This sounds racist to me, does it to you?

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 76 Comments

Here’s something I find disturbing. MJ Rosenberg recalls an anecdote about Robert Satloff of WINEP, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy:

He once inadvertently cc’d me (his bad luck) on an email he wrote rejecting an appearance on the same panel with Arab-American Institute chief, James Zogby. Satloff wrote his correspondent (and, by accident, me) that by definition, Zogby did not have the standing to appear with him.

His argument: I, Satloff, a great independent scholar do not appear with lobbyists for causes. (Except for AIPAC, but then, he knows that he is essentially AIPAC so that doesn’t count).

I don’t think this is trivial. It is (I bet) a racial form of discrimination and reminds me of the piece in the Forward a couple weeks back about "delegitimization" of Israel, in which Nathan Guttman only quoted Jews. Why didn’t he call Ali Abunimah, or some other Palestinian-American? They’re important voices in this trend.

It was rumored that Michael Walzer and Leon Wieseltier both declined to debate John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt– didn’t want to give the scholars a platform; but still, it’s a kind of color bar. The late Gershom Scholem long ago wrote that only Jews could write Jewish history. Another bar. And of course this bar is related to the fact that only pro-Israel Jews and philo-Semites can be trusted to handle Middle East policy. No Chas Freeman, no Rashid Khalidi. It’s time Jews granted non-Jews a place in the discussion. That’s what empowered people do.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

76 Responses

  1. Richard Witty
    April 12, 2010, 9:47 pm

    Non-Jews debate these issues all the time, and with Jews.

    What did you think about the next post by Rosenberg, of Obama unilaterally articulating the terms of a peace agreement, similar to the Taba status, but this time with the ability of the two parties, mediators, and oversight to accomplish it.

    Two state solution, no right of return to Israel for descendants, parity of land mass with 67 borders selected by consent.

    I like it.

    • Citizen
      April 12, 2010, 9:51 pm

      Great, Witty. Mind if I take over 78% of your home space? Also, I will
      control the water faucets, OK? Great, I knew you’d be swell about it!

      • Richard Witty
        April 12, 2010, 10:07 pm

        So, you oppose the Obama proposal?

      • Chaos4700
        April 12, 2010, 10:14 pm

        So, you oppose the Obama proposal?

        So when did you stop beating your wife, Witty? We can all see where you’re going with this, you’re fairly predictable at this point. “Peace” doesn’t mean legitimizing ethnic cleansing and Jewish racial superiority, or theocratic rule, or whatever unholy combination Israel wants to define itself to be.

      • yonira
        April 12, 2010, 10:31 pm

        don’t you think you’ve over played the beating your wife thing? and the WMD thing, and the straw man thing? oh and and the Nazi thing?

        do you have anything original to say? can’t you talk to your fellow Hitler youth and come up w/ some new lines?

      • braciole
        April 12, 2010, 11:01 pm

        Hi yonira, talking of The Holocaust, who said

        “If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative.”

        I hope you will agree that the person who uttered those words is one sick fuck.

      • Chaos4700
        April 12, 2010, 11:06 pm

        I love it that this is the best that Zionism has to offer. All the wit and charm of a brick dropped from an overpass through a windshield.

      • thankgodimatheist
        April 12, 2010, 10:07 pm

        But citizen..What do you make of the concept of “the spoils of war”? Israelis, in their infinite wisdom massively adhere to it and see nothing objectionable about it… Why singling poor Witty?

      • thankgodimatheist
        April 12, 2010, 10:13 pm

        Not to mention the other largely condoned and espoused (in Israel) concept of “fait accompli” or facts on the ground..Who can argue with that? Witty? Not holding my breath.

      • zamaaz
        April 13, 2010, 11:20 am

        The concept of ‘spoils of war’ is one of the conventions of civilization that defined the territorial character of present states or nations. If we reject this concept we have to overhaul the present state of civilization throughout the world. That would be very bloody, deadly, and terminally sane. That is a real hell on Earth!

