It may be time for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to "tell his people the truth, that with the continuation of settlement activities, the two-state solution is no longer an option," [Palestinian negotiator Saeb] Erekat told a news conference.
He raised the possibility of Palestinians instead being absorbed into the Israeli polity — something that would spell the end of the Jewish majority. Israel rejects that option.
Clinton–who inadvertently landed the blow that broke the peace process’s jaw in the 15th round– is scrambling. From tomorrow’s Times:
Winding up a Middle East tour, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton repeated on Wednesday that while the Obama administration rejects the legitimacy of Israeli settlement expansion, it nonetheless believes that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations should precede a permanent freeze on such construction.
Her arguments conflicted with Arab and Palestinian demands that all settlement activity be frozen as a precondition for resuming talks with Israel.
ALSO FROM THE REUTERS ARTICLE: Washington felt it was time to see what Netanyahu envisioned when he offered to negotiate immediately, the official said, adding: “We’d like to see what he brings to the table.”
What Natanyahoo the Zionist will bring is his fist to shove-up the ass-crack of the world.
And the world will like it?
The party is over, it is time for those in power who have spoke about a one state solution (however conceived) spread the idea among the people. The people should embrace it, and the switch should be made to rights within the state. Israel has killed the two state solution, actually it died long ago. This should be identified with all civil rights movements in the past so it can be properly identified and supported by the global community.
the usa has been one-sided for so long, it is nice to see the fruit of this one-sidedness in resolution 867…. sometimes reality is a good slap in the face… the usa is not what it once was, or even what some folks seem to think it is… it is way past it’s prime in showing any real leadership, so it is a waste of time to expect any from it…
The nicest thing one could say about Hilary is that she is incompetent.
For if she is not incompetent then she is iniquitous.
That’s exactly what I said about her after she voted to approve the Iraq War.
And, like nearly all the others, she voted for that war without even glancing at the
documentation made available for her to read.
What about she’s unprecedented?
This strikes me as huge and shocking. Saeb Erekat is not an outsider. The one-state idea (which is simply a demand for democracy!) is the Palestinians strongest source of leverage. Past time to use it! Could Fatah be realizing that? Especially with Abbas’ popularity plummeting?
Wonderful. The ultimate non-violent solution.
All Palestinians have to ask for is equal rights in a multi-ethnic state. Everyone can support equal rights, can’t they? Over to you Moldovan Foreign Minister Lieberman.
This is indeed the beauty of the one-state idea. It demands that Palestinians be treated as equals – effective immediately! Unlike the two-state nonsense that is being peddled as “the only realistic solution”, playing endless political games, emphasising “the process” above all else and quashing any attempt to demand Palestinian rights now with the excuse that it will “harm the process” and we should focus all our efforts on “the process”. This is precisely the line that Hillary and Obama are trying to feed us – forget Gaza, forget Goldstone, forget settlements. The only thing that matters is to get Netanyahu and Abbas to the table, to start/restart/re-restart “the process”.
Hello Israeli own-goal!
Except the Israelis are gonna now kill the referee, reject the draw score, and refuse to ever play again.
That’s where WW3 comes into the picture to settle the championship.
Maybe everyone will get to reason.
You think Zionists and Palestinian nationalists and radical pan-Islamicists can actually function in a single state?
Is it a threat or a genuine proposal?
I’m probably going to regret trying to talk to you Mr. Witty, but here goes.
Israelis and Palestinians, Jews, Arabs and others all have the same inalienable rights. Any plan or ideology (such as the ones you mention) that rejects this basic principle and prefers the interests of any one group over those of any other group is a part of the problem and must be opposed if there is ever going to be a solution in I/P. Trying to make peace and accommodate such ideologies at the same time is like making a hole in water. Pan-Islamists (to the extent that they exist among Palestinians) and Zionists (the overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews) must be compelled by the international community to deal with one another as equals. Of all the solutions proposed thus far, “one secular democratic state” seems to best embody this principle.
You can just skip the disclaimer Shmuel, it looses some of its impact if you use it every time. “just this once i will respond to Witty….” “I know i’ll regret it…..” “Ok I am going to bite…..”
Don’t give me the crap about inalienable rights…… Hamas’ self governance in Gaza pretty much shits that idea right down the drain, unless of course you don’t believe women should have equal rights, or any rights for that matter. A woman in the WB has more rights under occupation than any woman has EVER had in an Arab country.
In a ‘one-state’ solution, will honor killings be rewarded or punished?
link to cnn.com
In a ‘one-state’ solution, will women get to ride motorcycles?
link to awid.org
In a ‘one-state’ solution, will the killing of political rivals be a crime or rewarded?
link to workersliberty.org
Sounds good. Everyone can hold hands and sing cumbaya. Unfortunately for you anti Israel zealouts it’s never going to happen. I realize the Israel feelings on the matter of their own country doesn’t matter to you, but there’s no chance the Israelis would decide to dissolve their wonderful country and live like dhimmis in an Arab state.
Remind me again how Zionists are stark raving racists.
Israel cooked this dish, now they can swallow it. If they choke, that’s their problem. Greed has its cost.
Julian, Shmuel is an Israeli.
Thanks MRW, but Julian wasn’t paying attention anyway. He was just looking for an opportunity to present his wonderful-country/Arab-domination false dichotomy, the better to avoid facing the facts that the wonderful-country ain’t so wonderful and that Jews might not be the only ones who don’t like being dominated. My best talking point when speaking to Israelis :-) If all else fails, enlightened self-interest can be a powerful motivator, which is where BDS comes in too, by the way.
Shmuel, you write some of the sanest comments on this board. Consistently clear-headed, and well-written: understandable and without animus. Now, if I could only adopt your RW rule, and refrain from wasting my time. . . . I have to keep reminding myself that RW doesn’t investigate source material that doesn’t comport with his worldview. Goldstone report? Bah! I’ll read what others say then comment. Read others’ links? Bah! I’ll intuit their slant and use my peace leash. I’m afraid to say but his universe is this board, and I must remember that when a phrase of utter imbecility jumps out at me, and I feel compelled to rejoinder. (Although I had to take him on about Canada, since I know a lot about it, and it underscored the depth of his lack of foundational knowledge to make the solipsistic comments he did.)
Thank you, MRW. I am doubly flattered, because I have come to respect your opinion here. I try to skip Witty’s comments, as well as most of the comments on his comments. His feigned innocence is sometimes tempting, as are some of his more outrageous statements, but there really is very little to be gained by rising to his bait. The first step to recovery is recognising you have a problem ;-)
“The first step to recovery is recognising you have a problem ;-) ”
I think I’m still in the denial stage. I do rise to the bait, and I know I’m doing it. I have reasons, or rationalizations for doing it, but I’m not yet convinced they are rationalizations for sure.
So yeah, still in the denial phase. Right now I’m negotiating–just a few replies, for the sake of accuracy. Like taking one drink.
Go on, Donald, say it: “My name is Donald and I’m a Wittyholic.”
But what if my next reply on Bernstein finally breaks through? What if…
Okay, you’re right. My name is Donald and I’m a Wittyholic.
Cold turkey. This ain’t gonna be easy.
You guys are so right it hurts. We may need a support group.
“You guys are so right it hurts. We may need a support group.”
Darn right. I nearly responded both to him and to someone who takes him at his own evaluation. The road to recovery is slow.
You’re right Julian,
The Israel feelings on the matter of their own country doesn’t matter to us, but their feelings on the matter of someone else’s land does.
Israel’s “wonderful” country is being disolved by Israel’s stupidity and greed. And speaking of dhimmis in an Arab state, if they’re so worried about it, they have the choice to allow Palestinians their own state or to go back to where more of them came from.
You’re absolutely right, yonira. If I feel, for some reason, that I must respond to RW, I will skip the disclaimer. Thanks for the tip.
Yonira,
You gave me a hand with my posts and I feel I kind of owe you, so I’ll give you a hand with yours. You make some untrue assumptions and statements, without which your posts would be far more convincing. Let’s take your post in this thread for example:
1. You assume that all Palestinians share the values of the current Hamas government. This is patently untrue. Hamas does not have nearly the popular support that Netanyahu does, and I would not presume that all Israelis share his values. A democratic state would also have a constitution and other guarantees – including external support for as long as needed – in order to safeguard human and civil rights. All democratic countries have such safeguards, and would be unlivable without them. You have at least as much to fear from Palestinian regard for human rights, as they do from Israeli regard for human rights – if not more (hereby submitted for understatement of the year) – yet many Palestinians are willing to take the chance.
2. It is patently false that “[a] woman in the WB has more rights under occupation than any woman has EVER (sic) had in an Arab country.” Women in Lebanon and Morocco (to name but 2) may travel freely to school, work, visit friends and family, work in their own fields etc. – to cite just one way in which being a Lebanese or Moroccan woman is ever so much nicer than being a Palestinian woman under “enlightened” Israeli occupation. You might also want to stop assuming that all “Arabs” are alike.
As for your questions and supporting links, see point 1 above.
