The International Herald Tribune gets the Palestine papers story. Thus this great cartoon by Patrick Chappatte. 
But the New York Times doesn't want its readers to know what's going on. It runs a huge op-ed piece today, denouncing the Palestine Papers by two ostriches, Jeffrey Goldberg and Hussein Ibish. They say the time is ripe for a deal. I'd note that the piece implicitly calls for boycott of West Bank products. Oh Goldberg where have you been all this time? I don't think he knows what to think right now, he is panicked.
There was similar panic in Ethan Bronner's report on the Palestine papers in the NYT yesterday trying to suggest that they are evidence of a fair deal being crafted.
Bernard Avishai, an Israeli writer who has interviewed Mr. Olmert and Mr. Abbas on the deal that they nearly reached, said the only thing that surprised him in the leaks was what was left out: “They focus on Palestinian concessions without presenting the other side of the negotiations. The Palestinians were going to get a great deal for their concessions.”
At his own site, Avishai has attacked the Guardian coverage of the papers as outrageous and irresponsible, indulging the "rejectionists" of a peace deal. He makes an interesting promise:
Palestinian territorial and other concessions, I will show, were the other side of significant, creative Israeli proposals and concessions.
Sounds like the magician who just sawed the lady in half. Even J Street has not gone this far, but has glimpsed in the papers the possible demise of the two-state solution. Jeremy Ben-Ami uses some imagination:
We of course don’t know yet if history will judge this week’s release of critical Palestinian papers to be the straw that broke the camel’s back of the chances for a two-state solution. Perhaps history will judge that moment to have been when Israel decided to continue settlement expansion last fall, or maybe it will be if and when the Palestinians simply give up on two states and focus on gaining equal rights in one bi-national state.
This is helpful. Bronner, Goldberg and Avishai's panic is understandable: an intellectual regime is ending, the claim that partition can produce a viable state for Palestinians that would end decades of grievances. The papers shows that this idea is preposterous. I know what Avishai and Bronner are afraid of, violence, another few decades of bloodshed as Israel becomes Algeria. The Guardian likes this conflict! Avishai cries. As if the Ramallah bubble he celebrates is any answer for the Warsaw ghetto that the Israelis have made of Gaza, or the fact that Palestinians have no rights in the West Bank... Bronner and Avishai's fear is more understandable than their journalism.
I could barely read the Golberg/Ibish piece past the first two ill-making paragraphs, but your post made me go back to skim to find this:
“It is understandable that Palestinians are supporting boycotts of products made in settlements, however, since the settlements are illegitimate and must not be legitimized.”
So now it’s okay to “delegitimize” the settlements and settlement products.
Too little too late establishment people. It’s over. The time for American Jews to support he boycott of settlements was 20 years ago. 1 democratic state with Christians, Muslims, and Jews living together from the river to the sea with equal rights for all.
Great piece Phil, and thanks for the comment Nancy.
One could also note Goldberg’s implicit endorsement of the Gaza siege:
Given that Hamas won the last election five years ago, this hard-headed stance advocates that Israel should never recognize Palestinians’ right to choose their leaders, if Israel doesn’t approve of them.
It’s overwhelmingly probable that the Palestine Papers torpedoed the two-state solution for good, not to mention the careers of the compliant Palestinian leadership upon whom Goldberg lavishes praise.
So it’s equally predictable that old, blind Grey Lady would be extolling the ever-brightening promise of the two-state peace process, on the day after its funeral. The deluded old dowager, starved of her ad revenue from makers of buggy whips and petticoats, should take a clue from the President, who was too embarrassed about the peace process train wreck to even mention it in his speech last night.
“So it’s equally predictable that old, blind Grey Lady would be extolling the ever-brightening promise of the two-state peace process, on the day after its funeral.”
How are US Jews going to see Israel now that its bad faith and inherent cruelty has been revealed to the world ?
They will probably applaud the cruelty, like eeevil does.
“How are US Jews going to see Israel now that its bad faith and inherent cruelty has been revealed to the world ?”
Are they going to see it? After the filtering, spin, counter-hasbara (whine whine lie lie anti-Semite whine lie desert bloom whine whine lie only democracy whine whine lie lie whine Holocaust whine) will there be anything left to see?
“The Palestinians were going to get a great deal for their concessions.”
Bukra fi mishmish .
Procrastination is not a long term policy.
“The Palestinians were going to get a great deal for their concessions.”
Now they’ll get nothing.
“Now they’ll get nothing”
True, but that’s far more than they were going to get…
“True, but that’s far more than they were going to get…”
Ouch! Well played!
Mark,
That was the Palestinian reasoning before the second intifada. That was the Hamas reasoning before attacking Israel from Gaza. In short, that is the Palestinian reasoning for 62 years. But in reality, they keep losing and will continue to do so into the future.
What the Palestinians called “nothing” in 1947 turns out to be their wet dream today. And what you call “nothing” today, may turn out to be plenty 20 years from now. So keep giving them your sound advice. I hope you do realize that in order to even have a chance of being successful the Palestinian economy has to be integrated with the Israeli one. And unless Israeli security concerns are met, that will never happen. As Agha and Malley convincingly argued in the NYRB, the only thing you can force on Israel in the worst case scenario, is a unilateral withdrawal from parts of the West Bank. That will lead the way to the West Bank becoming like Gaza.
The Palestinians have no choice but to understand that they are negotiating from a very weak position and will have to make huge concessions.
wahts always false about these statements eee is that you have gobbled the whole pizza and it puts you in a weak position. you have created an apartheid situation in which demands for democracy will begin to seem as noble as they do in egypt and tunisia. if i were a palestinian democracy advocate, i am sure i would just want to put my head down and await that transformation of the international scene
The bully on the block eventually gets his comeuppace.
Phil,
Nothing is false about what I wrote.
You promised a rebuttal of Agha and Malley, I hope to read it soon.
What exactly are you waiting to happen? Is Hamas going to become a democratic and human rights based organization? Are Fatah and the Palestinian elites going to say no to foreign aid? Are there any replacements visible for Hamas and Fatah? What exactly are you waiting for? The advice you are giving the Palestinians is the same one given to them 62 years ago. Have things gotten better?
But let’s play your game, let’s say some miracle happens and Israel is put under extreme pressure by both the US and Europe. All Israel has to do is unilaterally retreat to the fence and cut relations with the Palestinians. Then what will the Palestinians do? They will have a “Bantustan” but one that is also an economic disaster.
In short, only a negotiated solution agreed to by both sides can bring peace. And the Palestinians as the weak side will have to make most of the concessions.
“Nothing is false about what I wrote.”
What was absolutely false about what you wrote is the idea that the Palestinians ever had any ability to achive anything through negotiations with the thugs that control their land, whether that was 1947, 1967 or today. The program of conquest which is at the heart of the foul Zionist ideology made that impossible, because racism is the heart of Zionism. The Israelis have never intended to reach a viable solution in good faith because many if not most Zionists are ideologically incapable of doing so.
So the notion that the Palestinians have lost anything by their legitimate resistance to the boot of Israeli oppression, or even that their abject surrender and submission to the Isrealis at any point in their history would have changed their situation for the better is absolutely false and is frankly insulting for you to suggest.
Do you really think that no one on this site has read what you people have said and seen what you’ve done for the last hundred years?.
eee,
I’m really looking at it from my perspective and of course I realize that they are in a weak position. To be fair, they come to that position because Israel has our credit card and can afford to have such military and diplomatic superiority thanks to us.