    • Chaos4700
      April 12, 2010, 10:12 pm

      You would, Witty, but then it means your children get to go to Israel while most of the world’s Palestinians can’t.

      Think about it. Your children have a right, as privileged Jews, and for that reason alone to visit a land that a Palestinian born there cannot extend to his children. To say nothing of the Palestinian himself/herself.

      And then there’s the whole matter that this is a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions.

      This sounds racist to me, does it to you?

      • Chaos4700
        April 12, 2010, 10:18 pm

        Not just visit, in point of fact. Your children can literally move there, get assigned a plot of land that used to belong to that Palestinian family, and build a home.

        Heck, they can even have a Palestinian home existing right now bulldozed to make room for it, and if they act before this thing theoretically gets enacted (it won’t) it would be “grandfathered” in.

        You like that, do you?

      • yonira
        April 12, 2010, 10:29 pm

        And those same children can’t visit several ME countries after they visit Israel. whats your point?

      • thankgodimatheist
        April 12, 2010, 10:46 pm

        And those same children can’t visit several ME countries after they visit Israel. whats your point?
        ——————–
        I don’t see your point either, yonira. Why should they be able to visit several ME countries after they visit Israel? Are all problems solved? There’s a specific reality on the ground, a contentious/enmity between those countries and Israel. There aren’t diplomatic relations as a starter! What do you make of that? Especially when Israelis themselves are forbidden from visiting “enemy “countries as well. Some Israeli Palestinian authors were not allowed to visit Lebanon to receive prizes they won in Beirut! So what’s your point?..

      • yonira
        April 12, 2010, 10:56 pm

        you made my point like 3 times, thanks!

      • Chaos4700
        April 12, 2010, 11:02 pm

        Justify the presence of Israeli citizens (and troops) on Palestinian territory, then, yonira.

      • yonira
        April 12, 2010, 11:14 pm

        I don’t, I am vehemently against the occupation.

      • Chaos4700
        April 12, 2010, 11:20 pm

        Then you concede that Israel is committing crimes against the Geneva Conventions?

      • thankgodimatheist
        April 12, 2010, 11:38 pm

        Israeli forces surround schoo. In order to get terrorists? NO! Stone throwers!!
        “Ma’an – Israeli forces surrounded the Yasser Arafat School in the west end of Azzun, a town east of Qalqiliya on Monday. Troops demanded children evacuate the school so boys accused of rock throwing could be detained. ”
        link to maannews.net

      • RoHa
        April 13, 2010, 4:20 am

        Come on. Fair’s fair, now.

        As Citizen (I think) pointed out earlier, some of those stones are pretty sharp. They could seriously scratch the paint of a Merkeva tank.

      • zamaaz
        April 13, 2010, 11:33 am

        Is there a titled Palestinian territory inside Israel? Has Israel already sold their lands?

      • Chaos4700
        April 13, 2010, 11:37 am

        Zamaaz, you do understand that just because somebody sets up a davidka and a machine gun nest on someone else’s farm, it doesn’t automatically become Israeli land, right? Certainly not in the eyes of the international community.

      • zamaaz
        April 13, 2010, 11:41 am

        All I know at present pluralistic political systems that the diplomatic (consulate) lands sold by a state are only matters of few thousands of square meters; but never a territory. These sale of national territory only happened under absolute monarchy…And the last monarchy of Israel was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD how can one sell a national territory of Israel?

      • Chaos4700
        April 13, 2010, 11:45 am

        So you believe for nearly two millenia that the Holy Land has been nothing but a vacant lot, huh?

        “Land without a people” — the racist canard that keeps on giving!

      • zamaaz
        April 13, 2010, 11:50 am

        The surrender of the territory to the British disposition to create the state of Jordan in favor of the Palestinian Arabs was a product of a national consensus among the Jews simply to achieve peace for them. It was actually a product of arm twisting by the British. But the fact that by that time there was no formally internationally recognized established democratic state or republic of Israel. Their national consensus to recede a territory for Jordan was even technically illegal and non-binding! And that the territory of Jordan remains legally of the Jews!

