In this interview with Jerusalem Post, Dershowitz says that the left wants to revolutionize 1948-- end Israel/create one democracy in Israel/Palestine-- and that makes his 80 percent case for Israel (80 percent good, that means!) easier. Notice below that he uses strawmen Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky. But both men are for the two-state solution! Chomsky has vestiges of Zionist idealism... And I believe many on the left would accept the existence of Israel if it ceases to be an occupier practicing Jim Crow against an ethnic-religious minority. But Israel doesn't seem to want to give up those practices; and, putting on my realist hat, the terrible reality is that it's one state right now, how do you go about creating a viable Palestinian state? Dershowitz of course notions such a thing. The notions never end, and meanwhile the world gets Kosovo, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan-- many other states. Excerpt begins with Dershowitz's description of a hasbara corps on college campuses, something like Haim Saban's scheme. Second question gets to his misrepresentations of Finkelstein and Chomsky.
I make what I call the 80 percent case on colleges. I don’t support the settlements, or all Israel’s policies, so I think I do have credibility.... Look , I need help. I want more young people, I want people of color, I want people who are Asian, people who are Latino. I want to broaden the support for Israel. I think it’s very important that the elder generation, what we colloquially call the elders of Zion – me and Irwin Cotler and Elie Wiesel and others of my generation – can’t be the only spokespeople for Israel on university campuses. We need a lot more help from young people and a more diverse group of people. We need more women making the case of Israel.That’s why I’ve had a proposal for years – although no one has listened to me in Israel – to create a structure for making the 80% case for Israel that is outside the government, that is much like the Bank of Israel, that has independence, that is staffed only by professionals, no political people, that could use people like [author] Amos Oz to make the case for Israel, people who are critical of particular Israeli polices. Their job is not to defend the government of Israel but the State of Israel, to brand it, to make it more widely accepted and better understood. And that would be staffed with young people, people with very diverse backgrounds and targeted to very particular audiences.
Can you win over people from the radical left or is it more about stopping the fringes winning over the mainstream?
No. I’ll tell you a story that will help illustrate it. I spoke at [the University of California at] Irvine about a year ago... before [Israeli Ambassador] Michael Oren was shut down... they tried to shut him down. They shut me down too; they were screaming, but I just spoke over them. You could see that there were three groups in the audience. A group on my left that were wearing blue and white, some of them were wearing kippot, some of them were waving an Israeli flag. There was a group on my right that were wearing Palestinian garb, anti-Israel shirts, and a very large group in the middle.
So I started off by saying, “How many of you identify yourselves as pro-Israel,” hands went up. “How many would identify yourselves as pro-Palestine,” hands went up. “I want to ask the pro-Israel people, how many of you accept a Palestinian state, a non-terrorist state, a demilitarized state living side by side in peace with Israel.” Every hand went up. I said, “I want to now turn to the pro-Palestinians. How many of you would accept a non-settlement, non-expansionist, peaceful state living side by side.” There was some mumbling, some discussion, but not a single hand went up.
I won the debate right at that point with the 800 or 900 in the middle. They understood this was not pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. It was pro-Israel on one side, and anti, anti, anti on the other side. And so you don’t try ever to convert Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein or the extremists on the Left. They won’t listen to reason. You only try to use them in a very non-Kantian way. To use these extremists to help you win over the middle, to win over the hearts and minds of the people who have an open mind.
i.e. a vassal state
A non-state, or “state minus”.
I seriously doubt Dershowitz story was a truthful account of events.
“I want to now turn to the pro-Palestinians. How many of you would accept a non-settlement, non-expansionist, peaceful state living side by side.”
Yes, he forgot “demilitarized”. I’m sure a lot less hands would have gone up.
Chomsky : “I don’t think a Jewish or Christian or Islamic state is a proper concept. I would object to the United States as a Christian state.”
Dershowitz “et al” have consistently been dumbing-down the discussion by misrepresenting his ideas, and has been winning over cheerleaders by using emotionally charged language. Chomsky has stated that he is against an ethnically/religiously defined state which allows or denies citizenship in function of that.
So, Dershowitz is implying that refusal of a “Jewish” state is therefore refusal of the state of Israel, which means that he can’t envisage Israel as being anything but that.
Dershowitz might be a joke to someone, yet no matter how one would whine, nor complain, not even one among the ‘brightest liberal activists’ can present or suggest a viable and credible alternative that Israelis would quickly grab in search of permanent peace…
[So I started off by saying, “How many of you identify yourselves as pro-Israel,” hands went up. “How many would identify yourselves as pro-Palestine,” hands went up. “I want to ask the pro-Israel people, how many of you accept a Palestinian state, a non-terrorist state, a demilitarized state living side by side in peace with Israel.” Every hand went up. I said, “I want to now turn to the pro-Palestinians. How many of you would accept a non-settlement, non-expansionist, peaceful state living side by side.” There was some mumbling, some discussion, but not a single hand went up.]
Dershowitz simply showed he is a down-to-earth realist and pragmatist… Even among pro Palestinians, the concept of ‘mutual peace’ is even not yet understood.
In this iconic failure to understand the concepts of mutual and permanent peace among Pro-Palestinian groups/intellectuals could be sad testimony all these issues and political realities are misperceived illusions, and this multinational ‘peace and human rights activisms’ are basically futile, and simply ‘shooting slingshots to the stars’…
Dershowitz sounds reasonable here.
What do you actually differ with?
I didn’t read in the quote where Dershowitz claims that Finkelstein and Chomsky don’t support a two-state solution.
Where was it?
Witty,
Dershowitz is a liar, manipulator. One of the evidence link to youtube.com
The other thing: Why the hell people don’t have the right to think freely? Where is the freedom of thinking and expression values?
Dershitz again.. somebody linked to these on another thread, can’t think of the man without wanting to watch these classics again;
link to youtube.com
link to youtube.com
Thanks Droog thats so funny.
Dershowitz is a joke even for the fucking extremist Zionists! he makes me vomit, he is dishonest intellectually, crap like Witty.
That was very funny, droog, the first time I laugh while listening to Finkelstein because he always sounds so distressed when he talks that he distresses me eventhough I agree with what he says.
Bruce Lee what a dude,
‘ Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless – like water. Now you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup, you put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle, you put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend ‘ water can also break mountains and build continents, some may say this post is off-topic, to say so is to have read the letters and been blind to the words, like a finger pointing out to the moon, don’t concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory.
the resistance would do well to import some some of this philosophy, be water my friend.
link to youtube.com
The bit I pointed out above.
Dershowitz is like every other self-professed Liberal Zionist, a liar (or at least deluded). His two-state solution is not two equal states. Everything’s about Israeli and Jewish supremacy.
That is not a “liar”. That is a point to continue negotiations.
It’s not very liberal, proposing Palestine be a vassal state, is it? How is that any different to what the West Bank currently is?
Well Witty are you now defending the case Dershowtiz? very Interesting!
As Shafiq points out Dershowitz attempts to paint the Zionists as being ever so “reasonable” asking the Zionists in the audience if they would “accept a Palestinian state, a non-terrorist state, a demilitarized state living side by side in peace with Israel.” According to Netanyahu in his Bar Ilan speech, a demilitarised Palestinian state would be one “without an army, without control of its airspace, and with effective security measures to prevent weapons smuggling into the territory; real monitoring, and not what occurs in Gaza today. And obviously, the Palestinians will not be able to forge military pacts.”
Of course, the Zionists in the audience would accept that, it would be a complete vassel state, as Shafiq points out, and there is nothing “reasonable” about that.
Dershowitz also conveniently glosses over (in order to point score) why it was that the pro-Palestinians activists in the audience may not have supported his example of “a non-settlement, non-expansionist, peaceful state living side by side.”
There are any number of reasons why they may not have done so but three come immediately to mind:
(1) Dershowitz’s example completely fails to address the issue of the right of return for the Palestinian refugees; (2) it also ignores the issue of “democracy” inside the Israeli state and the fact that Palestinian living inside Israel would continue to live under a regime which actively relegates them to second class citizen status; and (3) it ignores the fact that the relationship between Israel and a “demilitarised” Palestinian state would continue to be a neo-colonial and oppressive one, even if the Israel ceased its settlement expansions.
As the old saying goes “the devil is in the detail” and there is nothing “reasonable” about conveniently ignoring all these very important details/issues in order to create a straw argument to try and discredit your opposition.
Why, because he said it should be demilitarized? If you were Israel, would you allow a militarized state that hates your guts to be created on your border, particularly after the weapons you gave them during Oslo were turned against your own soldiers? What would the Palestinians have to gain from having weapons? The Israelis will continue to have military superiority over them either way. They don’t face threats from Lebanon, Jordan, or Egypt. So I can’t see the point of a militarized Palestine.
There is a very big difference between the Palestine Dershowitz describes and the status quo. Any Palestinian who has been through a checkpoint and hates settlements should understand what that is.
(1) Right of return – Which right of return? Most people accept a Palestinian right of return to a Palestinian state. They do not accept an unlimited right of return to Israel proper because most see it as euphemism for ending the Jewish state through demographics.
(2) democracy in Israel – Most Palestinians in the West Bank have not evinced a great regard for the rights of Palestinian citizens in Israel that I know of. They’re much more concerned with their own situation. Moreover, it is completely clear that Palestinian in Israel would not move to a new Palestinian state. It is also fairly obvious that were a peaceful Palestinian state to be created, many of the second-class citizenship issues would dissipate.
(3) I don’t think it’s at all clear that the relationship between Israel and a demilitarized Palestinian state would be neocolonial and oppressive. Again, it’s not clear why a Palestinian state needs to militarized, unless it want to attack Israel, in which case, Israel has no business making peace with it.
You don’t get it hophmi.
Israel has NO RIGHT to be in the West Bank or Gaza. They’re not welcome, they’re not wanted, they have to leave. This is international consensus, and it’s supported by international law.
It’s not up to Israel to dictate terms of existence for the Palestinian state. It’s not up to Israel to control the borders or the airspace of Palestine, nor decide whether or not it has a military force.
Palestine is not Israel. Get over your sense of entitlement.
Why should Palestinians accept a militarised Israeli state, when it’s been stealing their land for 60 years, has killed lots of them and its population hates their guts? Why should the Palestinians ever trust the Israelis?
The right of return to exactly where the Palestinian refugees are form, is not up to Israel to decide. It’s guaranteed by international consensus. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen.
You don’t get it Sumud. Israel is not much concerned with the opinions of a United Nations that offers no apparent understanding or concern for the reality that Israel faces. International law also says that suicide bombing is illegal. Do you think Hamas stopped blowing up Israeli civilians because of international law?
You can argue that it’s not up to Israel to dictate the terms of existence for the Palestinian state. But it is up to Israel not to allow a situation where their own citizens are placed in harm’s way. No country is going to abandon that responsibility because the International Court of Justice or Richard Goldstone or some other lawyer has an opinion about it.
That’s life; the Palestinians have to actually negotiate with the Israelis if they want a better life rather than appealing to people who will write lots of nice legal opinions for them but do nothing to actually help them achieve a state.
And I’m sorry if Israel has a big military. It’s a rough neighborhood, and without it, there would be no Israel. You will not be negotiating on the basis of military parity because it does not exist and no one can make it exist. Zionists in 1948 thought that they were entitled to the entire Mandate, and failing that, at least everything West of the Jordan. They ended up with less than that. It’s called compromise based on reality. The Palestinians should try it.
