Here’s a fine piece by Linda Milazzo in the LA Progressive, showing how viciously the lobby responds to talk of a one-state solution. LA Congressman Henry Waxman, chairman of Energy and Commerce and a big liberal, goes haywire against Marcy Winograd, the challenger to Congresswoman Jane "AIPAC" Harman in a neighboring district. Milazzo points out that Israel/Palestine is not a huge issue to Harman’s beachfront district but that for both Waxman and Harman, it is the political litmus test.
Below are excerpts from Waxman’s letter to constituents urging them to support Tel Aviv Jane, and from Winograd’s letter to Waxman telling him that Israel’s persecution of Palestinians is hurting "our people." Note that Winograd takes a very reasonable line here: as a liberal who opposes racial discrimination, she’s for the one-state solution, but if they can come up with a just two-state solution, she wouldn’t oppose it. And that is extremely repugnant?
FROM THE DESK OF CONGRESSMAN HENRY A. WAXMAN
Dear Friend,
Recently, I came across an astounding speech by Marcy Winograd, who is running against our friend Jane Harman in her primary re-election to Congress. Ms. Winograd’s views on Israel I find repugnant in the extreme. And that is why I wanted to write you.
What has prompted my urgent concern is a speech Ms. Winograd gave, entitled, “Call For One State,” at the All Saints Church in Pasadena last year. The complete text is attached, but in it she says:
- “I think it is too late for a two-state solution. Israel has made it all but impossible for two states to exist.”
- “Not only do I think a two-state solution is unrealistic, but also fundamentally wrong…”
- “As a citizen of the United States, I do not want my tax dollars to support institutionalized racism. As a Jew, I do not want my name associated with occupation or extermination.”…
To me, the notion that a Member of Congress could hold these views is alarming. Ms. Winograd is far, far outside the bipartisan mainstream of views that has long insisted that US policy be based upon rock-solid support for our only democratic ally in the Middle East.
In Marcy Winograd’s foreign policy, Israel would cease to exist. In Marcy Winograd’s vision, Jews would be at the mercy of those who do not respect democracy or human rights. These are not trivial issues; they cannot be ignored or overlooked. Jane’s victory will represent a clear repudiation of these views.
Winograd’s response:
Like you, I am intimately aware of our Jewish history. On my mother’s side, my great-grandparents escaped the Russian Pogroms to make a better life for themselves in Europe. On my father’s side, my great-grandparents were killed in the Jewish Holocaust of Nazi Germany. Because of our collective experience with persecution, it behooves us to stand in opposition to persecution anywhere and everywhere, rather than sanctify reductionist state policies that cast all Jews as victims who can only thrive in a segregated society. Furthermore, we must stand in explicit opposition to the Israeli persecution of the Palestinians; the brutal blockade of Gaza, an act of war by international standards, denying children clean water, food, and medicine.
We are better than that.
In your letter, you reference my speech in support of a one state solution, one that would recognize both Israelis and Palestinians as equals in a land of great historical significance to both. Security for Jews and Palestinians will be increased, not decreased, by efforts to establish a state where all are welcome and treated equally, but such a day may be far down the road given the existing enmity and lack of accountability in U.S. foreign policy regarding ever-expanding Israeli settlements. To stop the suffering of the Palestinian people and to end the rocket attacks on Israelis near the border, I am ready and willing to accept a negotiated peace agreement that adheres to principles of justice and recognizes a two-state solution based on withdrawal of illegal settlements to the 1967 borders or a mutually-agreed exchange of territory.
Nowhere in my speech do I advocate destruction or violence. Those are your words.
In your letter, you include what you term an “alarming’ quote of mine – “As a Jew, I do not want my name associated with occupation or extermination.” Frankly, I am mystified as to why you would find my words objectionable. Surely, you are not saying the converse is true – that you want Jewish people associated with occupation and extermination. Such a legacy would dishonor our people.
It’s kind of hard here to tell where Waxman leaves off and Winograd begins.
Congressional Democrats: Israel’s Fifth Column in the US
The Chair recognizes the Representative from AIPAC, huh.
You progressives can dish it out, but let anyone answer you you start crying about how mean they are.
The facts are that most Jews find the one state solution anathema. When Winograd states a “peace agreement that adheres to principles of justice ” she should say what she really means. Her “justice” means 5 million Arabs “returning” to Israel.
That is exactly what the one-state solution is. Everyone knows it, but only those against it will mention it.
They act like it’s their ‘little secret’ but in all reality pretty much anyone w/ a clue knows this is the true motivation. And then they just hope that the Jews up and leave.
Its not a secret. The only reason your ‘Jewish State’ exists is because 800K Palestinians were driven out, ethnically cleansed.
I think you made an ironic, flat-out false comment in another thread: that Jews had gotten over the Holocaust.
What a load of shit. No you haven’t. You are like everyone else who rhetorically refer to the Holocaust to prove your points. And Zionist Jewry are still chasing Nazi guards in their 90s as well as squeezing for more Holocaust monies.
I mean, this is all laid out in ‘The Holocaust Industry’. There is of course the cultural exploitation of the Holocaust by Jews and non-Jews alike.
As I said, you’re schizo, yonira. Maybe two people are posting under your name?
You just say the most easily refutable comments. Then sometimes you’re reasonable.
And of course they would be returning, Julian. They have MUCH more right to that land than a random Jew from Brooklyn.
We’ve moved on from the Holocaust, we’ve look past a tragic even in our history, accepted it for what it was, and persevered. I guess moving on and being over something is different, I’ll give you that.
Where did I bring up the Holocaust in my previous post?
I think I am reasonable when I say something critical about Israel and unreasonable when I don’t, is that it Cliff?
Who’s we Yonira?
Your prime minister can’t consruct a sentence without mentioning the Holocaust and the impending one.
Nice to see the Zionists getting in cozy with the teabaggers, huh.
I think the characterization of the grass roots unrest with American domestic policy (not generally foreign policy) as “teabaggers” is glib. Is their collective protest more misleading than our own government’s official spiel? Where does one go if one does not want to be associated fully with the teabaggers, nor with
any of the conventional political party visions?
Get up and leave occupied East Jerusalem, the occupied West Bank, and occupied Gaza! Give up ethnic cleansing! Good heavens! What would God say?