Sorry, got that backwards. Should read:Palestinians have at least as much to fear from Israeli regard for human rights as Israelis have to fear from Palestinian regard for human rights – if not more (hereby submitted for understatement of the year) – yet many Palestinians are willing to take the chance.
It is just me, or are the Zionist propagandists becvomming more juvenile and unhinged?
Yonira, we know you don’t give me the crap about inalienable rights. You didn’t give a crap about them before Hamas or before the PLO. Israel never gave a crap about those rights even before Israel was cretaed.
“A woman in the WB has more rights under occupation than any woman has EVER had in an Arab country.”
So how many women in Raba countgries are toutinely evicted or subjecte to home demolitions, or check points or humiliating body searches or being spat on, or worse, being used for taget practive by those brave IDF snipers. One shot, 2 kills remember? I bet you wear one fo those t-shirts when you go to bed at night.
“In a ‘one-state’ solution, will honor killings be rewarded or punished?”
What difference does it make whether you are the victim of a honor killing as opposed to a routine killing coutersy of the IDF?
“In a ‘one-state’ solution, will women get to ride motorcycles?”
You mean like they do on the Sabbath in Israel?
link to abc.net.au
“In a ‘one-state’ solution, will the killing of political rivals be a crime or rewarded?”
No, maybe they’ll just beat them and improson them without charge like they do in Israel.
Hey Yonira, I heard a Jewish rabbi performs some pretty radical exorcisms and has been deported from Brazil. Do ytou think this will become common place in Israel? Just curious.
You’re so f-ing pessimistic! (Especially when pessimism serves as an excuse to curtail Palestinian options.) People can let go of prejudices, especially when they live together on terms of equality, and interact, and make common cause (imagine an integrated military!).
The hatred comes from the power imbalance, and the abuses of rights, and the cycles of violence those engender.
And, I should add, the hatred also comes from the separation inherent in both the current apartheid system and the nationalistic two-state framework.
So, you both think of the one-state as a genuine proposal, and not only as a threat?
It was a real question (and you guys attack me for not answering direct questions).
I believe in equal rights and equal due process under the law. I also believe that they are possible to incorporate into national structures with borders. An example for me is the relationship between US and Canada. They are different states, but both regard equal rights and equal due process under the law as critical features. There is only very limited effort to make US and Canada one state. Or, US and Mexico.
Thinking ecologically, the idea of any borders is an absurdity, social ecologically or natural. The French speaking community of Northern Vermont is NOT different than the French speaking community in Quebec, twenty miles away. Or, the Spanish speaking community of South west Texas or Southern California from Mexico.
And, at the same time, functionally, there must be some line to define administrative jurisdictions, where one set of laws apply from another.
The boundary between Palestine and Israel is irrational. Desert from desert. Bedouin from Bedouin. Palestinian from Palestinian. Jew from Jew (wait that is an applied ethnic dividing line).
The boundary between Israel and Lebanon is irrational. The boundary between Jordan and Israel is irrational. The Jordan River or line in the Negev. (Rivers are community and ecological unifiers more than dividers).
The prerequisite of the anarchist no-boundary condition is the presence of a methodology to respectfully work out all conflicts fairly and socially (rather than politically and militarily). To not work to create those prerequisites IS to act in a way that opposes what you state is your goal.
One primary reason that I oppose BDS, especially imprecise BDS, is that itself hinders social peace-making in favor of a politically oriented strategy, that must then very quickly do the social peace-making (say in a single state) in order to minimize the violence in the likely civil war. But, the movement for BDS requires/implies the invocation of imprinted angers (hatred in some form) as motivation, which is the opposite of the conditions that social peace-making is possible in a single state.
In contrast, social peace-making, the person to person recognition that the other is human being, IS the substance of both reform and dissent.
Even if that implies that I paternalistically suggest that Palestinians should not express rage, it is still the right goal. I also suggest it of Jews and Israelis, even though they have their rational stimulations to hatred.
Except for a deeply spiritual man like Mandela, who was capable of changing the course of rivers in a paragraph.
“Where is the Palestinian Mandela” is NOT an irrelevant question, given the NEED to change the course of “rivers”. (a metaphor, not literal)
“Where is the Zionist Mandela,” Witty?
I knew I’d regret it. Dishonesty, time-wasting and subject changing.
Israelis and Palestinians are not separated by boundaries (US/Mexico/Canada/etc. all irrelevant). They are separated by occupation and a political-legal system that does not recognise their equality. You claim to believe in equal rights and equal due process under the law, but consistently refuse to apply that belief to Israelis and Palestinians, in any practical way. Anarchism and boundary-erasing have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. One state would have borders as would two, and would separate peoples with linguistic, cultural, ethnic and religious affinities.
There can be no “social peace-making” as long as one side brutally dominates the other and has no intention of treating the other as an equal partner. It is a fig leaf, a passive-aggressive ploy, an excuse to preserve the advantages and privileges of the infinitely stronger side.
I think I’m done.
A far far more relevant question: Where is the Israeli De Klerk? Or Attlee (if we’re doing the Ghandi routine)?
Both of our questions are relevant, actually. There were no notable peace-makers among the Zionists who “liberated” themselves from “oppression” and “founded” Israel by culling the Palestinian natives — only terrorists and militants.
Point taken, Chaos. Whatever way you look at it, those who who espouse and/or defend extreme violence on their own side, while demanding that the other side practise non-violence or reasonable statesmanship, give hypocrisy a bad name.
So, the question remains, unanswered.
Do you believe in single-state proposal is in earnest, or do you think of it is a threat or consequence?
The Palestinian Mandella is Marwan Barghouti.
Beloved and respected by all sides of his struggling nation.
And like Mandella, Marwan sits in his Israeli prison cell, unjustly paying for someone else’ dues.
In fact, if you look around the Arab world, you will not find a single young and talented would-be leader…. except amongst the Palestinians who seem to be giving birth and rearing some of the brightest future leaders the Arab world will know this millennium.
We’re not talking militant Hamas or corrupt Fatah here – we’re talking a bright and progressive breed of Palestinian.
But Taxi, Barghouti’s first name isn’t Nelson and he’s not black and he hasn’t ended Apartheid in his country. Besides, recognising him as the Palestinian Mandela might ruin a perfectly good hasbara point. Waste not want not.
Witty, how many times have you fled from questions and left them unanswered?
You want to know what? There is no peace-making with Israel. Just like there was no peace-making with Nazi Germany. Because all that meant was appeasement to a racist, expansionist power and all that lead to was more death, destruction and military conquest later on. And eventually that threat grew to large enough to endanger the whole Western world, at least.
At every turn, Israel breaks its treaties and promises and treats the Palestinians like animals. Like Taxi said — the Palestinian Mandela is in prison. Or worse, he’s been murdered.
There never was a Zionist Mandela. Ever.
I’m not sure why you desire to avoid my questions.
Are you that afraid to?
We aren’t avoiding your question, you dipshit! Between the three of us we’ve answered it like five times over! Check your hearing aid.
I didn’t hear the answer. I heard the deflection.
What was the answer to the question of whether the single state is an actual desired strategy, or a threat to motivate pursuing a fair two-state?
Again, do you seriously desire the single-state?
I’m not Palestinian, Witty, so it’s not really my choice.
That said, letting a bunch of racist Zionist militants slaughter civilian populations by the hundreds ever couple years, steal thousands upon thousands of homes, and hang on to a nuclear arsenal without any sort of inspection, treaty obligation or even so much as an honest declaration is not an option.
Israel isn’t just a threat to the Palestinians; it’s not even merely a threat to the neighboring Arab states. Israel is a threat to the world. You only need to see how many international laws and UN resolutions Israel is in defiance of to see that.
So yeah. I think the only way to defuse Israel is to dismantle the Jewish ruling class and introduce the democracy to Palestine that has been yearned for since before well before the Nakba.
Chaos,
Your goal certainly IS your choice.
If you are just acting in agency, in somewhat passive solidarity to Palestinian vanguard leadership, you ARE choosing which Palestinian solidarity voice to support. There are MANY, some seek a two-state solution (most), some seek a single-state.
To imply that you are only solidarity, is to misrepresent your choices.
Stop the name-calling.
So who’s been evasive now? You aren’t addressing the substance of my post about the threat Israel poses to the modern world.
I knew I’d regret it. Dishonesty, time-wasting and subject changing.
Shmuel, I am not sure if I agree with you concerning dishonesty and subject changing. Sometimes it helps to put something into a larger context. At the same time I have a degree of sympathy for your response. Maybe since in the last paragraph he returns to his usual bias. Thus you may be right that it hovers above all his lines.
The part below is certainly true, as it reminds me of a Jewish Canadian friend who worked much of his life with and on (as a scholar) First Nation Canadians. He once suggested to me, if I wanted to understand Canadian/American First Nation tribes all I needed was a map without borders, and pay attention to “natural borders”:
Thinking ecologically, the idea of any borders is an absurdity, social ecologically or natural. ..
And, at the same time, functionally, there must be some line to define administrative jurisdictions, where one set of laws apply from another.
