Did you listen to Ethan Bronner’s multimedia report on the article where you rightly point out that he only called Israelis?
He says that both sides have elements that oppose the two-state solution. And for both it is giving something up, and that for both the dream is the whole pie. Then he realizes what he’s done, and says one side has to give up the dream and the other side has to give up the practice.
So Palestinians giving up the dream of one Palestinian state (how many people still seriously say this?) and Israelis giving up the practice of one (the occupation) are equivalent? Naturally, there was no mention of occupation and international law, and how they play into these "dreams" and "practices"…
Bronner has supposedly spoken with admiration of the settler’s erotic attachment to the land, even though it is being revealed as sheer intransigent greed.
That erotic attachment is kind of reminiscent of something else that circulates in Zionist circles.
There’s a reason why God warned us about worshiping golden calves.
“There’s a reason why God warned us about worshiping golden calves.”
Unless they’re below the knees of a beautiful girl, of course.
RE: “Bronner has supposedly spoken with admiration of the settler’s erotic attachment to the land…” – dalybean
MY COMMENT: To the extent it is erotic, it is also perverted.
Erotic and perverted?
You are trying to win me over to it, aren’t you?
They don’t call me “The Mad Marquis” for nuttin’!
Hypocrisy is the bread and butter of Zionists.
This attitude of both sides having a problem, both having extreme positions, both having to compromise (even if one has to give up its “dream” and the other its “practice”), ignoring the current and constant violation of international law and Palestinian rights, is the narrative that places all its eggs in the “peace-process” basket. No need to address injustice or Palestinian suffering now, because all that will be worked out in the “process”. No need to address the wall or the siege or the settlements, because that will all go away once peace breaks out. It is thus counter-productive to “antagonise” the Israelis over such issues, because this is all about negotiations and diplomacy and rapprochement. The Palestinians will just have to grin and bear it (assuming we even remember that they are being oppressed and abused), or they’ll “miss another opportunity”. As the Israeli ambassador assured us a little while ago, these things take time. Why are these “natives” so bloody impatient and short-sighted? Eye on the prize. Eye on the prize. Unless, of course, you happen to be eyeless (in Gaza).
You’d think we would have learned from Neville Chamberlain’s example, the folly of that approach.
That was an amazing comment Shmuel.
Eye on the prize. Eye on the prize. Unless, of course, you happen to be eyeless (in Gaza).
Well said.
I agree, Shmuel. Gotta tell you, I love your comments. Would that everyone in the Israeli leadership had your moral center, I’d be off the web doing important things, and not worrying about WWIII.
Shmuel–man, your comment is concise, meaty, and eloquent. I wish you the best.
LA Times has interview with Mustapha Barghouti
link to latimes.com
Pingback: Did NYT’s Bronner Even Go To a Friday Protest? « LobeLog.com