      • zamaaz
        April 13, 2010, 11:52 am

        Thus, how come the Palestinian arabs ever think among themselves they have the right to own a piece of territory inside Israel?

      • Chaos4700
        April 13, 2010, 11:55 am

        So let me get this straight. You honestly think some white Russian guy has more claim to a home in the Middle East than a Palestinian whose family has been living there for generations?

      • doug
        April 12, 2010, 10:58 pm

        Isn’t it more “religionist” than racist? After all, Judaism provides for conversion even if only approved Orthodox converts can immigrate. Now if Palestinians aren’t allowed to convert then I suppose that could be considered racist. But I don’t know if they are or aren’t. My guess is they wouldn’t be well recieved by either group.

        I’m not sure I think being “religionist” is less offensive than racism but I’ve never been big on the God thing.

      • robin
        April 12, 2010, 11:11 pm

        My understanding is that it is more racism than “religionism”, although there is a religious component. But there are close to zero Palestinian converts to Judaism if any, and very few of any background. There are many more Jews (regarded as fully Jewish by Israel) by ancestry and not religion than by religion and not ancestry. In the context of Zionism, “Jewish” seems to refer to overlapping “racial” and religious groups, with the racial being the more salient.

      • Danaa
        April 13, 2010, 12:03 am

        Zogby comes, I believe, from a christian, not a moslem background. And we don’t know how religious he is – probably no more so than Satloff, who is pretty secular, I believe.

        Since Americans who happen to be christian – catholic, protestant, what not – are not excluded from debates when they have expertise on a subject – what’s left is the Arabic part. And that is why smells of racism. Somehow I doubt it was Zogby’s christianity that disturbed the illustrious Satloff, for if that was so, what’s he doing living in a mostly christian country?

      • Citizen
        April 13, 2010, 9:45 am

        Enjoying his affinities and identifications? That’s not division, don’t you know?

      • zamaaz
        April 13, 2010, 11:14 am

        In Judaism race and religion are one…it is a serious matter of Divine accountability among the Jews!

      • zamaaz
        April 13, 2010, 11:11 am

        where can you find any basis for descendants of squatters to have right to claim the land?

      • zamaaz
        April 13, 2010, 11:22 am

        Jews living in Israel is not a privilege… it is a endowed right.

      • Chaos4700
        April 13, 2010, 11:26 am

        “White man’s burden,” huh?

    • robin
      April 13, 2010, 12:02 am

      I personally am terrified of the triumph and legitimization of apartheid through the creation, either by Israel alone or with US help, of a faux Palestinian state (on territory chosen by Israel and the US). And even more so if that state retains the current form of the West Bank PA administration–that of an authoritarian, non-democratic regime.

      The test for me is, first of all, would Palestinians have real power in their land? Real self-determination? (Or would the situation resemble, by design, the current one, in which Jews exclusively control the institution that wields overwhelming power over the land and people of Palestine/Israel.) And would all of their individual human rights be respected, including the refugees and citizens of Israel?

      And if not, would the arrangement result in a “case closed” mentality from the United States or other countries? An earlier post on this blog linked to an insightful article by As’ad Ghanem, which raised the point that no one much cares about conflicts between states, over territory. Whether its Kashmir, Ceuta/Melilla, Falklands, Guantanamo, or the Golan Heights. They are not widely considered to be urgent matters of injustice. The appearance of statehood could have the effect of lumping in the Palestinian issue with these other “territorial disputes”, despite the ongoing violation of basic human rights and deliberate racial concentration of power.

      The PA has done enough strategic damage going down this path already. A more productive Palestinian strategy would be to renounce the PA, highlight its illegitimacy, and focus on an anti-apartheid struggle for inclusion.

      • zamaaz
        April 13, 2010, 11:27 am

        Apartheid is a word coined for African racial crisis…whites isolating out the aborigines…In Israel, the squatters and friends demand to splice-out the aborigines (Jews) from their heritage…how can you apply the word apartheid?

