Earlier today we ran Scott McConnell’s piece arguing that the South-Africa-one-state struggle can’t be reprised in Israel/Palestine. Ali Abunimah, author of this piece on the same subject, responds:
Scott McConnell puts forward familiar arguments, but they are rather weak. No serious person has ever argued that South Africa and Israel are identical, so that is not the starting point. The question is what are the similarities, and are the differences such that the lessons do not apply. No one disputes that South Africa did not have an "Israel lobby," but that does not mean it didn’t have a lot of support — from the Reagan and Thatcher administrations, from business groups, and especially in the UK with people who sympathized with the "predicament" of the whites. And since Scott admits the validity and relevance of BDS, his list of reasons why Afrikaners had less influence in the US seems irrelevant.
I would also argue that it doesn’t really matter how many divisions the Israel Lobby has once the positions it takes start to be seen as illegitimate. Inertia may keep change from happening for some time, but ultimately political brute force is not enough; you must have legitimacy and Israel is losing it. The Israel lobby knows this and they are scrambling to retool their message (see J Street) and I would argue failing. If J Street makes a difference it will be because J Street ditches its AIPAC-lite positions (something it has not done yet), not because it softens them and dresses them up. Anyone still remember the China Lobby?
As I’ve pointed out, Israel’s vulnerabilities may be different from South Africa’s but that doesn’t make it invulnerable to pressure — as we are already seeing from the hysterical reaction in Israel to BDS and the Goldstone Report. Also, you would need to tell the families of those people killed in numerous ANC bombings of civilian targets that the ANC never attacked "soft targets." It will be news to them. The ANC did not emphasize that as their main tactic, but they did it. I dealt with this all in my book. Also there is a whole wealth of literature on South Africa, that no one seems to bother to read and they should read before making ad hoc arguments. So Mandela went to a missionary school. Did that really impress the apartheid ideologues of the Dutch Reformed Church? Did the "shared" Christian religion of people in Northern Ireland bring them closer to peace? On the contrary, it was one of the key dividing lines. In hindsight we forget how easy it was to construct "irreconcilable" differences that seemed insurmountable at the time.
I would agree that the fall of the Berlin Wall had an effect, but not the one McConnell suggests. The fall of the Berlin Wall made South Africa less important to US Cold War strategy, which meant that the US was ready to let the apartheid regime go, which it was not ready to go as long as it served as a "bulwark" against "communism" in the cone of southern Africa. This abandonment by the US did not make whites feel more secure; if anything it made them feel less secure as their base of support in western capitals eroded even further.
There is a similar phenomenon with Israel. After 1967, Israel was a Cold War "ally." After the Berlin Wall fell, this rationale for US support for Israel disappeared and we began to see some pressure for a "peace process" as well as intensification of internal conflict in Israel between "left" and "right" and between secular and religious. As Netanyahu, I think pointed out, Israel was the biggest beneficiary of 9/11 because it allowed Israel to rebrand itself as the West’s ally in the War of Civilizations against "extremist Islam." But the world is getting tired of that war (although Obama is still fighting it in fact). Nevertheless I don’t think it’s a message convincing, profound or real enough to sustain US support for Israel in the long-run, or conceal the fact that Israel is not and has never been an asset to the US. And in fact it runs against liberal US values that are ostensibly about tolerance, cooperation and universalism. The fact is that no matter how powerful the lobby is in the medium term, Israel needs the US to survive, but the US does not need Israel and there’s just no message that hasn’t been tried that can make the case for the kind of unconditional support that will be needed to maintain the Israeli settler-colony.
Finally, Scott makes all the familiar arguments that there is an "international consensus" backing repartition of historic Palestine and that Israel has the "option" of withdrawing to the 1967 border. At some point the facts and history need to be taken into account when we keep repeating this mantra. What does this "consensus" actually amount to on the day Israel announces another 900 housing units in the West Bank, and after two decades of "peace process" in which the number of settlers tripled? I would argue — and I have developed this argument in an academic paper that I can’t unfortunately put on the web yet — that the attempt to repartition Palestine is more likely to result in renewed bouts of ethnic cleansing (possibly worse than 1948), than in the neat little fantasy of "two states living side by side in peace."