Anyway, bottom line is they’re stuck in it now and they’ll probably get a bad deal, but hey, maybe a bad deal that spares bloodshed is better than no deal?
Tough to walk in the weaker person’s shoes when you don’t really need to.
eee January 26, 2011 at 11:59 am
“is Hamas going to be democratic….is Fatah going to say no foreign aid?
Did Isaeli ever prove to be a deocratic state?
Did Israel ever stop receiving foriegn aid? Check with Eric cantor He has already removed the issue of aid to Isreal for consideration for removal.
Let me remove another layer of disingenous argument from your sophistry. Did the ideas of Lincon, Roosevelt,Kennedy,Johnson ever figure in the concpets of the Founding fathers? Things grow and evolve in both directions and not only in one followed by Israel.
Israel was never going to let them have anything but nothing.
“Now palestine wont get anything” that is very much in line with the motives and parctices of Israel from Herzl through Weizzman to Ben Gurion down the ingrained pschological make up of the current crop of Israeli leaders ,i.e “now Arabs wont get antyhing for they did not take it yesterday when offered”.
Yonira. You are so naive. Are you Jewish? Did your family ever run a farm?
You think the Palestinians are going to be stateless forever? You think Israel can trade up to GDP per head 40k on that basis?
Yonira. You are so naive. Are you Jewish? Did your family ever run a farm?
Yes and Yes.
No I don’t think the Palestinians will be stateless forever. I pray not anyways. Not sure what trade up to GDP per head 40k means.
That has always been the sadistic Zionist plan.
Try to contain you glee.
so in other exactly what they would get had they reached an agreement
the two-state solution
stilborn
Phil,
Panic? Fear? What exactly are you talking about? How have the papers changed anything? Abbas is in power in the West Bank and Hamas is in power in Gaza still and there are no alternatives to them. If there are, please point them out. The reaction of the Palestinians in the West Bank clearly show that there is no replacement for Abbas and Fayad.
The only game in town is the two state solution. There are no other options whatsoever.
“The only game in town is the two state solution. There are no other options whatsoever.”
One man, one vote, 3e. It’s a coming.
I see your posting frequency has upped of late, 3e. Anxiety related? Tunesia falls, the Palestine Papers reveal Israel to be the bad faith negotiator we all knew it to be, and now Mubarak, Israel’s partner in crime, looks wobbly.
Panicked, yet?
eee
There war alternative to Bush. It turned out to be Obama.it came through some kind of election.Let there be election in West Bank. You will have an alternative.
this is smart, train, and reminds us that if there were democracy its not as if jews would not count. this seems to be some fear
Ok, let’s have elections in the West Bank. I am not against it. Which party do you think will win? Can you be realistic for one minute and analyze objectively what will happen if there are elections in the West Bank? Who will emerge as an alternative to Fatah or Hamas? Please give me a name of the party and why you think they will win? If you can, please let me know what the platform of that party will be. Seriously, you seem to know something I don’t so please enlighten me with the facts. What are the alternatives to Fatah and Hamas?
I don’t know how to find it, but someone here once linked to the election results of 2006 and I think Hamas did rather well in the WB. They might do less well now, given that their activists are hounded and arrested.
Anyway, the hypothetical elections should be held in both the WB and Gaza.
As in any election, people will offer themselves as candidates; the questions you raise cannot be answered until then–first things first, a future election must first be announced.
“As in any election, people will offer themselves as candidates; the questions you raise cannot be answered until then–first things first, a future election must first be announced.”
Are you joking? Well before elections are announced people have a pretty good idea from which parties the contenders will be. I would venture a “guess” that the leading contenders in the next US presidential elections are going to be a Democrat and a Republican.
You are just reluctant to admit the truth. There is no alternative to Hamas and Fatah.
Thank you Philip.
I hope todays underdogs never forget to honor and reciprocate the idealsim and heroism of countless secular and religious Jews when they come to the table as an equal ,independent ,and effective partner
“The only game in town is the two state solution. There are no other options whatsoever.”
One person, one vote.
You mean the one state solution. Not only do very few Palestinians support it, 99% of the Jews are against it. So that will not happen ever.
eee, Don’t speak for the Palestinians. Ereket asked Livni to consider a binational state.
It is clear from the Palestine Papers, the Israeli government does not want the two state solution. It wants the status quo.
You do, eee, but Time itself does not stand still. It’s now post-Palestinian Papers.
Ok, where is the poll showing the tremendous Palestinian support for a one state solution? Talking trash is easy. Fatah does not support the one state solution. Hamas does not support a one state solution. That is 90% of the Palestinians. If you have actual data contradicting this, please show it.
“You mean the one state solution.”
No, I don’t.
I mean let all of the people in the land from the Jordan to the sea have the political, human and social rights that are theirs. If they choose to form one state, fine. If they choose to form two state, fine. If they choose to form a confederation, fine. But the point is that all the people have an absolute human right to participate in the government that controls them and their lives. So long as the human rights of all of the people affected are respected, than it does not matter what form the government takes.
What 3e seems to be saying is that Jewish Israelis hold all of the cards, and that the Palestinian leadership should therefore take whatever is being offered (aka “generous offer”), renouncing all other claims it may have (“end of conflict agreement”, “recognition of Israel as a Jewish state”), whether the offer is fair/just or not, and whether it is supported by the Palestinian people or not – simply because there are no other alternatives at the moment, and future alternatives may be worse.
I think the significance of the Palestinian papers lies not in exposing the general spinelessness of Palestinian negotiators, but in showing what happens when they actually try to negotiate (as opposed to simply accepting Israeli dictates). In other words, negotiation is pointless. What is really on offer (maybe) is acceptance of Israeli terms of surrender. Terms of surrender do in fact tend to get worse the longer the weaker party waits. Genuine compromises and peace proposals tend not to have a sell-by date.
Now it may be true that 99% of Jewish Israelis reject a 1ss, but 99% of Palestinians reject acceptance of Israeli-dictated terms of surrender, no matter who the “honest broker” is or what the surrender process is called. Such a non-negotiable, take-it-or-leave-it process really has nothing to offer ordinary Palestinians, whether they live in Khan Yunis, Nablus, Umm al-Fahm or Bourj el-Barajneh.
So what do Israelis hope to get out of necessarily-temporary Palestinian capitulation? A reduction of violence? A reduction of the drain of defence spending on the Israeli economy? A reduction of internal tensions? Better international PR? Israeli leaders would be fools to believe that such an agreement with a non-representative Palestinian leadership (in the sense of not representing the interests of most Palestinians) would bring about any of these things. Which would seem to explain why they have invested so much in the process itself, which offers important PR gains and a certain reduction of violence against Israelis – as long as no agreement is ever reached. Maintaining a balance between Palestinian violence, negotiation and lack of actual progress also seems to be a pretty good recipe for containing internal tensions. In Machiavellian terms, all of this may work for Jewish Israelis in the short to medium term. But there is absolutely no reason (Machiavellian or otherwise) for Palestinian leaders to continue to play along.
There is another alternative however: rights-based, non-violent popular struggle – within I/P and around the world. This may not lead to a viable solution (neither will the current 2ss), but it does stand a good chance of attaining many interim goals, without the ultimate futility of accepting whatever “generous” sops Israel might be offering today.
