Jeffrey Goldberg says Israel’s partial freeze on colonization outside J’lem is ‘unprecedented’

by on November 30, 2009 12
0sharesFacebook
0tweetsTwitter
0stumbledStumbleUpon
0sharesReddit
0recommendGoogle

Not all that surprising. And he says that Gilo is in Israel. Now we know who’s drawing the borders, huh?

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel Lobby

{ 12 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Chaos4700 says:
    November 30, 2009 at 11:46 pm

    Unprecedented? As if Israel hasn’t accellerated colonization, then agree to a freeze of some kind, and then break that agreement in the past. We call that the Oslo Accords.

  2. potsherd says:
    December 1, 2009 at 1:01 am

    Let’s see them put some of the settler terrorists in prison for “security violations” when they resist the demolition of outposts. THAT would be unprecedented.

  3. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells says:
    December 1, 2009 at 4:41 am

    I think you’ll find just about every country manages not to build colonies in other people’s territory, there’s nothing unprecedented about it.

  4. robin says:
    December 1, 2009 at 5:52 am

    This may be what frustrates me most about Obama’s approach. He consistently fails to justify U.S. policy in moral terms.

    So the settlements should be frozen because otherwise they might provoke Palestinian bitterness and some sort of backlash, which would be bad for Israel. He concedes the primacy of Israeli (Jewish) interests, and completely ignores Palestinian humanity. And that opens him up to attacks like Goldberg’s: “what you are saying has nothing to do with Israeli interests, after all don’t Israelis know best their interests? And isn’t it wrong to be so influenced by Palestinian threats of violence?” Indeed perhaps it would be, if Israel was somehow behaving acceptably or even justly as Goldberg seems to presume.

    Of course a moral defense of Palestinian rights would open Obama up to attacks by all sorts of charlatans. But ultimately wouldn’t it be more convincing for everybody else? I mean, he has the power to make his voice heard above all others. And wasn’t that his great strength as a campaigner, the ability to evoke a moral big picture?

    Working within the political status quo here means continuing the status quo on the ground. If he’s really serious about taking on this issue, Obama needs to shake things up and use his personal authority/bully pulpit to manufacture some kind of shift in the debate. Engage people outside the lobby. Otherwise why bother to raise expectations and accomplish nothing? Honestly if I were him, I probably would have waited for a possible second term to really take this on and do it right. The dangers and constraints are too great.

    But since he has addressed it from the beginning, I continue to wait and hope that he still has something up his sleeve. (Is healthcare done yet?) I mean, this is a president who has actually had conversations with people like Edward Said, Ali Abunimah, and Rashid Khalidi. That should be incredibly significant. I cannot believe that his heart is really behind all of this equivocation and pro-Israel lip-service. Maybe he’s not exactly a one-stater, but in his mind he has to understand something about the role of injustice here, right?

    He’s not Bush. There is a little bit more support for Palestinian positions. But I really hope there is more to come, and that he’s shrewdly building for the right moment. It would be truly pathetic if Obama’s current policy turns out to be the most favorable Palestinians could hope for.

    • David Samel says:
      December 1, 2009 at 8:59 am

      robin, you echo the thoughts I had when Obama was elected. I thought this is a decent guy who must be more attuned to the actual situation than other mainstream politicians, by virtue of his contact with people like Said, Abuminah, and especially Khalidi, whom he claimed to have seen quite often. I also thought that he was a very smart and skilled politician who would be able to forge ahead on this issue without seeming anti-Israel. In other words, he would be able to positively frame the issues in such a way that they seemed to promote simple common sense and decency, and that even if Israel were strongly opposed, it would be difficult to do so without seeming unreasonable. I can’t even remember when I gave up that fantasy.

  5. Richard Witty says:
    December 1, 2009 at 6:24 am

    Yesterday the EU announced that it would likely recognize Palestinian sovereignty at 67 borders at its next formal meeting.

    I read it in Haaretz, but the article to the original link that I had, changed.

    THIS is the big news, whether you want to agitate using concise and moral BDS, or whatever non-violent moral and considerate method of dissent.

    That is that Israel’s largest markets for agricultural and technological products are in Europe. They are close in all respects. It is the leverage that will soon yeild a consented peaceful transition, rather than an abrupt, chaotic and mutually harmful one.

  8. Oscar says:
    December 1, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    I’ll believe it only once it gets through the labyrinthian process and isn’t watered down to the point where the EU actually regards it as Israel’s eternal and undivided capital.

Leave a Reply