Excellent article, as always (OK I admit it, I’m an Abunimah fan). The argument about “international consensus” for two states reminds me of an argument I once had with a neighbour. There was a dispute in the building, and a compromise had been worked out. One of the neighbours insisted that our compromise was illegal, because the law had already provided for such cases. The fact that the law only addressed cases in which a compromise could not otherwise be reached didn’t seem to faze him.
“International consensus”, to the extent that it cares, just wants the problem to go away. If one state offers a better and more durable solution, so be it. At the moment, it seems like “international consensus” is based on mis/disinformation regarding the situation on the ground (or “facts and history,” as Abunimah calls it) and the reality of the “solutions” being put forward. To argue for a particular strategy because that’s what the misinformed and the ill-intentioned advocate, is rather disingenuous, to say the least.
Speaking of disingenuous, how about Obama’s argument regarding his total cop-out on Copenhagen: “The enemy of the good is the perfect”. That’s the same argument he’s been using (in so many words) to explain his cop-out on settlements and I/P in general. Translation: The miserable failure I hope to get away with is far better than the real solutions I lack the political will to pursue.
In almost all blogs here, one can easily observe more than 80% of the dialogues are expressions of long running and maybe a manifestations of generations of burning madness against the Israelis for any reason possible…These are concrete foreboding proofs that the only reaming option for the Israelis to survive as a nation, is the complete partition…
And as far as dragging into the issues the question whether God in the Bible truely exist, I do pray to Almighty God whom I believe present (whether I am a fool or not ) to use this long running war in Palestine as a proof to the whole world the veracity of His word, and utterances…
And in accordance to the character written in the ancient scriptures; ‘at all costs’….
I think the perceived rise of Israel’s illegitimacy is hyped up beyond recognition. Many Jews characterize their community as insecure and always worried about what other people are saying, understandably so by their history. Outside observers see this as a rise of fear that what they predict will happen sooner or later. This is a misinterpretation of what is actually happening.
One of Phil’s recent posts was about an article that said large investors are leaving Israel. I don’t think any numbers were given to have something to relate it to. In contrast, Mondoweiss also posted something about a recent interview Jeffrey Goldberg had with an Arab from the American Task Force on Palestine and his statement about the delusion, I’m paraphrasing, of the single-state and BDS advocates, noting Israel’s extremely high rate of foreign investment in the country, most surprisingly is the amount from Europe, as well as Israel’ economic success.
I think the goals of articles like this are about morale. The “peace process” hasn’t looked this bleak since who knows when (since Netanyahu’s last stint as PM maybe?). The one man whom we thought had the best chance of resolving the conflict has put talks at a freeze for reasons not held before his administration.
In the Arab sphere, it seems to me like most accept Israel has a fact and are not about to advocate for its demise.
On a different note, can somebody explain to me what he means by the sentence referring to the “China Lobby”?
Finally, I’m disturbed by the author’s prediction:
[that the attempt to repartition Palestine is more likely to result in renewed bouts of ethnic cleansing (possibly worse than 1948), than in the neat little fantasy of "two states living side by side in peace."]
I think the most important variable to watch is the rate of integration of the Israeli Arab community, and secondly, the economic situation of Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank. I think there has been growing attention in Israel and with determination, it will be resolved. Israeli civil war between Jewish left and right seems unlikely. Something like that hasn’t happened for thousands of years.
I am also disturbed by the prediction about bouts of ethnic cleansing but have every reason to believe it is accurate. In the Zionist construct the “state” takes precedence over individual rights to specific pieces of real estate. One hears “they have 22 states they can go to” as though this should somehow compensate for the loss of an ancestral olive grove. In the unlikely, indeed near impossible, event that the two state solution ever happens, the already existing calls for the Palestinians with Israeli citizenship to be “transferred” to their state, will grow louder and more effective.