Reality, means that Israelis are going to have to accept a Palestinian state as its equal and a shared Jerusalem. The Palestinians are making a compromise by simply allowing Israel to exist.
“Why should Palestinians accept a militarised Israeli state, when it’s been stealing their land for 60 years, has killed lots of them and its population hates their guts? Why should the Palestinians ever trust the Israelis?”
Well, do you want a state, or don’t you? Israel already has a state. It’s not going to negotiate as if Israel didn’t exist. The Palestinians are the ones who don’t have a state (despite many, many opportunities over the last century where they were offered more than they have now and declined). Nevertheless, the Palestinians are the ones who want statehood. One does not gain statehood by citing international documents that are unenforceable. One gets statehood by earning it and showing that one can actually run a state, and can run that state without bothering other states. Today, the Palestinians in the West Bank are getting closer to the state because they are actually taking the time to do what the Zionists did in the 1930s and 1940s – creating a functioning state in anticipation.
Why should you trust the Israelis? Can’t answer that question, except to ask whether not trusting them has been helpful to you.
“The right of return to exactly where the Palestinian refugees are form, is not up to Israel to decide. It’s guaranteed by international consensus. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen. ”
Well, most Israelis see that as evidence that the Palestinians simply don’t accept what happened in 1948 and want to turn back the clock. That’s not going to happen, and it indicates to Israelis that what the Palestinian want is not a two-state solution, but a one-state solution.
And with respect, the only thing “guaranteed” by international concensus (nothing is really “guaranteed” because no one is coming to “enforce” international concensus) is UNSC 242, which calls for a negotiated solution and appropriate adjustments. That’s the only Chapter VII UNSC resolution here, and that’s the one that is the based of negotiations.
“Israel is not much concerned with the opinions of a United Nations…” – you could’ve stopped right there.
“…to allow a situation where their own citizens are placed in harm’s way”
This is precisely what Israel has been doing, as well as using the fanatical settlers and Israelis moving into the govt. subsidized homes as a kind of “avant-garde” in the expansionist policies.
“And I’m sorry if Israel has a big military. It’s a rough neighborhood, and without it, there would be no Israel…”
That’s true. This is Joabotinsky’s “iron wall” and ben-Gurion’s strategy (and henry Kissinger’s, and…). But again, it’s a “rough neighborhood” mostly because of Israeli policy and intransigence, and the history and philosophy of zionism.
Oh, gee, thank you for allowing Israel to exist. I don’t think you’re allowing it to exist. I think you’ve simply failed to destroy it. (There’s a difference.) You’ll understand if most Israelis don’t being allowed to live as a compromise. It’s about the same as saying the Israelis are compromising by allowing Palestinians to remain in the West Bank. I’m guessing you won’t being seeing that as a compromise, even though the Israeli ability to throw the Palestinians out of the West Bank far exceeds the Palestinian ability to make Israel not exist at this point in time.
On the level of accepting Palestine as a state, I don’t see the Israelis not accepting Palestine as its equal in the sense that all nations are equal. However, if you mean “equal” as in Palestinians will be militarily equal, then I don’t see that happening.
I think a shared Jerusalem is possible, though of course one could write discourses about what that means.
What would the Palestinians have to gain from having weapons?
Is protecting themselves from you not a good enough reason? How could a Palestinian state be sure that 10 years after a peace agreement the colonist movement won’t successfully stage a coup against the Israeli government and start to ethnically cleanse ‘Judea’ and ‘Samaria’?
Sure a Palestinian army would never have military parity, but defense isn’t just about parity, it’s also about deterrence. It’s about making sure your neighbors, no matter how friendly you are with them at the moment, know that you won’t just let them waltz in and enslave you without a fight, and you guys do have a well-deserved reputation for plundering.
Exactly what do you think a Palestinian army would look like? It wouldn’t be 30 field divisions with anti-aircraft missiles, tanks, artillery, and modern communications systems. The harsh reality is that if a separate Palestinian state is allowed to form, it will have an army in one form or another, by one name or another.
It is foolish for Israelis to be concerned over this. They’ll never have an army that could defeat the IDF. What you should fear is a Palestinian state with the 2-3 dozen various broken and corrupt security agencies that they have now. A strong Palestinian state central state government capable of keeping order and reigning in extremists is far better for Israel’s long-term security than a weak one with many competing armed factions not truly under full central government control.
A Palestinian state will render obsolete the old paradigm of Israelis seeing it to their advantage to keep Palestinians disorganized and prevent their effective self-governance. If they are going to have self-governance at all, and they will eventually either in their own state or in yours as full citizens, it is in Israel’s interest to ensure that their new neighbor is more like Jordan and less like Somalia.
hophmi :
“nothing is really “guaranteed” because no one is coming to “enforce” international consensus”
There’s the crux of the matter, isn’t it? Can only military force “guarantee” international law? This is a good question.
Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter being not “binding”, is this what you mean?
“you could’ve stopped right there.”
Why? My reasoning is sound. Criticism of Israel in the UN does not come from an intellectually honest or realistic place. it comes from people who want to see it destroyed and their supporters around the world who want to ensure that they continue to receive cheap crude.
“This is precisely what Israel has been doing, as well as using the fanatical settlers and Israelis moving into the govt. subsidized homes as a kind of “avant-garde” in the expansionist policies.”
They weren’t always so fanatical, and Arab attacks on Israeli civilians did not begin in 1967.
“That’s true. This is Joabotinsky’s “iron wall” and ben-Gurion’s strategy (and henry Kissinger’s, and…). But again, it’s a “rough neighborhood” mostly because of Israeli policy and intransigence, and the history and philosophy of zionism. ”
Not really. Israel didn’t have a big military in 1948 when it was attacked by five Arab armies. It poses no threat whatsoever to countries it doesn’t border and yet call for its dissolution. And the Iron Wall strategy is more about responding with overwhelming force to provocation rather than the size of the standing force Israel has. In any case, I think to deny that the Middle East is a rough neighborhood or to say it’s rough because Israel is there is silly and sounds something like a KKK member arguing that whites riot because Black people moved into the neighborhood.
I mean, it’s just ridiculous. Iran and Iraq fought a war in which one million people were killed. Did that have anything to do with Israeli policy? Saudi Arabia runs a totalitarian dictatorship. Is that Israel’s fault? Did Zionism make them that way?
It’s interesting the sense of entitlement you display–Israel stole the land fair and square, Palestinians should just accept the scraps they are handed and be grateful for them.
It’s the sort of attitude that would lead to a cold peace at best, with one side filled with contempt and the other filled with resentment. There’s not much an American can do about that–I wish we had never gotten involved in the slightest. It’s quite true we have enough of our own problems.
It’s not now, aparisian, he has always been one of his heroes. That is not really something new.
Although that was a really clever trick. He knows the people on one side respects him highly, consider him one of their most important and respected leaders, and will react accordingly, the other side of course doesn’t trust him, and there are different reasons why they wouldn’t want to play his games. Which of course doesn’t matter to his argument. Very, very clever.
sorry, it’s not new, that is nothing new. Dersh is one of Richard’s heroes.
“Israel didn’t have a big military in 1948 when it was attacked by five Arab armies.”
Um, just how big do you think those five Arab armies were? And how many actually entered the area that was supposed to be for the Jewish state? And, let me see, when did Deir Yassin happen and did the expulsion of Palestinians that was already ongoing have anything to do with those armies?
I think we need some liberal Zionist input around here because echo chambers aren’t such a good thing, but just repeating oversimplified propaganda lines isn’t really much of a contribution.
And no, most of what goes on in the rest of the Mideast is not Israel’s fault. Israel does plenty of bad things all on its own–they aren’t responsible for Saudi Arabia’s government.
“Is protecting themselves from you not a good enough reason? How could a Palestinian state be sure that 10 years after a peace agreement the colonist movement won’t successfully stage a coup against the Israeli government and start to ethnically cleanse ‘Judea’ and ‘Samaria’?”
Not really, because I’m not negotiating for the purpose of going in and taking over again when I feel like it. Why would I negotiate a settlement and then launch a coup if I could do ethnic cleansing now with much less consequences?
Sure, you could argue deterrence. But I don’t know of historical examples where countries purposely allowed border states to have deterrence capabilities against them.
“What you should fear is a Palestinian state with the 2-3 dozen various broken and corrupt security agencies that they have now. A strong Palestinian state central state government capable of keeping order and reigning in extremists is far better for Israel’s long-term security than a weak one with many competing armed factions not truly under full central government control.”
I agree. I’m not sure that’s what the Israeli mean by “demilitarized;” I don’t think it precludes an armed internal security organizations and I agree that whatever the state is, it needs a strong central government.
“A Palestinian state will render obsolete the old paradigm of Israelis seeing it to their advantage to keep Palestinians disorganized and prevent their effective self-governance. If they are going to have self-governance at all, and they will eventually either in their own state or in yours as full citizens, it is in Israel’s interest to ensure that their new neighbor is more like Jordan and less like Somalia. ”
I agree. But none this has to do with the development of a military for dealing with externalities. I agree completely with giving the Palestinians the tools to govern themselves. I don’t think it’s realistic to expect Israel to give them the tools to deter Israel both because it isn’t necessary, and because it is not an effect they could achieve even with a military.
“…in mid-may 1948 the total number of Arab troops… was under 25,000, whereas the IDF fielded over 35,000 troops. By mid-July… 65,000 men…, and by December… a peak of 96,441″
Shlaim, the Iron Wall, pg. 35
Now, this might depend on how you define a “soldier”, I don’t know.
Ben-Gurion says : “Its [Israel's] fate is in the hands of the defense forces.” in his diary.
There were already 700,000 Pal refugees by the end of 1948, but apparently, most of them had already been displaced before May 1948. Palestinians probably knew something was in the air, no?
Nobody is talking about Saudi Arabia, and nobody is condoning it here. KKK, etc., come on.
“It’s interesting the sense of entitlement you display–Israel stole the land fair and square, Palestinians should just accept the scraps they are handed and be grateful for them.”
If you read history from the Palestinian narrative only, then I can understand why you feel that way. I’m not sure how that helps the cause of peace, however.
“It’s the sort of attitude that would lead to a cold peace at best, with one side filled with contempt and the other filled with resentment. There’s not much an American can do about that–I wish we had never gotten involved in the slightest. It’s quite true we have enough of our own problems. ”
I think resentment is unavoidable on both sides. The question is whether that resentment should be allow to forever stall an agreement.
Colin Murray- You raise an interesting question with the phrase
“it is in Israel’s interest to ensure that their new neighbor is more like Jordan and less like Somalia.” The “demilitarization” of the new Palestine thus has to be defined in a way that allows Palestine the ability to rule itself, but not threaten Israel. Most people (including me) lack the knowledge to quantify what such a middle path would involve in terms of militarization.
Currently the Netanyahu government wishes to control the access from Jordan to the new Palestine in order to protect against smuggling of weapons. Given the missiles that Hezbollah has to the north and the missiles that Hamas has in Gaza, this position sounds reasonable. (Of course I understand that Palestine will want to control its own borders and even a middle path of an international force controlling the access points would be unacceptable.) From your general tone I assume you feel that Israel’s fear of the weapons that could be smuggled into Palestine is an unrealistic one.