      • Chaos4700
        April 13, 2010, 11:33 am

        The “aborgines” that have Russian and Jersey accents, huh.

    • Julian
      April 13, 2010, 5:55 am

      Why would the Palestinians accept what was rejected twice. They want 2 Arab states nothing less.
      When are the Jews thrown out of Arab countries getting their property and bank accounts back?

      • Shingo
        April 13, 2010, 6:21 am

        “Why would the Palestinians accept what was rejected twice.”

        Correction: Why would they reject what was never offered?

        “When are the Jews thrown out of Arab countries getting their property and bank accounts back?”

        There’s aren’t any. Next.

    • zamaaz
      April 13, 2010, 11:06 am

      Richard I have been reading your positions and I really appreciate you views. Nevertheless, if we only read the old UN documents about the settlement of lands since 1940s. the Jews have already given out about 1/2 of their British mandate territory to the Palestinian Arabs through creation of state of Jordan. And at this point of time we must give all the remain half to the Jews to be really true and just… The Palestinians have no more right to complaint ‘morally’ about the remaining half that is the present Israel… The Palestinians once were given the final chance by referendum to politically integrate with the state of Israel, they refused. If we insist another partition in whatever manner that is simply and completely unsatiable greed!

      • Richard Witty
        April 13, 2010, 12:00 pm

        Thats a silly, false, opportunistic rationalization on your part Zamaaz.

        The Palestinian people are a people, and deserve the right to self-govern.

        Whether they came to identify primarily as Palestinian in 1968 or in 1947 (more as Arab than distinctly Palestinian) is irrelevant.

        Israel should be HELPING Palestine emerge, by directly helping and/or staying out of the way in most cases, and only defending in the rare cases where defense is necessary.

        Expropriation of land, rationalization for ownership without consent, is not the fulfillment of Torah.

  2. Citizen
    April 12, 2010, 9:48 pm

    RE: ” It’s time Jews granted non-Jews a place in the discussion. That’s what empowered people do.”

    Some people don’t air dirty laundry in public–even if they own the laundry mat. Somebody might spot a sock of theirs in one of the machines circular peep windows, look down, discover they’re barefoot on the dirty floor.

  3. braciole
    April 12, 2010, 10:49 pm

    Two state solution, no right of return to Israel for descendants, parity of land mass with 67 borders selected by consent.

    So as to be non-racist, “no right of return to Israel for descendants” should apply equally to the Jewish and Arab population. That’s the end of Aliyah them.

    I believe that in the past there was an attempt by the Palestinians or someone to quanitfy the demand among Palestinian refugees for return to Israel and they came up with a figure of about 300,000. The rest wanted to settle in the Palestinian state.

    If the “borders selected by consent” is to be non-racist then both nations should have a right of veto, amd the Palestinians could quite legitimately say that they are perfectly happy with the 1967 borders. so why shouldn’t they just stick with the 1967 borders. Anything else would also reward the criminal acts of the Israelis and should be opposed by all who belive in the rule of law.

    BTW, Witty, what are your thoughts on the sovereignty of the Palestinian State? Do you believe all that racist crap about the Palestinian State being demilitarized and not being able to enter into any treaty it likes for any purpose with any other state?

    • yonira
      April 12, 2010, 10:54 pm

      So as to be non-racist, “no right of return to Israel for descendants” should apply equally to the Jewish and Arab population. That’s the end of Aliyah them.

      This argument is so ridiculous. A country gets to dictate its immigration policy, the new state of Palestine can have any sort of immigration policy they want.

      A right of return for all descendants would assure 2 more Arab states in the ME, is that justice?

      • Chaos4700
        April 12, 2010, 11:00 pm

        This argument is so ridiculous. A country gets to dictate its immigration policy, the new state of Palestine can have any sort of immigration policy they want.

        True or false, yonira — many of the Zionist militants who terrrorized the Palestinians up to and including the Nakba came there illegally when it was under the protection of the British Mandate?

      • yonira
        April 12, 2010, 11:01 pm

        Was Israel a country during the British Mandate?