How much better to accept a Palestinian right to return to the Republic of Israel and Palestine as well as the right of Israeli Jews from Arab countries to reclaim lost property and the right to reside in whatever Arab country they came from. A one country solution would also envision Israelis residing anywhere between Morocco and Iraq. I predict they would find themselves with cabinet level positions in Arab governments within the next generation.
I think there is a definite risk of new ethnic cleansing. BYahoo’s plan, after “negotiating” the WB Palestinians into the Bantucages, is to evict the Palestinians from Area A and B – all the land outside the Palestinian non-state – until the territories are Arabenrein.
They will not annex it. Not at first. They will not extend the privileges and rights of citizenship to the WB Arabs. These territories will remain under military control, under apartheid law, while the cleansing continues, while the houses and olive trees are bulldozed. It will all be Judaized E Jerusalem.
Potsherd, the problem with your (very real) possibility is, does anybody seriously believe the Jordan River will stop the IDF?
Chaos – I really don’t think they want it that badly.
Not to be facetious, but… that’s what Neville Chamberlain said.
The doctoring is mine. Israel has already fought a couple of wars over this river. There are two parts to peace. One of which concerns the indigenous population. Without the other part there will not be peace either. In my mind, this is the biggest problem, though not the only problem with the two state solution.
I would agree with the ethnic cleansing being a very likely result of a two state solution. Unfortunately, based on what happened in Rwanda, I am not sure it is much of an impediment.
I agree with Edwin that his scenario is more likely.
Hominpigeon,
You wrote:
[In the Zionist construct the “state” takes precedence over individual rights to specific pieces of real estate. One hears “they have 22 states they can go to” as though this should somehow compensate for the loss of an ancestral olive grove. ]
The same can be said on the otherside, “they can go back to Europe” as this should somehow compensate for the First World state that they had built on their ancestral homeland. Any Israeli who says that Palestinians should be deported is on the fringe. Not even Lieberman said that.
[How much better to accept a Palestinian right to return to the Republic of Israel and Palestine as well as the right of Israeli Jews from Arab countries to reclaim lost property and the right to reside in whatever Arab country they came from. A one country solution would also envision Israelis residing anywhere between Morocco and Iraq. ]
You sure have high expectations of the ruling Arab elites. What part of they are all dictatorships (except Lebanon) don’t you understand. Have you seen what is done to political enemies, even to those of their own ethnic group, let alone to those of other clans? Oh right, there is no political competition. Perhaps you can help the Palestinians by advocating for their rights as citizens of the states that they have lived in during the past 3 generations.
Michael W
I wish I had more time for this discussion, but at the very least I need to make time to let you know that you are completely wrong on both counts.
More Israeli Jews favor Transfer of Palestinians, Israeli Arabs
This is not a fringe position in Israel. It is mainstream. And Lieberman has indeed called for the forcible transfer of Palestinians.
Avigdor Lieberman
If you want more links on this I an give them to you, but putting more than 2 in a post will get it held up as spam.
Wham! Right! homingpigeon. This is one good afterthought… But do you think they will give to Jews the same right they are demanding from Israel right now? The Iranian government would not even give the same right to its own people?
The China Lobby was once so powerful that it kept the US from officially recognizing that China was China, insisting that the gov’t on Taiwan was the only legitimate one. Much like the Cuba Lobby, aka The Miami Relatives.
No, partition is not a fantasy. Look at the multitude of arguments and the atmosphere of hatred against Israel around here, even in this blog…Israel has no room to correct himself straight…It has to run to a safe corner…which calls for a partition!
The problem with this scenario is that Israel wants to put all the Palestinians in the corner, make it as small as possible, and put up a wall to keep them inside.
I didn’t feel that Ali Abunimeh turned the corner in his response to the McConnell article.