Shmuel,
In 1948 99% of the Palestinians rejected the partition.Today, 99% would support it. Till 1991 or so, very few Palestinians supported a state only in the West Bank or Gaza. Many more support it today. What you call “terms of surrender” in one generation, look pretty good to the next. Rejecting what is on the table is just continuing making the same mistakes that the Palestinians have made since 1948.
Shmuel,
You are wrong about what an agreement can offer the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. If they are smart, they can become an integral part of the Israeli economy and create an excellent life for themselves. True, their state’s sovereignty would be very limited in the beginning, so what?
You are right that the agreement has nothing much to offer the diaspora Palestinians (except the right to return to the Palestinian state). It is about time though that the Palestinian leadership explain this reality to their diaspora.
Wonderful, insightful comment as usual, Shmuel.
3e,
You’re looking at this ahistorically. Every option must be judged in its own time and context. In the context of 1947-8, the UNSCOP majority proposal (partition plan) was not a viable solution, because it was inherently unfair to Arab Palestinians, who had everything to fear from Jewish rule and expansionist intentions. There were more equitable proposals on the table (such as the UNSCOP minority proposal – a sort of federation – accepted by the Arab side, rejected by the Jewish side), and there is also the possibility that there were no viable solutions at the time. Had the partition plan been implemented it is doubtful that the outcome would have been any better for the Palestinians, and in any case, the Palestinian assessment that it did not offer a viable solution was an eminently reasonable one. We will never know whether they were right or not.
The fact that Palestinians might desire such a solution today, after all that has happened, does not mean that it was necessarily a good idea at the time. Paradoxically, it may be it’s very impossibility that makes it desirable.
In any given period, both sides have basic minimum needs. No Israeli or Zionist-supported proposal has ever met the minimum Palestinian needs of its time. Previous proposals might meet those needs, but that is not to say that rejecting them when they were made would have been the right thing to do. Before ’48, there was no refugee problem. After ’48, there is evidence (as argued by Avi Shlaim, for example) that many, if not most Palestinians, would have been happy simply to be allowed to return home (not to say that serious problems would not have arisen later). Israel, had it been interested in a peaceful solution (and Ben Gurion, again according to Shlaim, made it clear that it was not), might have attained it at a relatively cheap price at that time.
The entire argument of “never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity” is thus little more than propaganda designed to blame the Palestinians for their own plight, painting them as inflexible and unwise, and to pressure them into accepting the unacceptable – that will in fact resolve nothing, for either side.
Thanks, tree :-)
I
In the 80′s, no Israelis suported a 2 state solution, soday, 90% support it.
Your point?
Aer you callung for a single state solution eee?
Good for you.
It’s about time the Israeli diaspora explain the reality to the Israeli leadership.
“Rejecting what is on the table is just continuing making the same mistakes that the Palestinians have made since 1948.”
You still spin the lie. There is nothing “on the table,” as these Papers have shown. The Zionists in ’47 and the Zionists today offer the native Palestinians the same exact thing: subjugation until the Zionists can complete the eradication of Palestine. If you think that the vermin who perpetrated the Nakba would not have instituted the ethnic cleansing even if the Arabs accepted partition, you are a fool. The racism inherent in Zionism demanded it then, demands it now, and will demand it in the future. That’s why the only true solution is to destroy Zionism and give each person in the land full human rights and absolute equality.
“You are wrong about what an agreement can offer the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. If they are smart, they can become an integral part of the Israeli economy and create an excellent life for themselves.”
The Zionists had it within their power for 40 years to take the steps to make this happen, which would have also created security for themselves, but at a cost of giving up their dreams of “greater Israel” in the West Bank and Gaza sections of Palestine. Why would Palestinians trust Zionists to let this happen when they’ve done nothing but oppress the Palestinians for generations? If a Zionist says the sky is blue, the smart move is to look up before you believe it.
True, their state’s sovereignty would be very limited in the beginning, so what?
“So what” is what it’s all about.
You continue to think that lucre is more valuable than autonomy.
Judah Halevey understood that: he had it all, in Andalusia, but traded it all for the (mistaken) belief that he could be more in charge of his own destiny in Palestina. He was wrong. His mistake was twofold: though he had all the autonomy a person could claim or require, he surrendered it. He threw away his real life autonomy (as well as prosperity) in exchange for ideational “sovereignty”, a fantasy, a phantasma — Halevey thought to claim a fantasy based on a legend that had been dead for nearly a thousand years.
Palestinians are in a far different situation: their sovereignty AND prosperity has been stolen from them by the chasers of phantasma. Palestinians intend to recover BOTH, and many Palestinians have, so far, refused to be bought off from the redemption of the most important thing — autonomy — by offers of the less important thing — stuff.
That’s not even considering that the “prosperity” Israel offers Palestinians is akin to the prosperity slaves at Monticello “enjoyed.” It’s serfdom.
Shmuel,
My view is not historical? I am in fact looking at a the historical process since 1948. Each side has made many decisions since 1948. The fact is, that the overall result is much better for the Jews. I think we can agree on that. We probably won’t agree on why, but that really does not matter. I think the Palestinians made many bad decisions. You don’t. I think the results speak for themselves. The Palestinians were not inflexible, they just thought that time was in their favor and that they could get a better deal if the waited. In fact, it seems that you think that also. What if you are wrong as history so far shows? At what point do the Palestinians become realistic and understand the relative weakness of their position? Are you saying never?
PG,
Are the Canadians the serfs of the Americans even though they are completely dependent on the US economically speaking? The “slave” comparison is BS. The Palestinians need to integrate their economy with Israel’s to have a viable state and you know it.
What has Halevy got to do with anything? Most Israelis were born in Israel. You can keep telling us that it was a “mistake” to be born here, but it is not really going to help the Palestinians.
Palestinians never had sovereignty PG, they have lived in a perpetual state of occupation. The PA and Hamas leadership is the closest they’ve ever been to real freedom.
eee,
“Are the Canadians the serfs of the Americans even though they are completely dependent on the US economically speaking? ”
And if the Israelis treated the Palestinians, and respected their rights and sovereignty, as the US does for Canada, then perhaps your analogy would be germane to anything. Since that is not the case, it is wholly bogus.
3e,
The overall result proves nothing. One can make all of the “right” decisions and still end up screwed – or vice versa. The Palestinians and their Arab supporters made lots of bad decisions in the 30s and 40s, were terribly disorganised and indeed unaware of the reality of their position. None of this means that accepting partition would have been the better strategy – even with the benefit of hindsight, which of course they did not have. They were certainly screwed – first and foremost (beside the Zionists, of course) by the UK, the US, the USSR and the UN, without whom their dispossession would not have been possible – and were, for the most part, powerless to effect a different outcome.
One of the things you fail to take into consideration is that a bad compromise can breed the kind of discontent and frustration that often makes it worse than no compromise at all. Recognising that is also a part of being realistic. On that count, Israel certainly fails the realism test, and fails to understand the relative weakness of its own position. Keeping a population roughly equivalent in size to your own (for the moment) under your thumb, surrounded by more or less hostile neighbours, in a small and resource-poor country, doesn’t strike me as particularly realistic behaviour. Under such circumstances, alienating your more distant neighbours and even your friends, should earn you a tinfoil hat. Whether it works for a while or not doesn’t prove that it was ever a particularly good or realistic idea. Ask any gambling addict on a roll.
Shmuel,
The overall results prove nothing? I can’t disagree more. I guess that makes me an empiricist which you are not. How do you decide if your decisions are successful, by looking into a make believe counter factual world of your own invention?
