolish their building to ruble, citing the kafkaesque rules of bureaucracy as justification.
Yes we would all know the very names of the imagined victims – CNN would be sure of that detail.
But it’s happening to Palestinians. Living in the heart of Jerusalem. Have always lived there. No denying that.
How desperately sad and depressing to see yet another Palestinian standing in the rubble of their modest homes. That a people who self-appoint themselves as the ‘light upon nations’ would actually remorselessly demolish a needy person’s home is beyond the known pale. I would even venture saying that this diabolical act is the very crime of anti-semiticism – are not the Palestinians Semites too? Are they not being targeted by a State, a regime, an ideology? Are they not demonized and denied basic human rights? Are they not systematically being ‘transferred’ street by street right under our very noses?
And speaking of despicable, heinous, and obstructionist:
link to haaretz.com
This reconciliation agreement was to have been the key to unlocking the prison gates of Rafah, allowing Gazans free passage to and from Gaza. It would as well have begun to heal the rift between the two parties of the Palestinian people, allowing them to present a unified face to Israel in negotations, with a legitimately-elected government (if the elections were indeed honest, which of course Israel would try to prevent).
It is of course in Israel’s interest that the rift continue, that Hamas continue to be locked out of Palestinian government, that the Palestinian people be divided. And the US is clearly coming out as the open enemy of the Palestinians, making sure they are crippled and divided before they ever face the enemy.
If the Nobel committee had any integrity, they would rescind their travesty of an award. They have placed their faith in a corrupted vessel.
Despicable is almost too kind a description.
Potsherd, some observers seem to think that Obama’s Mideast policy is now constrained by his need to maintain support within the Senate on some other issues, especially health care reform. Some Senators who are key players with the Israel Lobby, such as Lieberman and Schumer (for example), may have signaled that their support on health care (or Afghanistan, whatever) is contingent on Obama doing whatever Israel demands, more or less, with the Palestinians. That’s how the Lobby operates, behind the curtain.
…And yet, health care reform is still falling flat on its face. Not to mention the wars.
Boy, did we ever elect the wrong President. But I suppose it’s not like the weak, ineffectual Democratic Party gave us much of a choice.
Ishmael – I’m sure this is so. Unless the Mossad has planted a bomb in his head, and I don’t rule that out, either.
And yet it’s “anti-Semitic” to suggest that the Lobby controls US foreign policy.
And as usual, as always, as it ever ever is, the Palestinians have to pay. It’s always Palestinian rights and interests that are sacrificed to the venal political reality, always the Palestinians who end up under the bus.
This, just when reports from the meetings of Mitchell and Netanyahu inform us that the “peace process,” which all this betrayal is supposedly to benefit, is essentially dead, that Israel will make no concessions (thanks to the Lobby again).
The stench of this rises up to the heavens.
It would allow the Arab League proposal to get the light of day.
Salim Fayyad has eloquently stated that Jews will be welcome as citizens in a Palestinian state.
So that if the Arab League proposal doesn’t get the light of the day it’s because of Israeli intransigence, not because of any Palestinian rejectionism.
Any settlers left in Palestine (including in the one-state solution) will have to be de-privileged i.e. given equal living standards to that of the Palestinians. In those circumstances they will all leave. That’s decolonisation for you.
The idea of Palestinian Jews is all very well, and perhaps I might be one if I live long enough. But that must be distinguished from the possibility of the Israeli settlers remaining on the occupied ground until “peace” is achieved — or else forever. The Fourth Geneva Convention has been interpreted (by almost everyone and certainly by the International Court of Justice in its 9 July 2004 advisory opinion) to make settlement of an occupied territory a violation of international humanitarian law. One look at the settler regime in Hebron should show why this is a wise provision.
since the occupation has lasted 42 years and seems likely to last another 42 years at least (there being no signs whatever of an end to Israel’s de facto one-state apartheid-style non-democratic “solution”), the proper business of the US, the UN, the EU, the BDS folks, and all progressive activists is to achieve the removal of all settlers now and for so long as the occupation continues. The settlers cannot (in law) be allowed to remain as carrots and sticks in Israel’s negotiating arsenal.