I still haven’t heard from him why a single-state is preferable or more just, in the democratic present, where the two communities consistently poll that they regard their separate IDENTITIES as critical, and that they choose a two-state solution over a one-state by domination of either party or an undifferentiated civil single-state.
I would be more convinced by Abunimeh if he stated respect for the features of Zionism that are fundamentally admirable (self-governance, “never again” determination never to be subordinated, dual identity as AND democratic).
I wish he would address the argument between optimal democracy in a partition (functionally – not legally – at most 20% minorities in each state, who have the option to leave so then CHOOSE to remain), versus LESS democracy in compulsory single state.
Most Zionists appreciate that he expresses some acceptance of Israelis (people) and Jews. But, even the liberal civilists note that his formula for goal is still a stacked deck with “justice” resulting in a large Arab majority (with the feature unlimited Palestinian right of return), and likely some suppression of either Jewish or civil values resulting.
There is an irony about the insistence on right of return into the single state, as it is similarly to Zionism, NOT defined geographically, but socially. It is defined as the right of any descendant of any Palestinian (including those from – not just currently residing – Palestinian areas of now Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt).
And, ironically, the same argument that Michael W referred to, Abunimeh’s assertion that partition will result in subsequent violent and expropriative civil war/conflict, I see as more likely in efforts for a single-state, than in a fair and viable partition.
I agree with him that a likud dominated Israel does not realize a fair and viable partition.
He’s gone further, in writing the book, than to present the single-state as merely a tactical political ploy to realize a fair and viable partition, as Erekat seems to be doing.
Abunimeh is a hero to diaspora Palestinians and to solidarity for his marathon effort on Electronic Intifada. I believe that if he were similarly committed to reconciliation, that his talents and determination would bear fruit.
I would like to welcome him to Amherst this weekend, in the Pioneer Valley of Western Massachusetts, and regret that I won’t get to meet him personally, as I have prior commitments on Saturday.
“I still haven’t heard from him why a single-state is preferable or more just, in the democratic present, where the two communities consistently poll that they regard their separate IDENTITIES as critical, and that they choose a two-state solution over a one-state by domination of either party or an undifferentiated civil single-state.
Simple, Witty. The Palestinian identity is upon traditional human concepts of nationhood and residence, regardless of religion, whereas Israel/Zionist identity is constructed upon the notion that people of the Jewish faith/race are privileged above those of any other. Do I need to keep reminding you that pre-Zionism, Palestinian society accommodated Muslims, Christians and Jews?
Chaos,
can we bring the Ottoman empire back too?
What does that have to do with establishing a Jewish state on Palestine? Why do you follow the extremely execrable ideology of racism?
@ Yonira
Why not? The Ottoman Caliphate certainly provided better governance for its citizens than “civilized” Western- liberal Israel ever did.
Olive the idea of living under a “caliphate” dictatorial government whose empire building was comparable to that of England, may scare people.
” whose empire building was comparable to that of England,”
As I remember, didn’t the Zionists do pretty good out of the Empire? Gosh, wasn’t it the British conquest of Palestine which gave the Zionists the inch from which they took their mile?
I wouldn’t complain, Yoni.
No Mooser, the Israelis did not take their mile, it was given to them in addition to their inch, by virtue of series of wars waged against them…These territories were actually spoils or war…
You want these lands back? Ok! Grab them at the point of your gun!..
They don’t need to grab their lands back. Their claims are unassailable and documented. Its their in their genes, which show their origin in the Levant.
“The Custodian of Absentee Property does not choose to discuss politics. But when asked how much of the land of the state of Israel might potentially have two claimants – an Arab and a Jew holding respectively a British Mandate and an Israeli deed to the same property – Mr. Manor [the Custodian in 1980] believes that ‘about 70 percent’ might fall into that category (Robert Fisk, ‘The Land of Palestine, Part Eight: The Custodian of Absentee Property’, The Times, December 24, 1980, quoted in his book Pity the Nation: Lebanon at War).”