Actually this startled me:
I oppose BDS, especially imprecise BDS, is that itself hinders social peace-making in favor of a politically oriented strategy
It clearly feels like a modification of his earlier view. Seems in this context we could meet, as I strongly feel a broad social movement–for lack of a better term–working on prejudice or even a common history (from the top of my head) would be much closer to my deepest interests than the political maneuvers and interests. Can a true peace process, something sustainable, ever happen without the above?
Leander,
Or perhaps ask what I mean by “social” as distinct from “political”.
I think that would clear up confusion.
People can disagree, but at least it would be about some content, some concept.
Chaos,
How is it possible to respond to a post that says that “you haven’t addressed my point about how Israel is a threat to the modern world?”
You can rationalize the death of hundreds of Palestinian children, like you usually do. Or you can go the “Oh well we don’t really know if Israel has nukes” tack. Or you can wring your hands about the ethnic cleansing and water theft in East Jerusalem and the West Bank but then turn around and talk about how it’ll be a “useful point for negotiation.” Or, you can go on into a long screed about how the Nakba didn’t really happen and how all those Palestinians “just left.”
I suppose I can take some heart that you haven’t done any of that. Just yet.
Thanks for the comment, LeaNder. As much as I would rather avoid another metadiscussion about RW (I guess I asked for it this time), his dishonesty lies primarily in his constant reiteration of liberal values (and even their universality), while refusing to apply them to Israel in any consistent fashion. He did not want to discuss the right of Palestinians to equality or that right as a premise for the one-state idea, so he changed the subject to a harmless philosophical ramble on the subject of borders. It is indeed an interesting and worthy subject, but rather than reframing the subject in a “broader context” as you put it, it served only to avoid the unpleasant realities (to RW) of a rather concrete thread. Hiding behind abstractions is a tried and true time-wasting distraction, which is, for all intents and purposes a subject change.
I have decided to return to my policy of ignoring Witty, and suggest that others do the same. His games only lower the quality of discussion here.
The subject of borders is relevant. How could you call it an irrelevant component?
I stated that borders are irrational in general, a concept that would support the elimination of borders (a single-state).
Must every discussion be monochromatic?
The correct question in this instance is not – “is the one state a valid offer?” The real question is when has Zionism ever proposed a valid offer? The answer is NEVER.
The second query about the “Mandela,” has never been have leaders of this magnitude arisen? It is, have leaders of this magnitude which have arisen often ever been recognized? NO, is the unequivocal and factually correct. this has been the case from the beginning of the colonial enterprise of Israel. One only has to look at the beginning, and the stunts that were pulled to erect the colonial ‘state.’ Does someone want to argue about this trend from the beginning? rather than repeating myself by re-writing why not cut and paste how I silenced another inquiry about the “Mandela” or the “are the Palestinians capable of running or forging a state,” there was no answer to this back in August and there is none no. this is how it begins and this is how it continues to this day:
When the two societies are compared, the support given in the Mandate to the settlers was foreign and political, military and economic support. The Zionist movement at this time was international gave the yishuv powerful external support also – but in the main the combination of external support from coreligionists, the greatest imperial power at the time, as well as the League of Nations.
In contrast the Palestinians had no significant external support. There was a lot of sympathy and many said they would fight along side of the Palestinians – but manpower was not what the Palestinians needed. They needed arms , funds, and effective international support. This is not surprising since most of the surrounding countries just came out from under colonial rule themselves! They were still subject to neocolonial control. British troops were in Egypt, Iraq and Jordon til the 1950’s. The French were in Syria and Lebanon till 1946. Saudi Arabia and Yemen were not modern states, Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan etc were still under either direct or indirect colonial control. Great Britain and France suppressed their locals (from the region) from supporting the Palestinians, as an example all funds going from France during the interwar period were halted, there are tons of foreign ministry papers which attest to this. IN CONTRAST to this, these countries, both Britain and France allowed domestic and foreign funds to flow to the yishuv from large Jewish communities. This as I said above is only part of the manufactured differences, but if you want more I can readily provide them.
What happened, as a consequence of just these factors (because there are many more) the power in the region was shifted to the yishuv. Despite all of this financial support, in the pre-Hitler era immigration was declining to the “land of milk and honey.” However, when the war and persecution began the Jewish population jumped 30%, in 1935 alone there was over 60,000 immigrants. During this time the immigrant population knew that the demographic was going to be extremely important.
Your retort about Jews on ships floating around, who’s fault was that, the Palestinians? Why were the ships floating around MW? Why? Because these same nations did not want to receive the Jewish immigrants, there were called Bolsheviks and all manner of antisemitic nonsense. Is that the fault of the Palestinians, did they cause the Holocaust? This retort of yours is patently ridiculous.
Outside of that, during the Holocaust, the Zionists were trying to be pickers and choosers of who would immigrate. They did not want any of the old and the indigent, they only wanted the “finest,” yeah that’s right MW.
““Can you bring six million Jews to Palestine?” I replied, “No.” … From the depths of the tragedy I want to save … young people [for Palestine]. The old ones will pass. They will bear their fate or they will not. They are dust, economic and moral dust in a cruel world … Only the branch of the young shall survive. They have to accept it.”
Chaim Weizmann reporting to the Zionist Congress in 1937 on his testimony before the Peel Commission in London, July 1937. Cited in Yahya, p. 55.
To continue on the British Mandate it expressly speaks of the assistance which was given to the Zionist state in waiting (we dealt with external factors, now we are going to talk about internal factors). The British worked with all diligence in the setting up the state institutionally by both structure and support, as well as “defense,” deft recognition of these enterprises in the would be state. On the other hand, this was NOT accorded to the Palestinians. Who were ignored, not listened to, and trivialized. There were times that the Palestinians were so desperate that they even traveled to Britain to press upon their occupational colonials that they wished to advance toeard the creation of their state. A prime example was when a Palestinian delegation went to visit Lord Passfield in London in May 1930, here was the response –
“Of course, this Parliament as you call it that you ask for, would have to have its duty of carrying out the Mandate…the Mandatory power, that is, the British government, could not create any council except within the terms of the Mandate and for the purpose of carrying out the Mandate. That is the limit of our power…Would you consider our difficulty that we cannot create a Parliament which would not be responsible and feel itself responsible for carrying out the Mandate?”
In other words there was no equal legal or constitutional footing between the Palestinians and the budding Jewish state. They (the British) constantly resisted the idea of a responsible and representative government for the Palestinians. This type of bullshit went on from 1920 til 1948 (with a short hiatus of the White Paper that was full of traps).
Further, in order to protect the Jewish national home against a majority rule, they gave the yishuv total internal autonomy while tying down the Palestinians at all points. The allowed the yishuv to have full fledged representative institutions (see the contrast above in regard to the Palestinians), international diplomatic representation abroad (Jewish Agency), the control of all of their internal governmental apparatus, giving them a state within the Mandatory that was totally autonomous. All of the other surrounding countries got class A Mandates for autonomy – but not the Palestinians. The Palestinians were NOT ALLOWED to have any of the attributes of statehood – no access to the levers of state power.
Now, here we sit with the same process changing little. No, now it is time for a valid offer of the one state solution, and go to hell about you’re “Mandela,” or valid offers made by the Palestinians.
To answer your question, Richard, I believe the one-state solution is potentially both. If there is enough power behind the demand (Palestinian unanimity, international pressure, U.S. support, Israeli solidarity) to bring about a binational or secular state, I believe that state would succeed and be a huge improvement over the current situation. With less power behind the demand, it can be effective as a “threat” (even though it represents no real harm) which could “scare” Israel into expediting a real Palestinian independence in the West Bank and Gaza.
(And before you criticize the types of power that would potentially support a one-state call, or the demand for Palestinian rights in general, remember that Palestinians must turn to those sources because they have no power or voice within the institution – Israel – that ultimately decides these issues for them.)
“Where is the Palestinian Mandela” is certainly an irrelevant, and a bigoted question. First of all, it wrongly blames the Palestinians for their own oppression, or implicitly paints them as generally violent (when the majority engage in nonviolent resistance). Secondly, it dodges our responsibility to make possible a Palestinian leader as strong as Mandela. Have you pressured Israel to free Mohammad Othman? Marwan Barghouti? Have you pressured them to allow Mustafa Barghouti to campaign without restrictions, detentions, and beatings? To end the arbitrary arrests and torture of nonviolent activists?
A Mandela figure is not a saintly or magical individual, but the head of a strong movement that demands justice. The Palestinians do demand justice, but because of its power Israel has been, to this point, especially successful at destroying or co-opting effective organizations. That’s a direct result of U.S. aid, and the silence of U.S. “progressives”. There is no shortage of principled and courageous Palestinians. WE are the missing Mandela. People like us have to work in order to create the space for an ANC and a Mandela.
He had his own international BDS movement behind him, for crying out loud! Do you think that may have said to South Africans, “people are paying attention so we better not off him, and in fact maybe there would be benefits to letting him go”?
Clearly, both Zionists and Palestinians/Arab had very deep grievances with the British Mandate.
Both communities were given maximalist promises (conflicting ones) for the imperial powers’ varying war ends.