      • Chaos4700
        April 12, 2010, 11:02 pm

        The old racist “land without a people” canard. How predictable.

      • Cliff
        April 13, 2010, 10:50 am

        There was no Israel during the Mandate.

      • braciole
        April 12, 2010, 11:12 pm

        According to your line of reasoning, it would be perfectly acceptable for , say, Australia to insist that all immigrants be white Anglo-saxon Protestants. Do you really think that is a legitimate immigration policy? Or do you think the effect would be to delegitimize Australia? It isn’t the rest of the World that is delegitimizing Israel, it is Israel itself with its racist and war criminal behaviour that is doing that.

      • RoHa
        April 13, 2010, 4:27 am

        “Australia to insist that all immigrants be white Anglo-saxon Protestants. ”

        We had an immigration policy called “the White Australia Policy” for a long time.

        link to immi.gov.au

        Many of us were opposed to it. It was a hot issue when I was young.

      • braciole
        April 14, 2010, 5:09 am

        My point exactly – does anyone really think that Australia would have any standing whatsoever in the World if it had continued with its whites only policy. It would be an international pariah!

        BTW, I am well aware the Australia’s immigration policy changed gradually to expand from WASP to southern Europeans but it still barred all Asians into fairly recent times. My point is that if a country wants to have a racist immigration policy then it is free to do so but it will be treated as a pariah. As is well known, Israel has had a racist immigration policy for a long time and I would suggest that the credit allowed to Israel because of The Holocaust has almost been all spent.

      • Shmuel
        April 13, 2010, 12:55 am

        yonira: A right of return for all descendants would assure 2 more Arab states in the ME, is that justice?

        This is kind of what opened my eyes to the inconsistency of the 2-state proposal advocated by the then far left in Israel. My doubts went something like this: A Palestinian state in the OT + a state of all its citizens (as democratic values dictate) in Israel, implies, in a sense, 2 Palestinian states. I then began to look into Palestinian ROR, and found arguments in its favour extremely compelling. So, if you are going to allow ROR (as justice, international law and true reconciliation dictate), and grant such returnees full civil rights (as democratic values dictate), why bother with a charade of 2 states – especially if one of those states would probably discriminate against Jews? It made no sense.

        Conversations with Israeli right-wingers (one particular conversation sticks in my mind) further helped to convince me that limiting the “peace process” to ’67 issues would resolve nothing.

      • Shmuel
        April 13, 2010, 1:02 am

        As for the 2-state plan promoted by the moderate left and even the moderate right, it seemed to be suggesting that the problems caused by the creation and continued existence of an ethnic state could be resolved by the creation of another ethnic state. Brings to mind the old joke about fucking for virginity.

      • Citizen
        April 13, 2010, 10:05 am

        The ROR cannot be a right granted only to Jews. It either has a universal principle as basis, or not. If not, it is akin to eternal affirmative action
        and reparations. Over time, legal discrimination based on ethnicity
        or race must adapt to changing power coalitions and demographics.
        The innocent Palestinian people have been made to pay for what another people did on another continent, not even for what their Palestininian relatives or ancestors did. The UN partition, and its
        support going back to Balfour was never a just event; it was a matter of the power politics of the time, and of rightful non-Jewish shame and guilt once the full reality of the Holocaust came into view when the Allied troops drove up to the concentration and death camps. It’s been over 60 years. It’s now time for non-Jewish
        shame and guilt to benefit on a most modest basis (e.g., the ’67 green line, rather than the 47 Nakba line, if not the 1917 “line”), to benefit so modestly, the Palestinian people.

      • eee
        April 13, 2010, 10:38 am

        The results of the Mexican-American war, was never a just event, it was just the result of the power politics of those time. Any Mexican that wants to come to Texas and California must be granted this right.