And:
“Of the entire area of the state of Israel only about 300,000 to 400,000 dunums [67,000-89,000 acres] …are state domain which the Israeli government took over from the Mandatory regime [British Mandate] [2%]. The J.N.F. (Jewish National Fund) and private Jewish owners possess under two million dunums [ 10% ]. Almost all the rest [i.e., 88% of the 20,225,000 dunums (4,500,000 acres) within the 1949 armistice lines] belongs in law to Arab owners, many of whom have left the country.” [Jewish National Fund, Jewish Villages in Israel, p.xxi. Quoted in Lehn and Davis, The Jewish National Fund.]
Stolen land, plain and simple. Why Israelis think they should be rewarded for returning stolen property is beyond me.
“can we bring the Ottoman empire back too?”
No, Yoni, we are all antimacassar!
Yonira: Olive the idea of living under a “caliphate” dictatorial government whose empire building was comparable to that of England, may scare people.
I tend to agree, and have not been convinced by the articles posted by Olive. Nevertheless, the original point was, I believe, that Palestinian society, pre-Zionism, was far more capable of accommodating people of different faiths than Zionism has proven to be. So you might scare Jews by suggesting that they live as equals with Palestinians, but nowhere near as much as the thought should scare Palestinians. Yet, by and large, we have not heard Palestinians express anywhere near the same fears of a single state that we have heard from Jews.
Maybe it’s because Zionists insist on supremacy and Palestinians don’t. As a matter of fact that’s how the whole mess started. There were always Jews in Palestine, and that was fine by everyone. Then came the Zionists and decided that Jews had to be in charge, and for some strange reason Palestinian non-Jews weren’t too pleased with that. Go figure. It therefore stands to reason that if we resolve the “Jews in charge” problem, we might actually resolve everything, while any “solution” that perpetuates the “in charge” thing will resolve nothing. Why is this so hard to grasp? Now you’ve even got me believing in Mooser’s ziocaine theory.
RE: “There is an irony about the insistence on right of return into the single state, as it is similarly to Zionism, NOT defined geographically, but socially.”
And what’s the gist of the irony? What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander?
Or, different strokes for different folks? Or, it all depends on who’s ox is being gored?
“I still haven’t heard from him why a single-state is preferable or more just”
Like what you think is gonna make a groats-worth of difference? Look, you Zionists haven’t been able to deliver on a single one of the manifold promises you made for the Jewish State. Do you really think you will have any input, beyond brute force (which you Witty, are nowhere near providing any of) in the colony’s dismantling? Get real.
“Inertia may keep change from happening for some time, but ultimately political brute force is not enough;”
Very true, but you are dealing with someone who feared the advance of Communism! So you know he must have a great respect for political brute force and inertia.
yonira November 18, 2009 at 11:52 am
“Olive the idea of living under a “caliphate” dictatorial government whose empire building was comparable to that of England, may scare people.”
Do you think that Gentiles jump for joy at the idea of being ruled by a Jewish theocracy or ethnocracy?
Sorry for the grouching. It’s gonna be pretty rough until I get my organ fixed.
It’s capacity ain’t what it used to be.
where the two communities consistently poll that they regard their separate IDENTITIES as critical,
No, that’s you Jewish nationalists who regard your (constructed) identity as critical.
The Palestinians regard their actual livelihood as critical.
It is defined as the right of any descendant of any Palestinian (including those from – not just currently residing – Palestinian areas of now Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt).
Right, you’ve told us before how you don’t think the children of Palestinian refugees should ever be allowed back to live. Very humane position. But you misrepresent it as “social” and not “geographic”–when in fact, it is both. They are the descendents (direct, first generation or second) of the displaced.
Zionism by contrast offers Israeli citizenship to people with no geographic connection whatsoever to the Middle East in the last 10,000 years or so.