And, thus, from this viewpoint, it is not a question of Jewish settlers remaining on the land, but of Jewish persons seeking permission to enter a Palestinian state after it comes into existence, such permission presumably being mediated by whatever peace treaty creates the Palestinian state.
The questions of land-ownership are laughable. Israel seized enormous amounts of land owned by non-Jews through its “absentee property” laws in the 1950s, seizing even the lands of “present absentees”, that is, of people who never left the territory which became Israel but who were chased around by the Jewish armies and were thus “absentees” from their own lands. Unless and until compensation has been made for the land seized in this matter (and this is one element of the problem of Palestinian refugees), it makes little sense to get worked up over the poor settlers who might lose “their” land in the West Bank or Golan Heights.
David,
I like your cool-headed description of the utter infeasibility of improving Palestinians lives by the militant resistance mode of terror or even irritation that borders on terror.
I disagree with your characterization of Zionism as “a loathesome and anachronistic ideology of ethnic domination”.
Zionism is on a teeter. It is alternately an ideology of national assertion, a good in the world, in contrast to suppression.
It is up to us to emphasize the importance of ethics, voluntarily treating the “other” decently, whether from a religious or political origination.
There have been many Israeli “Gandhi’s” including many that are hated by the far left, that have acknowledged the humanity of the other. Mutual humanization.
I don’t believe in the confrontational approach to dissent, whether by violence or even by BDS (certainly vaguely stated and applied). It informs far less than cool and respectful dialog (if people are courageous enough to be candid, and not merely loud).
Hamas is on a teeter. It is alternately an ideology of national assertion, a good in the world, in contrast to suppression.
The Palestinian people people are a people by virtue of self-identification as such. To argue that’s only because of Israeli oppression is to argue that Jewish ID is only due to “anti-semitism.”
There have not been any Palestinian Gandhis because Israsel jails or murders them before the fact.
What is more confrontational in sovereign dissent (or attack on dissent) that a Caterpillar tractor, such as the one that bulldozed Rachael Corrie?
If BDS was a useful tool in ending apartheid S Africa, why is not an equally useful tool in ending Israeli apartheid similarities?
Google “passive agressive” and see if it profiles Richard Witty.
I prefer “broken record”.
Richard – When I described “a loathsome and anachronistic ideology of ethnic domination,” I did not have in mind Zionism as a whole, but the Occupation in particular. I probably would not have used so strong a phrase to describe Zionism, although I cannot say I would disagree with it. You call Zionism “a good in the world,” and in a sense maybe it is. It could be viewed as a “good” for the Jewish people, a “national assertion” rising from the ashes of the Holocaust, etc. But is it a “good” as a whole? I think not. Zionism has its victims, and the wrong done to them outweighs the good for the Jewish people. Had there been no downside, it might be perfectly reasonable to assert that the Jewish people should have a homeland and a state of their own. But how can you view that in a vacuum? There is a downside, and that is part of the equation. If I work hard and plan well and make a million dollars, that sounds like a nice story of success, but if my hard work and planning went into robbing a bank, maybe it’s not so nice. The question is not whether Zionism is good for the Jewish people, but whether it is good as a whole.
As for treating the other “decently,” that sounds nice, but on closer inspection, there are some problems. Non-Jewish people of Arab descent should not be satisfied with “decent” treatment at the hands of Israeli Jews. Like all minorities in the US, they have a right to demand equal treatment in the land of their birth. As that extraordinary 1918 letter from prominent Jewish anti-Zionists (which has appeared on this site) stated: “the keynotes to democracy are neither condescension nor tolerance, but justice and equality.” By that beautifully-articulated standard, Israel is not a democracy, even for its minority Arab citizens, and no one can reasonably suggest that the more plentiful Palestinians in the territories have even a semblance of democracy.