      • Cliff
        April 13, 2010, 10:49 am

        Because of what the early colonizers did we now have laws forbidding such behaviour.
        A) They are not retrospective laws.
        B) These countries are no longer colonizing.
        C) Parts of Mexico were legally annexed to the USA. The UK legally annexed the Falklands.
        D) Australia is no longer dispossessing the Aboriginals, it is addressing land rights issues. The Australian Aboriginals have not asked us to leave. The Canadians have addressed their native rights issues.
        E) Israel is still colonizing via illegal settlements, it has never legally annexed any territory and is still in breach of the law.

      • zamaaz
        April 13, 2010, 12:05 pm

        What hypocrisy! you accept the rest of the world to own what they originally do not own, while you resist Israel to reclaim what it originally owns? What canard!

      • Chaos4700
        April 13, 2010, 12:16 pm

        So how many ancient Hebrews also spoke Yiddish? Or Russian? Or had Brooklyn accents?

        Also, eee, which Mexicans are we talking about? The indigenous tribes, the descendants of African slaves, or Spanish and Portuguese colonists? Which ones? :)

        (And for those of you wondering, yes, I asked it that way for a reason. Let him try to answer that.)

      • braciole
        April 14, 2010, 5:12 am

        “why bother with a charade of 2 states – especially if one of those states would probably discriminate against Jews?”

        Perhaps you should have written that as “one of those states would probably discriminate against Jews and the other does discriminate against Muslins and Christians?”

      • braciole
        April 14, 2010, 5:19 am

        There goes eee with his strawman again for the umpteenth time. Has anyone suggested here that all Mexicans should have a “right of return” to Texas or California? However, allowing those whose ancestors once lived in Texas, California or other the south-western states which were once part of Mexico seems entirely sensible to me, especially as citizens of Mexican-descent of the United States were being deported for “immigration offenses”, etc. within living memory!

        ps I hate to tell eee but most Mexicans who want to go to Texas or Claifornia seem to have done so.

      • Cliff
        April 13, 2010, 10:55 am

        2 more Arab States?

        You and your cult STOLE THE LAND, you nitwit. A bunch of Europeans who converted to Judaism all of a sudden feel some deep spiritual connection to a piece of real estate and think they have the right to take it from the indigenous population?

        And you’re going to play that same stupid song and dance? Where do you get your talking points from, freak?

        ‘Israel is a tiny sliver of land’
        ‘The Arabs have blah blah many States and Jews have a measly 1′

        Poor poor ‘the Jews’ (European converts).

        What garbage. I was reading the other day about some ‘lost’ TRIBE of ‘Indian Jews’ who have settled in the OT.

        This is just one big fucking scam. Just a constant crime, since the moment the Zionists started flooding Palestine w/ Jewish immigration and buying up land. The intent was to usurp the indigenous population. And nothing has changed.

        It’s like, as soon as you can, you’ll rely on legalism, to identify yourself as some kind of veteran country and simply ‘enforcing’ your laws on an ‘immigrant’ population (the Palestinians).

        You’re the newcomer. You’re the immigrant.

      • zamaaz
        April 13, 2010, 11:09 am

        Yonira anyone who suggests to refuse Jewish descendants to immigrate to Israel is the most ignorant person for this matter that ever lived!

      • Chaos4700
        April 13, 2010, 11:16 am

        Wow, even the hyper-Christian evangelist is name calling now.

        Mooser’s right. It’s as if Zionism is a drug that rots the part of the brain where basic human decency is housed.

      • zamaaz
        April 13, 2010, 12:06 pm

        Ignorance is not a name it is a fact!

  4. VR
    April 13, 2010, 12:10 am

    “And of course this bar is related to the fact that only pro-Israel Jews and philo-Semites can be trusted to handle Middle East policy. No Chas Freeman, no Rashid Khalidi. It’s time Jews granted non-Jews a place in the discussion. That’s what empowered people do.”

    Is that what empowered people do Mr. Weiss? I don’t think so, I think they monopolize the discourse. Do the empowered in the MSM allow an equal discourse in the USA? I don’t think so.

    Now, if there were a benevolent empowered people, than it might happen. How many benevolent empowered people are there? Would you say that those who support a murderous racist colonial settler state are benevolent? They are empowered, but they are not benevolent.