What kind of a military would be sufficient to ensure a strong central government of Palestine and why is the Israeli fear of smuggled weapons unrealistic?
“Um, just how big do you think those five Arab armies were? And how many actually entered the area that was supposed to be for the Jewish state? And, let me see, when did Deir Yassin happen and did the expulsion of Palestinians that was already ongoing have anything to do with those armies?”
Are we really going to have an historical argument on everything? The Arab armies were not especially huge. The point is that the Israeli Army was certainly no juggernaut in 1948. Deir Yassin is one event from 1948 where, yes, over 100 people were killed. There were atrocities on both sides as you well know, including the expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem and massacres of Jews in places where Jews lived peacefully with their neighbors and have now returned to be called settlers.
Yes, the expulsion of the Palestinians, to the extent that it was an expulsion, had something to do with those armies. Back then, they were Arabs, not Palestinians, and there was no willingness on their part to negotiate a two state solution or anything else.
I don’t think we’re going over propaganda lines, but when you’re making propaganda arguments, you have to expect people to respond in kind. Most Zionists I know would not bother to respond at all.
“There’s the crux of the matter, isn’t it? Can only military force “guarantee” international law? This is a good question.”
I don’t think law can be said to be effective without an enforcement mechanism, and I don’t think law can be said to just when it is created by those with unclean hands and nefarious aims.
I think international law is talking point for the Palestinians and little more.
Because the ‘I’ can, and will, change. You are abstracting the Israeli political establishment as a single actor when it is not. The current government, widely viewed across the planet as extremist and commonly viewed as fascist, isn’t remotely the worst that Israel can put forward.
If I understand you correctly, I agree that Israel could ethnically cleanse Palestinians completely with fewer consequences now than they will be sustain in the future. However, that doesn’t mean that a future government will not decide to do so.
I think that the Israeli government’s control over the state monopoly of violence is the weakest of any of its neighbors, barring the obvious massive exception of tiny Lebanon. This political reality is not necessarily correlated with the conventional military capability of state armed forces.
The Lebanese example is our red flag. Your colonist movement is out of control, and the rest of need not try hard to imagine a larger fascist version of Lebanese instability with nuclear weapons.
Deterrence is only a binary proposition for each potential action an adversary may take. A given level of defensive capability may be able to deter more extreme actions, such as full-scale ethnic cleansing, while being inadequate to deter others such as attacks on civilian infrastructure.
yeesh, errors
…and the rest of b>us need not try hard…
You don’t get it Sumud. Israel is not much concerned with the opinions of a United Nations
oh now, i think we all pretty much ‘get’ the fact israel keeps blathering how much it doesn’t give a shit what others think but i think you’re wrong about the UN, if israel wasn’t concerned they never would have gone to the UN to have the standards changed wrt what constitutes a war crime. i think the whole ‘warning system’ in gaza was set up w/the lawfare to turn civilian neighborhoods into military bases etc. if israel didn’t care about what the UN said they wouldn’t care about our veto, and they do.
You can argue that it’s not up to Israel to dictate the terms of existence for the Palestinian state. But it is up to Israel not to allow a situation where their own citizens are placed in harm’s way.
sure, but that still does not give israel the right to determine the parameters of allowable defense. you can argue all you want about what israel will do or how much they are concerned etc etc but don’t confuse it with rights.
israel does not have the right to break international law indefinitely and nothing you can say will change that. at some point the world will put a stop to it or else international law will change to accommodate israel. and if you think that’s going to happen i think you are sorely mistaken.
From your general tone I assume you feel that Israel’s fear of the weapons that could be smuggled into Palestine is an unrealistic one.
On the contrary, I think it is not only realistic but absolutely inevitable that weapon smuggling will be a critical problem if a two-state solution is not just enough to allow Palestinian civil society to grow in such a way as to isolate Palestinian ‘bitter-enders’ who refuse to stop fighting.
I’ve been explicit (I hope I have anyway) many times on Mondoweiss that any two-state solution would have to be just in order to be effective at securing Israel’s security needs. Any attempt by Israel to just annex what has already been seized in the West Bank and ‘call it a day’ and declare the occupation over will be doomed because it will be impossible to perpetually maintain puppet governments that will keep a Palestinian archipelago from turning into little Gazas with consequent rocket fire. This would necessitate re-occupation. Unilateral declarations are not going to work.
Israel at this point has only two option left to preserve a Jewish state in the long-term: creation of a viable Palestinian state which would require massive decolonization, and massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the West Bank. I think the former is pure fantasy at this point, and I engage in discussion about it, e.g. recent comments exchanged with hophmi, as an attempt to engage and connect rather than any sort of intellectual exercise. A minimum requirement IMO would be an about-face of the Israel Lobby in opposition to ethnic cleansing and colonization, and unified support for very, very painful sanctions. This is not going to happen.
I have warned several times about the latter. I was heartened by Prof. Mearsheimer’s Jerusalem Fund speech because his analysis is similar to mine, and I think it is important that the possibility of such an action be discussed openly for it to become less likely.
Even if a miracle happened and a planetary embargo convinced enough Israeli citizens to reign in Likud/Yisrael Beiteinu and their colonists and withdraw from most of the West Bank (the 96-98% that has been floated about at various times), then Israel’s security could only be achieved with a political solution. There is no long-term military solution, except for Nakba 2, and I think the chance of Israel surviving its aftermath infinitesimal.
That leaves a one-state solution, which is what is already in place. The question is ‘how is this one-state going to look in 20 years?’ Palestinians are stockpiling weapons now, both through the Dayton force in the West Bank, and Hamas’ recent acquisition (my guess) and increasingly effective use of long-range sniper rifles. Weapons smuggling is not a question for the future.
Wondering jew, another way to put is that Israel military strength is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ensuring Israel’s security. The problem of weapons smuggling does not have a long-term military solution. If you ever want to be able to stop pushing down furiously on the pressure kettle, you have to address the problem of reducing the steam inside.
The Iran-Iraq war certainly did have something to do with Israeli policy. Israel was selling arms to Iran throughout the war.
Here’s another quick thought. Why would Palestinians pose a greater threat than Syrians, Jordan, and Egyptians?
I think one reason there is (what may seem others to be excessive) Zionist concern over this issue is that Zionists know well that they have wronged Palestinians in a way that they have not wronged the other Arab nations. I don’t say this to be combative, but as a suggestion for thinking about.
If a fantasy colony withdrawal took place, the quest for Palestinian civil society to grow in such a way as to isolate Palestinian ‘bitter-enders’ would be much easier if there were some move toward reconciliation, not just an agreement.
@lareineblanche:
You said that the Middle East is a rough neighborhood “mostly because of Israeli policy and intransigence, and the history and philosophy of zionism. “
@colin:
Your logic is faulty. A right-wing government is not likely to sign a peace agreement leading to a two-state solution, and it’s very unlikely, once an agreement is signed, that a government to the right of the current one could arise. For the agreement to have taken place, the government and polity will have moderated. I can’t ever see ethnic cleansing on that scale being supported by the Israeli public unless there is some spectacular string of attacks where tens of thousands of Israelis are killed and even then I’m not sure it would happen. It’s somewhat illogical to believe that Israel would sign on to a two-state agreement and then try to go backwards, particularly when the vast majority of the Israeli public wants to be free of the Palestinians and the problems of the West Bank.
I think the Israeli state’s monopoly on power is plenty strong enough. Don’t let the internal conflicts in Israel fool you. The Army will listen, and the dissenters are exceeding few even now.
@annie:
Oh, I definitely think Israel cares about international law on the battlefield and I think they go through great lengths to comply. The classic case is sending soldiers on the ground into Jenin. I just don’t think they care insofar as they perceive international law to ask them to disregard their right to self-defense.
The warning system was an attempt to reduce civilian casualties in urban areas, where much of the Gaza War was fought. I haven’t heard of anything like it.
“sure, but that still does not give israel the right to determine the parameters of allowable defense. you can argue all you want about what israel will do or how much they are concerned etc etc but don’t confuse it with rights.”
Well, we have a conflict of laws of sorts. Usually, the nation on the ground is in the best position to determine the parameters of an allowable defense.
I think it highly unlikely that the world will “stop” Israel from protecting itself, and I think the Western world at least has sympathy for Israel’s predicament behind the scenes even if international politics prevents them from being vocal about it. I don’t think international law will change. I think if it continues to be created in a discriminatory way as it is now at the UNHCR, it will simply become devalued.
Well, a two-state solution would probably be either preceded by or followed by an agreement with Syria and normalization with the Arab states.
The Palestinians are a bigger potential threat simply because they are the border state and they are right next door. The only way the Jordanians and Egyptians could become a threat is if they get taken over by Islamic extremists. Always a possibility, but not that likely. But I believe that an agreement with the Palestinians and normalization with the Arabs go hand-in-hand. The Arabs have little stomach for fighting Israel anymore.
I’m not sure we are on the same page. I agree that “a right-wing government is not likely to sign a peace agreement leading to a two-state solution”, and I don’t think a left-wing one would either. The only facsimile of a 2ss solution I can envision at present would be a unilateral Israeli annexation of occupied portions of the West Bank, presumably after more colonies have been planted. I don’t think it will lead to an end of the necessity for occupation of un-annexed areas to ensure Israel’s security, and it couldn’t be classified as a 2ss anyway.
When I talk put my two cents in about problems with a 2ss, I am pretty much going through the motions as if it were a real possibility. I do not think it is.
I hope you are right about the internal conflicts. I am not much worried about the present stability of the state with respect to control over its nuclear weapons, but for the future. Current trends are not encouraging.
“If you were Israel, would you allow a militarized state that hates your guts to be created on your border, particularly after the weapons you gave them during Oslo were turned against your own soldiers?”
Israel hates the Palestinians guts, so are you suggesting also be demilitarized?
“What would the Palestinians have to gain from having weapons?”
Somethign to keep them busy while Israel is dropping white phosphorous and 500lb bombs on them perphaps?
“The Israelis will continue to have military superiority over them either way. They don’t face threats from Lebanon, Jordan, or Egypt. So I can’t see the point of a militarized Palestine. ”
So then what is your problem of Palestine having weapons?
“International law also says that suicide bombing is illegal. Do you think Hamas stopped blowing up Israeli civilians because of international law?”
No, they stopped in 2004 following a declaration by Hamas that suicide bombing was to end.
Suicide bombing is also a reponse to occupation.
“But it is up to Israel not to allow a situation where their own citizens are placed in harm’s way.”
Tell that to Israeli leades like Tzipi LIvni, who arguesd that a long ceasefire was not in Israel’s strategic interests.
Teh fact is that Israel has always presferred land over peace and seen vioence as a price tpo [ay for territorial expansion.
“And I’m sorry if Israel has a big military. It’s a rough neighborhood, and without it, there would be no Israel.”
Well, there woudl be no Israel to begin with had it not been created by the forceful removal of the population.
I doubt you are sorry about that.
“Zionists in 1948 thought that they were entitled to the entire Mandate, and failing that, at least everything West of the Jordan. They ended up with less than that. It’s called compromise based on reality. The Palestinians should try it. ”
Really? So the Palestinians can declare that they think they are entitled to all the land from Iraq to the sea and settlign for the land from Jordan to the sea is a reasonable comprimise is it?
