AIPAC would marry apartheid

Henry Siegman, at Foreign Policy, imagines the inevitable result of the current policies in Israel that Obama has done little to buck– apartheid– and wonders what a president would do then:

Most of the political parties that comprise Netanyahu’s government, including Yisrael Beiteinu, led by Avigdor Lieberman, Netanyahu’s Foreign Minister, and Shas, have left no doubt that if forced to choose between democracy and the state’s Jewish identity, they would opt without the slightest hesitation to end Israel’s democracy.

What exactly would an American president do when confronted with such a new reality, which undoubtedly would again produce a spate of full-page advertisements and AIPAC resolutions in the U.S. Congress stressing the Jewish people’s biblical attachment to the land and demanding that we stand by our traditional ally? How would a less than forthright U.S. response to such a situation play in the rest of the world? Isn’t it in America’s national interest-not to speak of the interests of the State of Israel and its people and of the Palestinian people-for an American president to exert every effort to prevent such a likely deterioration that would force our policymakers to make the most agonizing and fateful decisions?

About Philip Weiss

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

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

  1. I think Obama is doing amazingly well.

    • Citizen says:

      Obama has done nothing to cure the situation since his Cairo speech. In fact, he’s taken his Cairo speech back as a practical matter.

  2. potsherd says:

    Obama will cling to his official lies until the smokestack fills with water.

  3. Shingo says:

    “I think Obama is doing amazingly well.”

    Of course you do.

    Israel’s settlements are expanding at the fastest rate ever.  Aid to Israel is the highest it’s ever been and likely to be increased, even while the US government is cutting spending in the US.  The US is threatening to go to war on Israel’s behalf and his administration has been infiltrated with Israelis.  The peace process is stalled once again and a 2 state settlement is now impossible.

    Israeli forsters like Schumer are openly condemning his policies, and Bibbi is bring hailed as the leader of the free world.

    Amazing indeed.

    • Actually, Israel’s settlements are described as not expanding in Haaretz.

      And, Abbas and Netanyahu are likely to resume negotiations, and Fayyad has international credibility, and growing domestic.

      • Shingo says:

        “Actually, Israel’s settlements are described as not expanding in Haaretz.”

        False again and of course, no link from you, which makes it safe to assume you are lying about that too.

        “And, Abbas and Netanyahu are likely to resume negotiations, and Fayyad has international credibility, and growing domestic.”

        False again.  Abbas and Netanyahu are likely to resume negotiations until Netanyahu agrees to a freeze on settlements, which he has rejected.

        Fayyad’s has international credibility, but Israel has US backing.  In fact, Joe Lieberman stated last year that any attempt fo implement Fayyad’s plan woudl be met with resistance in Congress and the Senate.  AIPAC will buy the votes to veto it.

        • I assumed that you read currently, NY Times, Washington Post, European Newspapers, Haaretz.

          Its not on their current pages and it is difficult to research Haaretz historically.

          It described that there is in effect a restriction of building and issuing of permits to build in the West Bank, and a defacto restriction in East Jerusalem.

          The mayor of Jerusalem is said to be conflicting with Netanyahu, and is pushing the limits of his own jurisdiction. The Jerusalem mayor’s comments were presented in Haaretz as conflicting with the directions of the Netanyahu government.

        • Shingo says:

          “Its not on their current pages and it is difficult to research Haaretz historically.”

          You made the same claim about the NYT when you were pushing your BS about Israel and Hamas returning to a ceasefire in 2008. You always claim to have read something somewhere but never able to find it.

          The reason I am challenging you to prduce the links is that I know what those reprts actually stated, and I know you’re lying.

        • braciole says:

          Mr Witty – I have already established that you an ignoramous and a liar, now you demonstrate that you are stupid as well – how difficult is it to keep a file of articles, or quotes from articles and the associated URL? Or didn’t you think of that?
          OK, I know some websites use dynamic addresses but with a quote one can usually find an article if it still exists on the web using Google.

        • Try reading regularly. Then we will be on the same page.

          I read from the web. New York Times, Washington Post, Manchester Guardian, Al Jazeera, Iran press, Haaretz, multiple Israeli newspapers, are all readily available daily.

          Stay informed. This is conversation only.

        • Shingo says:

          I do read regularly, which explains why I and others here so effortlessly run rings around your diatribes.

          ‘”I read from the web. New York Times, Washington Post, Manchester Guardian, Al Jazeera, Iran press, Haaretz, multiple Israeli newspapers, are all readily available daily.”‘

          You dont read Witty, you scour the web for useful headlines and then extrapolate.

          You are one of the least informed posters on this blog.

        • Shingo says:

          Oh and Witty, and when you’re not simply uniformed, you’re lying.

        • We’re all relatively informed.

          I’m sure I’m more informed on the history of Israel than you, in that I read multiple perspectives.

          The question is the distinction between reform and revolution.

          A few weeks ago you stated that you supported the two-state solution at the green line, defining the end of the occupation. Now, you are stating that you support a bi-national single state.

          I’m confused. Are you changing your views, or misrepresenting them?