    The point being this Mr. Weiss, they have to be forced into “benevolence,” this is why the government has coercive power. However, if the government only serves the empowered they will not coerce the empowered to do anything, after all they serve the empowered – the governments of this world for the most part are a franchise of the empowered. We see this in the USA, where the gap between the rich and the poor is now greater than it was during the robber baron days – no sign of benevolence. In Israel the empowered are taking more and more, it is getting more violent with every passing day. Therefore, if the people do not rise up in these scenarios and force the end to this it will continue, in both the USA and Israel, and anywhere else this empowered and non-benevolent crew reigns. Men who tower above us have said as much. Unless we and all of the others that participate here just want to complain, or eventually acquiesce (delude ourselves) in believing “oh it is not so bad, after all, look at what we have.” There is no other way –

    SOCIETY

    It has not changed much since this time, it has grown decidedly worse. If you don’t think so just look around.

  5. Psychopathic god
    April 13, 2010, 5:32 am

    Ian Mitroff, Dirty Rotten Strategies: “Don’t solve the wrong problems precisely.”

    response to Robin on Apr 13 at 12:02: would the arrangement result in a “case closed” mentality

    Mitroff argues that two fundamental errors characterize too much policymaking: the more pernicious is solving the wrong problem precisely; the other is solving the wrong problem badly. Mitroff says that effective strategy is systemic — incorporates all of the factors of a situation….

    To ‘solve’ the Israel Palestine conflict by dividing territory (post-Ottoman line-drawing?) is to solve the wrong problem: at the heart of the matter is not WHERE Jews live and WHERE Palestinians live, but WHY Jews think they have the right to force those territorial imperatives.

    In the US, many Virginians are still resentful of the outcome of the Civil War.
    How long will it take to actually achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians if the only changes made are to Israeli and Palestinian squatting rights?

  6. eGuard
    April 13, 2010, 6:03 am

    Philip Weiss: It’s time Jews granted non-Jews a place in the discussion. Indeed, a lot of people are waiting for that. If only that worldwide Jewish conspiracy…

    • Citizen
      April 13, 2010, 10:13 am

      Not a conspiracy–merely narrow tribalism openly bragged about on mountains of collective self-praise. Germany use to do it, and openly, and with force. Remember?

      • eGuard
        April 13, 2010, 11:20 am

        The point is, that Philip Weiss is writing this. Without irony. Non-Jews are “granted” (or not) a place by Jews? Why think about such a check in the first place, here?

    • Danaa
      April 13, 2010, 11:03 am

      The worldwide jewish conspiracy is the one conspiracy theory I believe in the least. AS citizen say, it’s just a loose network of tribal connections, and a patchwork of traditions, reinforced by a supposedly shared history and a penchant for congratulatory self-absorption. One cannot even say there are shared values because what commonality of values there were once, got distorted, indeed hijacked and supplanted by Israeli “values”. Which really are about one thing these days – the will to power. All fueled by high octane paranoia and an unhealthy pre-occupation with self image.

      And were this a zionist “conspiracy”, it is built on feet of clay, much as the ‘red menace’ of communism was. I believe, it’s because perceptions of power vary from place to place, and pure power tends, in the full scheme of things, to set itself against other axes of power. Which is probably why both christianity and Islam split into two major denominations. When religions become conspiracies of power, they turn into sects. We may be in the process of witnessing exactly that – zionism, which turned from a [perceived] ideology of redemption (which is how it was actually experienced by many in the founding days) into a narrow, ethnic-based power creed, surrounded by much religious gobbly-gook and in need of perpetual reinforcement by perceived enemies – from within and from without. Like all sects, the circle is bound to narrow, as the community of ‘enemies” – some imaginary, some real – keeps encroaching and pressing on the boundaries. Imagine a ballon inflated by internal pressure with only a thin skin separating it from the environment, which keeps pressing on it from the outside. Actually, a soap bubble is better imagery (that’s the one I use to understand the “free” market based capitalist economy – surface tension etc….).