We are talking about 62 years, not one or two days, if Israel is on a “roll” it is indeed very, very lucky. More likely though is that Israel just makes better decision.
“More likely though is that Israel just makes better decision.”
LOL. Is that Zionist-speak for being Uncle Sucker’s welfare queen?
I guess that makes me an empiricist
Perhaps, but not a very good one. Your “empiricism” is based on a number of assumptions for which you have no “empirical” proof: 1) that the Palestinians had complete or near-complete control over their fate; 2) that had they accepted partition, the outcome would have been better. 3) that sufficient time has passed to judge “success” and “failure”.
There are situations in which there are no “good” choices. Had the Arab side accepted partition, the Jewish side might have reneged (there is a theory that BG only accepted because he knew that the Arabs wouldn’t) and pursued “maximum territory with minimum Arabs” anyway, or two states would have been established and the Zionists would have still tried to ethnically cleanse their state and pursue expansionist policies (BG certainly didn’t like the borders or the large Arab population in the proposed Jewish state). Furthermore, the fact that a certain decision has been “successful” (so far) for Israel, does not mean that a similar decision by the Palestinians would have resulted in similar “success”.
There is another aspect to the issue however, and that is the definition of success. On a moral and human level, the oppressed are far more “successful” than their oppressors.
What Israel gets out of the process would be Palestinian acceptance that they have no options. A signature on a piece of paper to wave in front of anyone who brings up Palestinian rights, from now to eternity.
As Shmuel points out, this is not “negotiation,” it’s unconditional surrender. You don’t negotiate the conditions of unconditional surrender.
they don’t support it because they know how violent you and yours are. they are afraid for their rights, their property, and their lives.
OK … Now that you’ve been blaming the Palestinians all along and lecturing us about PA and Hamas as if we were entirely ignorant you the-know-it-all of this site … please tell us a) how is this 2ss going look like and since you seem to be pretty well informed and that the Palestinians are so weak they have to accept Israeli’s diktat, b) when is this 2ss going to take place … Can’t wait to get enlightened …
The reaction of the Palestinians in the West Bank clearly show that there is no replacement for Abbas and Fayad.
you’re simply delusional. Nasser Laham is the editor in chief of Ma’an News.
it is well known hamas won the elections in the WB also. throughout the districts they won. do not think anyone is fooled by the PA thugs throwing a riot @ al jazerrah and mistake this for the palestinian people angry w/the newspaper. the people are angry w/the PS, abbas and fayyed(who has never once been elected by the palestinian people)
don’t peddle any nonsense here about the palestinian people electing/supporting the american puppets. it’s too dumb and idiotic.
Our security services often detain resistance fighters. When they do it, they detain them regardless of their affiliation. They do this fearing Israeli forces might raid PA-controlled territories and kill these fighters.
Which Israel does anyway.
Steve bell cartoon here.
amazing cartoon, thanks bijou
the two-state solution
aborted
How can anyone be positive about the two-state solution when it’s become clear that for it to happen the Israelis would have to win big time and the Palestinians have to lose big time?
True.
Well,Al zajeera has to expose the Israeli and its rejected suitors.But Goldeberg has exposed himself. He is cut from the same cloth that has been missing from the Israeli emperer from the time of Herzl and Ben Gurion.
Another thing they fear is that at long last they are, by virtue of being public figures and intellectuals, going to be forced to publicly choose sides or lose personal influence and relevance.
The Future of Palestine: Righteous Jews vs. the New Afrikaners
Bronner and Avishai’s fear is more understandable than their journalism.
Their fear exposed them for what they are.
Everyone ignores the possibility that the settlers and settlements (and wall) will be ROLLED BACK.
Rosy Scenario:
[1] upcoming UNSC resolution merely declares (current) settlements illegal (I don’t know the draft).
[2] next UNSC requires removal of settlers and dismantling of settlement buildings (per UNSC 465 (1980)), BUT NO ENFORCEMENT SANCTIONS
>> settlers perform PRICE TAG horrors and get slapped down as
USA sees what’s up and INSISTS
[3] then new UNSC res. but with enforcement sanctions, as USA sees there is no other way, and world crowds in, HELPING USA TO SEE THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.
OK, at this point (6/2012) the settlers are gone or on their way out, some settlements are dismantled, the PRICE TAG fellas have had their horrible splurge and been contained (USA demands that Israel contain them).
ISRAEL NEGOTIATES FOR REAL and NOT FOR A LOT OF WB.
PLO realizes that Hamas and Gaza are part of the Palestinian people after all.
corridor 100 meters wide from Gaza to WB. Equitable water sharing.
Ice cream for all the children.
Cheers.
Or there could be a military coup. From what I understand of Israeli society, the highly militarized aspect which permeates it, it’s not impossible. The IDF, which seems to be largely infiltrated by the settler mentality, could simply implement martial law or something of the sort. Israel has already shown that it has no intention of complying with international law, and that there will be little or no US pressure exerted on it, and we’ve seen the IDF act more than brazenly on more than one occasion, believing it can get away with just about anything.
The only possibility of military coup is if a one-state solution is forced upon Israel. Although it wouldn’t be just the military fighting against it, it would be the whole of Israeli society along with many in the diaspora.
The chances of a military coup are higher in the US than in Israel. You really do not understand the Israeli military and society if you think otherwise. Israel has remained democratic despite decades of military conflict. It has the fairest possible proportional voting system, something that if you had in the US, progressives like you would have quite a few seats in congress. Something to think about.
If treating Arabs as equals to Jews is enough to force the entirety of Israeli society and the Jews of the diaspora to arms to prevent it, it just simply goes to show that Zionists are barbarians without the minimum respect for humanity that any decent person should expect.
“Israel has remained democratic ”
Half of the people controlled by the Izzies don’t get a vote. That’s not democratic.
That’s funny. I don’t recall any US president saying the government would fall apart over agreeing to peace, the say Bibbi did.
It calls itself a democracy, yes, but it has become increasingly fascistic and apartheid.
…for Jews
There a possibility of military coup if solution is forced upon Israel.
Shingo,
are you denying Arab/Muslim and Arab/Christian representation in the Knesset?
All Israeli citizens have the right to vote in Israel, Palestinians living in the WB and Gaza are not Israeli citizens, they are living under occupation. A person under occupation doesn’t usually get to vote in the occupiers elections.
Yonira,
Are you suggesting they have even an ounce of influence? If they did, why is 20% of the population only allowed to live on 3% of the land?
“All Israeli citizens have the right to vote in Israel, Palestinians living in the WB and Gaza are not Israeli citizens, they are living under occupation. A person under occupation doesn’t usually get to vote in the occupiers elections.”
When the occupation enters its 44th year without any possibility of the oppressors leaving, it becomes clear that that status of “occupation” is nothing more than a convenient ruse so that the racist Jews in the Israeli government can control the lives of the native Palestinian Arabs without regard for their human or political rights. This is, of course, borne out by all of the facts and actions surrounding the “settlements.”
not surprising thugs always revert to violence to get their way
they are allowed into the government solely on the condition that they do not try and represent their people and try and defend their rights
The declaration of funeral for the two-state solution:
There are only two reasons that that would occur:
1. It is tangibly impossible – due to the impossibility to govern an incontinguous state (within the West Bank – Bantustans)
2. The Palestinians would not consent to any deal
Number 1 is clearly not true, as the maps that were described as Olmert’s authorship and the maps described as the PA’s are close. They both regarded the proposed borders as potentially self-governable, NOT cut up into slivers.