You’re out of your ftriggin mind. The land in Palestine was already owned by the poplatino living there. It’s not a comporimise to dirve that population from their land when it doesn’t even beliong to you and then claim you are settling for less than you had hoped.
“Israel hates the Palestinians guts, so are you suggesting also be demilitarized?”
If you want to act like Israel is not the stronger party, go ahead. We deal with reality here, not utopias.
“Oh, I definitely think Israel cares about international law on the battlefield and I think they go through great lengths to comply.”
That is clearly false as demonstarted by the Goldstone report, and the conduct in the 2006 Lebanon war.
The right o self defnse ends once Israel operated outside it’s own borders. You cannot be claiming self defense when you are killing Palestinians in the occupied territories.
If Israel is teh sronger party, then what is your concern with a Palestinian state being militarized?
“No, they stopped in 2004 following a declaration by Hamas that suicide bombing was to end.”
There have been a few suicide bombings since 2004, so that is not true, and tell us about the declaration and ignore the IDF’s operations in the West Bank in 2002-03 and the targetted killings that drove Hamas underground is a little silly.
“Suicide bombing is also a reponse to occupation. ”
Yeah, we all know. Shooting yourself in the head is a response to a brain tumor, but it doesn’t mean that you go and do it or that it makes any sense.
“Tell that to Israeli leades like Tzipi LIvni, who arguesd that a long ceasefire was not in Israel’s strategic interests.”
Yes, because Hamas has tended to use ceasefires to rearm. Go figure.
“Well, there would be no Israel to begin with had it not been created by the forceful removal of the population.”
So the UN had nothing to do with it?
“Really? So the Palestinians can declare that they think they are entitled to all the land from Iraq to the sea and settlign for the land from Jordan to the sea is a reasonable comprimise is it?”
The point is that Zionists compromised significantly to get a state and showed the world they were serious by essentially creating a functional state in waiting.
“You’re out of your ftriggin mind. The land in Palestine was already owned by the poplatino living there. It’s not a comporimise to dirve that population from their land when it doesn’t even beliong to you and then claim you are settling for less than you had hoped. ”
Um, no. It was largely owned by the Ottomans. The people who are out of their friggin minds are the ones who believe that Israel will commit national suicide to satisfy your definition of peace.
Hello again!
“@lareineblanche:
You said that the Middle East is a rough neighborhood “mostly because of Israeli policy and intransigence, and the history and philosophy of zionism. “ “
Yes, I was particularly speaking of the relations Israel has with its neighbors. This is very clear, and really not debatable from the historical record.
In a larger sense, the ME is a conflict area because of how the British carved it up after WW2, and the interests in the energy resources shown by the colonial powers, and keeping “communist” USSR at bay, AND Israel’s aggressive expansionist policies (I’m sure there are other reasons that aren’t relevant to this discussion).
“Yes, I was particularly speaking of the relations Israel has with its neighbors. This is very clear, and really not debatable from the historical record.”
Yes and no. Israel did not threaten Egypt in 1948. It didn’t threaten Syria or Lebanon either. These states were categorically opposed to an organized Jewish presence. Again, it is like the KKK saying that there are too many Blacks in the neighborhood.
“There have been a few suicide bombings since 2004, so that is not true”
False. None conducted by Hamas.
“Shooting yourself in the head is a response to a brain tumor, but it doesn’t mean that you go and do it or that it makes any sense. ”
Nor does grabbing land and then claiing you ahave a right odefnd yourself when the other side fights back.
“Yes, because Hamas has tended to use ceasefires to rearm. Go figure. ”
With WWII era weapons? So what? Why are Israel such pussies? They already have the 4th most poweful military in the world.
“So the UN had nothing to do with it? ”
You Zionists need to make up your mind whether the UN is credible onr not. One mionute you are citing them to legitimize your postion, then next, you dismiss them as non credible.
“The point is that Zionists compromised significantly to get a state and showed the world they were serious by essentially creating a functional state in waiting.”
Sorry, but that is absurd. The Zionists were given what they weer given. There was no legal basis wo what they were entitled, unles you thing the Old Testament is a land deed.
“Um, no. It was largely owned by the Ottomans. The people who are out of their friggin minds are the ones who believe that Israel will commit national suicide to satisfy your definition of peace. ”
False. It was owned by palestinian land owners. Palestinian Jews only owned 7% of the land and the Arabs 50%.
Your concept fo commiting suicide is like a car thief claiming that his lifestyle is being compromised by returning the cars he stole to the owners. The 1967 borders are regcognnized. All Israle has to do is return to those and it will still have it’s ethnocentric state.
“These states were categorically opposed to an organized Jewish presence. ”
False. They were categorically opposed to the Zionist state driving peopel off their land.
LeaNder,
You periodically speak to me and others civilly.
Please don’t imagine and/or lie about my views. Shingo and friends are enough.
Hiphmi, I think many of the defendants at Nuremberg, especially Goering, would agree with you regarding international law. Do you advocate we throw out all those international organizations, and dump the UN to boot? Because they are just talking points, and little more?
“I think the Western world at least has sympathy for Israel’s predicament behind the scenes even if international politics prevents them from being vocal about it.”
I think you are referring to government officials when you say “the Western world has sympathy behind the scenes”. I think that’s true, but in a slightly different sense. Western governments all have a vested interest in not seeing high-ranking Israeli officials tried for war crimes, because of the precedent it would set. War crimes trials are for low-ranking scapegoats and deposed dictators who aren’t our allies. Obama isn’t allowing war crimes investigations into Bush Administration officials because (despite all the campaign rhetoric), there is a bipartisan behind the scenes consensus that by definition, American officials cannot be guilty of war crimes. At worst they may make policy mistakes.
Not that I necessarily favor war crimes trials if that would stand in the way of a peaceful solution, though if Palestinians are to be imprisoned for planning terrorist attacks, then in fairness so should Israeli officials. But it’s not likely to be allowed to happen.
A truth and reconciliation commission about the crimes committed by all sides might be the way to go. Though I think it’s clear that you would simply deny any findings that made you uncomfortable.
“Israel did not threaten Egypt in 1948. It didn’t threaten Syria or Lebanon either.”
Israel occupied 13 Lebanese villages in 1948. The Lebanese didn’t even cross into Palestine. And it’s well known that the Labour Zionists considered the Litani the northern border of Israel.
hophni – driving hundreds of thousands of refugees across their borders was certainly a threat to the neighbors of the Zionist protostate. It was a profoundly destabilizing event.
This, in fact, was the primary motive for these states to deploy military force – so they could send the refugees back where they came from.
“False. None conducted by Hamas.”
First of all, you didn’t say Hamas. Second of all, who cares whether Hamas claims responsibility?
“With WWII era weapons? So what? Why are Israel such pussies? They already have the 4th most poweful military in the world. ”
Uh-huh. Unfortunately, no military thinks that way. A weapon is a weapon. Just because you have a Tomahawk missile does not mean I can’t come and shoot you with a pistol.
“You Zionists need to make up your mind whether the UN is credible onr not. One mionute you are citing them to legitimize your postion, then next, you dismiss them as non credible.”
In 1948, the UN was a lot more credible than it is today. Credibility can change over time.
“Sorry, but that is absurd. The Zionists were given what they weer given. There was no legal basis wo what they were entitled, unles you thing the Old Testament is a land deed.”
So then you don’t believe in international law. You’re like most people. You believe in international law insofar as it supports what you believe and disregard it when convenient. .
“False. It was owned by palestinian land owners. Palestinian Jews only owned 7% of the land and the Arabs 50%.”
Which 50% was that?
“Your concept fo commiting suicide is like a car thief claiming that his lifestyle is being compromised by returning the cars he stole to the owners. The 1967 borders are regcognnized. All Israle has to do is return to those and it will still have it’s ethnocentric state. ”
Easy-peezy-japaneezy. I suspect it’s a little more complicated than you say.
Do you think just because you say false you are right? The Arabs repeatedly stated that what they were opposed to was a Jewish entity in the Middle East. You can believe the nonsense that this was about land. It was about Arab supremacy in the region.
I think President Obama would agree with me that international law as articulated by the UNHCR leaves something to be desired.
“The Arabs.” All of them, huh? Zionism isn’t racism, is it?
And President Obama is dropping bombs by remote drone on Pakistani villages while turning the American military base in Afghanistan into an international gulag. Do you know whose articulation of international law I’m more inclined to take seriously?
Explain how its more complicated. I fail to see how the situation is complex.
Fatah is collaborating with Israel.
Syria is begging to sit down for peace talks.
Hamas (the most extreme of the mainstream Palestinian factions) is willing to accept any solution based on the 67 borders.
Hezbollah is willing to accept any solution the Palestinians agree to.
Meanwhile, Israel insists on maintaining a brutal military occupation over territory it stole through conquest, enforcing apartheid on all the people that don’t meet its ethnic criteria, subjecting 1.5 million people to a barbaric siege, imprisoning thousands of civilians (including women, children, and occasionally babies), and engaging in mass murder whenever it feels like it.
So tell me how is it complicated?
You can believe the nonsense that this was about land. It was about Arab supremacy in the region.
This conflict is about land.
Israel stole Palestine from the Palestinians.
The Palestinians want it back.
But being realistic, the Palestinians are willing to settle for 1/5 of their historic homeland (yes even Hamas).
Israel says no, stalls, delays, and does everything it can get away with to ensure that a viable Palestinian state on merely 1/5 of historic Palestine will never come to fruition by accelerating the colonization of the West Bank.
Nonetheless, you can stick to your racist narrative that its the “Arabs” that reject Israel merely for being Jewish. You can kid yourself into believing that fantasy.
Just remember that when you steal something from someone, they usually try to get it back. If the Israelis didn’t want to be in this situation they should have thought twice before they decided to create an ethnic supremacist state on a densely populated land.
“First of all, you didn’t say Hamas. Second of all, who cares whether Hamas claims responsibility?”
Because the Israeli government uses that charge to justify the butchering of Palestinians.
” Uh-huh. Unfortunately, no military thinks that way. A weapon is a weapon. Just because you have a Tomahawk missile does not mean I can’t come and shoot you with a pistol.”
Except that your pistol isn’t going to bother me when you live 10 miles away, and I have a 20 foot wall in the way.
” In 1948, the UN was a lot more credible than it is today. Credibility can change over time.”
No it’s simply that the Israel has no use for the US anymore, unless it’s to beat up it’s enemies (ie. Iran/Hebollah), in which case, the UN suddenly becomes very credible.
” So then you don’t believe in international law. You’re like most people. You believe in international law insofar as it supports what you believe and disregard it when convenient. ”
Nice straw man, except that unlie your good self, you won’t find examples of me rejecting international law.
“Which 50% was that?”
Read it yourself:
British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan
link to amazon.com
“Your concept fo commiting suicide is like a car thief claiming that his lifestyle is being compromised by returning the cars he stole to the owners. The 1967 borders are regcognnized. All Israle has to do is return to those and it will still have it’s ethnocentric state. ”
“Easy-peezy-japaneezy. I suspect it’s a little more complicated than you say.”
Actually it ins’t complicated, just very inconvenient for you Zionists.
“I think President Obama would agree with me that international law as articulated by the UNHCR leaves something to be desired.”
Seeing as Obama is only the president of the US and not the world, I think it doesn’t mean squat what Obama thinks.
“Do you think just because you say false you are right?”
No, I say false when I know you;re wrong.