Yes, justice means the exiled Palestinians returning to their homeland. Anything less is not justice. Zionists seem perfectly content to perpetuate injustice, as long as it advantages themselves.
#1 it is not a secret
#2 what chutzpah to allude to some fantasy you can speak for anyones true motivation. first and foremost i was raised in america, land of the free home of the brave (or so they say). i actually bought all that crap about equality and freedom and democracy. i was not indoctrinated from the womb to acknowledge or accept any kind of specialness or exception to the rule. not being a religious person but having a family background that respects those of faith i respect the holy land and understand its importance to christianity, judaism and islam and respect the importance of jerusalem for all of those faiths. i see no reason to make an exception for one faith or people over another when it comes to human rights nor do i ascribe to any concept nations, states or citizenship should be afforded or withheld due to race creed religion or any other ethnic category. the idea of citizenship being denied based on ethnicity is anathema, adverse to american culture. we have been programed to accept the very concept of the exceptionalist nature of zionism. i can accept it, i can make that acception yes i can. but not in the face of terrible suffering of others for decades. this has gone on too long. who are you to second guess my motivation? to allude i choose jews to ‘give up’? give up what one might ask? the will to live in an exclusive racist state? no one is asking jews to leave, certainly not me. you simply can’t keep pushing others out. what kind of life is this checking the demographics w/every passing day? living in some purity state determined by exclusivity? if the suffering of the other was not in our face maybe we would not notice so much, but faced w/these inequities are we not supposed to notice? as one conditioned from birth as an american raised on the aspirations of martin, freedom, red white and blue? you cannot ever speak for me or question my motivations. are you so full of yourself you think the world revolves around hatred of you instead of mans common bond w/mankind and love of freedom and equality and aspirations to the best within us or are we supposed to all tow the line and believe palestinians are less than or undeserving?
who are you to slander the rest of us with your crude assumptions? your narrow mindedness shames you.
What American not outraged at what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians with our tax money would not be the first to claim every civil right under the US Constitution? The hypocrisy is blatant.
All Americans have a full right to protest what is being done in our name by our own government, and with are hard-earned tax money. It sure as hell is not merely an issue for Jewish American and Jews around the world. The I-P situation is only part of our government’s un-American foreign policy as implemented for so long.
Don’t panic Julian, seems that your Zionists dreams will become nightmares. Its obvious now that there is an identify crisis in Israel.
And what is the problem of people returning? Why shouldn’t they? Are you afraid that that means the end of Israel as a “Jewish State”? Well yes it does, but maybe if you accept a state based on ethnicity, religion or race you would have loved living in Apartheid South Africa, or the American south during slavery and Jim Crow.
Kind of like how white guys like you find the “one state” solution with blacks and other minorities in the US anathema, huh.
What’s with the air quotes, exactly? What exactly is this? When Jews “return” to Israel from, say, Russia, you don’t use those quotes. Suddenly just because somebody’s Arab the definition of return doesn’t apply to them and their family returning to their own land?
Seriously, extremist racism is embedded in the very language of the right wing. You guys can’t escape your myopic xenophobia for even a microsecond.
<i< When Jews “return” to Israel from, say, Russia, you don’t use those quotes. Suddenly just because somebody’s Arab the definition of return doesn’t apply to them and their family returning to their own land?
You nailed it on the head Chaos.
There are many views that collide over the issue of one-state against two-state system in Israel by Hebrew history (Palestine by Roman history). However no matter how we assess it, we have no other option but to recognize (even according to the Balfour Declaration of 1917) it is the right place where the Jews as religious-ethnic as they are, should belong. Let us think over on many of the impacts of these personal sentiments of Yoel Meltzer who has an MA in Middle Eastern Studies and lives in Israel: (BOLD and *markers are of this writer for emphasis)
“Nonetheless, I would like to present a short list of positive reasons for a Jew to consider building a life in Israel:
1. Percentage-wise **the best chance to find a JEWISH SPOUSE is in Israel**.
2. Statistically **the lowest rate of INTERMARRIAGE is in Israel**.
3. Within a few short hours one can hike in the desert, swim in the Mediterranean, ski on the Hermon or float in the Dead Sea.
4. **Jewish holidays are a NATURAL part of the lifecycle here**.
5. There is no Christmas shopping season in Israel.
6. The cost of Jewish education in Israel is a fraction of the cost in the US.
7. In Israel **there is a feeling of “HOME” for the Jewish people**.
8. Israel is **the only JEWISH COUNTRY in the world**. There are no others.
9. In Israel a Jew **does not have to INTEGRATE into a non-Jewish society**.
10. Although like any country there are many problems and issues, at least they are our problems and issues.
11. Mitzvah observance and their significance take on a whole different meaning in the Land of Israel.
12. **There is only one JERUSALEM in the whole world and it is here, in the Land of Israel**.
13. **After a few thousand years, HEBREW, the language of the Prophets, is once again heard throughout the Land of Israel**.
14. Israel boasts the fastest growing Jewish population in the world.
15. **After a long respite of nearly 2,000 years, Israel is once again the physical and SPIRITUAL CENTER of the Jewish people**.
16. History is literally unfolding here in front of our eyes. All that has transpired here during such a relatively short time period is nothing short of mind-boggling. As such, there is an incredible and unique opportunity available to any Jew throughout the world to come to Israel and to actually have an impact on the shaping of history.
In summary, **the greatest potential for a Jew to be IN TUNE WITH HIS REAL SELF, to live his life ACCORDING TO HIS TRUE INNER VOICE, is here in the Land of Israel. In this respect there is absolutely no comparison to anywhere else in the world. As great as America might be, and I say this as a former American who has nothing but fond memories of the US, the best home for a Jew is in the Land of Israel. It’s really that simple.”
I have no business of becoming a Jew; BUT sadly to all other affected peoples, as we recognized the ancient holy scriptures that totally defined the ancient Jewish history; the Jews have to have their own national spiritual life that must be lived-out of being a Jew – which among other nations entirely in the world cannot be liken.
He sounds like David Duke.
Much worse than David Duke.
David Duke can’t hide behind an identity. In fact, his identity as simply ‘white’ works against him in the mainstream. Similar to how ‘Muslim’ identity is associated negatively.
People have to humor frauds like Witty/zamaaz in the mainstream because their ‘identity’ has more political capital.