Number 2 is another question. Propaganda attempts to determine the results of a Palestinian plebiscite BEFORE the people themselves get to vote on it (and they laud themselves as democratic for that).
Internationally, the Palestinian Papers describe a deal as close, that if there were continuity between Kadima’s proposal and Netanyahu’s, a proposal would be generated.
If anything, the papers demonstrate the opportunism of likud, NOT of Kadima. Of Kadima, it describes a difficult assertive negotiation, but not the bad faith that you propose.
That is more Rohrshach-like.
The solution, as many liberal Zionists have suggested, is a combination of electoral primarily, with American political pressure adding some weight.
The vote weaving through the general assembly on condemnation of settlement expansion, and then through the security council, will give the opportunity for the US to add that weight.
It will NEVER advocate the dissolution of Israel.
Woody above suggested a plebiscite. The first question is of what jurisdiction. The selection of the whole river to sea jurisdiction would already be prejudicial. Try a reliable informal poll first.
“There are only two reasons that that would occur:
1. It is tangibly impossible – due to the impossibility to govern an incontinguous state (within the West Bank – Bantustans)
2. The Palestinians would not consent to any deal”
You still completely ignore the fact that the Palestinians offered to concede just about everything and the Israelis still said no.
And, yes, given the large-scale theft of the “settlers,” 1 is pretty much where we are at by any practical measure, and 2 is a given what we know from the Papers; any deal that the Israelis would agree to, would unacceptable to the Palestinians as it would be unacceptable to any decent, self-respecting human beings. (And that is the crux; because Zionism is an inherently bigoted and racist ideology, they simply can’t contemplate that Arabs are human beings, no better or worse than Jews, and they certainly can’t accept that fact. Their ideology is premised on Judeo-supremacy.) This, of course, assumes that there even is a deal that the Zionists would agree to. I don’t think that they would agree to anything other than “Palestinians agree to give up and all leave” and even then I wouldn’t trust them to hold up their end of the bargain…)
“Woody above suggested a plebiscite. The first question is of what jurisdiction. The selection of the whole river to sea jurisdiction would already be prejudicial. Try a reliable informal poll first.”
You’re still thinking like a Zionist and not a modern person with a respect for human rights and civil liberties. The “river to sea” jurisdiction would not be “prejudicial;” it would encompass every person who has a say in how that land is governed, none of whom has any right to dominate the others, and none whose interests should be permitted to dominate or to supersede the rights of the other.
The goal of any decent person should not be to determine what scraps of human dignity the Palestinians should be allowed, but what is the proper political construct to ensure that the rights of all of the people are fully and EQUALLY protected.
3. There is more to the problem than just looking at a picture of colored areas and checking if they’re connected.
First, concerning territory, the basic, underlying problem that Israel does not only want to annex the so-called blocs, but also large areas around them, presumably to allow for their growth – while happily looking in Palestinians in barely connectable enclaves which consist of all-built up areas. Look at the Israeli suggestions for East Jerusalem and you see what I mean.
Second, the natural resources and infrastructure implications. Israel conveniently plans to include highways and aquifers in its territory, with no similar considerations for the Palestinians.
Third, Israel’s demands for limiting Palestinian sovereignty to the status of a semi-autonomous colony. Unreasonable demands for controlling Palestinian airspace, for keeping the Jordan valley under military occupation, for completely demilitarizing the Palestinian state.
The latter especially is so odious, it’s either an intentional humiliation to the Palestinian side in order to make them reject any offers or an honest-to-god expression of a racist, colonialist mindset.
There is absolutely no justification for it. That Palestinian armed forces will be, at best, a few thousand lightly armed infantry, with a few helicopters or light propeller aircraft for an air force, and a few patrol boats for a navy is a given, for economic reasons alone. This can also easily be fixed in treaties, and would allow the Palestinians the dignity of being responsible for their own defense. (After a period of international supervision, if you insist.) None of this would ever be remotely comparable to the military capacities of a country like Syria, and would not be a threat to the IDF, the strongest military by far in the whole region.
And spare me the “but if it falls into the wrong hands…” stuff. In the wrong hands, even the weapons the security forces have now will be too much. Care to look at a map of Jerusalem? Small arms and primitive rockets gain an all-new quality if fired from a distance of a hundred meters into a densely-packed residential area. No “demilitarization” can ever prevent this. Only security forces can, and the WB forces have proven they are able and willing to. If your trust in them is so low as not to allow them APCs, you have no choice but to destroy them, really.
Its very apparent to me that what you are deriving as a revelation from the Palestine Papers is really not one, but is at least largely quotes taken entirely out of context.
It would be necessary to see them IN CONTEXT to determine the substance of them. That the vast majority of “revelations” were already widely known, suggests to me that there is no smoking gun, that the fact is that Olmert and the PA were close to a proposal that they felt would satisfy the intersection of needs of the two communities.
Thinking from the present forward, that includes on borders: the green line as basis of breadth of territory, with one for one land swaps to optimize self-governance of the communities (same as ANY partition, where a partition is a rational choice – as in this one).
On right of return, there is no way that Israel (or even Palestine) would accept the maximalist position of “anyone that ever lived in any area that we once would have liked to call Palestine, can return anywhere”.
That, or any close definition of right to return for Palestinians is just impossible. No human rights effort will justify three generations hence accomplishing the dispossession of three generations. It would not be feasible, and I personally don’t think it would be just, nor in conformity with international law.
And, for remediation of the status of diaspora refugees, some combination of aid and invitation to settle in the West Bank and Gaza.
Equal rights for all citizens of Israel (the third demand of BDS movement) is not subject to any question to my mind. It should be done, and argued for assertively both legally and functionally.
So, I assume that the majority of Palestinians are sober enough to think through this nearly inevitable proposal, and ratify it, and so confidently that it becomes over.
I find it idiotic that Netanyahu and his government don’t see that it would constitute a giant sigh for all concerned to accept it, even if the PA pressured further and exerted 11th hour extra compromises (feared, but who cares).
I do think like a Zionist, Woody, in that I am convinced that Israel exists as Israel, deserved to, deserves to, and will remain.
And, that there is really no ideal presented that will convince me otherwise. The only way that I would acknowledge another alternative (which I would accept) is if a majority of Jewish Israelis voted in favor of a bi-national (who knows what that means exactly) or single state. I don’t see that coming this century.
Richard Witty,
It seems apparent to you that you are impressing on reality your fantasy about what Israel is over top what it actually is. What the Papers actually showed was even near-abject surrender by the PA wasn’t enough to move the Israelis. And no wonder, given the history and ideology of Zionism, which precludes letting non-Jews have sovereignty over their land if it is part of that which some religious lunatics believe was given by their god.
Further, the right of return is simply international law. Its demands are quite clear, but in keeping with its racist ideology, it appears, based on its actions, that Israel would rather be an international brigand than to respect human rights if the human in question isn’t a Jew. And that is, in a nutshell, the problem with Zionism.
“I do think like a Zionist, Woody, in that I am convinced that Israel exists as Israel, deserved to, deserves to, and will remain.”
No, you think like a Zionist because you think, judging by your writings, that the Jews have a right to control the lives of non-Jews within Palestine, regardless of the ideas, interests and wishes of those people. That is inherently a racist ideology.