But, the reality that NOW (democratic now), there are 7 million Jewish Israelis (I don’t know the exact number), and the vast vast majority of them desire to self-govern as Zionists.
Given that, the most just effort in the current situation, can only be to support the emergence of a viable Palestine, not the dissolution of both legal Israel and evolving Palestine, in favor of a revolutionary fantasy with far far less convincing leadership and support than is needed to be viable.
Again, it is a failure of the effort to organize punitively, rather than internally based on positively stated principles of unity. For example, rather than organize parallel civilist parties in Palestine and Israel (that include those with Zionist and Palestinian nationalist sentiments under a big tent), the mode of organization that single-state advocates adopt is solely punitive, solely condemnatory.
No cross-cultural internal organization (the communists do, they are the only exception), no civilist political party. Instead, academic boycott, cultural boycott, “international mass movement”, isolation (rather than invitation).
It leaves a sour aftertaste associated with a simplistically appealing idea.
The importance of Mandela is in his characteristics.
As I said, he had the earned credibility to be able to change the course of “rivers”. After long and difficult and bitter struggle, he confidently conveyed to South African leadership and general populace, that mass retribution was rejected, punished.
The left still frequently rationalizes the justness of Hamas shelling civilians, or blowing up schoolbuses and cafes intentionally.
The absence of a figure like Mandela, simultaneously forceful, agile and sensitive, is considerable. It is the difference between a possible civil outcome and an unlikely one.
The characteristics are what are critical. The far left though condemns those that embody sensitivity to the other as a redeemng character trait in leadership.
Typical blinkerd Yank!
Canada is America’s doormat. The butt of lame yanqui jokes, a source of cheap lumber and a market for the US handgun industry. And we can “vote” all we want about it for all the good it will do us.
“…and the vast vast majority of them desire to self-govern as Zionists.”
So let me get this straight. Before 1948, when Zionists were the minority in Palestine, the desire to self-govern as expressed by the vast vast majority of the time (that being Palestinian Muslims, Christians and non-Zionist Jews) was irrelevant.
Now, now that ethnic cleansing has allowed Zionists to grow enforce, militarily, a “majority” (maybe, and only recently and only for today), now it matters.
So. One set of rules if you’re a Zionist Jew, and another if you’re not.
Message received.
The far left though condemns those that embody sensitivity to the other as a redeeming character trait in leadership.
If you are talking about Abbas and Fatah here, then you seriously misunderstand our criticisms of them. And apparently you imagine that “sensitivity to the other” is an uncommon attribute of Palestinians or their leaders and activists.
The left still frequently rationalizes the justness of Hamas shelling civilians, or blowing up schoolbuses and cafes intentionally.
No, we don’t.
I am coming back around to Shmuel’s view here. Arguing against your strawmen, double standards, distractions and bigotry is a waste.
Why do you guys think my approach is to rip him a new one? Calm rational debate only means you end up repeating yourself ad naseum as Witty spouts the same lies interspersed with the occasional, distracting half-formed metaphor.
Although I’m favoring former coMMentator’s approach, even though I, in all fairness, lack the specific artistic capacities to emulate it.
Robin,
You know me much better than to accuse me of regarding Palestinians as insensitive, or insensitive leadership.
Mandela held the respect of a very large percentage of almost all factions of Africans, liberal and radical whites, and even most conservative whites. The reason for that was his simultaneous courage, determination, intelligence, sensitivity, driving his willingness to apply reconciliation in practice, and be followed by a predominant majority.
There is NO prominent Hamas leader that EVER expresses any sensitivity for Israelis. And, in the environment where Hamas and Fatah are at deferred civil war, and the left continues to accept and support Hamas leadership of the Palestinian community, the possibility of enacting the Mandela characteristics are remote.
Again, the importance of Mandela is not a personality cult, but a recognition of the importance of the characteristics in a man that applied them over decades with courage, determination and sensitivity.
It is a qualitative difference. I don’t know personally how that changes. There are many Palestinians that hold political views that I disagree with even 180 degrees that I respect, and if history went a direction that I oppose, and they committed to Mandela-like decency to the other, I would work in that present for their success.
Robin,
You haven’t heard “what else could Hamas have done?” (Or, did you even state it?)
Relative to the post-ceasefire period, that could have been voluntarily continued or not?
To state any form of support, or even silence, during that critical period of conflict, is an example.
“And, in the environment where Hamas and Fatah are at deferred civil war..”
And why are they at war? Oh, that’s right, because the US undermined and destroyed the unity government…
link to vanityfair.com
…after the Israeli government conducted a unilateral withdrawal in order to freeze the peace process.
link to haaretz.com
“I believe in equal rights and equal due process under the law.”
So why don’t you support BDS, let alone sanctions against Israel, the way Iran is being treated for far, far less? How come you don’t call for the Israeli pirates to be treated like the Somali ones? Equal rights and due process my ass, Witty. You may not claim it outright, but every one of your arguments is constructed to marginalize the Palestinians and extend exceptionalism to the Israelis.
“Relative to the post-ceasefire period, that could have been voluntarily continued or not?”
So… Hamas should do what you say, Witty, and not do what Israeli does?
Witty, having a discussion with you about “reality” is just plain stupid, I kept trying to think of what you reminded me of – it finally dawned on me, a zombie – to be particular, and unthinking and callous Zionist zombie. In fact, what else but the portrayal of zombies is there to relate to you’re persistent resurrection of the non-factual, non-historical, asinine dribble that exudes from you’re screeds, such as -
“But, the reality that NOW (democratic now)” what democratic now? “The absence of a figure like Mandela, simultaneously forceful, agile and sensitive, is considerable” – yes, he gave up the violence and in the “democratic now” he has shit, zero, nothing – the same few own the property and the business, it is a neocolonial nightmare with a small enfranchise black middle-class fat around the midsection of the same elite bastards! You know dick Witty, completely nothing, you are a roaring fatuous windbag. No, a zombie that keeps getting up with a star of David stamped on you’re forehead – “as long it is not me and mine, not my family – tribe, etc.”
ZIONIST ZOMBIE
Now, get up again and keep coming, spewing you’re spurious nonsense. The only other explanation besides the brain excised Zionist mantra is brain damage, and there is nothing I can do about that. Now keep talking about how you are abused, you deserve it – no facts, no feelings, no future zombie.
You know perfectly well that in the absence of an Israeli De Klerk and an effective modern-day equivalent to the international anti-apartheid movement, potential Palestinian Mandelas simply sit (largely anonymously) in Israeli jails.
Are you sure you’re looking for a Mandela anyway, seeing as Mandela was not an advocate of non-violence, but defended the right of black South Africans to resist violently an apartheid regime that remained in power only by using violence against them? Mandela didn’t renounce violence until after he had a “partner for peace” in the form of De Klerk, who had already recognized that minority rule was inviable and was looking for an interlocutor to cooperate in dismantling it. I’m pretty sure that as soon as any Israeli leader acknowledges the futility of minority rule and seeks to dismantle it, he or she will be faced with more Palestinian Mandelas that they know what to do with. It’s the De Klerk character that’s proving harder to find.
And even if Mandela were the Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi that you apparently imagine him to be, that you should repeat this pathetic “oh if only Israel had a Mandela to deal with” hand-wringing on a thread about Saeb Erekat is pure irony. Do you know how Saeb Erekat first got into national politics?
He wrote a column in a university newsletter in 1986, recommending that Palestinians should resist the occupation non-violently – by simply withdrawing their cooperation from all its manifestations, and having the patience and fortitude to endure whatever repercussions this brought down on them from the Israeli authorities.
For that, he was arrested and convicted of inciting sedition by an Israeli military court, which acknowledged that he was an advocate of non-violence, but announced that regardless of that he was “a respected opinion leader and should be made an object lesson”. His appeal, in which he argued that he had a right to peacefully express his belief in passive resistance to military occupation, was thrown out of Israeli appellate court on the grounds that “There is no freedom of speech in the Territories”.
So Israel chooses to practice a policy under which Palestinian advocates of non-violence are not welcomed as interlocutors, but singled out for special punishment as an “object lesson” precisely because they are respected in their community. And then “liberal Zionists” wring their hands and wonder why oh why don’t the Palestinians produce leaders we can deal with. Pathetic.
I agree with you about the importance of an Israeli de Klerk.
I would suggest that there have been a few already. De Klerk was not trusted by solidarity when he first started meeting with Mandela (if you remember).
Examples of Israeli leadership willing to negotiate, to make peace to some standard included Rabin, Peres, Barak, Sharon (limited), Olmert, Livni. Reluctant, careful, but I believe sincerely willing nevertheless.
My contention is that Hamas desired that no reconciliation occur, and timed its terror in the late 90′s and early 00′s, and shelling of Israeli towns when it got isolated to Gaza since, for the purpose of making reconciliation/negotiation impossible.
Netanyahu is not a de Klerk.
De Klerk was what he was largely because South African consciousness had shifted to elect him, but also to accept his compromises, and that took organization. The compelling organizing was by liberals (not by the radicals) that shifted sympathies.
Two parties coming to reassure the other, not two parties urging hostility.