For example, you said that “The Arabs repeatedly stated that what they were opposed to was a Jewish entity in the Middle East.”
When in fact, the Palestinians stated they were opposed to Zionist immigrants stealing their land to create a state.
“You can believe the nonsense that this was about land. It was about Arab supremacy in the region.”
Cool. I’ll try that trick by hacking into Warren Buffet’s bank account and stealing 7 million bucks from him and then I’ll argue in court that his complain is not about the money stole, but his personal animosity towards me and that he just resents my new fond wealth.
How do you think that’l go down?
His question was moot. There is no non-settlement, non-expansionist peaceful Israel.
[But being realistic, the Palestinians are willing to settle for 1/5 of their historic homeland (yes even Hamas). ]
Qualify the words (Palestinian) historic homeland…
[If Israel is the stronger party, then what is your concern with a Palestinian state being militarized? ]
Agreed. the sooner the better….
[The Arabs have little stomach for fighting Israel anymore. ]
This could be a sensible view;
a) The established Arab nations as for the moment have nothing to gain from it…
b) They have growing extremist militancy right inside their societies too; which requires more intensive and extensive attention;
c) Their socio-economic energies need to be focused on the internal development to respond effectively to the needs of a growing population, in a highly competitive global market and economy.
d) The global economic terrain is fast changing particularly with the advent of green energies and industries, missing this train, the more they become susceptible to internal socio-economic pressures.
Sadly however, the growth of Islamic militancy is relatively unstemmed; such that the fate of traditional Islamic monarchies remained vulnerable to fanatical religiously motivated unrests.
It’s like zamaaz is channeling the Zionist analog of Stormfront.
Can the UN too join the anti-Israel ‘progroms’ to heighten its credibility worldwide?
[No it’s simply that the Israel has no use for the US anymore, unless it’s to beat up it’s enemies (ie. Iran/Hebollah), in which case, the UN suddenly becomes very credible.]
How big did he expect the peaceful nuclear-armed state of israel to be? Where are the borders now?
“Dershowitz sounds reasonable here.”
Yes, that response from you Witty is predictable. You’re starring role on a Blumental video is long overdue.
I would welcome an opportunity.
Joseph Dana has my contact information. He can reach me through him.
You’re enough of a joke as it is, Witty. It’s not like you need screen time to make a fool of yourself.
“Don’t call them, they’ll call you.”
And this is why Israelis are reticent about negotiating – they do not believe the other side is sincere, as suggested by the years and years of incitement and suicide bombing that went on during Oslo and the incitement that continues to this day.
As far as Chomsky and Finkelstein go: Both have stated that they would be OK with a two-state solution. That is very different from “being for” a two-state solution. But Chomsky and Finkelstein supporters, many if not most of whom are on the radical left, don’t agree with them, and most probably have no idea that they think that way. Chomsky and Finkelstein do nothing to disabuse them of the belief that a one-state solution is possible or desirable, by say, stating their views in fora that include people who oppose the two-state solution completely.
The lesson is instructive, however, for people who are pro-Israel and who believe that negotiations will not help them in the court of public opinion. In fact, Chomsky and Finkelstein suggest that when the sides are talking, the boo-birds quiet down. And though Dershowitz effectively showed that pro-Palestinian supporters in the West tend to be of the irredentist school, I’m not sure the reaction would be the same if, rather than being pro-Palestinian students on an American college campus, these were actual Palestinians living in the West Bank.
“And this is why Israelis are reticent about negotiating”
Bullshit hophmi. Israel is perfectly happy with the status quo, wouldn’t mind taking South Lebanon again, and positively overjoyed about all the lovely free water they’re illegally stealing from the West Bank aquifers.
Suicide bombing ended in 2008, but dramatically tapered 2-3 years before. The West Bank hasn’t been so quiet in years (except for the IDF non-violent protestors) and very few rockets have been fired from Gaza since the Massacre – of course 90+ Gaans have been killed in the same period but that’s another story. The hysteria over incitement is NOTHING compared to the daily violence of 43 years of military occupation.
It’s not reticence, it’s unwillingness.
“Bullshit hophmi. Israel is perfectly happy with the status quo, wouldn’t mind taking South Lebanon again, and positively overjoyed about all the lovely free water they’re illegally stealing from the West Bank aquifers.”
I do not know any Israelis or Zionists who are interested in retaking Southern Lebanon. Poll after poll shows most Israelis and most American Jews to be supporters of the two-state solution. Can you say the same for supporters of the Palestinian movement?
“Suicide bombing ended in 2008, but dramatically tapered 2-3 years before. The West Bank hasn’t been so quiet in years (except for the IDF non-violent protestors) and very few rockets have been fired from Gaza since the Massacre – of course 90+ Gaans have been killed in the same period but that’s another story. The hysteria over incitement is NOTHING compared to the daily violence of 43 years of military occupation.”
Yes, and now proximity talks are beginning, though it’s not clear that Salam Fayyad and Mahmoud Abbas have the constituency to deliver an agreement.
You say suicide bombing stopped. I agree. But it doesn’t erase the ten years that preceded it, and it didn’t stop because Hamas wanted it to stop. It stopped because the Israelis cracked down. Suicide bombing had one major accomplishment. It destroyed the Israeli peace movement.
Incitement may not be as bad as occupation, but the point is that it convinces Israelis that negotiations will be useless, and that any concession will lead to further violence. That is the lesson many Israelis have taken from Oslo, which resulted in suicide bombing, leaving Lebanon, which emboldened Hezbollah and led to the 2005 war, and leaving Gaza, which resulted in widespread weapons smuggling and rocket fire. Every time this happens, it becomes easier for the right to win elections arguing concessions are bad and harder for the center-left and the peace movement in Israel to argue that negotiations are the right way to go.
What you describe is not a two-state solution. It’s a one state and a bantustan.
Poll after poll has shown Palestinians want a real two-state solution – of two equal states
“That is the lesson many Israelis have taken from Oslo, which resulted in suicide bombing, leaving Lebanon, which emboldened Hezbollah and led to the 2005 war, and leaving Gaza, which resulted in widespread weapons smuggling and rocket fire. Every time this happens, it becomes easier for the right to win elections arguing concessions are bad and harder for the center-left and the peace movement in Israel to argue that negotiations are the right way to go.”
On that first sentence, are you telling us that this is how many Israelis perceive it or are you actually claiming it is the case? Because it is self-serving and narcissistic–not that there is anything surprising about that. When people are hit by suicide bombers they frequently aren’t open to hearing about the policies their own country pursued which contributed to that situation.
I’m looking at page 216 of Shlomo Ben Ami’s book “Scars of War, Wounds of Peace.” After mentioning that Israel continued to”annex” Palestinian land even after Oslo, he says “Israel’s annexationist policies further underminded Arafat’s legitimacy for making concessions and reinforced his instinct that he could not be seen as openly collaborating with the Israelis in fighting terrorism.”
And Shlomo Ben Ami is hardly someone you could accuse of being overly sympathetic to Arafat. (Actually, it’s hard to think of too many people who could be accused in that way–the blogger Asad AbuKhalil usually mentions Arafat with the phrase “who cannot be dead enough for me”.)
“On that first sentence, are you telling us that this is how many Israelis perceive it or are you actually claiming it is the case? Because it is self-serving and narcissistic–not that there is anything surprising about that. When people are hit by suicide bombers they frequently aren’t open to hearing about the policies their own country pursued which contributed to that situation.”
Both, and it is hardly as self-serving as claiming this or that policy led to the mass murder of civilians.
Ben-Ami is fairly sympathetic to Arafat from what I remember, but it’s beside the point, and when Arafat finally did crack down on Hamas in the late 1990s, a rightist Israeli Prime Minister with no history of compromise got dragged to the table by the Americans and signed the Wye Agreement.
“Both, and it is hardly as self-serving as claiming this or that policy led to the mass murder of civilians.”
Rubbish. You can’t steal land without violence. “This or that policy” refers to settlement growth–you trivialize an apartheid-like action by referring to it as “this or that policy”.
As for mass murder, there is no justification for it on either side, but one’s actions can certainly incite it. This, of course, applies to both sides. As for mass murder, the Israelis have killed more far more civilians than the Palestinians have.
Israelis have murdered 10 times as many Palestinian children and overall 5 times as many civilians.
@Cliff:
Israel has an army, so inevitably, more Palestinians are going to end up dying in armed conflict. You cannot draw everything from a numbers comparison, and much as it may sound to you like hasbara argument, I would argue that the aims of the two sides vis-a-vis civilian casualties are completely different.
@Donald:
The question of the settlements is not that simple, and regardless, the settlements existed for a long time before suicide bombing became the Palestinian approach. And they were not all violent or extreme, either. Given that the targetting of civilians predates settlements, I can’t buy the idea that the settlements caused the suicide bombing, particularly when most of it took place when negotiations started. Suicide bombing were primarily an attempt to derail negotiations, and I think people often forget that.
Hophmi, you asked about supporters of Palestinians interested in a 2-state solution: from Akiva Eldar, Haaretz 4 days ago:
…Public opinion surveys show consistent broad support for the two-state solution among the Palestinian public. A survey conducted last March among 1,153 respondents by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, headed by Dr. Nabil Kukali, found that 58 percent support peace talks with Israel. And when asked, “Do you support, or not, the reaching of a final settlement with the Israelis on the basis of the proposal of the former U.S. president, Bill Clinton, that suggests the transfer of almost all territories of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority and a land swap in certain areas?” – 53 percent of respondents said they were in favor of such a settlement.
link to haaretz.com
“I do not know any Israelis or Zionists who are interested in retaking Southern Lebanon.”
“Poll after poll shows most Israelis and most American Jews to be supporters of the two-state solution.”
Except that the minute a US president or foreing leader starts taking practical steps towards that end, Israelis firecely resist it.
After all, polls suggest that most Israelis are oposed to the settlements, but after Obama’s Cairo speech, he became hated throughout Israel.
“But it doesn’t erase the ten years that preceded it, and it didn’t stop because Hamas wanted it to stop. It stopped because the Israelis cracked down”
False. It stopped long before Isral cracked down.
“That is the lesson many Israelis have taken from Oslo, which resulted in suicide bombing, leaving Lebanon, which emboldened Hezbollah and led to the 2005 war, and leaving Gaza, which resulted in widespread weapons smuggling and rocket fire.”
Sorry but citing the ignorance of the Israeli pulbic is not an argument.
Israel violated Oslo and continued expasions of settlements and land grabs.
There was no war with Hebbollah in 2005.
“leaving Gaza, which resulted in widespread weapons smuggling and rocket fire.”
Except that you pruporsely ignore the 7,700 shells Isral fired into Gaza as it departed.
“After all, polls suggest that most Israelis are oposed to the settlements, but after Obama’s Cairo speech, he became hated throughout Israel.”
No, Obama didn’t become hated in Israel because of the Cairo speech. Israelis do not like to have solutions imposed on them from on high by people who do not have the good graces to visit. And I’m pro-Obama. But this is a personal issue. The Israelis loved Clinton, so it’s not all about the politics.
“False. It stopped long before Isral cracked down. ”
True. The crackdown and the wall had a great deal to do with it.
“Sorry but citing the ignorance of the Israeli pulbic is not an argument. ”
I’m not citing the ignorance of the Israeli public. That’s the way it is.