Wow, just wow.
Who are you talking to zamaaz? No one here is drinking the koolaid, sorry.
ORLY?
I can’t decide if this guy is just trolling or is just batshit insane.
I am talking about a Jew who wants to live as a Jew in a Jewish nation called Israel in Hebrew, that is unbelievably different from the rest of the world… and I am talking to every one throughout the world that believes on what the Jew should think and feel, and supports this view.
Your Jewish State was built on the ruins of another people and another society. You could not have your Jewish State, and your ‘choices’, without the removal of the indigenous society, the indigenous peoples who were there before you political ideology destroyed ‘them’.
Your comments are pure bullshit. They are exclusionary, racist, and supremacist.
You want to ‘be’ a Jew in a ‘Jewish’ nation? How do you live as a Jew? What does that mean for non-Jews in Israel?
What does it mean for the Arabs?
Your commentary presupposes a particular interpretation of history. And it’s drenched in religious psychobabble.
Your ‘claim’ manifests only through force. You are no different from the religious crazies who all but exterminated the Native Americans via ‘Manifest Destiny’.
Go ahead and speak in tongue though. You’re as transparent as Dick Witty, so it does you no good.
The world should know the ruins of OTHER PEOPLE were actually built over the ruins of the Jews more than 2000 years ago. Now that they were allowed to reclaim and rebuild the nation by the community of nations through Balfour Declaration 1917, you claim it OWNED by other people? Fools!
It is the ‘wisdom’ of people like you that actually prolonged the agony of the Palestinians in Gaza…Youre giving the Israelis the ‘conventional’ right to do what they want on the ground of ‘national survival and security!!!’
How about the Jews charging the Arabs rental for using their land for more than 2000 years?
Oh really?
Ok, tell me then zamaaz, where these Jews are from 2000 years ago.
What is a Jew?
How do present-day Jews (of various ethnic backgrounds) have claim still (supposedly, according to you a nutcase)?
Who lived in this land before the Jews? Can they kick out all the Jews today and say that they lived there, 3000 years ago?
Oh and what constituted a ‘community’ of nations? What authority does this ‘community’ of nations have in authorizing the affairs of ‘the other’?
Or do you use the label ‘community’ to favorably characterize the authority (only via force) of an outside (and illegitimate) actor.
I’m glad we’re finally getting to the root of your world-view. I figured as much by reading the very first posts you spewed on this blog.
So educate us non-Jews. Tell us why ‘you’ have claim. Tell us who is a Jew and how present-day Jews have claim to Palestine over the people who were already living there and already had a society in place.
Oh dear, I think I broke zamaaz’s brain! He’s lost it!
2000 years of rental fees? Do tell!
I you continuously spew-out fire, sooner you will find yourself inside a room of brimstone!
Does it have cable? Mini-fridge?
I am very amused of your logic…you question the originof th Jews as they have built their nation from this piece of Land called Israel. I am referring to the existing Jewish nation before the Assyrian, Persian, and Roman invasions. If I would based on you idea of national identity, it tempts me to question the origin of the Saudis, Jordanians, Qataris, Omanis, and the rest of the Arab world who were just able to build their nations after the Turks ruled the middle east. Are we sure these are really genetically natives to their lands or were simply migrants like the Jews too? If you can to clean the slate of the Jews we must clean all the slates of Arab nations in this region as well! Would it not be fair? Lets erase history for every nation in this region back 3000 years right?
Um, the difference is your ideology claims that this Jewish nation of over 9000 years ago has some legitimacy in the present day.
Tell me, zamaaz, who is a Jew?
When did this ‘Jewish nation’ exist? What was it like? How do Jews today have a claim to this Jewish nation? How does this concept of a Jewish nation fit in w/ the rest of the world? What does it mean for the non-Jews in the region and for the non-Jews inside Israel?
Furthermore, does any of this excuse the ethnic cleansing of Palestine? The creation of a Jewish State on top of a society that was already there and non-Jewish?
Do you think Palestinians will up and leave because some group of people you claim to be related to in some way, lived there 2-fucking-thousand years ago?
You are a nutcase.
Lets also erase the history of British nations also – which is more greater thrill! After all many, if not most, of them were also descendants of seaborn plunderers from Germany, France, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, etc. anyway!
I question Polish, American, German and Indian people moving into Palestine by force and taking their homes because they think sky daddy said so. Meanwhile, sky daddy has not forwarded the paperwork on this piece of realty
I asked you to explain your connection to a 2000 year old ‘Jewish nation’.
I asked you to explain what/who is a Jew.
And I asked you to provide historical evidence. Why do Jews today have a right to usurp the land, resources, and kick out the indigenous Palestinian Arabs?
You want to know where shall we take account of the establishment of first formal state in Israel? It should go back to the days of King David; Israel during the days of patriarchs may not be considered or fully defined as a state yet, because they lacked the basic determinant for being a state which was the practice of government taxation (proven by rudiments of civilization such as written history, and public administration archives, etc. ). The clinching contention here is whether we recognize the ancient Jewish writings or not. The Jews have their own historical writings, other western nations recognize it through the Biblical writings which the Europeans published and spread published worldwide by the English (I donot know you basis to deny these). If you can prove writings showing other non-Jewish state that exist other than David at the start then show us!
Of course there were kingdoms that exist during those times before but they were conquered by Israelites even before David. And we cannot even prove these ancient Canaanites were Palestinian Arabs too! So what is your basis in claiming that these Palestinians are descendants of owners of the land even before David, or even right after the Diaspora ?
If we argue for one thing, our principle must be consistent in all our arguments in all conditions at all times.
Yes this is the same as to my point, to what shall we base our superseding right over the country? To the oldest claimants who have just retaken their lands, or to those claimants evicted after ‘squatting’ the land just recently? I don’t appreciate this cruelty against the Palestinians but lets call ‘spade a spade’.
“‘The world should know the ruins of OTHER PEOPLE were actually built over the ruins of the Jews more than 2000 years ago.”‘
The ruins of the Jewish tribes were built over the ruins of other tribes. Jerusalem was built by the Canaanites for exmaple and Jericho dates back 5 millenia, long befofre Judaism was eveb conceived.
“‘How about the Jews charging the Arabs rental for using their land for more than 2000 years? “‘
How about the Canaanites and Philistines charge the Jews for using their land for more than 3000 years?