And in what way does any political entity “deserve” anything? The only valid measure is the extent to which it advances universal human rights. If the choice is between human rights for all and the end of a Jewish state, or a Jewish state with 6 million people under the Israeli boot, only an amoral fool would choose the latter. But that seems to be the preferred answer under the Zionist ideology.
“Equal rights for all citizens of Israel (the third demand of BDS movement) is not subject to any question to my mind. It should be done, and argued for assertively both legally and functionally.”
But you’ve already said that you are NOT in favor of equal rights for all citizens of Israel.
First, Zionism itself (as practiced in Israel) precludes that equality, as it doles out benefits by “nationality” and not by “citizenship” (defining itself, as it does, not as a state for its citizens, but a state for the “nationality” regardless of citizenship); has stated that it is a “Jewish” state, notwithstanding the 20% non-Jews; and has enacted policies to ensure the dominance of the Jews, even to the extend of destroying the civil and human rights of non-Jews.
Further, you, specifically, have stated that you believe that Jews should have a preferred rights regarding naturalization. As soon as you say, “We are all equal except in this one area” you are saying, “We are not all equal and, in fact, we are better/more important/more deserving than you.”
Woody,
Because the quotes presented here were presented entirely out of context, only hitting buttons, suggests to me that they were misrepresentatively out of context. It looks more Pavlovian (buttons pushed) than informative.
Again, nothing that I read is a surprise to me, and the purpose of the negotiations was to present a proposal to the respective peoples that they could ratify or reject on their own merits.
The declaration that they are not to be trusted, is really a statement that the the Palestinian people and the Israeli people should not have the OPPORTUNITY to ratify or reject, that the vanguard and press (rather than the populace) self-empower to determine what is decided.
Its a LIE that I believe that Jews should control the lives of non-Jews. I believe the oppossite, that the logic of partition applies, that the Jewish population should self-govern (with equal individual and political rights for citizens) and that the Palestinian people should self-govern.
I regard the single-state proposal as the means to impose governance on those that would regard that as foreign governance, whichever 51% majority rules over whatever 49%.
The ONLY alternative to 51/49, is if there is a third way, a civilist way that the majority in each community supports OVER nationalism. I’m certain that there are many that would prefer a civilist (EU like, or US like) emphasis, but the majority now in both communities emphasize the simultaneous nationalist AND democratic sentiment.
If the two states can emphasize the democratic over the nationalist, then they can morph into a federation. If they emphasize the resistance over the humanization, they will morph into separation. Czech Republic will have to separate from Slovakia, not merge.
How do you knwo the quotes were presneted out of context Witty? We know you’re making this up, but I liek to have fun watching you slip and slide to avoid answerign that question.
Speaking of Pavlovian, isn’t that an apt description for your own response? You have no idea what the documents contain, but sensing danger, you immiditely rush to this vlog to assure everyone that we’ve all drawn the wrong conclusion.
You always do that.
N one sugegsted that Witty. You simply regard the lives on non Jews and expendable and irrelevant.
You’re clearly very anxious and not thinking clearly. You are right to be concerned.
“the Jewish population should self-govern (with equal individual and political rights for citizens) and that the Palestinian people should self-govern.”
Would you be in favour of dividing Palestine into a Jewish sector and a Palestinian sector with the size (and resources) of the sectors proportional to the populations?
“Would you be in favour of dividing Palestine into a Jewish sector and a Palestinian sector with the size (and resources) of the sectors proportional to the populations?”
That’s a very good question and we all know the answer. When Richard writes, he doesn’t just support the two state solution. He supports a form of it where Israelis get nearly all the benefits of decades of land theft, both from 1948 and from the post 67 period. In a way that’s consistent–once you grant the “right” of Israelis to steal, there’s really no principled place to stop and you might as well push for as much as you can reasonably grab, only tossing back to the Palestinians the minimum amount required to make it seem like a solution has been reached. He supports the PA precisely because they are the US and Israeli preferred negotiators for the Palestinians–he doesn’t want the Palestinians represented by anyone who might drive a tougher bargain–not even a one-state solution, but a two state solution which was less unfavorable to the Palestinians than what Abbas was willing to take.
The idea of a deal which treated Palestinians as equal to Israelis is something which is not on the table for RW and here he represents both the Israelis and the US government.
Your desperation is all too apparent Witty. It is the type of response we have come to expect fro you, seeing as you;re too afraid to even read the Goldstone Report, should it destroy your fantasies about Israel
In one sentence you claim that these are quotes taken entirely out of context, which is laughable given that we can safely assume you haven;t read the transcripts. But in the next sentence, you it would be necessary to see the the quotes IN CONTEXT, which is a frank admission that you are simply guessing.
Rubbish. The pnly fact is that we know that Olmert’s position is/was the same an Netenyahu’s and that Israel’s needs were never going to be satisfied, no matter what the Palestinians agreed to.
Garbage. There was no mention of the green line. In fact, Israel rejected anything close to the green live. The Palestinians had given up all hope of the green live being the basis for anything.
Israel rejected any position on refugees.
Especially seeing as Liberman had condemned Olmert for not taking advantage of it. There’s no point blaming Netanyahu Witty. You might as well give up pretending that there is any daylight between Likud and Kadima. No one buys that crap anymore.
A wing wing Zionist at that.
I think a one state solution will work. if it allows the palestinians their right of return they will have enough population to restore the rest of their rights and undo much of the damage created by the crime that is ISrael
I prefer to avoid endless war.
Olmert’s proposal (an actual proposal) IS different than Netanayahu’s (none). And, it is close to what Abbas proposed, so close that the map presented here earlier could not be identified if that was Olmert’s or Abbas’s proposal.
You EVADE the question of whether agitation (rather than support for the formation of proposal) prohibits the Palestinian people from getting to choose on a proposal.
Woody,
Israel can set its own immigration policy, and still have full and equal rights for all Israeli citizens. As Palestine can as well.
You again LIE about my position and the position of international law on right of return. I acknowledge it for the individuals dispossessed and those born in Israel. (QUITE different from likud.) I regard the right of return as questionable (a voluntary matter) for descendants and for the maximalist interpretation (that assumes that there is no Israel).
No matter how many people you get into a room to declare that the two-state solution is dead or deserves to be, Israel and Israelis will not accept it.
The single-state solution is dead. Certainly if you don’t advocate for it among those that would be governed by it, but only in talk among yourselves.
But if Israel wishes it, you will support it and justify it.
Olmert’s proposal IS Netanayahu’s, which was Sharons and so forth. Abbas’ proposal was nothign like Olmert’s. If it had been, then Olmert would not have rejected it.
What does it mater when the proposal is completely and utterly inadequate and rejected by Israel anyway?
What do you know about international law on right of return? Please Witty, cite the chapter that deals with ROR to demonstrate your expertise.
You’re right Witty. The mimnutes of the meetign show that Israel will never accept a 2 state solution.
The single-state solution is all there is. I know your desperate, anxious and in an even greater state of denial that usual, but the peace process is over. You might as well accept it and move on.
Man, what? You truly cannot see any difference beween this…
link to cache.daylife.com
… and this?
link to farm1.static.flickr.com
Not only is it immediately obvious that the first map takes far more land from the WB than the second one, it also cuts the northwestern part of the Palestinian territory into slivers. The only way I could ever confuse the two would be if I didn’t have my glasses on.