“Examples of Israeli leadership willing to negotiate, to make peace to some standard included Rabin, Peres, Barak, Sharon (limited), Olmert, Livni.”
Anyone on that list not alleged to have been involved in war crimes against the Palestinians?
“My contention is that Hamas desired that no reconciliation occur, and timed its terror in the late 90’s and early 00’s, and shelling of Israeli towns when it got isolated to Gaza since, for the purpose of making reconciliation/negotiation impossible.”
But Witty! That’s exactly the opposite of what the Israeli government itself believes!
“The American term is to park conveniently. The disengagement plan makes it possible for Israel to park conveniently in an interim situation that distances us as far as possible from political pressure. It legitimizes our contention that there is no negotiating with the Palestinians. There is a decision here to do the minimum possible in order to maintain our political situation. The decision is proving itself. It is making it possible for the Americans to go to the seething and simmering international community and say to them, `What do you want.’ It also transfers the initiative to our hands. It compels the world to deal with our idea, with the scenario we wrote. It places the Palestinians under tremendous pressure. It forces them into a corner that they hate to be in. It thrusts them into a situation in which they have to prove their seriousness.”
Care of Dov Weisglass, Chief of Staff to Ariel “Limited Peacemaker” Sharon, in this interview I’ve kindly linked to, in order to pre-empt you bitching about taking something out of context.
“So, you both think of the one-state as a genuine proposal, and not only as a threat?”
Works for Israel.
The ad part Witty is that you ignored the fact that Mandela was a resitance fighter, also regarded by the other partheid state (and interstingly, the Reagan administration) as a terrorist.
Again,
“Except for a deeply spiritual man like Mandela, who was capable of changing the course of rivers in a paragraph.
“Where is the Palestinian Mandela” is NOT an irrelevant question, given the NEED to change the course of “rivers”. (a metaphor, not literal) “
“Except for a deeply spiritual man like Mandela, who was capable of changing the course of rivers in a paragraph.”
That would be the same Mandela that described Israel as an apartheid statem right Witty? The same Mandela that was locked up for being a terrorist by that other partheid state.
Mandela’s leadership characteristics are what we are talking about, and the prospective importance of those characteristics in Palestinian leadership.
Not, a distracting comment about his opinions. I don’t assume that his opinions on everything are accurate or not.
“Mandela’s leadership characteristics are what we are talking about, and the prospective importance of those characteristics in Palestinian leadership.”
But that’s just it Witty. If Mandela were a Palestinian, he would likely be in an Israeli prison, never to be seen or heard from again, or he would be ded or perhaps under house arrest.
Well may you ask, where is the Palestinian Madela, but even if he existed, you’d never be in a position to know.
Witty selective hearing (well, reading technically) at work. All of your examples of Israeli “peacemakers,” Witty, are up to their elbows in Palestinian blood.
The most jarring of Netanyahu’s assertions, and then Clinton’s ratification, was the presumption that construction in East Jerusalem was not settlement construction, that Netanyahu regarded it as already Israel.
The issue of “natural growth” is real because it can be a euphemism for no limitation on expropriation, but is less intrusive.
I relate it to the period between three and four million years ago, when the North and South American continents were drifting towards each other. At 200 miles apart, there was an open equatorial sea, and enough circulation to moderate the whole planet’s climate. At 100 miles apart, that circulation slowed considerably. At 50 miles apart, much much moreso. At 25 miles apart, there was functionally an isthmus, and the planet shifted to a glaciation cycle from an equalization.
The time period of approaching critical was a couple million years. The time period of shifting from close to critical to impending permanent global climatic change was in the 100,000 year range.
I think we’re still at 200 miles apart, but the climate is changing.
Phil and others are “early warners”, but who knows if he is accurately describing a prospective future or a nearing present?
You relate the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from, among other places, East Jerusalem to… continental drift over millions of years?
I think I’ll stick to my relating it to Hitler’s doctrine of lebensraum. It’s actually analogous, doesn’t mischaracterize ethnic cleansing as a “force of nature” and doesn’t let the criminals off the hook.
Its change that occurs within a time frame.
If you bothered to consider my point, it was that the qualitative change is imminent, not remote.
You complain when an argument opposes your thesis, and complain when an argument supports your thesis. I only see one common characteristic.
Your point was flimsy and based upon a grade school textbook level’s knowledge of how plate tectonics work. Your argument doesn’t oppose my thesis because it isn’t an argument at all, it’s a crude, faulty pseudo-scientific analogy.
Lets talk about plate tectonics and climate change.
The earth’s history is that prior to the joining of the North and South American continents (two plates slowly approaching), there was an equatorial ocean that served to allow circulation of water that nearly equalized temperatures globally.
The difference in temperature between the poles and the equator was in the range of 30 degrees fahrenheit. There was no permanent ice on the poles, and there was no regular glaciation.
The enormous difference occurred when the continents prohibited that circulation, creating a situation where ocean water only circulated near the poles, the tip of South America and the Arctic. Following that critically qualitative shift, otherwise very subtle modulations in earth’s axis, shape of rotation around the sun (regularly from more elliptical to more circular), caused regularly recurring periods of glaciation followed by melt, with great restrictions to social movement from the continental glaciars.
It was also a time of RAPID evolution due to the radically changing conditions, and need for individually and socially driven capabilities and strategies of adaptation.
There are humans because of that global climatic transition.
The metaphor was of the imminence of qualitative change resulting from the isolation created by the East Jerusalem settlements.
Consistent with “a new reality dawning”. But, within our influence, not just happening to us. And, within our influence by informed and creative choice, not only by political momentums.
See, this is what you do, Witty. You distract. You make phony talking points and you drag people away from the topic.
The topic is that Israel’s Zionist racist state is coming to an end, one way or another. The same way Hitler’s Germany did.
Deal with it.
It wasn’t a distraction, it was support for the concept that the expansion into East Jerusalem will imminently invoke qualitative change.
Who cares about you polemic masturbation? Witty, really? Who cares? Those are real people who are being rendered homeless and destitute by your Zionist friends. And all you can deign to do is come down from the mountain with a sermon about tectonic plates?
You’re a joke, Witty. You’re a complete and utter joke. Not once have I seen you make an argument based on genuine human concerns.
And, in attacking support for the thesis of the title, but through different language than what you use, you are making ethnic cleansing stop or slow?
I get that you didn’t digest that the isolation of East Jerusalem has shifted from an open field to an end game, and therefore more urgent to address.
The significance of using climate change as that metaphor is to describe the importance of the shift.
True or false, Witty: Netanyahu’s assertion that Palestinian land belongs to “the Jewish state” is analogous to Hitler’s assertion that Polish land belonged to “the German state.”
I think my metaphor is more relevant and more urgent.
I think there are parallels in expansionism, relative to land annexation only.
I thought that I was consistent and clear that I regarded state expansion as wrong, failed, and unnecessary.
In a single-state democratic concept though, there is no legal possibility to restrict Jewish immigration to the West Bank (though it could clearly not be exclusively Jewish).
Its component of the question “Is the single-state a goal, or only stated as a threat?”
I think I made a mistake in my last comment.
I think it is a cruelty to equate Israel with Germany in really any respect, and some idiot somewhere will post a quote entirely out of context to harrass me.
Oh my God! Mooser, you’re right! We just literally saw a moment of lucidity that was quickly clouded by another hit of the ziocaine. That… was creepy, actually.
And while we’re at it: Witty, the issue is not restricting Jewish immigration to the West Bank. In a single state where everyone has equal rights regardless of religion or ethnicity, terms like “Jewish immigration” from one part of the country to another become meaningless. Likewise Palestinian “immigration” (is it immigration if one is returning home?) to the lands from which Israel cleansed them.
You think, somehow, that we perceive that as a threat? Some of us have an inkling of what Palestine looked like before Zionism. There’s a reason why it was a safe place for Jews to go while Europe was on one side of its continent villifying Jews, and on the other slaughtering them outright.
4 Haikus for the sage:
Continental drift
Nothing humans can affect
Pure geology
Dense Zionist plate
Subducts Palestinians
Forms huge volcano
Sublime volcano
Great for human sacrifice
But sulfurous smell
Planet keeps changing
Mother Nature ignores your
Ancestry fetish
LOL! Wow, that was brilliant, man.
Nice. Here’s another one: lebensraum, natural birth room, goy congress no address
I propose that for one entire day everybody honor the great sage by responding strictly in verse. My next one will be a sonnet in iambic pentameter about discrediting Humans Rights Watch.
Although I fear that it will only further inflate his unjustified sense of superiority, it is a drab day, and this sounds like fun. Here is my take on a poem by Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz: This is dedicated to you, Richard.
When it comes to moral hectoring,
your witlessness takes the prize:
you’re the child that decries militant posturing,
then rhetorically shoots and cries.
For plain default of common sense,
could any action be so queer
as Witty clouds the mirror,
and then complains that it’s not clear?
Whether you’re favored or disdained,
nothing can leave you satisfied.
You whimper if you’re turned away,
then lecture when gratified.
former coMMenter, you are now the Mondoweiss Poet Laureate.