“”To the oldest claimants who have just retaken their lands, or to those claimants evicted after ’squatting’ the land just recently?”‘
Jews are not the oldest claimants. There were populations in Palestine long before Jews were there.
zamaaz,
Here’s another Jewish country for you:
The Jewish Autonomous Region: 75 years old
link to eao.ru
Yes, thanks for the input. This is in conformity to what I mentioned in this debate;
“Yes, because youre talking about a Jewish state…We do respect how Russian think about Russia, or Chinese thinks about China..Have anyone qualms whatever they think and do over their respective countries? ”
It is totally a Russian internal affair, they maybe Cossacks or Jews – they are all Russian citizens. Somehow this development gave me an idea that the former Socialist Russia was better off than the European progressives in terms of dealing and recognizing all tribes, creed, and cultures. They do not see it as a Jewish country…
s
1. Percentage-wise, the best chance to find a black spouse is in Africa.
2. The lowest rate of INTERMARRIAGE also impolies tghe greatest risk of inbreeding.
3. Israel makes for a godo tourist destination.
4. Jews are permitted to take holidays in all Western countries.
5. There is no obligation to take part in Christmas shopping.
6. The cost of Jewish education in Israel is a fraction of the cost in the US, becasue the US gives extraordinary subsidies to Israel.
7. Most Jews choose not to live in Israel, so the feeling of “HOME” for the Jewish people is debatable.
8. Why do we need a JEWISH COUNTRY when there is no Christian or Buddist countries?
9. What is inherently wrong with having to INTEGRATE into a non-Jewish society?
10. Although like any country there are many problems and issues, at least they are our problems and issues.
11. There has never been a Land of Israel.
12. Who cares if there is only one JERUSALEM in the whole world? There has never been a Land of Israel.
13. The Prophets are mythical inventions. There has never been a Land of Israel.
14. Jews are leaving Israel at the same rate they are arriving.
15. There was no 2,000 yeat respite. Palestine has belonged to many populations since the Jewish populations was vanquished.
16. By definition, history is always unfolding here in front of our eyes. Israel is an anrtificial entity that requires massive aid, military force, enthic cleansing, and annexation to maintain it’s existence.
Here’s something I found that reminded me of the recent confrontation between Hedy Epstein and Elie Wiesel, which I read about on this site.
The conversation is between Waxman and Frances W. Wells, a Jewish resident of his district in her 90s, who is “incensed” at his attack on Winograd.
Wiesel and Waxman are old guard, and can’t handle that things are changing.
I sent this e-mail to Waxman:
“The facts are that most Jews find the one state solution anathema”
So what? Should the world be run on the basis of what “most Jews” want, or should it be run on the basis of justice?
One man, one vote.
Everyone under Israeli rule gets the franchise.
It is the only sustainable approach.
Yes, because youre talking about a Jewish state…We do respect how Russian think about Russia, or Chinese thinks about China..Have anyone qualms whatever they think and do over their respective countries?
link to en.wikipedia.org
States are political entities. They have no inherent and arbitrary ‘right’ to exist.
Furthermore, Israel is an on-going colonial project. It only exists because Zionist terrorists expelled the indigenous population.
The colonization of Historic Palestine continues on in the present.
And of course we will speak out against human rights violations and all that jazz when it’s in our political interests to do so.
Everyday people have a higher propensity to be sincere and consistent. Politicians do not.
Israel is not a State for it’s citizens. If other States are similar to Israel in the discrimination of non-[whatever] then they should be fought and pressured to reform as well.
The difference between the Jewish State and others racist/discriminatory States that are founded on ethnic cleansing/etc. is that Israel is an on-going colonial project. People aren’t going to sit around and let you continue to rob another people of their land, resources and humanity just because that is how most States were formed.
Then tell the whites to leave off Australia, blacks to leave-off Jamaica, etc…
Other call it apartheid, racist, isolationist, segregation, etc. Others called it religious ethnic distinction, identity, etc. Where shall they meet? …. in the graves?
Good, we agree that the Jewish State was founded through destroying the indigenous population.
Now, lets try to correct this crime and prevent further theft and colonization.
Oh wait, do you support the colonies?
Will you use the ‘then will you kick out the racist European colonists who stole [name some random previously owned by shade-of-brown-person area/nation/etc.]?‘ after Israel has gotten obese off of Palestinian society and there is nothing left to steal?
You know Cliff? I don’t know the gains over prevailing this debate. And that it could take days, and weeks, and months, or even years but, one thing I am sure while we are arguing, the Gaza Palestinians are really suffering deeply…
Frankly I really do not know what are the formal basis of what the Israelis are doing. But as I see it, the more the Palestinians and their humanists sympathizers ‘hammer’ them, the more their stakes go ‘deeper in the ground’. And even if you soften the ground, their stakes would still remain go deeper. I think you and your Palestinians friends must realize that. Time is precious for those for live in Gaza. As for me there is this need to be realistic, and learn not to look at the Israelis and be diverted, but focus at yourselves and your existing capabilities and resources, sit altogether and make a peaceable strategy to go loftier than this misery, and develop what has been saved with your people and territory. I just hope for the best for the Palestinians….
“”Other call it apartheid, racist, isolationist, segregation, etc. “‘
So does Nelson Mandella, Desmond Tutu, and the father of apartheid, South African Prime Minister, Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd.
The South Africa/Israel analogy interests me. What precisely did de Klerk or the people de Klerk represented realize at that moment of history. Only if you can clarify this for me than could I compare the Israel situation. As is I can only foresee a one state solution if a war happens with consequences that lead in that direction or the withdrawal of U.S. support is so traumatic that even without losing a war Israel will act as if it had lost a war.
I’ll let someone else take a stab at that Sysyphean effort, but I already know even if we did clarify that, you’d find some other artless dodge.
You want to claim that people like Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu are full of shit when they compare the apartheid they suffered under to that of Israel to the Palestinians (which at least one of those gentlemen characterizes as actually worse than South African apartheid), WJ, you go right ahead and take on that “white man’s burden.”
If you want to know about the similarities between Afrikaner South Africa and Zionist Israel I suggest reading Original Sins by historian Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi. The book is not just about Israel and Apartheid South Africa but he does make the comparison.