(We don’t need to go into the fact that Olmert proposes to swap desert land for prime agricultural land which incidentally sits on the main water sources.)
>> Israel can set its own immigration policy, and still have full and equal rights for all Israeli citizens.
Full and equal rights for all Israeli citizens: Call me crazy, but that sounds like the egalitarian and democratic Israeli state I support. And yet the Zio-supremacists aren’t happy with an Israeli state – they keep talking about a “Jewish state”. So what, I wonder, is the secret ingredient that magically transforms an egalitarian and democratic Israeli state into a “Jewish state” without affecting its egalitarian and democratic status?
Regarding Israeli immigration: Would this be the last bastion of Zio-supremacism? And if non-Jewish citizens were to be fecund enough to tip the balance toward an Arab majority, would the Zio-supremacists accept a democratically-enacted correction to biased immigration laws?
>> And if non-Jewish citizens were to be fecund enough to tip the balance toward an Arab majority …
Should read: And if non-Jewish citizens were to be fecund enough to tip the balance toward a non-Jewish majority …
Give the people a chance to see a proposal for two-states for two peoples.
I’ve not heard ANYONE state credibly that Israel and Israelis would consent to a single state. Do you have any basis of that? Beyond your assessment that “they should”.
Its cruel to the people to insist on politically correct litmus tests.
Olmert didn’t accept the proposal because he was as lame a lame duck as there is.
I think its doable with a changed Israeli government. I don’t see the single state anywhere near a couple decades away, even by external civil disobedience, which could delay it much further.
The two state solution is still the only plausible and the most just of any of the options. And, as the single state will not be accepted by the current majority, to impose it from outside is war-mongering.
Uprising does NOT accomplish much, as much of a sugar rush it is.
Give the people a chance to see a proposal for two-states for two peoples.
go harp on israel.
We’ve seen the proposal Witty, and it’s nothing but a surrender, which you unsurprisingly fully endorse.
How many times have you Witty, described Israel’s complaince with international law as akin to forcing Israel to it’s knees?
It’s only just occured to me that the reason Witty, Jon, eee, WJ, Goldberg and Bronner have no problem with these docuements, is because they record the complete surrender by the PA to Israel.
Had the PA not surredered East Jerusalem, but demanded all of it, as well as teh right of return, I doubt we’d be hearing Jon would be lauding these as “serious negotiations” in which the 2 sides had “progressed beyond principles”, let alone that the “2 state solution is not only alive, it’s still the only game in town”. He and Witty would argue that Isael would never have accepted those terms, but then again, Livni didn’t accept this offer from the PA either.
Nor has anyone stated credibly that Israel and Israelis would consent to a 2 ss, at least not based on these meetings.
“I’ve not heard ANYONE state credibly that Israel and Israelis would consent to a single state.”
I have not heard anyone state credibly that Israel and Israelis would consent to a two state solution in which the Palestinian state is not a crippled, non-sovereign semi-colony.
It’s high time for you to realize that whatever solution is desired will not be produced by Israeli goodwill, but only by pressuring Israel. Appeasement has run its course.
P.S.: Two states for two peoples, eh? Are you voting for Lieberman now, or are you truly so naive not to realize the implications of that neat little formula?
Just as with “recognition as the nation-state of the Jewish people”, Zionists pervert a sensible concept into an offensive, racist one.
There should be external pressure of public opinion and diplomacy towards Israel to realize a consented two-state solution.
The single state proposal is something different entirely. That is the opposite of democracy. The imposition of a political form on an unwilling population is something that I would hope be criticized by progressives.
So now you favor extermal pressure on Israel, having rejected the idea for years?
How about BDS Witty?
No it is democracy, which is why you are so opposed to it.
How is imposition of a political form onto an unwilling population, democracy?
There should be external pressure of public opinion and diplomacy towards Israel to realize a consented two-state solution.
What do you think has been happening for 44 years?
The single state proposal is something different entirely. That is the opposite of democracy.
Jesus, you’re off the wall. Read the history of the USA much?
How is imposition of a political form onto an unwilling population, democracy?
that’s exactly what we keep telling you witty, that’s why the goi isn’t democratic.
“There should be external pressure of public opinion and diplomacy towards Israel to realize a consented two-state solution.”
By doing what? Saying ‘please’? Or should we get out the big guns and say ‘pretty please’? Or are you suggesting that there should actually be tangible negative consequences for Israel’s intransigence?
By doing what? Saying ‘please’?
anything! as long as it isn’t tangible/snark.
for results bds is the obvious choice.
Those who are giddy/gleeful/ecstatic about this week’s death of the 2ss/ peace process may look back at their happiness as unseemly at some point in the future when the outcome of the 1ss solution or no solution is revealed to be bloody.
Of course those of us still insisting on reading, speaking and whispering to the comatose patient whose vital signs are flatlining may seem silly. But until the plug is pulled by the (PLO or more importantly by the) Security Council where 242 is still the law of the land, you’ll excuse us for maintaining our vigil.
As far as convincing us that this vigil is no excuse for ignoring the blood and pain caused by the occupation, that is a separate issue. For too long our belief in the role of the Israeli government vis a vis ending the occupation was misplaced.
(Although the time is now over for excuse making, that is precisely what I will now proceed to do: From 1993 until the election of Netanyahu, our belief was in the government of Rabin and then Peres. The election of Netanyahu with its slow normalization of negotiation with Arafat also led us to hope and then came the election of Barak, further cause for hope. Those hopes were dashed with the outbreak of the 2nd intifadeh. Granted that between Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount/Haram el Sharif and Barak’s arrogance and the policy of “shoot to kill” of stone throwers that there is sufficient cause to place blame on Israel for the dashed hopes. Nonetheless particularly for those of us who lived (or visited) Jerusalem in those years the noise of explosions and sirens, the sight of burned out stores and buses, the familiarity with bereaved families was not a shock that will soon be forgotten. Many of us then placed our hopes in the withdrawal of settlers from Gaza, but it turns out that a unilateral withdrawals of settlers, accompanied by a military siege and also accompanied by rockets from Gaza and the election of Hamas led to a loss of hope rather than a foothold for hope. And this leads us to the short window of opportunity that existed between the election of Olmert and the attack on Gaza two years ago. Those who oppose a 2ss and indeed oppose the existence of Israel view the last 17 years as one long sham. Those of us who believed and hoped in a 2ss, view the last 17 years as a roller coaster ride with missed opportunities on both sides.)
Meanwhile some of us have arrived at the conclusion that our faith in Israel’s government’s propensity to make good on the promise of the peace process is misplaced. But the invitation to hold hands with those who wish to see the demise of Israel is not an invitation that we feel any emotional inclination to accept. You may see BDS as the only nonviolent approach to force a saner approach to the West Bank and Gaza, we pay close attention to the rhetoric of the BDS’ers and notice only their/your hatred for the Jewish presence in I/P. We lack an alternative to BDS, but meanwhile BDS is not our alternative to end the occupation, but a new enemy that seeks to end Israel.
“we pay close attention to the rhetoric of the BDS’ers and notice only their/your hatred for the Jewish presence in I/P.”
You’re not paying close attention. Literally no one here has said there should be no Jewish presence in I/P. There is one person who has flirted with the idea that people of European descent should leave, but that idea doesn’t fly around here and that’s about it as far as I can tell. The one staters here consistently say and obviously mean that they want one state with equal rights for both Jews and Arabs. Period. Full stop. Now you can criticize that as unrealistic and more likely to lead to some horrific civil war (worse than what has been happening) and that’s worth discussing. I think, though, that it is Zionism itself which is one of the biggest obstacles to a successful secular democracy.