        • “Oh and Witty, and when you’re not simply uniformed, you’re lying. ”

          That is a truly informed description.

          What do you think I’m “lying” about. You understand that “lying” means intentionally misrepresenting my own understanding.

        • Shingo says:

          You;ve demonstarted that you are not better informed on the history of Israel than me Witty. You subscribe to the illusion and false romance about Israel’s history and deny basic realities like the Nakba. Like I said, in cases when you’re not ignorant, then you’re lying anyway.

          “”The question is the distinction between reform and revolution.”

          No, the question is the distinction between reality and fiction.

          I do suport a 2 state solution, but I also happen to know that it’s practically impossible. The 350,000 settlers wil not move, or be moved and they will never recognize a Palestinian state, much less recognize a Palestinian government of Palestinian sovereignty.

          The chance of a 2 state solution has passed us by.

        • Shingo says:

          And if truth be told, a single binational state would be the most just. Israel has been greedy, spiteful, vengeaful and arrogant to the point of obsession. A single binational state would be Karmic and cathartic.

        • I never deny the nakba. I describe it as part of the reality which is more accurate.

          The two-state solution remains both the most democratic and the most practical, and the solution that will result in the least suffering to all parties.

          Again, rather than putting your weight behind something that is possible. you have divested in it, in favor of fantasy.

          Repetition of “the 2 state solution has passed us by”, does not make it true.

          The only condition in which a 2-state solution would be inpossible is where the populations are more than 30% of any minority on either side of the green line. By all demographic estimates that condition won’t exist for a century.

        • “karmic”.

          Do you know how karma unfolds?

          The goal of the term is to reduce it, to minimize the pendulum swings so that habit, rage, blinders affect decisions and actions less, in favor of reason, compassion, acceptance.

          It is a very good goal to insist that Israel act to reduce the suffering and isolation of Palestinians. In order to pursue that in a way that reduces “karma”, the emphasis has to be on persuasion, NOT on force, even BDS.

          Even if some forceful means are applied, the overwhelmingly most important feature is the feature to inform, NOT to win, not vengeful use of the term “karma”.

          Again, the goal is civility, compassion and reason.

        • Shingo says:

          Of coure you denied the Nakba, becasue you continue to insist the Palestinians left of their own accord. None of your accoutns has any connection with reality, but Zionist propaganda.

          The only way the two-state solution could be practical is if Israel weer able to remove 350,000 militantr extremists from the occuied territoies and no Israeli government will ever have the stomach for it.

          The 2 state solution is dead. You’re the one clinging to fantasy.

          “‘Repetition of “the 2 state solution has passed us by”, does not make it true.”

          No, the facts on the ground do.

          Your arbitrary 30% number is miniongless and irrelvant. The settlers have the ful endoresement of the Israeli government and have had for decades, whether under Likud or Kadima.

          “‘By all demographic estimates that condition won’t exist for a century.”‘

          False. The conditions will be a reality in 5 years.

        • Shingo says:

          Witty,

          Your problem is that you want to resist physics and nature. A pedulum will never swing to the middle. That’s the conseuquence of a reality called cause and effect.

          “In order to pursue that in a way that reduces “karma”, the emphasis has to be on persuasion, NOT on force, even BDS.”‘

          No Witty what you’re proposing is teh way to maintain teh status quo. Your recipe has been tested for 43 years and has failed.

          “”Again, the goal is civility, compassion and reason. “‘

          No, the goal is justice for Palestinians. Civility, compassion and reason are options, but only if they yield results.

        • Where did I state that “Palestinians left of their own accord”?

          There are options as to how to deal with the settlers. The majority of settlers are suburbanites, not ideological in the slightest.

          The ideological ones will put up a fight. But, if they are just calmly made subject to Palestinian law, and actually see that that is their condition, they will then have the option of subscribing to hopefully just and democratic Palestinian law or returning to Israel.

          No option will occur without some internal and external conflict, but the two-state solution is still most compelling and most realistic approach.

          The flirtation with the single-state or bi-national state is obviously internally confusing to you, and severely weakens the movement to urge Israeli reforms.

          It is a choice to be an enemy, rather than to be a changer.

        • Effective persuasion is NOT maintaining the status quo, but changing it.

          It is just an effort to change it peacefully and mutually respectfully.

          Also permanently, rather than temporary as civil war usually yeilds.

        • Shingo says:

          “Where did I state that “Palestinians left of their own accord”?”

          Every time the subject has been brought up. You repeatedly deny that they were driven from their homes by threat or force.

          “TThe majority of settlers are suburbanites, not ideological in the slightest ”

          It doesn’t matter. They are still rabid Zionists who will never accept living uder the governance of a Palestinian state. None, will subject to Palestinian law. You know it and I know it.

          The the two-state solution is only compelling to Zionists and is by no means realistic. Israel continues to make sure that it is not a realistic outcome.

          There is no confusion about a single-state or bi-national state , it just happens to frighten you. It certainly has no bearing on urging Israeli reform. In fact, it mighr well be the strongest motivation for reform.