De Klerk came to the realization that the foundations of Apartheid were no longer tenable. They were shaky to begin with but those ideas which may have been acceptable among Europeans in colonial times have long been tossed in the trash bin of history. De Klerk realized this: there was no support for such a system outside those who directly benefited from it.
You claim that the one-state will come as a result of war or as a result of US withdrawing support. Maybe. However, let’s forget about the Palestinians in the West-Bank and Gaza or the refugee camps for a second and consider only the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel. Currently, they constitute 1/5 of Israels citizens. Considering the growth rates of Jewish population and that of the Arab citizens of Israel, it is estimated that within the next 40-50 years the Arab citizens of Israel will constitute 50% of the population. What then? How is Israel going to maintain its “Jewish” character? Think about it.
The growing Palestinian Israeli population doesn’t worry me as much as the one state proposal. For one thing 40 years is not tomorrow. For another thing the Palestinian Israelis have lived under democracy even though it is second class, they have lived in a democracy for quite a while, 60 years or 44 years since the end of military government, so there is less risk involved in evolving from a Jewish state to a state for all its citizens. If there were no threats from outside Israel, I don’t think it would be as easy as changing to the metric system, but I think Israel could adjust.
By the way, there must have been some kind of economic realization that went into de Klerk’s decision. I’m just assuming, but I don’t see the white South Africans suddenly going, ” Oh, we’re wrong.” It must have been something more strategic than that.
I suggest that you reread what you wrote above and think about it a bit more.
The problem with your thinking is that it assumes things happening overnight. That is a very serious misunderstanding of how societies change. What you are talking about–sudden change–is a revolution and even then revolutions take years and maybe decades in the making.
Afrikaners did not wake up and realized that they were wrong. Of course economics as well as other factors less tangible, and let’s not forget the black struggle, played a role. There isn’t just one factor that brings societal change.
This is doubly ironic because as you point out, Israeli Arabs have “second class” democracy while Palestinian Arabs have military occupation — so there is a kind of sub-apartheid going on that is not even based on Jews vs. Arabs, but dividing the Arabs (Palestinians) themselves, based on which side of the border they happened to be on at a particular point in time.
My comment above was meant as a reply to this from wonderingjew:
For one thing 40 years is not tomorrow. For another thing the Palestinian Israelis have lived under democracy even though it is second class, they have lived in a democracy for quite a while, 60 years or 44 years since the end of military government, so there is less risk involved in evolving from a Jewish state to a state for all its citizens.
Living as a second class citizen in a democracy is an oxymoron.
Economics: yes–international boycott, divestment and sanctions did play an important part. Hence the importance of those to the Palestine solidarity movement.
Also, you seem concerned about how “easy” it would be to transition from an apartheid Jewish State to a true democracy based on equality. It very well may not be easy. It wasn’t in South Africa. But we know apartheid is hard, for its victims. And if you don’t have even the framework of universal justice, what you have is not worth preserving. If you were in the Palestinians’ shoes, you would understand the basic untenability of ethnocracy/apartheid. It is up to us to support the transition to democracy and in doing so make it sooner and smoother.
By the way, who says only the Isralites are Jews? By decision of faith, the Arab Palestinians can be Jews too! Yes, the Israelites were naturally endowed to propagate the Judaic faith. But take note, Judaism is not a race, but a faith…And anyone who accepts such faith and be accepted and recognized by the Jewish society becomes a Jew; and when they become an Israeli citizen they become Israelis. ‘An oppressior of the Gaza Palestinian?’ Who is which? What an irony!
Was Ruth the daughter in law of Naomi and the ‘grandmother’ of David a Jew? No! she was a Moabite (perhaps a Jordanian in the present equivalent).
Oh my, we could hardly know the difference between a Jew and an Israeli!
Awesome! Problem solved!
High-five, zamaaz!~
I think they understood two things: 1) they would lose in the end anyway, and 2) they had a trustworthy partner (or opponent) who wouldn’t slaughter them or push them into the sea, but rather, would provide guarantees that the previous ruling minority would have their rights protected on every level. So they gave up power in exchange for those guarantees, which meant among other things no longer living in a security state at war with its neighbors. Many thorny things had to be worked out, such as integration of the armed forces, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, political power-sharing leading up to elections, and so forth.
South Africa has only one religion, culture, common language, visions, dreams, etc. Israel and Palestinians are two different nationalities in spirit, language, hopes, dreams, etc… No way the South African analogy can ever be reasonably applied…
You read the Quran and the Tanak… These two ancient books will explain why these two nations can never be one in spirit…
You listen for at least 5 years in each of their (Jewish) temples, and (Islamic) Learning Centers…These too will show why these two nations are different and can never be one in spirit…
Yes, they can live as good neighbors, as friends, or as any human as we are. But there is always one from among them who will start shooting anytime anywhere…Sorry folks, this is reality as we see on the news worldwide…
“”But there is always one from among them who will start shooting anytime anywhere…Sorry folks, this is reality as we see on the news worldwide… “‘
In this case, those doing the shooting anytime and anywhere are Israelis.
Where do you begin on this? Three ethnic minorities debating the proper stance on a foreign nation full of co-ethnics in order to garner votes from their co-ethnic constituents. What happens when the majority of the nation’s population is made up of unassimilated immigrants and their descendants?
Israel’s persecution of Palestinians is hurting “our people.”
I guess this is another private conversation we have to sit on the sidelines and watch. Seriously, these people are American?
-”As a Jew, I do not want my name associated with occupation or extermination.”…
To me, the notion that a Member of Congress could hold these views is alarming.
Are you as concerned when African Americans or Chinese Americans or Mexican Americans or whatever talk about themselves as such, or as a “community”? (as they frequently and naturally do)
Or is being a Jew is particularly incompatible with being American? right.
I don’t think being Jewish is incompatible with being American, but it begs the question whether Zionism is mutually exclusive with being American. After all, Zionism mandates that Jews have their own “pure” homeland. That’s a distinctly un-American sentiment.
And I think that is what sammy is reacting to. You don’t exactly see the African American or Chinese American lobby castigating people who are against the war, or who don’t think Joe Lieberman should have the Homeland Security Committee Chair (yeah, have fun with that now after the Christmas incident, Obama and company), or who want public option health care reform.
sammy seemed to be saying that the “we’re both Jews” aspect of this exchange between Waxman and Winograd is inherently un-American.