I liked your poem, marc b. And bonus points for working in shoot and cry.
tanks, fcoMM, but I just plagiarized. the haiku took some creativity.
Now that’s change I can believe in. Thanks Obama!
They are separated by a legal fiction.
Legal fiction on top of legal fiction, in point of fact, when you look it all up in the Israeli constitution.
Saeb Erekat has consistently been a moderate voice of reason throughout this charade. Now he declares that Israel doesn’t want peace, doesn’t want a two-state solution — so let’s all agree on the one-state solution.
Is there really a chance for equal rights for Palestinians in this scenario? The single-state would mean what to these people? Steal the rest of their land, and try to squeeze them out of the territory through soft ethnic cleansing over a fifty-year period by treating them as sub-humans?
Or does everyone truly believe you can trust the Israelis to allow Palestinians to own their own homes, participate in elections, participate in government? Why should we believe the Israelis can be trusted once the world gets too weary of the “process of getting to the peace process” and allows it to get their hands on “Judea” and “Samaria?” How much more aid is the U.S. expected to give to fund the new Greater Israel?
What a travesty. And it happened before our very eyes.
Well, no one in the UN is going to be foolish enough to believe the Israelis alone can be trusted to implement a true one-state solution — least of all the Palestinians themselves.
I think the answer really is that simple — give everyone the same citizenship, then put matters up to a vote. Maybe I’m an idealogue, in my own way, but I do believe that true, modern democracy in action is the way through this. Not the least of which being, those Israelis who are racist and corrupt will, when they lose their supremacy over Arabs, flee to the United States (where ostensibly they still get to dictate terms)
This is a very important valid point. Look at E Jerusalem. Israel claims to have annexed it, but the Palestinian residents have not been given equal rights, or city services, or citizenship. Instead, they are being forced from their homes in a process of Judaisation.
Issues of citizenship and rights are internal matters. I am very dubious that anyone can force the Israelis to grant real equal citizenship to Palestinians, let alone accept the return of the refugees.
Again, just as with the two-state solution, it comes down to the will of the international community, the UN and particularly the US to impose any decisions on Israel and enforce them. And the fate of HR 867 tells us that the US lacks this will.
The bottom line is – there will be no solution because the US Congress will prevent it.
And in the meantime, Israel is already planning its next attack on Gaza, which has had the temerity to acquire weapons to defend itself.
link to haaretz.com
And Gideon Levy: link to haaretz.com
Exterminate the Palestinians – there’s Israel’s one-state solution.
The premise of working for the one state solution would imply a radical transformation of values for all parties. Everyone is going to have to think “outside the box.” When people give reasons the one country solution will not work, – historical mistrust and hatred and this and that, well, these are reasons the two state solution would also not work. What solution is the fairest? What respects universal justice? Accept the principled answer and work for reconciliation on that basis. Lot’s of people are going to have to change their thinking to get this project going.
Now one point: it’s not going to be a Arab versus Israelis thing as this evolves. There are many other divisions in both societies that will find groups of Arabs and Israelis working together. The Communist Party Hadash, has Arabs and Israelis working together and there are plenty of Arabs and Israelis who oppose it. Religious fundamentalist Jews and Muslims have actually worked together on local issues of common ground inside green line Israel. Neither want women looking like sharmootas walking in their neighborhoods, or bus stops with bikini women poster advertisements, or nightclubs. Businesspeople whose priority is to turn a buck or a shekel or a dinar will do so quickly regardless of ethnicity. Profit can be made off of reconciliation. Cash speaks all languages. Israeli thieves sell to Palestinian fences. Hashish dealers don’t worry about boundaries or race. The extremists will indeed be a pain for a long time to come, but we should not assume they are going to be dominant or that either one community is going to dominate the other. When a kid flies his kite and the string breaks, he needs to run and pick up the kite without a wall being between him and where the kite fell. Pigeon breeders need to be able to breed and fly their homing pigeons and retrieve their strays without the nuisance of checkpoints and borders.
Great points homingpigeon.
I would also add that no solution is going to be complete without the empowerment of Palestinians within the institutions that control their land and their lives. We simply have to address that at some point.
The two-state solution’s ghettoes/bantustans do not address the power imbalance, and mostly repackage the disenfranchisement of Palestinians in their homeland. Israel would remain a Jewish state exercising hegemony over a Palestinian-majority region, persisting in the ethnic cleansing and exclusion of Palestinians in most of their homeland (as well as the privileging of Jewish ethnicity in other ways).
This situation is potentially an improvement in the lives of currently-occupied Palestinians, but without a true sharing of power it is not a solution. There would not even be a guarantee of peace, as the West Bank and Gaza would be just as vulnerable to continued bullying.
do the vast majority of israeli want a one-state? no.
who is the dominant power in the i-p conflict? israel.
will israel ever accept a divided jerusalem? no
what are the status-quo “facts on the ground”? it is apartheid.
does the dominant power, israel, want to change the status-quo? no.
everything else is flowery language.
Well, Israel isn’t going to survive if they set themselves up against the rest of the world, which has the tide of human progress behind it. Nazi Germany had (arguably) the best military hardware of its day and a history of military tradition behind it; the Soviet Union had a massive span of land full of natural resources and and socio-political rhetoric that (albeit only barely) united the lion’s share of eastern Europe behind it.
Both fell.
And the USA has been distinctly falling since the summer of 1967:
link to alanhart.net
We are committing slow suicide by the hands of our leaders in government, aided and abetted by MSM taboos. Iran and the Palestinians. The current scapecoats in the bizzaro world of the Zionist ideology.
Yeah, that hasn’t escaped my notice, either. We had so much potential, here in the United States. Why did we give it up? And for what, really?
I suspect the problem is while the world needed us to grow up and become a superpower against the Nazis (and, although I think it’s overplayed, to some extent against the Communists as well), we really haven’t possessed the cultural and historical wisdom to use that power responsibly after the specific threat was over. We were lucky — when we consolidated as a genuine superpower, we had visionaries like FDR who kept us off the path of imperialism as much as possible. But statesmanship is no longer a quality that wins elections in the US.
I don’t share your optimism. The Reptilian class has taken possession of the language. No Nazi or Soviet ever dared to call their crimes “compassion” “democracy” “”freedom” and the like.
kapok:No Nazi or Soviet ever dared to call their crimes “compassion” “democracy” “”freedom” and the like.
Actually they did. No totaliarian regime worth its salt would forget its reptilian dictionary in its other pair of trousers. Read your Orwell (or Huxley). In Hebrew it is called makhbesat milim – word laundering.
Shmuel, how do you pronounce makhbesat milim – word laundering? Where are the accents. Gonna be my new favorite expression for a while.
mack’ be sat’ mi lim’ ?
The apostrophes after the syllable indicating that is the stressed syllable.
Glad you like it, MRW. The accents are, as with most Israeli Hebrew words, on the final syllables: makhbeSAT miLIM.
“… the tide of human progress …” (Chaos)
A dubious concept, human progress. Even if we grant that idea, tides ebb and flow. Lately, I’ve taken to musing again about Oswald Spengler’s “The Decline of the West”.
Far from being a passing failure, radical Zionist, colonialist, ethnocentric, militaristic Israel may be a harbinger of things to come. Maybe “the Jews” – “a light unto the world” – really are leading the way for the rest of us.
Em, Blue Pear,
Israel has clearly lost its deterrent power during Lebanon ’06 war – Hizbollah made sure of this.
Israel’s nukes cannot be used on it’s immediate neighbors for obvious reasons so these hard-weapons are inconsequential. Moreover, Israel’s enemies now have bigger-badder and more guns than ever before – their smaller weapons still kill.
Israel today is not the same as the old pioneering Israel of yesteryear – it is now full of over-indulged, lazy and a fear-drunk citizens. Let us remember how the Hizbollah’s poxy rockets EMPTIED OUT HALF of Israel during the ’06 war.
No I’m sorry you’re completely wrong. Israel is in a corner with two choices:
Make real peace – which means giving up being nasty zionists and instead becoming nice Jews.
Or,
Gamble their WHOLE nation in WW3.
You think the new USS Liberty incident will take place over the skies of Iraq? In the Persian Gulf? Just wondering; there’s no cold war now for Obama to worry about. Does 2012 sound like a good year for the ignition of WW3? Israel will not be merely gambling itself, it will be gambling the USA, doncha think? What defense does the USA have now against such a gamble? Johnson thought he had some control over Israel in 1967. He didn’t; Israel just knocked out our best spy ship and hence we had no control at all over Israel intentions. Then he covered that massacre of US citizens up with the aid of the USA MSM and congress. It’s still covered up to this day. Seems to me now that even if we do have more advanced spying capabilities, their findings are ignored and covered up. Hate to conclude that the fate of the USA is in the hand of Zionists everywhere, but I do. Nothing to do but watch–I imagine the fireworks will be spectacular.
Citizen, we’re already living the new USS Liberty incident. It’s called the Iraq war.
Israel didn’t need to directly kill American servicemen (or -women) this time around. All they needed were a gaggle of Zionist-funded neoconservative think tanks and a couple of forged documents “proving” that Iraq had their hands on Nigerian yellow-cake and we sent our own men and women to their deaths ourselves on a meaningless invasion and occupation.