        • Shingo says:

          There is no such thing as effcetive persuasion without obvious consequences, and you are loathed to consider those.

          “It is just an effort to change it peacefully and mutually respectfully.”

          A failed and futile one. Carrots are useless without a stick.

        • Citizen says:

          Witty: “The question is the distinction between reform and revolution.”

          Yes, that’s right Witty, and it has long-term implications. For example, according to the stories, Jesus was for reform, and Saul
          (St Paul) was for revolution.

          Which brings me to this question about you: Do you belive as triple e does that universal basic human rights is a pipe dream, and that the reality is ultimately a zero sum game between your kids and my kids, for example? You never said.

        • Citizen says:

          No, Richard. Lying means intentionally misrepresenting what most objective persons with the facts would say/conclude. Hitler never lied, according to your definition of lying, because he never
          intentionally misrepresented his own own understanding. In fact, he stuck with his own version of reality right down to his last will and political testament. Go ahead, read it online.

        • Citizen says:

          RE: “Repetition of “the 2 state solution has passed us by”, does not make it true.”

          Similarly repetition of “The two-state solution remains both the most democratic and the most practical, and the solution that will result in the least suffering to all parties” does not make it true.

          Seems clear to me that Witty is really worried about the ethnic demographic trend in the disputed lands. I understand, so our whites in the USA. I agree in this sense, neither Witty or David Duke are irrational, and not even Pat B.

        • You don’t have a citation, for me saying the nakba didn’t occur, because that statement doesn’t exist. Again, I also never have stated that only the nakba occurred in 47, 48.

          You should get clearer about what I am actually saying.

        • Chu says:

          I wish their was an online poll to take on Mondo, where we could vote on who thinks Witty intentionally misrepresents Israel’s actions on this blog. It would help a great deal, and it would help Witty the most.

        • Donald says:

          You defended Wiesel’s statements on the Nakba, which were lies. Wiesel said the Palestinians left of their own free will.

        • Shingo says:

          Statement by Witty:

          “I’m sorry is called for, but walking guilt, including the naming of Israeli Independance Day jointly al-Naqba day is a falsehood, an exageration.”

  4. robin says:

    What exactly would an American president do when confronted with such a new reality

    LOL.

    I am always puzzled by this idea, that the apartheid scenario would represent some kind of a change. What exactly would be different? Palestinians are now under Israeli control. They now have no rights in the state. Does apartheid begin the moment Israeli leaders stop paying lip service to the two-state solution? Because if that’s the criteria, we may not have to worry about apartheid for quite some time!

    • Avi says:

      Does apartheid begin the moment Israeli leaders stop paying lip service to the two-state solution?

      It depends on your perspective. Are you the kind of person who misses the forest for the trees, or the type of person who misses the trees for the forest? Are you a big picture kind of guy or a detail oriented kind of guy? Allow me to milk this a little further for comedic effect….. Are you a maximalist or a minimalist?

      At this point in time, AIPAC and Israel will certainly attempt to delay the news of Israel’s further deteriorating democratic status from reaching the American public, much in the same way Bush was squirming when he attempted to claim that “there is no civil war in Iraq”. It’s just “tensions between different factions” (paraphrased). The same happened with the so-called economic collapse. Sure, the leadership and its minions can stonewall, but they cannot delay the inevitable forever. Sooner or later, something’s gotta give.

  5. RE: “AIPAC would marry apartheid” – Weiss
    MY COMMENT: Now that would be an existential threat to the institution of marriage!

  6. jim says:

    What’s this about Rivlin then…?

    Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin said Thursday that he would rather accept Palestinians as Israeli citizens than divide Israel and the West Bank in a future two-state peace solution.

    Speaking during a meeting with Greece’s ambassador to Israel Kyriakos Loukakis, Rivlin said that he did not see any point of Israel signing a peace agreement with the Palestinian Authority as he did not believe PA President Mahmoud Abbas “could deliver the goods.”

    Referring to the possibility that such an agreement could be reached, Rivlin said: “I would rather Palestinians as citizens of this country over dividing the land up.”

  7. jim says:

    The above quote is from here…click to read .

    link to haaretz.com

  8. Pingback: Menopause Acupressure: Natural, Safe & Easy Relief. | Bright Teeth Whitening

  9. Pingback: AIPAC would marry apartheid Video

  10. huraok says:

    Read Massad’s piece in Al-Ahram. Very thorough.

    “The Language of Zionism”

    link to weekly.ahram.org.eg

    “Colonialism is peace; anti-colonialism is war.” This is the unalterable equation that successive Israeli governments insist must determine the basis of all current and future relations between Israeli Jews and the Palestinians. Indeed, the deployment of the rhetoric of peace between Palestinians and Israeli Jews since the 1970s has been contingent on whether the Palestinians would acquiesce in this formula or insist on resisting it. The Oslo Accords were in large measure a ratification of this formula by the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Nonetheless, Palestinian resistance, violent and non- violent, to understanding “colonialism as peace” never fully subsided, even as the Palestinian Authority insisted that it become the law of the land.