Jews were more consistently opposed to the Iraq War than any other religious group btw.
The belief that Israel is as entitled as any country to exist, to perpetuate its culture/religion by design, and to protect that existence, does not entail belief in a “pure” anything. Pro-Israel Jews are hardly the only ethnics in America with defensive or protective sentiments about an ancestral country.
“sammy seemed to be saying that the “we’re both Jews” aspect of this exchange between Waxman and Winograd is inherently un-American.”
He seemed to be saying that and like you, I don’t think he should be making an issue of that aspect.
“The belief that Israel is as entitled as any country to exist, to perpetuate its culture/religion by design, and to protect that existence, does not entail belief in a “pure” anything. Pro-Israel Jews are hardly the only ethnics in America with defensive or protective sentiments about an ancestral country.”
This is confused. The problem is that Israel exists in its current form because 700,000 Palestinians fled or were driven out and not allowed to come home. And its expansionist tendencies today are just the current manifestation of how it came to exist.
And other ethnic groups do have defensive sentiments about foreign countries, but to the extent that these sentiments are tied in with defenses of human rights violations, they open themselves up for criticism.
Americans who are terribly outraged about Israeli human rights violations should look closer to home first.
Is America’s existence in its current form based on righteousness?
Probably most of those Americans outraged by Israeli human rights violations are also outraged by our own. That’s true on the left, and probably on part of the right (excluding the anti-semites, where it is not true). The converse is not true–quite a few liberals are much more comfortable talking about American human rights violations than those of Israel’s.
In the good old days it was the Israeli critics (like Chomsky) who brought up America’s past as an apt comparison. I’m not sure when it became part of the Israel defender’s arsenal–maybe when Benny Morris defended ethnic cleansing in 2004.
Anyway, this starts to sound familiar–can’t talk about Israel until we talk about X or Y or Z. And in the meantime we side with Israel and have a Congress which, with some exceptions, habitually whitewashes Israel’s crimes.
The belief that Israel is as entitled as any country to exist, to perpetuate its culture/religion by design, and to protect that existence, does not entail belief in a “pure” anything.
actually it does, or we would not ever be hearing about all this demographics bullshit. it would be like utah deciding to restrict growth except for more mormons to preserve its culture. all the land laws in israel prevent palestinian israelis from the same rights as jewish citizens and if that is not ‘pure’ anything i don’t know what you would call it. the marriage laws are very much centered around prevention of mixed religions and ethnicities. this does nothing to protect israel ‘existence’, it merely protects the way it exists. other countries do not exist out of entitlement, therefore ‘Israel is as entitled as any country to exist’ is a non sequitur. and let’s note that other countries exist with borders and are not constantly expanding outside those borders. so what israel is really asking for is to exist in a form other countries are not afforded under internation al law.
just saying.
“I’m not sure when it became part of the Israel defender’s arsenal”
When Luntz published his 100+-page hasbara dictionary for The Israel Project. It’s all through it.
He seemed to be saying that and like you, I don’t think he should be making an issue of that aspect.
And I think that is the main issue. 98% of Americans are not Jewish. Their tax monies go to support “our people” in the “holey land”. Who speaks for them?
It’s not the main issue for me and I’m not Jewish. Also, lots of Christians support Israel. The main issue is that we’re spending billions supporting a bunch of war crimes, not the relative ratio of Jews to non-Jews in the US. If America was 98 percent Jewish I’d be just as disgusted.
Also, lots of Christians support Israel
You see any Christians here? The problem is essentially one of ethnocentrism, its not evangelicals who are occupying Palestine.
RE: “…Henry Waxman…goes haywire against Marcy Winograd…” – WEISS
ALSO SEE: “HENRY WAXMAN ISRAEL-BAITS JANE HARMAN OPPONENT”, By Richard Silverstein, 01/09/10
(excerpts) Everyone knows about Joe McCarthy’s red-baiting during the 1950s. Nowadays, the pro-Israel right in this country engages in Israel-baiting especially when it comes to electoral politics…Now, Henry Waxman, the dean of the powerful California Congressional delegation has taken out after Marcy Winograd, Harman’s primary challenger with a crackerjack bit of Israel-baiting:
“Recently, I came across as astounding speech by Marcy Winograd, who is running against our friend Jane Harman…Ms. Winograd’s views on Israel I find repugnant in the extreme.”
…If you feel like me that Marcy Winograd is not treif and that she represents a true progressive voice that should be in Congress, I hope you’ll join me in supporting her [ link to winograd4congress.com
] in any way you can (but especially with a financial contribution)…
ENTIRE POST – link to richardsilverstein.com
Of course the blockade of Gaza is an act of war — i.e. an act in a war. Hamas is at war with Israel, and vice versa.
Well, Israel is waging war on Hamas. There’s very little Hamas can do to stop it.
That’s not really correct, potsherd. It looks to me like Israel is waging its war against the entire Palestinian population, from the West Bank to Gaza.
No, Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians on the WB is repression, not war. You don’t see them bombing Ramallah or Nablus, only kicking in doors in the middle of the night.
And bulldozers, setting fire to fields and liberal use of gun fire. The only reason they don’t use air strikes is because the illegal settlers would complain about the noise.
And the attacks on Gaza were not limited to Hamas. Government buildings, hospitals and even UN facilities were directly attacked by Israel.
Let’s not fall into the trap of dividing the Palestinians between Hamas/Fatah and West Bank/Gaza. Israel wants the rest of the world to think as if the crimes against one are not crimes against the Palestinians.
Hamas could accept Israel’s permanence and renounce terrorism and violence and its suicide bomb rap sheet, but of course no one expects that. And so the Israelis and many others will continue to regard Hamas as an overmighty terrorist outfit, and the people of Gaza will suffer for it.
So how many children is it OK to kill in Gaza just so that Hamas will “accept Israel’s permanence”? how many factories to demolish? how many humans to starve? how many zoo animals and chickens to slaughter? how long to imprison 1.5 M people in internment camp with no means of escape and no hope for life, future or job?
besides, using your twisted logic, why shouldn’t we regard israel as a terrorist entity – one that should be boycotted and maybe bombed at will – given that it does not accept palestine’s permanence and refuses to renounce terrorist bombing campaign designed to inflict maximum damage on civilians and civilian infrastructure?