Chaos, I take your point. Iran’s next. Should be easy; I see the US military recruitment is having its best year ever since the “voluntary” military was made law–nothing like a double dip recession to bring in those intelligent but poor & uneducated volunteers to the local mall recruiting orifice. Wonder how close the nearest US Army or Marine recruiting office is to Witty’s gated community? I don’t imagine his offspring will be taking that trip. I wouln’t want my kids to do so either, for different reasons of course. For the record, I’m a US Army veteran.
In contrast to the desire to remove any site of Jewish self-governance from the planet, I regard progressive Zionism (Zionism of enough, not of expansion), to be a jewel.
The J Street combination of loving Israel and seeking reform IS the most practically progressive approach.
The historical events that caused Zionism to be a necessity and a possibility culminating in the post-holocaust period are undeniable. There is no unraveling that history (as in a movie) to some prior “should”, with remedy of right of return (with accompanying likely civil war).
The best is to work for the optimally democratic from the present forward, and implement and enforce the features in the Israeli basic laws and in the prospective Palestinian constitution or primary laws, that realize as full application of equal rights and due process as is humanly possible.
To my mind, it is MORE likely to be realizable in a partitioned national states, emphasizing love of one’s own community, and appreciation of the others’, than in a forced single-state or even maliciously motivated partition.
The political formula is NOT the factor that will determine justice or peace. The primary formula for both is safety combined with efforts at reform.
That means that a goal orientation is more effective than a dissenting. What does it take to accomplish good? With all questions referenced to that. In that sense, dissent is a component of seeking good, but it can also become or be a deterrent in fact.
Self-governance is NOT racism, even if resulted from intentional migration.
Again, it is ALREADY in Israel’s basic law to identify as equally Jewish AND democratic. In the setting of that excellent design, it is dissent’s responsibility for Israel to actually apply the unequivocal statement of equal rights and equal due process under the law for all residents.
That’s right, Witty! FLEE! Flee the arguments you can’t win!
As I keep saying, Israel’s “basic law” isn’t enforced. Having “We’re a democratic state run exclusively for Jewish interests” written down on a piece of paper doesn’t make Israel a democratic state, and that’s putting aside the fact that those civil protections you tout are never enforced.
Your arguments are so easy to shoot down, the only thing that makes them a threat is that you keep mindlessly repeating them and spamming us with new threads to start fresh whenever your arguments are proven to be a pantload of nothing palatable.
Israel’s basic law certainly is enforced, but not consistently enough in respect to all minorities.
The root is early, but really not grounded in primarily ethnic screens. That is that the majority of administration emerged from the Zionist labor union/association, the Histradut, which when Israel achieved independance served as a post-revolutionary rulership of the proletariat and came to own many of the Israeli manufacturers and other businesses, in addition to its role as labor union relative to non-affiliated industries.
The Histradut was bureaucratic, but also polemic like a vanguard party, imposing its political objectives over equal due process. It devolved into a more corrupt residual of bribery/bachsheesh, to get anything done or permits.
The Histradut declined in importance, especially during the likud period, but the pattern of political corruption (either by intent or laziness) remains residually.
The East Jerusalem settlements are orchestrated, intentional annexation. The majority of complaints of persecution in permitting are more often general corruption, than particularly persecutorial.
There become class patterns though, as who has the additional money for a housing permit that will be routinely delayed three years, with the palm greasing required to shorten that to 1 year, before any possible construction (even for the homeless).
“Israel’s basic law certainly is enforced, but not consistently enough in respect to all minorities.”
Then it’s not being enforced, Witty. You don’t get credit for partially enforcing a “basic law” and creating a bunch of laws that contradict that, and enforcing those instead. You know what it’s called when one set of rules are enforced for one group of people, and a different set for another, by the same government?
Here’s some hints:
New legislation classified inhabitants into racial groups (“black”, “white”, “coloured”, and “Indian”), and residential areas were segregated by means of forced removals… The government segregated education, medical care, and other public services, and provided black people with services inferior to those of whites.
During the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, the government implemented a policy of ‘resettlement’, to force people to move to their designated “group areas”. Some argue that over three and a half million people were forced to resettle during this period. These removals included people re-located due to slum clearance programmes, labour tenants on white-owned farms, the inhabitants of the so-called ‘black spots’, areas of black-owned land surrounded by white farms, the families of workers living in townships close to the homelands, and ‘surplus people’ from urban areas…
The National Party passed a string of legislation which became known as petty apartheid. The first of these was the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act 55 of 1949, prohibiting marriage between white people and people of other races.
Israel: Jewel of Nations
Bureaucracy,
Inconsistency,
Corruption,
Residue,
But never Racism.
Unique circumstances,
Unique necessities,
Unique accomplishments,
But no unique flaws.
Zionism: forever a jewel.
Justice is relative. There is no place on earth that stands the test of perfection.
As such, the goal must be improvement, as perfection is impossible (and likely to include some abuse of some other in the effort for something that is impossible.)
Justice is relative? Really? So you’re a moral relativist, Witty? I mean, feel free to amend that, if I’m misreading you. I don’t want to mistake what you’re saying for the concept of “might makes right” or something equally socially Darwinistic.
Justice is relative;
Injustice is absolute.
The Nakba is regrettable;
The Holocaust is unforgettable.
If it’s my relatives,
Or if it’s not my relatives,
That is the principal of Relative Justice.
…you’re a genius, MM. I’m thinking I should yield the floor (as it were) entirely to you here.
Gee, Witty we don’t need you to get into political reasons why the Palestinians in Israel and the OT are being exploited, dispossed, and slowly murdered due to both their economic and tribal class in the land controlled by Israel’s Zionists. Violations of the spirit of the law? Yes, many, for a long time. And the spirit of Jewish democracy itself is there for all to see, and has been for decades. You sure wouldnt’t
like it if the USA proclaimed and implemented the same spirit. The people who come to this blog are not idiots, nor are they misinformed by and large. You really need to get beyond Hasbara 101. I mean, jeez az christ–why do you keep playing
the role of Rosenberg?
Misrepresentation occurs in both verse and prose.
You haven’t addressed the point I made about Israeli apartheid. One notes. Just pointing that out, Witty. Wouldn’t want anyone to accuse you of dodging rebuttals.
I mean this Rosenberg:
link to en.wikipedia.org
Check it out, and don’t stop there. It’s like meeting Witty’s kissin’ cousin. I’ve actually read Rosenberg’s books in translation–I have German translation credentials btw. The only difference is Witty is a Jew, and Rosenberg was a German. They think alike, and write alike. FYI, most common Nazis didn’t give a shit about Rosenberg, same as most common Zionists could care less about Witty.
Useful tools, as Stalin would say. And I’d bet Hitler said in private, as would–who, Lieberman (USA’s or Israel’s), Mister N, Norman P?
Justice is relative???
Justice is relative;
Injustice is absolute.
The Nakba is regrettable;
The Holocaust is unforgettable.
If it’s my relatives,
Or if it’s not my relatives,
That is the principal of Relative Justice.
Beauty job.
Yep. That’s what Witty said. And you guys wonder why I fly off the handle. What I wonder is why this guy doesn’t piss all of you off as bad as me when he attacks the very foundations of morality and modernity to pursue his agenda.
Of course justice is relative. The contrast is perfection, of which there is none on the planet, or could be.
As relative, the best effort is to improve justice. Substantively, there is not a large difference between seeking to improve and seeking to perfect.
The difference is in the conclusion of demonization for less than perfection, rather than the motivation to improve, and the willingness to not look in the mirror (a different common problem).
For example, do you believe that you are perfectly just towards me in this and other discussion? If not, then you would be only unjust, rather than human and constantly working to improve yourself.
In contrast to the desire to remove any site of USA people’s self-governance from the planet, I regard progressive Zionism (Zionism of enough, not of expansion), to be an oxymoron.
The J Street combination of loving Israel and seeking reform IS is the epitome of a practically hypocritical progressive approach.
The historical events that caused Zionism to be deemed to be a necessity and a possibility culminating in the post-holocaust period are undeniable–and Truman regretted his recognition of Israel ASAP–even in his letter of recognition he deleted the announcement of a Jewish state; but that was ignored by all and Truman did get lots of campaign money from the Zionists when he was in dire financial need, the little twerp. There is no unraveling that history (as in a movie) to some prior “should”, with remedy of right of return (with accompanying likely civil war).
The best is to work for the optimally democratic from the present forward, with a good grasp of the truth that past crimes unattended, will simply result in old criminal wines in new bottles; and implement and address the features in the implementation of Israeli basic laws and in the prospective Palestinian constitution or primary laws, that do not realize as full application of equal rights and due process as is defined by USA law and implemented in that sole superpower and proposition nation..
To my mind, it is MORE likely to be realizable if the USA with its sole superpower status and its UN SC vote, and its hand on US foreign aid, simply says to the world
that first we have to give everybody living in the former Palestinian mandate equal rights, no exceptions.