Finally, as to BDS, Israel needs a shove, and a big one. Israel will not give up the odious Occupation without it. Violence is the wrong answer, because it is always morally wrong, and it would be ineffective and even counter-productive in this case. BDS, if it caught on, would be a national shame for the Israelis, who are sensitive to that sort of thing, and might also create a moderate economic hardship that pales – PALES – in comparison to what Israel has imposed collectively on the Gazans. If anyone ever proposed treating Israelis in that manner, I would be adamantly against it, even though there would be an obvious measure of justice in it. BDS is far short of being so calculated and cruel.
To return to my first point, Zionism does place a higher value on some human beings, and confer greater civil and legal rights based on ethnicity. To me, that is loathsome and anachronistic, a vestige of another era in which such distinctions were commonplace and deemed acceptable. I did not intend the phrase to apply to Zionism, but the shoe apparently fits.
Zionism is clearly a net good in the world.
The contrast between such a significant people being forced again into suppression and potential genocide following WW2 was a need. The land was predominately unoccupied, demonstrated by the presence of 4 times more Palestinians residing there now then there were then. If the land couldn’t accommodate additional population, they wouldn’t reside there either.
On BDS, the biggest problem is the punitive and vague statement of it. Solidarity is primarily angry (more than rational), and especially so when “led” by angrier more fanatic Palestinian vanguard (that dissenters yeild to, to avoid being imposing on the victims).
Vague BDS is experienced, and is, a continuation of harrassment, rather than dealing with the difficult questions on the Palestinian end (which for Hamas, PFLP, Islamic Jihad and other groups, is whether they accept Israel as Israel).
From that place, they can assertively “call Israel’s bluff”, which they should do.
Short of that, Israel is calling their bluff, and making dissenters appear (and actually are) pawns of fanaticism, rather than compassionate and motivated supporters of humanity.
The difference between the politics of liberals, centrists, and that compassionate good is not very great. The difference between the politics of radicals, angry, and that compassionate and concise solidarity is great.
On focusing on one group of people over another, EVERYBODY does it.
Certainly the Palestinians regard their needs as more important, more in their own minds, than the needs of Israelis.
The difference though is between a zero-sum approach, “I love our own, I hate others” and a mutually humane approach, “I love our own very much, I love others only some.”
In a mutually humane approach, coexistence in whatever form is possible. In the zero-sum approach, whether expansionist Zionist, or resentful solidarity, no coexistence is possible, and proponents are actually rationalizing for their own moral negligence.
“Zionism is clearly a net good in the world.”
On the contrary. Zionism offers no more good than apartheid.
“The land was predominately unoccupied”
This has long been debunked.
One of the most ardent Zionists, Israel Zangwill, stated as early as 1905, that Palestine was twice as thickly populated as the United States. He stated:
“Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ….. [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us.” (Righteous Victims, p. 140 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7-10)
“On BDS, the biggest problem is the punitive and vague statement of it.”
There’s nothing vasgue about it, but your comment begs the question. If it was less vague, woudl you supoprt it?
Humane Zionism offers mutual recognition. Expansionistic Zionism is an abuse to both peoples.
To conclude that humane Zionism is impossible, or is not designed into Israel’s basic law, is to revise reality.
Shingo,
If Palestine/Israel were “full” in 1917, then the population of the land would be 1.6 million, rather than the 11 million today. The additional 9.4 million (6 times 1917 population live there).
The issue is one of control, not of presence. And, that is the same conservative/reactionary concern as American fears of the great Latin tsunami. Real and not real at the same time.
Current Zionist immigration law mirrors the reactionary of both Palestine and of the US from the 1920′s to current. We imagine that those that were “always there” have superior rights to residence and prominence. Its an aristocratic mentality, not only a “populist” one.