I am glad to see how nonchalant you are about the suffering of the people of gaza? would you feel the same had Israelis suffered the same deprivations? somehow I doubt it, because peeking through your ‘argument” is the obvious fact that to you, palestinians are less than human, therefore whatever you see fit to use as punishment for failing to give israel it’s coveted “permanence” is just fine by you.
And that is why israel is viewed as the guilty party in atrocities, ethnic cleansing and war crimes by most of the world. Ironic that while palestinians may be physically confined and persecuted, the Israelis are spiritually imprisoned in an arid place all of their own making. Too bad they insist on keeping the jews of america as hostages (cf bargaining chips).
What does “renounce violence” mean, anyway?
If Israel invokes self-defense to justify the slaughter of hundreds or thousands of Palestinian civilians, why can’t Hamas use rockets for “self-defense”?
What is certain, is that the Goldstone Report, along with countless testimony collected by B’tselem and Yesh Din, Israeli forces targeted civilians during the 2008/09 attack on Gaza. Palestinian civilians carrying white flags were targeted, too.
So, as an occupying force, when will Israel withdraw from the land that does not belong to it, and when will Israel renounce violence? At the very least, since Hamas was not the one to violate the 2008 ceasefire, Israel could have ended the siege.
In addition, if the occupation and siege can be excused as a security measure that which Israel uses to protect itself, then that theory false apart when one considers that between 1967 (when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza) and until 1988 (when the Intifada started) the Palestinians were using peaceful, non-violent means to resist the occupation. In fact, during that period, it was Israel who was inflicting physical violence against the Palestinians, and yet the Palestinians did not take the bait. In other words, when the Palestinians are not using “violence” against Israel or Israelis, the Israeli authorities seek to provoke the Palestinians time and again, so when the Palestinians do respond, the Israeli hasbara machine can proclaim to the world: “look at those violent Palestinians”.
Let’s break it down.
On the one hand there is Israel using collective punishment against 1.5 million people (illegal under international law), all locked in an open air prison for years now (illegal under international law), shelling, bombing and killing civilians at will (illegal under international law), kidnapping teenagers, men and women and throwing them in undisclosed locations (again, illegal under international law), the Israeli navy shoots at Gaza’s fishermen, even when they are within Gaza’s territorial waters (illegal under international law) and on the other hand there is Hamas, firing bottle rockets into Israel (that too is illegal under international law).
Israel has killed more than 1400 Palestinians in 22 days. More than 5,500 were injured, many with permanent lasting disabilities. Yet, over a period of eight years, less than 25 Israelis were killed by Hamas’ rockets.
Again, I have yet to figure into that equation the property damage inflicted on Gaza under Israel’s F16 sorties, as bakeries, factories, water treatment facilities were destroyed to the ground
Thus after comparing and contrasting each party’s violations, it becomes glaringly obvious that Israel is the one that should “renounce violence”. I wonder how you are able to ignore all those violations on Israel’s part, and pretend as though the Palestinians are the offending party. As you can see, I didn’t even address the violations in the West Bank where Israel continues to use state terror against a civilian population while stealing that population’s land and water.
Finally, it would do you some good to read many of the articles on this blog instead of posting hasbara talking points.
Israel could accept that it’s built on the ruins of another society. That it only exists because it ethnically cleansed 800K Palestinians through a campaign of murder and terror.
Israel could accept that it is colonial-settler State in the 21st century.
Israel could accept that suicide bombing only began in 1994.
Israel could accept that it should be fortunate that it lives on top of the Palestinians and not, let’s say – the Irish. Israel benefits from the weak but unrelenting resistance of the Palestinian people – both non-violent and violent. Israel could accept that it can only fool the ignorant, the religiously fanatical, and the racist.
Israel could accept that it keeps it’s own population unsafe by committing daily war crimes against an entire people. By daily dehumanization of an entire people, the theft of their land and resources, it creates terrorism anew every day.
Of course, as I said, only ignorant fools, racists and religious fanatics worship Zionism.
Is Hamas using rockets for “self defense”?
“”Is Hamas using rockets for “self defense”? “‘
No less that Israel using F-16′s, Apache Hecopters, the annexation wall, tanks, and bulldozers.
You’re going to have to explain your implied assumptions there. I’m not sure where you’re going with this.
Actually, the gentiles of america (98%) are also hostages and in terms of our troops, bargaining chips. This is easy when the American people have no
control whatsoever over the information (and lack of it) given them by the MSM, and especially news TV. All hail, Bernays! The citizen as mere consumer.
Hamas could accept Israel’s permanence and renounce terrorism and violence and its suicide bomb rap sheet, but of course no one expects that.
Hamas renounced suicide bombing in 2005.
link to guardian.co.uk
Hamas accepted the 1967 borders as a permanent solution to the conflict (and no not a Hudna or 10 year ceasefire). I would present a link but your only allowed two links per post, Google it.
Hamas removed the call for the destruction of Israel from its manifesto when they created a new manifesto.
link to guardian.co.uk
And so the Israelis and many others will continue to regard Hamas as an overmighty terrorist outfit, and the people of Gaza will suffer for it.
Which is unfortunately due to ignorance on the part of the Israelis.
Hamas could give the Israelis the 2 state solution that all liberal Zionists have been dreaming about, yet Israel refuses to negotiate? Why?
Funny James, you finally stopped saying there was a new Charter because you found that out to be false. Now its a new manifesto which happened to be written before the 2006 elections. All this called for is a Hudna, no peace, just a 10 year cease fire.
At least I got you to change the wording of your lies, but they are still lies, the Charter is still the original one which talks at length about a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. Talks about the rotary clubs of America being part of this grand conspiracy.
Any more lies for me to de-bunk. I am not that tired yet.
Did Jews wish for the destruction of the Nazi state?
Funny James, you finally stopped saying there was a new Charter because you found that out to be false.
What are you talking about? Hamas made a new manifesto, its time you accepted that. The new manifesto/charter/whatever does not call for the destruction of Israel nor make any references to Jewish conspiracies to take over the world. Hamas has also stated that it abides by this new manifesto. I also stated that it was created when Hamas became a political party and ran for elections in 2005.
It shows that Hamas has become pragmatic and willing to make a real peace with Israel. Something that should excite you, seeing as how they are now one of the biggest proponents of the 2 state solution based on the 1967 borders.