Not surprising that you can’t see the difference between constructed identity and livelihood, between real right of return and artificial, because your ideology can’t square itself, otherwise.
I think it’s what you like to call, chewing and walking in gum at the same time.
The Palestinians regard their actual livelihood as critical.
While, the Israelis regard their constructed identity as critical.
Beautifully said.
And there in lies the crux between the Jewish problem and the Palestinian problem that is to be negotiated.
The Palestinians are at the negotiating table trying to find a way to survive, while the Israelis yammer on about maintaining a racist supremacist state.
The Palestinians are at the negotiating table trying to find a way to survive, while the Israelis yammer on about maintaining a racist supremacist state.
Exactly. Constructed racial supremacy has nothing over basic human rights.
I think that Palestine can set any return guidelines that it wishes within the jurisdiction that it controls (when that happens, when not if).
It won’t happen in Israel though.
You illustrate the warring element of the BDS approach to achieve a single-state.
Israel will fight rather than adopt that formula.
I prefer to avoid unnecessary war.
“I think that Palestine can set any return guidelines that it wishes within the jurisdiction that it controls (when that happens, when not if).”
As opposed to now, right? Because right now, Israel controls everything by military force, and they pretty much parcel out land to Jews and Jews alone — even if that means knocking down Palestinian communities to make room.
Just so we’re clear on what reality is right now, Witty. I’d hate to think maybe you’d forgotten what Zionism means to Palestinians right this minute.
No you prefer the same ideology that the Nazis were wiped out for, it didn’t succeed for them, believing in lebensraum and reinrassig. Why would it work for the Israelis?
Depriving the indigenous people of their rights [also against international law] will only ensure Israel’s pariah status. I recommend you move there and stop capitalising on the civil rights that your country extends to minorities. Go where you can be an ethnic supremacist and be true to your nazi ideology. Move.
Sammy,
in your opinion, what would ensure Israel’s status as not being a pariah state?
the warring element of the BDS approach
Figment of your imagination. Zionism is war. BDS is an attempt to throw a wrench in the war machine that is the modern Israeli state.
to achieve a single state
Richard, we already understand that anti-assimilation land is your most cherished ideal (even though you don’t want to move there, for some reason). Frankly it’s getting a bit old watching you try to pretend that you’re against a single state because you’re concerned about the welfare of everyone or you think the Palestinians don’t want it.
When do you think you will develop the maturity to admit that it’s only because of your own identity issues that you need to unconditionally defend an eternal haven for anti-assimilationism?
At least you get the distinction between social and geographic definition of a people.
In diaspora, social is all you’ve got to identify on the basis of. Its been a long discussion of whether association as a Jew is by blood, by community, or by creed.
Its possible that at some point in some future it will also be by geography, though that would conflict with the religious criteria.
I really get the element of the appeal of a single-state that prohibits arbitrary definitions of where individuals may travel. It seems like a cruelty that individuals with family or even long memories of former neighborhoods can’t visit. Even, my experience of returning to the neighborhood that I grew up in,after long absense, as now foreign to me (even though not much physically has changed), is impossible.
In the area that I grew up in there are only very very few families that stayed more than 30 years. It is a lot to lose a home.
And, it is a lot to ask that a people (Jews) remain homeless, instead of allowing settlement and nationhood.
There is no simple answer that is pure and does not harm others.
The best answer is the one that harms others the least, from the present forward.
And, Israel is part of that consideration, as effected and affecting, but not ONLY as affecting.
You’re a blatant hypocrite, Witty. You go into this long, elaborate conversation but the fact is, you apply one set of rules to Jews (support the Israeli “Law of Return”) and another to everyone else (rejection of the international right of return to ethnically cleansed Palestinians). The rest of your commentary is garbage while this glaring contradiction remains the foundation of your perspective.
Its by jurisdiction. In a single state, the legislature can determine its laws. In a Zionist state, similarly. In a Palestinian state similarly.