“Israel violated Oslo and continued expasions of settlements and land grabs.”
In 1995, when suicide bombing started, there was a Labor government, and no great expansion going on, nothing worse than before. Suicide bombing was about shutting down the peace process, nothing more.
“There was no war with Hebbollah in 2005.”
2006, sorry.
“Except that you pruporsely ignore the 7,700 shells Isral fired into Gaza as it departed. ”
As it departed? All Israel as it departed was leave an entire infrastructure for the Palestinians to take advantage of. They destroyed it.
“No, Obama didn’t become hated in Israel because of the Cairo speech. I”
Of course not. His populatiry hit single digits just by accident.
“Israelis do not like to have solutions imposed on them from on high by people who do not have the good graces to visit.”
Oh the ppor Israelis feelings were hurt becasue the big bad president didn;t pay them a visit to tell them how much he loves them. Yes, that’s a sound excuse to carry on breaking the law and acting irrationally.
Cry me a river.
” The Israelis loved Clinton, so it’s not all about the politics. ”
The Israelis have moved to the extreme right since clinton.
“True. The crackdown and the wall had a great deal to do with it. ”
3 thousand Palestinian managed to climb over and around the wall every day. I’m sure a suicide bomber would find a way if he so desired.
“I’m not citing the ignorance of the Israeli public. That’s the way it is. ”
No that is the perception the Israeli public has.
“In 1995, when suicide bombing started, there was a Labor government, and no great expansion going on, nothing worse than before.”
Yeah, so the Israelis were stealing land and ethnicially cleasing then as they are doing now.
“Suicide bombing was about shutting down the peace process, nothing more. ”
False. Suicide bobing is resitance to occupation and always has been.
Robert Pape conducted a study that showed 90-95% of all suiiocide bhombings in the last 2 decades was about territorial disputes and occupation.
“2006, sorry.”
That’s OK. Olmert admitted Israel started that war anyway.
“As it departed? All Israel as it departed was leave an entire infrastructure for the Palestinians to take advantage of. They destroyed it. ”
Wrong again.
From “Lords of the Land”, by Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar .
“After Israel withdrew it’s forces from Gaza, in August 2005, the ruined territory was not released for even a single day from Israel’s military grip, or from the price of the occupation that the inhabitants pay every day. Israel left behind scotched earth, devastated services, and people with nearly a present or a future. The Jewish settlements were destroyed in an ungenerous move by an unenlightened occupier, which in fact continues to control the territory and kill and harass it’s inhabitants, by means of it’s formidable military might.”
James Wolfensohn certainly doesn’t seem to think the collapse of the economy in Gaza was all the fault of the Palestinians. He has some blame for Hamas but the Gazan economy clearly collapsed largely because it is a giant prison.
link to haaretz.com
AbuKhalil despises Arafat for his corrupation, cronyism, torture and sabotaging the Palestinian fight against Israel. Basically all the things Rabin brought him to the West Bank for.
Considering merely the decades of ever-expanding settlements, should the Palestinians be reticent about negotiating? We won’t mention the Gaza baby turkey shoot.
Well, again, that all depends on whether they want a state or not. If not, they shouldn’t negotiate. So far, the path of violence and irrendentism has resulted in widespread unemployment, checkpoints, and military incursions resulting in a lot of dead people and injuries. Sorry to sound like the general in Battle of Algiers, but this is what it takes to hold on to the territories in the face of constant attacks, and this is what will continue to happen. The difference is that unlike Algeria, a real colonialist project which the French could abandon easily because it was not near France and had nothing to do with French security, the Israelis can’t leave a violence morass on their Western and Southern borders.
If, however, they do want a state, then they should negotiate, where they will find willing Israeli interlocutors.
“The difference is that unlike Algeria, a real colonialist project which the French could abandon easily because it was not near France and had nothing to do with French security, the Israelis can’t leave a violence morass on their Western and Southern borders.”
This is delusional. Suppose in some parallel universe Israel were in the WB solely for security reasons, to prevent terrorist attacks, etc…–then yeah, there would still be oppression of the Palestinians, but there wouldn’t be all those settlements. Settlements are land theft–they have nothing to do with security and in fact they make the security situation worse because of the hatred they breed and because Israel claims it needs to build separate roads for the settlers. I see Israel apologists doing this all the time, pretending that the occupation in all its present form must continue until there is a peace agreement–even if for the sake of argument one were willing to pretend that it is the Palestinians who initiate violence and Israelis only respond or try to suppress it, this completely ignores the settlement growth. There is no security justification for the settlements.
Hophmi,
Excellent posts. Thank you. Just what the doctor ordered for the Mondo dwellers: well reasoned, logical, and unemotional arguments.
They do have a certain logic to them. If you assume that Israelis have inherent rights and Palestinians only have the rights that Israel is comfortable granting, they make sense.
Hey Donald, as the only grown up around here who is usually willing to consider other points of view, you have to concede that
Hophmi is articulating very well the current Israeli position. This is how the secular majority thinks in Israel. He is not making excuses nor pushing any propaganda points. How can Phil & Co change hearts and minds if they don’t listen to the the other side and validate their concerns without weighing in with quotes, counter quotes, damning pictures, and Youtube videos?
I bet rachel is just yonira’s sockpuppet account (or maybe a relative?)
Both of them are morons, both of them don’t add anything to the debate, and both of them suck up to new ZioCultists to the blog who start off strong (since they don’t usually troll the blog, and thus have some stamina).
Here comes CLIT, agent provocateur par excellence.
Read my lips: FUCK YOU!
I can’t read your lips, they aren’t moving. Maybe you should detach them from Hophmi’s rear end, and produce an original idea of your own.
Or at the very least, douchebag, try to paraphrase some other ZioNutcase who ‘sounds’ smart to you (lol) and pass the commentary off as your own.
You’re boring.
“Suppose in some parallel universe Israel were in the WB solely for security reasons, to prevent terrorist attacks, etc…–then yeah, there would still be oppression of the Palestinians, but there wouldn’t be all those settlements.”
This is not quite correct: people would scream even louder “Stop the military occupation”, “Stop the oppression” if there wouldn’t be the settlements, and Israel would have no strength in terms of domestic policy to keep a military occupation solely for security reasons, even though the latter is the starting point of the current status quo.
Besides, you have to consider that the settler movement Gush Emunim received stronger support and political influence only after the Yom Kippur-war, when Israel was attacked and taken by surprise by the armies of Egypt and Syria. The various cyclical attacks and waves of Palestinian terror always gave new impetus to the movement and the growth of the settlements.
Nevertheless, the settlements are not the real hinder for a peace agreement since their final status would be decided through direct negotiations which are supposed to lead to a durable peace and to a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank. Actually, I believe that they are at the most a good alibi for the Palestinians to continue to block the peace process and to put the blame on Israel for its failure.
Nothing like saying to someone who lost their home to an American-born Israeli settler that they are merely engaging in a good alibi to block the peace process. Impeccable logic.
That as a low blow Cliff, Rachel is much more entertaining than myself
rachel comment “He is not making excuses nor pushing any propaganda points.” i want what you’re smoking! if you can’t see what hophmi is intentionally leaving out in an attempt to maintain a lopsided position, then their is no hope for you either…. if that is what your and hophmi’s position relies on, it is very tenuous at best and tedious for the rest of us to put up with either of you…
Hey James,
Go ahead and ignore Hophmi’s opinions. He is expressing the Israeli consensus. But you should not dismiss him if you have the Palestinians best interests.
It’s not about the people itself, but about the Palestinian political class and its power groups which make their strategic accounts at the expense of their people.
Donald, Israel was never comfortable with having the WB in the hands of the Palestinians because it claimed Tel Aviv’s airport could be easily hit from anywhere on the WB and that at its narrowest point, Israel was only 10 miles wide and the northern and southern sections could be easily cut from each other. This was the Israeli argument for many years and why it’s not interested in giving up full control of the WB today. That almost 45% of Israel’s domestic water is stolen from the WB is another important factor that is seldom discussed. Even the most ardent of anti-settlements Israelis change their tune at the prospect of having to live with half the water they are consuming today or of having their daily garbage that is dumped in open-air dumps would get diverted back to Israel proper. Same problem with the occupied Golan where Israel is getting about 25% of its water needs. Would Israel walk away from the almost 70% of the water it is now using that is coming from the WB, the Golan and Lebanon’s Chebaa Farms? Very improbable but all kinds of tricks are used by Israel to keep putting off serious discussions on ending the occupation. Syria has been practically begging for years to make peace with Israel but all it gets back out of Israel is the finger. This should tell you something.
people would scream even louder “Stop the military occupation”, “Stop the oppression”
Indeed they would. A military occupation directly negates sovereignty and imposes brutal living conditions on the population being suppressed. Not even Dershowitz defends the occupation or the settlements, and condemns them categorically, for the very same reasons. There is no moral or legal support for it besides the siege mentality of Israelis, that has drummed the notion of “Kill or be killed” into them, and with Iran as the new big bad wolf.
In any case, not to dismiss the Israeli consensus entirely, but the occupation could serve its stated purpose of security, or at least be justified to SOME extent, as the Israelis defend it, if the settlement enterprise did not exist. The settlements provide the Israelis with an ulterior motive of the occupation and the military presence, and Israel has made no effort to hide the fact that the IDF serves the purpose to those settlement ends. Now, for you to continually and utterly reject that the Palestinians would have any reasonable objections to a movement which deprives them of their sovereignty, land, resources and their homes even after having been ethnically cleansed, is nothing short of nonsense and hateful double-standards. In purely pragmatic terms, the presence of the Israeli military which facilitates and defends the encroaching settlers means that Israel is actively stealing Palestinian territory and resources and claiming it as its own. If that is not an act of war and aggression, then what is?
The final status negotiations you trumpet is typical nonsense in support of the settlements. Would Israel tolerate a military expansion into the state, and settlements built by any of its neighboring states into its territory, on the suggestion that their status is not “final” or assurances that their is presence not permanent? Would you then support Israeli objections, or would you condemn them as you do the Palestinians, for their resistance as being “real hindrance to peace” and as the Israelis making the issue “a good alibi” to “put the blame” on the expansionist state?
Again, you display the consistently flawed standards imposed on the Palestinians, but never on anyone else, and most certainly never on Israel, which has every right to “defend” itself against the slightest hostility displayed by the Palestinians, no matter that those actions may have been directly provoked by Israeli actions or policies. But the Palestinians are bad, and to be blamed, for not accepting the Israeli actions which ceaselessly steal their land and living space and deprive the Palestinians of any independence or autonomy.
The current settlements entreprise is the result of a historical evolution which you entirely fail to take into account, apart maybe from your implicit preconceived assumption that the Zionists wanted anyway to colonize the territories since the very beginning of their movement. Actually, if Israel would have this appetite for new land, why did she cede the aspired land to Jordan and why did it take so long to start a “war of conquest” (as you usually state) since she was so victorious in 1948?
As the Israeli settlements are the result of historical facts (wars and tetror waves) which were forced on Israel, so the same settlements can now be compared with a train that has already taken its dynamic and speed and can not be stopped so easily and quickly. Only the right “brakes” may stop it. These are called direct and open peace negotiations.
“…apart maybe from your implicit preconceived assumption that the Zionists wanted anyway to colonize the territories since the very beginning of their movement.”