The question “what are you for?” is the important one.
What are you against is opportunistic and fraudulent.
Sadly, expansionistic Zionism is all we are privy to. Even ther humanistic Zionists are reticient to speak out against the status quo.
Humane Zionism is not designed into Israel’s laws. Israel’s laws permit, nay, encourage expasionism and apartheid.
Palestine/Israel was “full” in 1917, in thew sense that it was not empty. Housing today permits populations to be more denselyl contained, not to mention that Isrlae has jammed the Palestinians in Gaza into a sardine can.
You cannot seperate the issue of control from presence. That is az disctinction without a difference. Control is what allows presence.
Insisting that those hose that were “always there” have justic is not a call for superior rights, though Zionists like yourself woudl have us believe this. The only parties who exhibit an aristocratic mentality are those thatbelieve that they are the chosen adn that God is a real estate agent.
Zionism with a small ‘z’ is no better for the world.
We all know very well there is no such thing as a friendly cancer.
I just saw a video presentation by Phil as an example.
In the presentation, he described his experiences, the people that he met, what he saw, some distinction of what he knew from what he heard.
He was convincing, motivating, his person.
When strident, or feeding stridency, he is less convincing, frankly more motivating of his opposition, including making potential friends into opponent.
Rather than deriving and presenting value from his trip and experience, he then ends up wasting it.
Well then, Mister Witty, why don’t you go take the same trip and present to us your conclusions; we will judge those conclusions as you judge Phil, that is, as objectively as you do. Fair enough?
The difference though is between a zero-sum approach, “I love our own, I hate others” and a mutually humane approach, “I love our own very much, I love others only some.”
The notion that some citizens of a state are “our own” and some other citizens are “others” is itself outrageous.
Up to a very recent time there existed quotas for the number of Jews that were admitted into certain universities in certain countries — the US included. Not that they were not loved: they were allowed to work, to enjoy a decent standard of living, even to hold public office — but not to exceed a certain percentage of the students at Yale.
They were the “others;” they were loved “only some.” I don’t see how that can be described as a “mutually humane approach.”
Suggestion: “Okay, let’s just establish the Palestinian state and let the Jewish settlers stay as Palestinian citizens – just as many Arabs are Israeli citizens. They shall have the same rights as their Arab counterparts in Israel.”
Allegedly progressive Zionist: “Yeah, great. No judenrein Palestine! It’s only fair!”
S: “Of course in many cases, settlers don’t have proper permits for their dwellings – so unfortunately many will have to be demolished – the settlers would still be free to reside under Palestinian bridges and overpasses, though.”
APZ: “Yeah, gr… wait, what?”
S: “After all, they couldn’t count on getting a permit to build elsewhere. The land would, naturally, be reserved by the state for Arab construction.”
APZ: “Err…”
S: “And of course, ‘same rights as the Arabs in Israel’ means that Jewish settlers would not be permitted to bring in Jewish spouses from elsewhere into Palestine. In fact, any further Jewish immigration, of any kind, into the Palestinian state would be outlawed.”
APZ: “Firp… Grks…. NAZI! ANTI-SEMITE! TERRORIST!”
Koshiro has captured the “mirror” situation magnificently! What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Beautiful.
However, as I have been drum-beating for a long time, the Israeli settlers in West Bank (and Golan) are present illegally (occupier’s settlers are illegal in any territory occupied by that occupier) and should be removed BEFORE peace. Therefore, in principle, there would BE NO ISRAELI SETTLERS to continue to maintain residence in West Bank.
The peace treaty could, of course, provide for Jewish (or Israeli) immigration into the Palestinian state, just as it could provide for Palestinian immigration (or “return” if the immigrant is a person properly a citizen of pre-1967 Israel whose going-home was prevented by Israeli policy of exclusion of non-Jewish returnees after the war of 1936-51) into Israel.