The great Gideon Levy revises an ur-text of anti-Semitism, Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, to say that Israel's leaders, the merchants of Jerusalem, have never declared what their territorial goals are and Israelis have gone along with this mystification.
A few days ago, journalists broached the question of a construction freeze in Jerusalem to a few ministers. Almost all of them refused to give a response. Why should they? ...
The blame, as usual in these instances, is shared by us all. Through the years we have implicitly agreed that our leaders would guide us on the basis of fraud, or at the very least distortion. The mantra of there's-no-need-to-say-it-aloud has become a matter of consensus, almost an axiom.
The conventional thinking whereby striving for peace is likened to market bartering and late-night horse-trading, as if it were verboten to clearly specify a final price, has become official policy....
Is the prime minister of Israel ready to withdraw from the Golan Heights in exchange for peace with Syria? Yes or no? Don't we deserve to know? Which parts of the West Bank, if any, is he ready to evacuate? And what, for heaven's sake, does our defense minister want? What are his policy goals? Does anybody know? And why is it that if we were to know the answer, this would weaken our position and not strengthen it? Is vagueness tantamount to strength? Is trickery a modus operandi?
I don't know that Levy is right when he says that we know what Palestinians want (hasn't there been mystification on both sides? and aren't the Palestinians now divided after 20 years of "peace process" about the idea of two states?), but the piece is exciting because creative thinkers on these issues must appropriate all the mental material they can to explain the problem, and Levy crosses a traditional line by invoking the Shakespeare, even obliquely. This is in itself a sign to me of Jewish power and agency; the Shakespeare is historical, and to cite it is not to play into the hands of the czar and Father Coughlin, it is to be a thinker on the internet, struggling with the inheritance of Jewish exceptionalism.
So, what pound of flesh more is to be taken from the Palestinians who were never particpants in the bargain?
I had to read it to believe Phil:
In William Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice,” Shylock forces Antonio to agree to a loan on highly unfavorable terms. Yet the Jew provides us with one of the most memorable monologues ever written: “If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?” The monologue given by the merchants of Jerusalem, on the other hand, is far more wretched. “If they give, then they’ll receive,” or something like that.
Interestingly he quotes the passage that seems to have inspired one of my late favorites Hans Mayer, who doesn’t follow the conventional wisdom that Shylock is really only and purely antisemitic. Forget for a moment that the Nazis loved the play. …
Yes, if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
Das schlechte Ende widerlegt nicht einen möglicherweise guten Anfang- “The bad end doesn’t disprove a possibly good beginning.”
The Dr Pangloss of good intentions always going astray?
“…things are perfect and getting better all the time…” – Voltaire’s Dr. Pangloss
hmmm, reminds me of Concealment and Revelation
A refresher on the Merchant Of Venice:
link to docs.google.com
Levy’s article is a breath of fresh air. And logical.
It seems Israel has already made territorial goals clear, foremost in Jerusalem.
First Jerusalem, then the rest of the West Bank.
Levy is right. The Palestinians want a state based on the 1967 line and they want 5 million Palestinians to “return” to Israel and have that state also.
The Israelis can have the honor of becomming dhimmis in their own state. In wonder why they don’t take the deal?
Did you seriously just say Dhimmi…
And not for the first time.
Even Charles Johnson has stopped singing that song.
Putting aside the silliness of “dhimmis in their own state” the X million Palestinian refugees are entirely within their rights to return to Israel. It’s not a want, it’s a right.
Israel doesn’t want that. So they need to make a compelling counter offer – something more reasonable than “we’ve got the guns/bombs/missiles/shells/bulldozers/thousands-of-you-in-our-prisons and you’ll do what we want”. The same for the settlements. All half a million settlers have to go, even Lieberman. If Israel wants to keep some of the settlements they need to make a counter-offer to persuade the Palestinians to give up their right to that land.
Until Israel comes to the table with law and rights as the reference point (as opposed to her “wants”) there’ll be no progress. There’ll be shifting demographics though, and BDS.
The refugee issue is a major concern for refugees (and their descedants, not technically refugees), both Jewish and Arab.
“The Israelis can have the honor of becomming dhimmis in their own state.”‘
Oh come on now Julian. No self respecting Zionist is willing to live among Arbas as euqals. They’ll simply leave Israel and return to their real homes in Europe, Russia an the West.
Is it the general consensus that the children of Arab refugees should return to Israel? Or to a new state called Palestine? Or would it only be the ones legally considered refugees, (the elders) or some combination?
Fayyad yesterday declared that Palestinians would be welcome to return to the West Bank and Gaza, when established as a functional peer state.
At which point, Hamas declared Fayyad a traitor (with what I perceive -maybe projecting – the implied permission to assassinate).
Ok so it seems to be the PLO position that Palestinians should come to the new state of Palestine, and the HAMAS position that Palestinians come to both Palestine and to Israel in masses.
UNRWA considers descendants of Palestinian refugees as themselves refugees, but international law only recognizes direct refugees(not their descendants) as refugees.