Again, supported by documents, historical facts, and the declaration of the Zionist leaders, not controversial. Historically, the Zionists have pushed outside of the recognized borders, and used violence and expulsion to do it. You can’t deny this. One can always refuse to “recognize” the recommendations of the international community, but only if one can count on the unconditional support of a great power – like Britain or the US.
“As the Israeli settlements are the result of historical facts (wars and terror waves) which were forced on Israel, so the same settlements can now be compared with a train that has already taken its dynamic and speed and can not be stopped so easily and quickly.”
? How is the annexation of territory the result of conflict? A non-sequitor. If one is reasonable, the only thing which could contribute to peace is the restitution of the territory which was taken during the conflict. The only explanation for your view is that the territory was coveted in the first place, and the conflict is just an excuse.
And the only way to hold onto it is by overwhelming military force.
“The current settlements entreprise is the result of a historical evolution which you entirely fail to take into account, apart maybe from your implicit preconceived assumption that the Zionists wanted anyway to colonize the territories since the very beginning of their movement.”
We know that becasue this is what the Zionist founders were declaring from the turn of the century.
“Actually, if Israel would have this appetite for new land, why did she cede the aspired land to Jordan and why did it take so long to start a “war of conquest” (as you usually state) since she was so victorious in 1948?”
Israel did a deal with Jordan over Jerusalem.
“As the Israeli settlements are the result of historical facts (wars and tetror waves) which were forced on Israel, so the same settlements can now be compared with a train that has already taken its dynamic and speed and can not be stopped so easily and quickly.”
False. The settlements preceded the terror attacks by 3 decades. You cannot argue that the settlements are the result of historical facts when the settlements preceded those “facts”.
“Only the right “brakes” may stop it. These are called direct and open peace negotiations.”"
We’ve tried that and all they did was speed up the train. The only brakes are diplomatic and financial pressure on Israel
“It’s not about the people itself, but about the Palestinian political class and its power groups which make their strategic accounts at the expense of their people.”
The same could be said of the Israeli ruling class.
Tzipi Livni told the world that a “long ceasefire was not in Israel’s strategic interests”, meaning that the leadership is prepared to sacrifice Isreli lives for those strategic interests (ie. territory).
“if Israel would have this appetite for new land, why did she cede ”
Referring to a country as ‘she’ and not ‘it’ is called anthropomorphism. Attributing human characteristics to a non-human. Let me just remind you that there’s nothing human (neither human for that matter), about the the state of israel.
“neither human”
Should be: neither humane…
Ridiculous idolatry at best!
“As the Israeli settlements are the result of historical facts (wars and terror waves) which were forced on Israel, so the same settlements can now be compared with a train that has already taken its dynamic and speed and can not be stopped so easily and quickly.”
This is a really interesting comment to me.
It’s reminiscent of the “facts on the ground” phrase to describe Israeli policy on the settlements.
There is a related quote, which seems more profound than at first glance to me – from a high placed US govt. aide in an interview by Ron Suskind :
The idea that action is, in a way self-justifying… Think about that.
maybe from your implicit preconceived assumption that the Zionists wanted anyway to colonize the territories since the very beginning of their movement.
So, now the declared intent of the Zionists to settle in Greater Israel is an “implicit preconceived assumption”?
if Israel would have this appetite for new land, why did she cede the aspired land to Jordan and why did it take so long to start a “war of conquest” (as you usually state) since she was so victorious in 1948?
You are setting up strawman arguments. Israel’s plans of settling in Greater israel are not dependent on its cessation of land to Jordan, or the time it took to launch the wars where it further conquered more Palestinian territory, but an inbuilt notion of Zionism. In fact, the World Zionist Organization defines practical Zionism as the very act of Jewish settlement on the Palestinian territories of the West Bank (which it calls Judea and Samaria).
so the same settlements can now be compared with a train that has already taken its dynamic and speed and can not be stopped so easily and quickly.
Your analogy is not accurate. It was Israel which set up the rails (in an aggressive war in which it captured the OPT). It was Israel which set the train into motion, and its governments, whether liberal or right-wing, which have financially and diplomatically provided full support for the train, expansions of its routes and networks and provides cheap tickets to the trains to attract more passengers.
One thing I agree with you is that the train cannot be stopped so easily now. But, rest assured if it carries on with its current speed and dynamic, it’s destination will undoubtedly be a one state solution.
Easy Rachel; you’re a girl… (?)
Ooh, you sound just like the smoothest white man who ever offered the native Americans a treaty.
However, I’m laughing at the “willing Israeli interlocuters” bit. If Israel had allowed it, the Palestinians would have had a state 16 years ago. Instead, Israel doubled the number of settlers in the “West Bank.” The only so-called state Israel has ever offered was disconnected bantustans. Lets review some facts for the ignorant:
1) The first intifada was largely peaceful on the part of the Palestinians, however, Israel responded with brutality, beating people to break their bones, occasionally beating people to death. People were executed simply for showing Palestinian colors. Is that you mean by Israel being a willing interlocuter?
2) Arafat cracked down on Palestinian militants just as much as Abbas/Fayyad. There were no terror attacks by Palestinians in Israel for approximately 2 years before the 2nd intifada, and all Israel gave him was more settlements, more checkpoints, more closures. More settlements and continued Israeli killing of innocent Palestinians, as negotiations are going on, is that what you mean by Israel being a willing interlocuter?
3. Even the 2nd intifada started relatively peacefully on the side of the Palestinians, only after a dozen or so Palestinians were murdered by the Israeli armed forces in the first couple of days and a couple hundred were murdered in the first couple months did Palestinian violence gain any momentum.
Hophme you speak with forked tongue.
Oh, yeah, Israel is a real colonialist project just like Algeria. They could go back to Europe where they came from. Instead of mass murdering, raping, looting, beating people, and then whining because they don’t have “security” from the rightful owners of the land and property they stole or from the relatives of the many people they’ve murdered.
hi hophmi,
you say “And this is why Israelis are reticent about negotiating – they do not believe the other side is sincere”, do you not see a pattern with the other historical examples of ethnocentric nationalisms ( e.g. try talking sense to Milosovic’s Serbia ). I see a streak of quasi-religious denialism in the Isaeli psyche that can only be convinced of ‘sincerity’ by some unanimous validation of their utopian mythology. It’s like trying to convince a Scientologist of some Science.
One other oft ignored factor IMHO , is the reality of how much of all this talk and politics and more talk is really just a heap of post-rationalisation, the behaviours and ‘choices’ being those of the more base drivers of our individual souls, Israelis are doing quite well out of it so far and see no benefit in trusting any sincerity.
“do you not see a pattern with the other historical examples of ethnocentric nationalisms ”
Milosevic’s Serbia is one major reason I think binationalism or anything resembling it is a bad idea. But it’s not a fair comparison. Milosevic took people living in peace with turned them against one another. Israelis and Palestinians do not have a record of living in peace since 1967.
That’s not necessarily to say they can’t live in peace. Since 1967, one has been occupying another – it’s a slightly different dynamic to one where both a citizens of the same state. There are some successful multi-national states, albeit mostly in the developed world. Can it happen in Israel / Palestine? Maybe.
What makes you think that one Palestine becomes a state, both countries aren’t going to constantly be at war – India/Pakistan style?
surely if ethno-centric nationalism broke the peace that the balkans had , how is that different from the peace broken by Zionism in 1917? up to that point there was no war between Jews and non-Jewish Palestinians or Jews and the wider arab world, there hadn’t been for a few thousand years anyway.
“And this is why Israelis are reticent about negotiating – they do not believe the other side is sincere”
could it be that palestinians and increasingly the rest of the world don’t believe that israel is sincere hophmi? israels actions display a lack of sincerity and have for a very long time… i think you are very out of touch, but i doubt you will honestly ask the question i put to you as you are too busy making all the right talking points, convincing yourself in your moral superiority… too many of your comments can be directly challenged for what they don’t say, more then what they do say… this one i point to is just one of many examples from reading your comments here this morning..
I don’t think I’m out of touch. I recognize that most of the world doesn’t like Israel. I just think they’re wrong, and that they are usually hypocritical in their criticism.
Yeah the word you were looking for is “hypercritical.” I would actually be agreeing with you if you really meant hypocritical.
As Zionism intensifies, it enforces an ever shrinking definition of what is acceptable thinking. Lawyer Dershowitz defends the shrinking of democracy within Israel as if it were a democratic process.
Dershowitz continues to call Goldstone a traitor, in an interview printed a few days ago in the Jerusalem Post: ‘We are not done with Goldstone’:
His statements are too much even for the J-Post, to judge by its subheadline: “Alan Dershowitz, arguably Israel’s staunchest defender abroad, loses his customary cool.”
This is indeed an entry on the mammoth multi-volume treatise of Dershowitz lies, but it is pretty far down on the list. Chomsky and Finkelstein surely are adversaries of Dershowitz on the I/P conflict, mostly on whether Israel should be held accountable for its behavior. Even on the question of two states, Chom/Fink and Dersh probably have very different visions of what the states should look like. Dershowitz was making the point that he does not try to reach the NC’s and NF’s of this world. His fib about Noam/Norman’s rejection of the existence of Israel is a demonstrable falsehood, but actually less devious and deceptive than some “true” things that Dersh might say which are deliberately very misleading.
Isn’t it funny that Dershowitz attacks Goldstone by the subject of beeing a supporter of torture? Did anybody read what Dershowitz tells about torture (in Israel)? God, what a good joke…
Who cares about Jerkowitz?. We all know he has influence amongst a claque in New York and Washington, but outside that little (but very influential) area he has nothing going for him.
So why waste time attacking him?
Dershowitz is an enabler and avid supporter of Israel’s self-righteous deviations from international moral and ethical norms clearly established as applicable to all states in the wake of
the Nuremberg trials.
If he thinks Noam & Norman are intensely objectionable, imagine how Dershie would go nutz over this:
“…. But whether the emergence of liberal Zionist criticism of Israel and the Israel lobby is an intentional strategy orchestrated by the leaders of Zionism in the US and Israel to better advance the interests of the Jewish state, or whether it represents the spontaneous movement of liberal Jews still ultimately loyal to a Jewish state, is of no major importance in terms of bringing about a peace solution that is fair and acceptable to the Palestinians. The objective fact is that the liberal Zionists will not help to bring about a fair solution to the Palestinian issue and that it will actually impede any real efforts to make US Middle East policy less pro-Israel.
It would seem to be an unstated assumption that the solution of the Israel/Palestine issue must revolve around the opinion of American Jews. But why must this be the case? This issue is not one that only involves Jews—such as a question pertaining to the Jewish religion—but rather an issue that has a major impact on all Americans, as well as other peoples of the world. Gentiles who make up the overwhelming majority of the American population should not be too fearful to speak frankly on the subject. Are pro-Zionist Jews really so powerful that they can destroy the careers of all gentiles who dare to differ with them on this subject? Undoubtedly, they can destroy the careers of some, but there are many gentiles participating in the blackout of truth regarding Israel and the Israel lobby who would not suffer serious hardship. And, of course, if large numbers of gentiles dared to speak out they could not all be harmed. Moreover, if the Israel lobby’s power became publicly discussed, it would by that very fact be weakened. Obviously, the power of the Israel lobby—which extends far beyond a political lobby—cannot be limited if it cannot be discussed truthfully.
