Haaretz says (what Ben White reported on this site yesterday), that the Israeli colonization of the West Bank is irreversible, that Netanyahu won't accept the Quartet's insistence on the '67 borders as the basis for negotiation of the future Palestinian state:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday rejected a Palestinian demand that direct negotiations be based on a statement by the Quartet confirming its position that the future Palestinian state will be based on the 1967 borders.
And so is made public the fiction that the Obama administration has been in on for the last year, that somehow a two-state-solution can be cobbled within the settlement blocs. It is a fiction because (as the Quartet and the Arab league have stated) these fluid borders create Palestinian enclaves and destroy the idea of a viable state with a real capital. This reality that Haaretz acknowledges is the reason that many people on this site say that the two-state solution is dead.
But in Washington, to be taken seriously, you must say you are sworn to two states. Even as Washington refused to take Netanyahu on, even as Palestinians live in Jim Crow conditions. And let us be clear, these borders that deny political self-determination to the Palestinians are the outcome of the ongoing policy of Likudnik Zionists for 40 years now to colonize the biblical West Bank, and the U.S. has never done anything really to counter that policy, because of special-interest pressure, which is why I say that Palestinian statelessness is the achievement of American Jews.
I’m not sure if the conclusion based on the 67 boundaries is final, or just the Netanyahu administration position.
It is still a question whether Palestine desires a less than satisfying state (hopefully a viable one) or no state.
>> It is still a question whether Palestine desires a less than satisfying state (hopefully a viable one) or no state.
It is only that question because Israel is not held to the same standard of having to make a “better wheel” and of accepting proposals that are “not perfect”. If/when you finally overcome your blinding hypocrisy, you just might be able to see that.
So you demand that the state of Palestine either settle for table scraps, or else they get to be put down? Can someone explain to me how Witty’s statement does not constitute racism?
Zionist Jews get to pick their borders with impunity, but brown Arabs have to accommodate dilettante Western colonialists?
Seriously, this is blatant bigotry. This is like asking “It is still a question whether homosexuals desire a less than satisfying substitute for marriage, or no legal accommodation at all.” Or like saying, “African Americans need to ask themselves whether they should settle for second-class citizenship, or else return to slavery.”
Is he even still on moderation? Or are you guys seriously letting him post this? And you claim you’re concerned about the quality of the discussion on your blog?
Richard, you are number one.
“..or just the Netanyahu administration position”
The Likud Party Position, you mean:
“”The ‘Peace & Security’ chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform “flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.” The chapter continued: “The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.””
link to en.wikipedia.org
How many Palestinians get to “run their lives freely” Richard?
If Palestinians have demonstrated one thing, it’s patience – a refusal to accept some state which is not a state, but a bantustan (AKA state-minus).
I wonder how American Jews classify.
1. How many are unaware (perhaps naively) of Israel’s true record on human rights and abuses?
2. How many don’t care for a “Jewish state” and see themselves and their identity strictly in American terms?
3. How many turn a blind eye, or prefer NOT to know, for fear of shattering the illusion of the shining city on a hill?
4. How many know exactly what goes on, but pretend as though everything is fine, spinning, slicing and dicing the truth to make it hasbara-kosher?
5. How many know exactly what goes on and make no apologies for Israel’s policies or their own hypocrisy?
“Of course I oppose the settlements, but . . . ” is the line we always hear. “I oppose the settlements but I won’t do anything to actually oppose the settlements.” Or the wars, or the ethnic cleansing, or the house demolitions.
Yes, good & concise summation, Phil. Palestinian statelessness is very much the achievement of American Jews–and Americans generally, especially inclusive nearly all American Gentiles in the MSM and Congress for many decades now–for they are responsible for the amazing ignorance of the
national audience–and informed citizenary is crucial in a democracy worthy of the name. Lincoln curb free speech during the Civil War and we have been on shaky ground ever since; it appears the MSM grandly converted to a propaganda tool for the PTB in 1916, to get us into a war with the “baby-eating Huns” who were too much industrial competition for England and France, which was the real reason for August 1914. The Germans were ahead of the game compared to those they fought until the doughboys entered the picture. This lead to the disasterous Versailles Treaty, which directly lead to the rise of Hitler.
Hitler led to the Shoah, the Shoah fixed the moral mindset for the recognition of the state of Israel and US support of Israeli conduct since then, conduct that ironically poisons the moral validity of the Nuremberg Trials and posits Goering as the ethical mentor to Israel and to the USA.