It is quite funny how its both a Palestinian state and the Right of Return for a group of people not even considered refugees. I think the Palestinians need to work on their negotiation skills.
Fayyad would be a traitor if he ever relinquished the right of return to all those Palestinians that are living as refugee’s outside of their homeland.
The Palestinians have the right to return to Israel. Only those Palestinians living in the refugee camps can relinquish that right. If Israel really cared they would begin by negotiating with the refugees, instead of stalling the issue, completely ignoring it or relying on Zionist mythology to belittle their catastrophic problem.
In any case Palestinians have a FAR greater right of return than any European looking person in Brooklyn whose only claim to the land is “God said so.”
How about that only the Judean refugees who were expelled by the Romans from Jerusalem should get to return, while their descendants keep wandering in the desert.
BSDNOW:
You appear to be confused about the meaning of the word “return”. Refugees have individual specific homes and properties to which they demand the right to return (but are prevented from doing so by the state of Israel). It’s a separate issue where the boundary lines might be drawn between the state of Israel and a future state of Palestine.
Human Rights Watch states its own position in these terms:
What a silly argument, when the Palestinians get their state, they can decide, like Israel has, who they can give a right of return to.
Along those lines of thinking, All the Jews and their 6 million descendants from Arab countries should get the exact same right of return. Luckily HRW doesn’t dictate international law.
No Yonira, they can’t.
Israel expelled a group of people out of their country at gunpoint.
Under international law those refugees have a right to return.
Israel does not make that decision. The refugees do.
Furthermore, several Arab countries have made it clear that their former Jewish populations can return. But that’s not even the point, Palestinians shouldn’t have to pay for the crimes of any other country.
Are you referring to what Jews did in the 20th century?
international law is vague when it comes to the descendants of Palestinian refugees, any other descendants it would be absolute no, but for some reason the descendants of Palestinian refugees believes this is the case.
The last I have heard UNWRA doesn’t dictate international law, just like the UNHRC doesn’t dictate international law (baruch hashem)
It was only 11 years ago that the U.S. and the rest of NATO fought a war against Yugoslavia with the publicly stated aim of forcing Yugoslavia to repatriate ethnic-Albanian refugees from the Kosovo region. NATO rejected the principle that the Yugoslavs could decide who they could give a right of return to.
Peter,
There was ongoing ethnic cleansing going on, that is why NATO fought the war, quit lying.
yonira:
How does that contradict what I wrote?
I take this charge seriously. Please copy explicitly the instances of my lying that you’re referring to, so that the readers of this blog can be made aware of them.
Hey freakshow, stop trying to make a parallel between the Jewish exodus from the Arab countries and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
source
international law only recognizes direct refugees(not their descendants) as refugees.
sorry, i meant ‘source ?’
what, you gonna spank me if i don’t stop cliff?
At least you implicitly agree that you are indeed a freakshow.
That being said, there is no parallel between the exodus of Jews from the Arab countries during that time period and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
and there is no parallel between the rights of a refugee and theirs of a descendant of a refugee.
I don’t know if you really mean this. Consider that since 1979, there have been millions of refugees from Afghanistan living in camps in Pakistan and Iran. In the past 30 years, many children have been born in those camps. Do those children not have the right to return to the same homes in Afghanistan that their parents had fled (along the lines of the HRW statement above)?
P.S. I’m still waiting for you to expose my lies.
Furthermore, several Arab countries have made it clear that their former Jewish populations can return.
Funny how that fact always seems to slip out of the hasbara peddler’s minds, conflicting as it does with their programming. I think they are really robots.
I don’t know the fine print on refugee status. However, Palestinians are born into refugee status. It’s not like the only refugees were those originally dispossessed. The dispossession continues on to this day obviously. All those generations of Palestinians born into camps, are refugees.
This relates to the de-development of Gaza’s economy. The problem is perpetuated by the occupier and the oppressor – Israel.
And there is ethnic cleansing going on now by Israel. NATO should bring in the troops.
and there is no parallel between the rights of a refugee and theirs of a descendant of a refugee.
Then it naturally follows that the entire rationale of Zionism (i.e, the “return of Jews to their homeland”) is also null and void.
“but international law only recognizes direct refugees(not their descendants) as refugees. ”
—————–
Problem solved! All Israel needs to do is just procrastinate for another 20 , 30 years until all “direct refugees” are dead and no one is left to return!
“but international law only recognizes direct refugees (not their descendants) as refugees.”
Yoni
——————-
I’d like you to substantiate this claim if you don’t mind..I became extremely suspicious of whatever Zionists’ interpretations of international law are. After all they consider settling in East Jerusalem and the West Bank are also legal..
“international law only recognizes direct refugees(not their descendants) as refugees.”
Yoni
———–
“international law is vague when it comes to the descendants of Palestinian refugees,”
yoni
——————–
Make up your mind yoni . This is making you look like a liar, dear.
