I remember people in the DLC (Al From) said they didn’t trust Dean and the Neocons new what he was getting at. But low and behold we had a real war vet, with the personality of prince Valium, to lull us into having no options for our 2004 vote.

Americans may not justify any longer what was done to Native Americans – except maybe in Texas school textbooks – but they also aren’t doing much to compensate the victims. Social and economic statistics for Native Americans are devastating, even worst than for African-Americans. The US agencies responsible for Indian Affairs are still screwing them out of their property. About the only bright spot is that white American entrepreneurs found that they could use Indians treaty rights as a way to introduce gambling in states other than Nevada. The lucky Indians tribes get a cut. But in the new economic climate, legislators are looking for ways to claw back Indian cashflow.

As you say the Age of Colonialism has passed. Israel was the last settler state. Ten years later and there would have been no Israel. But this is what makes undoing 1948 even more difficult than 1967. And I speak as one who insists the International Community must undue the mess it created in 1948.

I don’t agree with this–

“Rather than debating the “evils” of pre-1948 Zionism, wouldn’t it be better to discuss current conditions and the “rights of the Palestinians”? ”

I don’t agree because it’s impossible to separate the two. Also, one of the tropes we’ve probably all seen from Israel defenders is that settlements can’t be the real issue, because the Arabs hated Israel before 1967. And they’re right about the hatred, but they don’t acknowledge why–it’s because of what happened in 1948 and earlier. Cultural Zionism was no threat to Arabs, though I gather from what I’ve read in Tom Segev Judah Magnes met with a cold reception from Arabs, because they thought all Zionists were trying to take their land. But the Arabs were right to be suspicious of the political Zionists.

Now if someone wants to argue that the only practical solution (and one in accordance with international law) is the two state solution that’s a reasonable position to take, though at this stage it doesn’t appear much closer than the one state solution. But when arguing the rights and wrongs it’s necessary to talk about the history. Also, if the Palestinians do settle for two states, they should still have the right to use their right of return to pre-67 Israel as a huge bargaining chip and maybe extract some more concessions. The mainstream liberal position in the US seems to ask them to throw away their rights and then the haggling starts over the remaining 22 percent (or less, if the Israelis get to keep their settlement blocs).

just thought i would mention the comparison of israeli founding to that of the american treatment of native americans is used continually ad nauseum by hasbarists. never mind the age of colonialism is past, or should be. its a shitty analogy and in general american do not justify what we did to native americans.

I didn’t personally attack anyone in my comment. The posting is about tropes. Anonymous wrote about a trope that Mead argued works with Americans. Avi asked how Americans would respond to another trope. I answered by suggesting that Americans probably wouldn’t react the way Avi was hoping or expecting, and then tried to explain why not.

Although Avi’s question was very specific, I doubt many Americans would see it as a metaphor for I-P. (I am not talking about myself.) At least that has been my experience when I’ve tried it. Has your experience been different? In fact, the casino answer was what I received several times when asking – in the context of unfair treatment of the Palestinians – “do you think the Indians were treated fairly and that the wrongs against them have been adequately redressed?”

Is it that controversial to say that settler or immigration societies may have more empathy for Israel’s birth than rooted societies? They have their own stained births.

As for your answer on your views on the treatment of the American Indian, I share your quick answer. I doubt that is part of any hasbara trope. I would have thought my language alone – genocide and land stealing – would have indicated moral disapproval. Does habara speak these words when using the fate of the American Indian to make its point? If so, quite bold I must say.

As for your longer answer, it suggests another point I’ve been trying to make that you attack me for. “They [your ancestors] had nothing to do with the genocide of Native Americans.” But the rights of Native American’s were still more restricted than your ancestors when they immediately arrived in America. Most Americans also believe they have no responsibility for slavery and thus consider the idea of reparations ridiculous. (It is admirable that you do not.) We now have a number of generations of Israelis. Rather than debating the “evils” of pre-1948 Zionism, wouldn’t it be better to discuss current conditions and the “rights of the Palestinians”? Perhaps, the proposal in the Mondoweiss comment section is to send the Israelis back to their ancestral homes. I thought only a few commenters here were suggesting that. But maybe I am wrong.