Important and nuanced column about how the late Tony Judt’s views on Israel were too simplified and misunderstood, by a skilled reporter in The Forward, JJ Goldberg.
Remembering Tony Judt, Heartsick Lover of Zion – The Jewish Daily Forward
http://www.forward.com
If you’ve been following the news lately, you’re probably aware of the death August 6 of Tony Judt, the British-born historian of modern Europe. You’ll surely have noticed the cascades of tribute to “one of the world’s most prominent public intellectuals” (Toronto Globe and Mail), “a historian of th…
Blatant propaganda. No seriously. You’re denigrating Tony Judt and lionizing JJ Goldberg.
Isn’t one of argumnets to demonize ( and make attacks morally accecptable ) Iran is that it doesn’t support Oslo Accord?
As long as Netanyahu remains prime minister, the two-state solution is not only dead, but the body is fast decomposing. Eventhough this is “the Holy Land” and miracles have been known to take place there, there is no chance for resurrection of the two state idea …. unless:
Obama publicly accepts Netanyahu’s position and declares the only alternative now is a one-state solution. One vote for every person from from the Med Sea to the Jordan River. That’s how democracies usually decide on their political leadership.
If the phrase “one-state” came out of Obama’s mouth in the context of Israel’s future , that, more than anything else would spark the Israeli public to accept the demographic reality in which they live and take the necessary political action to protect their future as a Jewish state rather than become a minority population.
John Mearsheimer very neatly layed out the various scenarios facing Israel in a speech a number of months ago. The usual suspects criticized Mearsheimer personally, as expected, but I couldn’t find anyone who was able to refute the reality of what he said.
If Israelis won’t make the right and realistic choice regarding two future states, then the choice must be made for them.
>these borders that deny political self-determination to the Palestinians
>are the outcome of the ongoing policy of Likudnik Zionists for 40 years…
Please, Phil, let’s not perpetuate the illusion that the Likud is solely or even primarily responsible for Israel’s policy of colonization and occupation. It’s well known that the settlement policy began when Labor was in power, and the settler population increased most rapidly during later periods of Labor rule. Unfortunately, these policies are part of the Israeli consensus, shared across all the major Jewish political parties. They may not all like the settlers, but they have all assisted them and continue to do so.
thanks henry. point taken.
If I remember correctly. the settlement policy was opposed by several politicians (some resignations over this issue) at the time, and the Israeli Supreme Court ruled against it. It made no difference. Presumably, the policy, controversial as it may have been, found support among Israelis for a variety of reasons, be they religious, ethnic, economic, or based on the logic of military conquest.
I don’t see how the settlements could be reversible even if Likud/Netanyahu was not in power, and Obama actually indicated full awareness of this when he addressed the Israeli media a few weeks ago: Netanyahu is a partner for peace precisely because he represents a substantial consensus of the Israeli population. The pull-out from Gaza – with less than 10 000 settlers, was dramatic enough, and cost billions in compensation for lost property. On the WB, we are dealing with some 500 000 settlers. Who is going to force them out, and compensate them? It would be beyond the ability of the Israeli police and military, and who would pay for this?
So there is no two-state solution, and the prospects for a one-state solution look fairly bleak as well. No solution?
I believe that that is a nuance off, enough to be mis-representative of the actual politics.
The majority of Israelis have been between accepting and thought the settlements were a bad idea but unwilling to fight about the issue. That is a different standard than complicit or supportive.
If that is the standard of complicity than we all are guilty of a great deal for what happens in our backyards, or frontyards.
A majority of Israelis keeps voting for politicians advocating and supporting the settlements, again and again. Why? And why do you think a majority of Israelis thinks settlements are a bad idea?
“The majority of Israelis have been between accepting and thought the settlements were a bad idea but unwilling to fight about the issue. That is a different standard than complicit or supportive.”
Funny, nobody has a problem calling the Germans ‘complicit or supportive’ when they didn’t care much about their Jewish neighbors being expelled from their homes and deported – to Palestine, ghettos and concentration camps. They just moved right into those homes, bought their furniture and belongings at state auctions, and were happy to get a deal. And I don’t think Nazi Germany could, by any definition, be called a democracy. Nor did Germans – or anybody else – during the Third Reich have the opportunity to find information on the WWW to counter the propaganda they were fed.
“If that is the standard of complicity than we all are guilty of a great deal for what happens in our backyards, or frontyards.”
Well, I think we are. If not, democracy will be no more than “two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch”
link to r8ny.com