Undoubtedly, it would be beneficial if more American Jews made telling criticisms of the policies of Israel and its lobby, but American gentiles cannot afford to simply wait for Jewish individuals to come forth to rectify America’s one-sided policy in the Middle East. Matters in that region are so serious and so fraught with incalculable peril for the United States and for the world as to make this passivity unconscionable.
Rather, American gentiles themselves must dare to step forward and speak out. The purpose is not to condemn Israel or its American supporters, but simply to tell the truth. The peace and security of the United States and the world depend on it.
–Stephen Sniegoski (Author, The Transparent Cabal), yesterday.
link to home.comcast.net
“There is prejudice against people who Jews believe are Polish” from one of Phil’s old posts on this “Cabal” book.
Bla, bla, bla.
Phil is more of a whackjob than I thought.
I take it Phil meant some Jews are prejudiced against anyone they think is Polish? If not, what are you driving at, hophmi? Did you read The Transparent Cabal? If so, what did you think about it’s contents? Why is Phil in your mind now more of a whackjob than you thought? Please explain. Thanks.
Zionism doesn’t merely just equate to racism, it apparently equates to ad hominem as well.
I’ve yet to see one of you guys not act like a schoolyard bully, especially toward other Jews.
Define and qualify American gentiles; Christians, agnostics/seculars, atheists, satanists or what?
Anyone in the mood for some EPIC Israel felching from a would be US Senator, Ron Paul’s son of all people?
link to spectator.org
TLDR Version: Holy Hasbara!
Holy feedback batman, sounds like Mondoweiss.
Yup, reads like your buddy Julian’s post.
Can you actually taste the idiocy when you speak out loud? I’m just curious.
Compare his position paper yesterday, with his stance a month ago when Rand Paul was clear in conclusion that although Israel was our ally, and often our interests were the same, he would always do what was in America’s interest above any other consideration:
link to dailypaul.com
Somebody got to him in the last month since Rand’s new position paper leaves out his earlier verbally announced conclusion regarding where his ultimate loyalty lies.
Chomsky has been infuriating Dershowitz since the early 70s, at least, when Chomsky proved (in the pages of the Boston Globe) that Dershowitz had lied about a court case in Israel involving the late Israeli peace activist Israel Shahak. Since then, Dershowitz has been monomaniacally pursuing Chomsky as if he were the White Whale, using every cheap lawyer’s trick in the book to try and discredit him (i.e., distorting the truth when he wasn’t outright lying).
To read Chomsky’s comments on all of this, you can go here: www.chomsky.info/letters/20060817.htm
Look at the guy (Dersh). He eats shit, and tells people he just had a wonderful piece of poundcake. “Non-Kantian” – that’s rich. He doesn’t know Kant from cunt.
You’re right, Debonnaire. “So act as if your maxims should serve at the same time as the universal law (of all rational beings)”, meaning that we should so act that we may think of ourselves as “a member in the universal realm of ends.”
Imagine if everyone acted as Derhsie does.
Very off-topic, but my printed London Times is physically very on and above this topic: the new London Secr of Def Liam Fox says: Iran is more dangerous than Saddam’s Iraq. Domino theory believer: Iran, … Saudi [Arabia], Egypt will follow. And Israel may do whatever it likes: Israel may decide to take matters in its own hands. This from England. Fox could have said “Stop it” to Israel. But no. Mr. Obama: you’re on your own in preventing WWIII. Link: The Times Sat 22 May 2010
Israel has reviewed its Samson option regularly. If mullah-driven Iran got the bomb, it would have its own Samson Option, yes? Israel would be done for as a really viable state if one bomb fell on Tel Aviv. The Zionist drums are beating loud and clear for a preemtive strike on Iran but the US masses don’t yet hear–the only question seems to be, when will Israel determine Iran is too close to having an operable bomb. The Palestinian issue almost seems beside this point except that if justice for the Palestinians stays out of reach, Iran will have many on its side in the Middle East. This does not seem to register with the current Israeli government.
“Israel would be done for as a really viable state if one bomb fell on Tel Aviv. ”
So would Palestine. Iran is not all about Israel. There’s a reason the Europeans care as much about the issue as the US does.
Palestine (or rather the 22% left of it) has never been a viable state to date; Israel has made sure of that. What in your opinion is the reason that Europeas care about Iran–you say as much as the US does, which I doubt, and about the Palestinians–obviously the Europeans care more about them than the Americans. And why is that?
Nice try hophmi, too bad the free ride in argument is now officially fallacious arguments is now over. How? Well, Israel accepted and leans upon the acceptance and recognition of Israel by the UN as their charter of statehood. But whereas it accepts as ironclad the statehood, it will not accept the responsibilities.
So the statehood declared by the body you despise (the UN) is sacrosanct, but its parameters of what acting responsibly looks like, are totally unacceptable. I mean where do you asses come up with such stupid arguments? Perhaps the UN was wrong to give Israel the recognition of statehood, just like it is “wrong” for it to say Israel must act responsibly. So why don’t we just dissolve the whole thing, and revoke Israel’s charter of statehood? After all, with such a “prejudiced” body it might have been wrong doing what it did to give Israel legitimacy – right after it acted as it did to take what did not belong to it.
Superbly put VR.
As we see all the time with Witty, these Zionists base their entire positions on their motorized goal posts, so they can cherry pick laws and morality if and when convenient.
The fact is that Israel is the only State admitted to UN membership on condition that it would be obedient to the world body and be bound, more specifically, by two General Assembly resolutions – of November 1947 for partition of Palestine and of December 1948 enshrining the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or be satisfied with compensation.
A document on UN record, dated 29 November 1948, reads: “On behalf of the State of Israel, I, Moshe Shertok, Minister for Foreign Affairs, being duly authorised by the State Council of Israel, declare that the State of Israel hereby unreservedly accepts the obligation of the UN Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations.” Four days after Israel had been accepted by UN as one of its members, David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, declared in the Knesset that UN’s Palestine partition resolution no longer held any moral force because the Arabs had violated it and for Israel the resolution was “null and void” as far as Jerusalem was concerned. The Zionists needed a UN resolution as a birth certificate for their State and a second one to attain UN membership or the mark of the minimum in international respectability. Once they thought they had overcome all doubts about the legitimacy or viability of their State, they no longer needed the United Nations, currently the main source of international law. Israel has been condemned or censured by UN many hundreds of times for its lawlessness and for going back on its words but no leader in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem has ever betrayed any concern. Some Israelis have even taken to calling its legal creator its enemy.
The UN cannot fully be considered yet ‘the main source of international law’ because its judgments are also grounded on, in consideration of, and applying international convention, customs, and the general principles recognized by civilized nations thus derived from laws and jurisprudence among nations;
“…its decisions the Court shall apply international conventions, international custom, and the “general principles of law recognized by civilized nations” (Article 38 of the ICJ Statute)”
And besides its resolutions are not outright binding, mandatory, remained subject to legal arguments, and not executory in relation to the Security Council:
a) The UN cannot govern as a governing body among nations; in as much as the UN warranties the sovereignty of every member nations:
“The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” (Article 2. 7.)
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” (Article 2, 4. )
“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.” (Only the Security Council can institute Chapter VII enforcement measures.) (Article 2. 7. )
b) Their resolutions are not outright executory as these are also subject to veto of permanent member countries;
“If the judgment is against one of the permanent five members of the Security Council or its allies, any resolution on enforcement would then be vetoed.”
“Furthermore, if the Security Council refuses to enforce a judgment against any other state, there is no method of forcing the state to comply.”
Citizen, Iran has been buying insurance policies in Lebanon. This will keep Israel putting off what it had perceived as an easy bomb run into Iran. Iran is not Iraq and Hizbullah is not Hamas. The Samson Option spooked the Americans in 73 more than the Arabs and any new threat to use it will again be ironically aimed at its American benefactor.
As a way to say, you better go along with us or we will pull down the temple over everyone.
Nah, it is not about Israel behaviour. It is about the UK Min of Defense Liam Fox. He talks and thinks like this. Forget Israel: it’s London calling.
Dershowitz and Yahoo are irrelevant. They can scream and shout all day long, what they can’t change is reality.
Of course, Zionists do not want a viable Palestinian state as Israel’s neighbor, ever. The entire Zionist enterprise was based on the expulsion and dispossession of the native Palestinian population.
What I’m getting at is this, absent a large scale genocide or forced removal of all Palestinians from historical Palestine, the bi-national state model is inevitable. It’s not a matter of IF, but simply a matter of WHEN
the dominant political parties of Israel have become infected with the same attitudes as the one-time dominant political party of South Africa, that one group [call it a "chosen" group] is factually superior to all others and that this group [defined by birth or ethnicity or perhaps religious belief] is, by some series of arguments, entitled to a legal order making itself unequally superior to all non-members. It is an old and discredited, morally bankrupt position that can end rather well [in the U.S. Jim Crow has/is ended/ending; in South Africa apartheid death struggles were far less devastating than many would have predicted] or not so well. Regardless, the American taxpayer shouldn’t be subsidizing it. We have enough problems at home that need our money. If the money flow were to end, the behaviour it subsidizes would have to end.
They (Dersh and Yahoo) cannot change reality.” Well. whether it’s the Samson threat (what, to nuke NYC if USA fails to support Israel?) or merely AIPAC, the “reality” is that the Israelis are LIVING what the Kaiser (WWI) and Hitler (WWII) believed to be reality, namely, that POWER allows (and perhaps requires) ALL, and the flimsy democracy (USA) does NOT stand in its way. That is the REALITY, We cannot change it. That is Israel’s leadership’s (perceived) reality, and what is reality, ever, but a perception?
However, we can hope that events somehow change the USA’s mind (or EU’s) and allow enough force (just enough mind you) that Israel’s crazies (never forget “the boss has gone crazy” in Gaza 2008-2009!) can be forced to accept something which, to them–to them remember–will seem something short of the destruction of Israel and, thus, not constitute the trigger for their bombs.
The danger, of course, as the Israeli right-wing have seen (and the reason that the Kfir Brigade cannot control either its own soldiers or the settler crazies) is that the Israeli right-wing crazies have moved the bar so far as to make the removal of even the remote settlements SEEM like the destruction of their dream, that is, SEEM like the destruction of Israel. The trigger finger tightens on the Samson trigger.
God exists. As I recall, about twenty years ago Dershowitz opened a kosher restaurant in Harvard Square that went broke after a few months.
I read the posts from israel’s apologist, but did not read one valid argument for the settlement enterprise (other than the lame and tired one of “it is complicated” ). Settlements are illegal for sure, immoral for sure, but most importantly demonstrate israel’s true intentions. They certainly are no help to the security of Israel proper. What do you think hophmi? Maybe you agree with Dershowitz and think that Israel is 80% right.
Israel is a rogue state that has occupied and violated the Palestinians for decades, all with the full support of the US government. That is all changing not because of Obama, but because public opinion is changing as people see more and more what Israel has done and how it stops at nothing to lie and deceive.
In just one week a settler thug shot and killed a Palestinian boy, professor Chomsky was denied entry into the ME’s “only democracy”, an Israeli diplomat was expelled from Australia due to the Dubai debacle, and newly revealed documents strongly suggest Israel’s nobel laureate Peres was willing to sell nukes to apartheid south Africa. One embarrassment after another for Israel, and things aren’t looking good moving forward thanks to the power of the Internet and the instant flow of news/images/video.