      Frankly I like my conspiracies more solid. Give me Bilderbergers any day. Or The matrix (which is the reality, and is absolutely NOT a conspiracy, but that’s another story).

  7. eee
    April 13, 2010, 10:44 am

    Why is it that US “facts on the ground” are never asked to be turned? Why are the results of the Mexican-American war “just”?

    Why can the US annex Texas with impunity?
    Why could the US dictate the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo?
    link to en.wikipedia.org

    How is that treaty more fair than the UN partition resolution?

    Why is it that Americans on this site are not working to make Mexico and the US one state instead of meddling in Israeli affairs? You know why? Because you are irrational Israel haters.

    As for the Australians, you are just as bad. Give the land back to the Aborigines you thieves. How dare you lecture Israel?

  8. eee
    April 13, 2010, 10:46 am

    Before you attempt to correct any perceived historical injustices you see in Israel, FIX YOUR OWN HISTORICAL INJUSTICES. Cowards and hypocrites.

    • Cliff
      April 13, 2010, 10:49 am

      Because of what the early colonizers did we now have laws forbidding such behaviour.
      A) They are not retrospective laws.
      B) These countries are no longer colonizing.
      C) Parts of Mexico were legally annexed to the USA. The UK legally annexed the Falklands.
      D) Australia is no longer dispossessing the Aboriginals, it is addressing land rights issues. The Australian Aboriginals have not asked us to leave. The Canadians have addressed their native rights issues.
      E) Israel is still colonizing via illegal settlements, it has never legally annexed any territory and is still in breach of the law.

      You are pathetic. The only thing you can say is, ‘because you kept slaves, means we can keep slaves, don’t point out our criminality.’

      No, we will not remain silent while you thieves and murderers commit your crimes against the Palestinians.

  9. Keith
    April 13, 2010, 2:27 pm

    “It’s time Jews granted non-Jews a place in the discussion. That’s what empowered people do.”

    Phil, I don’t know if you realize the full implications of what you are saying. This sounds to me like a subtle call for assimilation, to end the inward looking “tribe think.” While I agree completely, PREVENTING THIS is a key component of Zionism. The main purpose of Zionism is to maintain Jews– Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, secular, whatever– as an organized entity, a “people.” “In other words, Zionism secularized and nationalised Judaism.” (Ilan Pappe)

    Some additional pertinent comments from Israel Shahak: “Why should some American Jews be so inclined to pro-Israeli chauvinism? The first factor is the exclusivism of Jewish organizations. They do not admit non-Jews into their ranks and draw social and therefore also political power from that fact. Those who can be called ‘organized Jews’ spend most of their leisure time solely in the company of other Jews, thus upholding Jewish exclusivism and, as a natural consequence, reinforcing their Jewish chauvinism.”

  10. MHughes976
    April 13, 2010, 3:34 pm

    Some think that the ancestors of the Welsh were driven out of what is now England around 500. The Welsh were then forcibly united with the English around 1300. What rights does that give people like me who are of Welsh descent versus those English people who have no Welsh blood?
    No rights can be gained simply by force, since that would mean that might was right, ie that there are no real rights at all.
    But rights can surely arise out of agreements that bring conflicts to an end provided that they are a) accepted by both sides, preferably with some formality b) not so manifestly unfair that they never take hold and are constantly challenged: ie both sides show some fidelity to them c) leave members of both sides who live in the conquered territory with the same fully respected civil rights. A reasonable and equal civil rights regime implies that some justice is at work and justice calls for some loyalty.
    So I don’t think that people with Welsh blood have, even if our ancestors were unjustly invaded and maltreated, the right to take back England, since we have for centuries accepted a reasonably equal position within the English-Welsh polity and in some cases become completely English ourselves.
    Perhaps the Christian Spaniards had the right to take back Spain from the Moors – El Cid and all that – in that there had never been a genuinely accepted partition or a genuine regime of equal rights.
    There have been treaties between the United States and Mexico which seem to have stood the test of time. Nothing like that in the ME, only use of force.

Leave a Reply