Anyway what have you debunked?
Also, look at how Hamas views their original charter:
link to latimes.com
As for the 1988 charter, if every state or movement were to be judged solely by its foundational, revolutionary documents or the ideas of its progenitors, there would be a good deal to answer for on all sides. The American Declaration of Independence, with its self-evident truth of equality, simply did not countenance (at least, not in the minds of most of its illustrious signatories) any such status for the 700,000 African slaves at that time; nor did the Constitution avoid codifying slavery as an institution, counting “other persons” as three-fifths of a man. Israel, which has never formally adopted a constitution of its own but rather operates through the slow accretion of Basic Laws, declares itself explicitly to be a state for the Jews, conferring privileged status based on faith in a land where millions of occupants are Arabs, Muslims and Christians.
The writings of Israel’s “founders” — from Herzl to Jabotinsky to Ben Gurion — make repeated calls for the destruction of Palestine’s non-Jewish inhabitants: “We must expel the Arabs and take their places.” A number of political parties today control blocs in the Israeli Knesset, while advocating for the expulsion of Arab citizens from Israel and the rest of Palestine, envisioning a single Jewish state from the Jordan to the sea. Yet I hear no clamor in the international community for Israel to repudiate these words as a necessary precondition for any discourse whatsoever. The double standard, as always, is in effect for Palestinians.
Yes Richard,
Yonira is a real piece of work isn’t she? Why would Hamas need a manifesto if they already have a charter?
When Hamas suport long ceasefire, Yonira argues it’s not a ceasfire but a Hudna, which is only valid for 30 years, while Tzipi Livni argues that a log ceasfire is not in Israel’s strategic interest (ie. continued land theft).
When Hamas supports a 2 state solution, Yonira (who claims to be in favor of a 2 state solution along the 1967 borders), argues that it is a threat to Israel.
When Hamas supports a 2 state solution, Yonira argues that it still fall short of recognizing Israel, even though Hamas said they would support the Arab Peace Iniative, signed by 22 Arab states, which offers to recognize Israel as per teh 1967 borders and normalize relations with Israel. Israel has rejected the offer for 6 years, but it’s Hamas that stands in teh way of the peace process.
When Hamas holds to a ceasefire for 4 months before Israel break it, Yonira blames Hamas for defending itself.
The doubel standards and hypocrisy and nauseating.
So now, there must be no complaints as everyone has the right to enjoy shooting each other?
I see that Richard Witty is a known obnoxious figure elsewhere on the Jewish blogosphere as well as here.
link to richardsilverstein.com
Color me shocked. For a treat, go see how he is treated on Realistic Dove. Even the Zionist commentators over there despise him. It’s sort of morbidly amusing to see him take flak from all sides for being two-faced.
I believe that on the blogs and correspondence that I have with moderates, I am respected for sticking with the theme of mutual respect in practice.
The moderate and humane view is the politically correct one. The militant expansionist Zionist and the militant form of Palestinian assertion and solidarity is the archaic, reactionary one.
Mderates Witty? In what country? In teh US, Zionist nuts like Joe Lieberman are considered moderates, so yes you might have respect in those AIPAC circles.
“‘The moderate and humane view is the politically correct one.”‘
Robin Williams once compared political correctness to a styrofoam vibrtor. It doesn’t work very well, nor does it satisfy.
I agree. Political correctness is inept.
Joe Lieberman is not a moderate.
“The moderate and humane view is the politically correct one.”
Well, you should join it then, rather than making excuses for Israeli crimes.
Witty: While your rhetoric is moderate (and especially relies on abstraction using terms given meaning by Western Europe–and the USA over the last couple of centuries especially), your content, to the feeble extent you make it available, is very reactionary, very deceptive, very cherry-picking, very obfuscating–you pick your trees and overlook the forest, although you always argue your selected trees are the forest, and all with a single goal, which you call “jewish continuity.” I submit, the world is bigger than that, but then again, I’m not a zealot. I know the difference between a tree and the forest.
“The moderate and humane view is the politically correct one.”
Yes, its just not the one you espouse. You make excuses for the murder and torture and starvation of people, including children and you justify Jewish racism and colonialism.
If you think people respect your opinions, you are delusional.
I loved Winograd’s reply.
Any sense of how Winograd is doing?
Based on his stance on the Israeli Palestinian issue, it’s obvious that he remains in possession of his faculties and moral compass.
Any sense how you are doing, however?
Windograd is a she.
Don’t get silly Avi. Another impugner is not what the world needs.
It needs sobriety, compassion, reason, backed by determination.
The world needs respect for and assistance to Palestinian needs and aspirations. As it needs a great deal many more things, some of which Winograd articulates.
“The world needs respect for …”
I don’t think ‘the world’ is lacking respect for “Palestinian needs and aspirations” so much as Zionists. The occupation, ethnic cleansing, and colonization that attack and degrade satisfaction of their needs and rights aren’t being planned and carried out by ‘the world’, they are being planned and carried out by Zionists.
In this instance, I believe the world indeed is lacking in assistance for Palestinian needs. If the world really cared, it would have acted instead of allowing the Zionists to carry out their crimes.
Avi – meet Witty . Witty meet Avi. Have fun guys (Avi, since you seem to be relatively new here, it’s your turn to do the Witty-dance. Beware, it’s got very contorted moves and requires much twisting, turning and twirling in the wind. We’ve all been through it – it’s like a mondoweiss baptism….If you get tired, cf, exasperated, Mooser will bring beers and cheers, but he only shows up on full moon days – well, sort of)
“… against Marcy Winograd, the challenger to Congresswoman Jane “AIPAC” Harman in a neighboring district.”
Although it would not be recognizable to people not familiar with her key role in one of the many scandals in the sabotaged AIPAC spy case (alas only the most well-known of many derailed judicial investigations) , I suggest that ‘Jane “This conversation does not exist” Harman’ gives a more nuanced appreciation of her political values. I’m not quibbling with Phil’s choice of words, which obviously will resonate with a far larger audience, but taking the opportunity to remind readers of specific damage inflicted on America by her close association with AIPAC.
I have to applaud Ms. Winograd–she is spot on and brave to confront the AIPAC gauntlet so that her ideals might get put into practice.