The international community cannot legislate Israeli law, and the international community cannot legislate Palestinian law. Its up to its citizens and those that can persuade its citizens.
The word “hypocrite” is an example of name-calling Chaos. I thought you “didn’t do that”.
Then by your own definition Israel’s occupation is an illegal and immoral abrogation of Palestinian sovereignty.
This is what I’m talking about. You are totally incapable of crafting a rationale that can sustain its own weight without collapsing into a heap.
I don’t get your last statement (I don’t get a lot of them).
There is no consistent view on the conflict, Zionist, Palestinian, solidarity. Each contain contradictions.
That is the significance of being able to get your mind around mutual acceptance, rather than a strained “consistency”.
If it seemed that the majority of Israeli and Palestinian civilians preferred a distinctly civilist governance, rather than any national or religious element at all, then my thinking would be different than I argue for.
In the present, democracy is optimized by a two-state solution that leaves a secure and viable Israel, as neighbor to a secure and viable Palestine.
Its not that complex. It takes a focused positively argued approach to realize. The presence of hatred, whether racial or political, hinders the realization of justice.
It instead forces an either/or, “which side are you on” approach, when BOTH are right in critical ways.
Thats a quandry. To pick a side on the basis of justice, and want to accurate, when there is truth supporting both perspectives and arguments.
There’s no point in having this discussion with you. Not that I expected any different. Whenever anyone successfully counters your arguments you simply say, “Oh, I don’t understand. What you say makes no sense.” And then you flee along one of several well-worn paths.
This time it’s the path of phony moral equivalence. Witty, you cannot say that Israel and Palestine are on equal footing. Israel bombs and confiscates Palestinian resources on a weekly basis, if not daily. Palestinians anywhere in Israel and occupied Palestine are subject to spontaneous arrest and indefinite confinement without due legal process. In no way do the Palestinians do anything on a scale to the Israelis what crimes the Israelis wreak upon the Palestinians.
Your justifications of Zionism might as well be echoes of justifications for Nazism that were touted more than half a century ago. Hey, it lifted the German populace out of squalor and got them new land to settle, right? If you’re unwilling to confront the evils and the crimes, Witty, if you’re going to continue to make excuses and rationalizations for the abrogations of human rights and the privileging of one class of people — Jews, in this case — over others… that makes you a collaborator.
I state that Palestine should have the right to offer a right of return, but that it would be up to Israeli legislators to offer that within Israel.
I think in the context of a peace settlement, the repeals of the 1950′s laws that imprinted the prohibition of return following the 1948 war, might be possible, and then legally reconciled.
In the context of “peace with Israel represents a betrayal”, then justice and peace will be delayed.
Thankfully, there are Palestinians that are truly their community’s servants, and don’t need to be ideologically perfect from a very strained and limited set of criteria.
Chaos,
You really should be careful about your mobbish invocations. “Collaborator”.
Be very careful ethically.
Chaos, I honestly don’t know why you still bother with him. He’s clearly got some identity issues. Considering he’s already retarded – as Borat might say – I wouldn’t hold my breath.
It doesn’t seem that Zionists consider it a problem to make a people homeless and keep them homeless and stateless for generations. It’s only a problem when Jews are homeless.
it is a lot to ask that a people (Jews) remain homeless
Your notion of peoplehood is a nationalistic fantasy and your notion of homelessness is completely absurd. Why should Americans unaffiliated with Jewish supremacism have to pay for your delusional worldview?
The U.S. must give no more aid to Israel. Israel should comply with international law or cease to exist as a pseudo-religious ethnocracy.
Israel’s murderous ethnic nationalism is a blemish on all humanity, and its apologists demonstrate the harm of indoctrination at an early age.
Richard Witty says:
You illustrate the warring element of the BDS approach to achieve a single-state.
Israel will fight rather than adopt that formula.
I prefer to avoid unnecessary war.
Nice residual West Bank you got here, O Palestinians. Be a shame if anything happened to it.