“I take this charge (lying) seriously.”
Peter in SF
————-
Peter. You shouldn’t.. He does that to all.
“Problem solved! All Israel needs to do is just procrastinate for another 20 , 30 years until all “direct refugees” are dead and no one is left to return! ”
That might solve the problem of the 1948 refugees, but the ethnic cleansing has continued since then, so there will still be people demanding the right to return.
A peer state? Israel will never agree to the Palestinians having a peer state. None has ever been offered; rather only a rump state has been offered in theory.
Remember Vichey France? Quisling? Fayyad is just the latest addition to
this motley crew.
Looks like yoni and BDSNOW are a gift from heaven compared to this Julian…Pleased to meet you, sir..
Since Israel has never even had enough of a consensus so as to enable the country to adopt a constitution, how can they possibly know what they want in the way of territorial goals, etc?
FROM Avigail Abarbanel: “Israelis have never been particularly kind to each other. It’s one of the reasons I left actually. In my late twenties I started to grow weary of the unkind, harsh and unforgiving atmosphere around me. It was a tough place to live in not because of our ‘enemies’ but because of how people treated one another. You would believe that we were all enemies rather than people who have some kind of a shared heritage. The only thing that could unite people and temporarily brought out more kindness and a sense of cooperation was a feeling of being under collective threat, and in particular a ‘good wholesome war’.”
SOURCE – link to avigailabarbanel.me.uk
Here is another good quote from Abigail’s piece titled Israel’s Growing Insanity, 02/09/09
“The de-facto, modern secular Zionist definition of a Jew is someone who would have been considered a Jew by Hitler. Effectively Jews are allowing themselves to be defined by those who hated them and sought their annihilation. In other words, this identity was formed as a reaction to a particular set of circumstances. But what happens if the circumstances change? What does that do to this identity? In other words, if the world is now safe for Jews and is no longer what Jewish people thought it was, then Jewish people no longer know who they are, in which case either Jewish identity needs to change, or you make sure that the world is back to what it was when the Jews were persecuted. That way there is no need to go through the difficult process of self-examination or live in a world that doesn’t make sense.”
SOURCE – link to avigailabarbanel.me.uk
“Jewish people no longer know who they are, in which case either Jewish identity needs to change, or ..”
Or they could forget about it entirely.
Good points by Levy.
What is Israel’s policy?
“What is Israel’s policy? ”
Richard Witty
————
Richard. Maybe you should make sure you know the answer to your question before taking sides in this conflict. Personally, I wouldn’t offer my support to any party based on incomplete or flawed knowledge of its tenets as you’re obviously doing. “Israel’s policy” which you seem to be unsure of is one of expansion, dispossession and discrimination. Enough for me to say TFOUH to any side implementing such policies. Time for your to come on board, like Gideon Levy did and refuse to be part of a colonial enterprise of dispossession and subjugation.
“The real Zionist vision does not recognize any maps. It is a vision of a state without borders– a state that expands at all times according to its demographic, military and political power.” (Uri Avnery)
“When you ask them how much is enough, all they answer is more, more, more.” (Creedence Clearwater Revival, from memory)
The nature of Zionism requires ongoing, messianic expansion as long as this is possible. Israel will continue to expand its borders until it is prevented from doing so.
RE: “When you ask them how much is enough, all they answer is more, more, more.” (Creedence Clearwater Revival, from memory)
Bad Religion, How Much is Enough Lyrics
Tell me can the hateful chain be broken?
Production and consumption define our hollow
lives. Avarice has led us ‘cross the ocean, Toward
a land that’s better, much more bountiful and
wide. When will mankind finally come to realize
His surfeit has become his demise? How much is
enough to kill yourself? That quantity is known
today, as we blow ourselves away. Tell me is there
anything so sure? Rapacity, tenacity, capacity for
more! Like a dog that feeds until he suffers, The
infirmity of man is brought on by his selfish cure.
When will mankind finally come to realize His
surfeit has become his demise? How much is enough
to kill yourself? That quantity is known today, as
we blow ourselves away.
Israel will continue to expand its borders until it is prevented from doing so.
Keith
—————
And it’s a matter of emergency. The whole world should do something about it, it’s out of bound! The other day Lieberman was saying that Iran is not a real threat to Israel, Pakistan and Afghanistan are!
Levy is raising a question which I think that Henry Siegman has, with reasonable amounts of evidence, answered – that it has long been Israel’s policy ‘to live without a solution’. One can see several reasons for this, the deepest perhaps being that it is impossible for Zionists to accept that any presence of Palestinians in Palestine rests on an inherent right – and therefore involves a share in sovereignty – rather than on a kindly concession.
As to Lieberman’s remarks, I suppose that Israel is already conscious that a nuclear attack by them on a Muslim country might lead to a nuclear exchange with Pakistan, where the pro-Western government might not be able to keep its grip in such extreme circumstances. These remarks might even imply that a degree of realism is appearing.
Pakistan’s leader knows the score.