This political formula is exactly the factor that will determine justice or peace, hence it is The primary formula for long term safety and peacefull tolerance.
That means that this goal orientation is more effective than hasbara dissenting, the constant erection of hasbara to turn reality on its head. What does it take to accomplish good? With all questions referenced to that. In that sense, dissent against hasbara is a component of seeking good; the truth will set all innocents free.
Self-governance is racism, if it’s tool is slavery or indentured servitude, or dispossession. Nazi Germany flourished in its time because it had a claim to self-governance after Versailles.
Again, although it is ALREADY in Israel’s basic law to identify as equally Jewish AND democratic, in that flawed and illogical design, it is dissent’s responsibility to quit supporting discrimination as defined by the USA Civil Rights movement and to force Israel to actually apply the unequivocal statement of equal rights and equal due process under the law for all residents.
Report abuse
Reply
Citizen, I have to ask, what is a “proposition nation”?
Witty, I agree with you in many ways.
Self-governance also only works for groups that are relatively homogenous. Mixing groups with irreconcilable cultural, linguistic, religious, or other diferences can be a recipe for a failed state, dictatorship, civil war, ethnic cleansing, or other nasty outcomes.
I don’t think the Palestinians and Israelis are irreconcilable. I think the gulf between a secular Israeli in Tel Aviv and a Haredi settler is probably greater that that difference between the average Palestinian and Israeli. I’m often struck by how similar Palestinians and Israelis are.
The problem is that that the US Zionist lobby and the political leaders in Israel have effectively made a two state solution impossible. Without land for a Palestinian state, a two state solution is simply idle fantasy.
PS-
There is nothing undemocratic about a “Jewish State” or any other republic or democracy with a restricted citizenship. Such a state may not be *progressive*, but there was nothing progressive about democracies and republics in Rome, Greece, or early America. All of them had large non-voting or slave classes. Real self-governance requires leisure. We have a lot of that now due to industrialization (although we waste most of it), but for most of history if you wanted self-rule, you needed helots.
People should get to choose the basis of their indentification.
There have been a few speculating on a three state solution, meaning West Bank, Israel, Gaza.
I propose a different three-state, or three-party solution which is:
1. Civilist (your example of Tel Aviv Israelis that may be more similar to cosmopolitan educated democrats)
2. Zionist
3. Palestinian nationalist
My sense that a single-state is only possible if those that vote civilist GREATLY outnumber the nationalists or religious parties.
Otherwise, the nationalist partition is the most democratic.
Well, we already know the civilists outnumber the Palestinian nationalists on that side of the fence. Well, I know it but that’s because I actually talk to Palestinians and I read news from outside the US MSM bubble.
So what about Israel, Witty? Although I suppose, does it matter? A majority of Palestinian civilists plus a minority of Israeli civilists still spells that majority you’re looking for.
Clinton–who inadvertently landed the blow that broke the peace process’s jaw in the 15th round– is scrambling.
HRC feverishly and futilely trying to bail out the foundering slaveship with a teacup.
Don’t wait too long to grab a lifejacket, Hil! Your equally amoral colonial Zionist colleagues won’t hesitate to leave you dog-paddling for dear life.
I don’t think Clinton is as gullible as her husband in that regard. Give her some credit.
continuing from my post above:
israel has nuclear bombs. the palestinian have the ultimate weapon, fuck bombs.
In 2009:
- 5.4M Jews and 1.5M Palestinians (Moslems and Christians) in pre-67 Israel; that’s 20% Palestinians
- 5.9M Jews and 5.4M Palestinians in all of historic Palestine; that’s 48% Palestinians
In 2017:
- 23% Palestinians in pre-67 Israel
- 50% Palestinians in all of historic Palestine
In 2063:
- 31% Palestinians in pre-67 Israel
- 60% Palestinians in all of historic Palestine
In 2097:
- 38% Palestinians in pre-67 Israel
- 67% Palestinians in all of historic Palestine
I would have been a bit more tactful (No! Really! Stop looking at me like that) but you raise a cogent point. And Israel’s “loyalist” population is only going to keep spiraling downward as well-to-do Jews pick up and move in response to the consequences of their right-wing government’s descent into ruination.
After it became so apparent that Israel does not want peace, does not want a two state solution. Just ways to continue to confiscate more lands by whatever illegal means possible ….the one state solution seemed like the only way to go.
This would clearly expose the racism in Israel and their false marketing that they are a Democracy. There is no way they want Palestinians to have full rights that would be required under a one state solution.
This would expose once and for all the racisim and bigotry that exist in that country
It is already exposed, for those with eyes to see instead of eyes firmly shut.
But after exposing, how to deal with it? How to force Israel to become a functioning democracy, against its will.
And the word has to be force. Force is what it will take. Who will apply that force?
Potsherd, not every force is external, or even directed. Gravity is a force, for example. And structures have been known to collapse under their own weight when compromised.
That force, Chaos, will not lead to a functioning anything. But that’s the force that will overtake Israel in the end, because no one will force it to do what is necessary to avoid that fate.
Unfortunately, the Palestinians will be dead in the rubble, because Israel will not collapse on time.
Unless there’s a fortuitous earthquake.
Citizen,
Israel no doubt is preparing for a 2010 war. And so are it’s neighbors, as well as Iran.
No doubt Israel is looking for an opportunity to deal the first blow, to provoke a skirmish or start a mini war in the name of the usual ‘existential threat’, as per it’s usual pattern of behavior ie provoke, battle, conquer but just a little then stop the war, hold on the occupied new bit of land and immediately start stoking the fires of the next ‘skirmish’ – time after time we’ve seen this.
Except this time round will be different. This time round, Israel will start something it can’t actually finish by itself or STOP. Why? For the following reasons/new realities:
1- There are today more fires either burning or about to blaze in more hot-spots in the greater mideast than in known memory. There are also more conventional weapons there than ever before – more weapons of mass-destruction, be they nuclear or chemical.
2- There are secret regional defense/security pacts established between Israel’s neighbors against it, both direct and afar, that haven’t existed before. In other words, the wider region is politically and militarily solid against Israel unlike yesteryears.
3- American influence is at it’s low in the region, ie: no one cares what Washington says around there anymore. No one is waiting on either Israel or Obama to deliver them justice. No influence = No power or control over events.
4- Last but certainly not least, Jerusalem for the first time in living memory, looks to be undergoing a rapid and extreme zionist makeover – an overt ethnic cleansing before the appalled eyes of the world. A most emotive issue that the leaders of some 1.3 billion Moslems are already instructing their members in the four corners of the earth, to be ready to come forth and sacrifice their own bodies to liberate holy Jerusalem from the evils of zionism.
Citizen, the next war will be different because NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO CONTROL the region’s multi-sided fires that will undoubtedly merge into one big effing bang.
Because the internet now exists, unlike in the days of USS Liberty, any Israeli foul-play against us Americans will easily become known despite the MSM’s collusion and misinformation, despite our politicians and their perpetual crimes of aiding and abetting.
Any fuckedup Israeli maneuver against our armed forces will DEFINITELY become known and would immediately unleash the most horrid, numerous waves of violence against all Jews in America.
With Israel on fire, America unsafe for Jews, Europe still Judaphobic (according to zionists that is) – where the hell would the Jews go to next?
Would they then collectively realize the folly and suicidal tendencies embedded in the very ideologies of Zionism?
Would they take responsibility for the catastrophe created by their own hands?
Or would even then still insist on being the world’s victim?
Taxi, I agree with you; I was trying to point that out, or at least feeling for that and making it public. “Citizen, the next war will be different because NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO CONTROL the region’s multi-sided fires that will undoubtedly merge into one big effing bang.” I have no doubt at all that Israel and AIPAC and its bought USA goy congress will create the WW3 big bang. It’s coming fast; I am guessing in 2012. Just a guess; but i sure see it hurtling there, especially after Obama’s getting pissed in the face after his Cairo speech, and the US mostly goy congress refusing to address war crimes –not way after the fact but as they so recently happened at the start of this year. Jew can pursue war crimes 60 years after the fact, and gentiles cannot pursue them less than one year into the present? What’s the lesson here for anybody who cares about life at all?
Why Does AIPAC Spy on Americans?
Ooh, ooh, ooh! Teacher! [hand waving wildly to be called on] I know! Because they are an agent of a foreign power?
He’s… suing for damages from AIPAC after getting effectively exonerated from espionage and/or treason charges, on the premise that AIPAC really is a haven for spies and AIPAC damaged his reputation for denying that?
Remind me again why chutzpah has positive connotations nowadays.
Heh. I like the way you put it.
He gave more than exemplary service to AIPAC, and their board violated the code that you look after your own. He’s understandably torqued. I think they’ll settle out of court, and that both sides are just maneuvering for the amount. However, I do hope that I am wrong and that he has his daggers out in earnest.
The inevitable aftermath of this extreme folly:
The rise of China.
“tell his people the truth, that with the continuation of settlement activities, the two-state solution is no longer an option,”
I suppose that implies Abbas has not been telling the truth to his people lately.
What?!? I’m Shocked! Shocked! to hear such a thing!
Lately? Lately indeed. Heh.