There are the hardline Islamists who would be a problem, and then there are millions of Zionists who seem to think that asking them to live side-by-side with the Palestinians in equality is tantamount to Nazism.
Donald- I overstated my point, but I think you overstate the innocence of the attitude expressed in this comments section and to a lesser degree by the bloggers themselves towards Jews coming to I/P (here) over the last 100 years. Why did they come here? Why didn’t they stay where they were? Their great great great great great great to the nth power grandfathers lived here, so they moved here, hehehe! Some mythological book says this land belongs to them so they came here. They aren’t a people, but a religion and they don’t believe in the religion, so why do they come here? Of course the Palestinians wanted to limit immigration! Of course Helen Thomas is (kind of) right saying they should go back where they came from! Are you denying that these comments aren’t very prevalent? Are you denying that these comments don’t contain a theme of hatred for the Jewish presence in I/P?
It is true that some of the commenters are forward looking rather than backward looking and purely interested in changing the future and their sole sin from my point of view is your/their disregard for the dangers that a 1ss will bring. But a snide attitude towards the Jewish history of the last 100 years is quite prevalent here and even though you are not guilty of it, I don’t think denying its heavy presence here is truthful.
i completely reject ‘a theme of hatred’. while lecturing on our ‘snide attitudes’ do you also chastise eee for blithely dismissing ethnic cleansing and the nakba?
Why did they come here? Why didn’t they stay where they were? Their great great great great great great to the nth power grandfathers lived here, so they moved here, hehehe!
you think that is why they went there wj? really? do you imagine jews are so different than other people that they have some natural inclination to physically live on a land their great great great great great great to the nth power grandfathers lived?
what if each of us felt this same desire to immigrate to where our ancestors lived centuries ago? and why don’t we? because we are so different than you?
let’s at least be honest with each other.
annie- I honestly don’t think you wish to engage in any discussion. Honestly.
well, you would be wrong. even tho you snarkly paraphrased idea i have had, they have a meaning for me. i’m serious wj. i do not think i dismiss jewish suffering but in this dialogue on i/p (which is why we are here), i do not privilege it and that may make you uncomfortable. i’m just speaking honestly with you, and look..unlike yourself i do not need to engage in ascribing hatred to you. nor snide-ness.
aside from that i am quite curious. do you really think the founding of the state came about because hundreds of thousands of people desired to live in an ancient homeland? and if that is the case why don’t other humans feel that deep desire?
also wj, i wondered if you’d had a chance to read phil’s post today called Grassroots coalition building may include some Jewish therapy on the side.
Why did they come here?
Because they fell for a line of propganda and hype?
annie-
The immigration of Jews to Palestine (before 1948) and to Israel (after 1948) have had a variety of reasons. Before WWII, it was primarily a feeling (which turned out to be quite true) that Europe was not a safe place to be a Jew. While most of those who moved out of Europe moved to North America and other locations, a small number moved to I/P because they felt that it was important that the Jewish people take their destiny into their own hands and not be forever dependent on the kindness of others. This describes the small group that moved to I/P before North America instituted a stricter immigration policy in the aftermath of WWI. Most of the Jews who moved to I/P in the 20′s and 30′s did so because there was nowhere else to go. They would have preferred to head to North America but it was not an easily reached destination. In the aftermath of WWII most of the Jewish refugees in Central Europe who were not welcome back in their hometowns of Poland would have preferred to head to the United States and there was political pressure to force them to move to I/P. There were also those who came to realize that the Jewish people needed a homeland in the aftermath of that disaster and chose I/P as their first choice.
The immigration of Jews from Arab countries to I/P in the late 40′s until 1967 was a result of 2 factors as far as I can tell from my superficial knowledge: 1. Lack of welcome in those countries for various reasons (a. traditional antiJewish attitudes, b. reaction to Zionism on the part of the mob or the ruling elites in those countries and c. possible incitement by Zionist agents), 2. traditional Jewish belief in the ingathering of the exiles.
There never really has been a large scale immigration of Jews from North America and Britain to Israel. It has been a slow steady low level immigration over the years, particularly in the aftermath of the 6 day war in 1967: The excitement of a unified Jerusalem and a belief in the rebirth of the Jewish people in the ancient homeland as expressed in prayers and a type of antithesis to the genocide experience a generation earlier.
The other large immigration occurred from the Soviet Union in the early 70′s and the late 80′s. The immigration in the early 70′s seems to have been more idealistic, with Jews who felt repressed by Soviet/Russian antiJewish attitudes and wishing to express their national identity by asking to be allowed to move to Israel. Many spent time in prisons for their temerity and many others spent years without jobs for their temerity and this was a question of identity with the Jewish people and the Jewish fate and a rejection of the assimilation and repression of the Soviet Russian system. The immigration in the late 80′s seems to have been primarily economic, with the Soviet Union falling apart life in Israel seemed to promise a better economic life than staying in the Soviet Union. Whether a partial fear of Jew hatred played a role in this immigration, I am unsure.
These are the primary reasons for the various immigrations over the last 100 years. I was referring to Caryl Churchill’s offensive play (seven Jewish children) and to other comments here regarding the great great great great great to the nth grandfathers. There were many things that kept the Jewish people alive during the long exile. Certainly Christian attitudes of hatred and Jewish attitudes of the need to keep isolated were the primary features that kept the Jews alive as a separate group/people despite the lack of a “homeland”. but the existence of the portable homeland known as the Torah/law/Talmud was certainly aided by the existence of a homeland that was expressed in the prayers and in their rituals: and that homeland was called Jerusalem.
If that doesn’t answer your question, please be more specific.
thank you very much WJ. that was exactly the honesty i was looking for. i guess my point was that the settlers and many more justify israel’s ‘right’ to be there ( god gave them the land) and the narrative of jewish homeland for 3000 years as we were reminded of by livni recently in the palestine papers basically trumps all else in the grand israeli narrative. and really, i do not believe initially any of them went there because of their ancient ancestors, they (the masses) primarily went there for refuge.
however i also believe the initiators of this process were basically colonizers who, like others in that time period didn’t really give much thought to the rights of brown (or indigenous) people. but colonizing doesn’t sound nice. the narrative of ‘the ancient homeland’ has grown to enormous proportions to justify this state. and i believe that is unfair because it is also the homeland of other people. land doesn’t really have a religion. it isn’t jewish or christian or muslim. as such, there is no christian, jewish, buddist, muslim land.
i just want an honest conversation. presently perhaps jews do move there because their great great great great great great great great great great great great etc grandparents lived there..because, they have been carefully nurtured by the narrative to have this longing. that’s called brainwashing. the guy in that settler video yesterday? crazy. so the jews who came to israel decades ago did not come with this narrative. but now that they are there, now that jews in the diaspora for the most part are not in need of a refuge how does israel keep them coming? the narrative, the desire to be where their ancient people came from. a desire most of humanity wouldn’t give much thought to. i don’t anyway.
ascribing hatred to one’s ideological/political adversaries is a sign of desperation imho. pathetic rhetorical crutch.
Those who are giddy/gleeful/ecstatic about this week’s death of the 2ss/ peace process …Those who oppose a 2ss and indeed oppose the existence of Israel view the last 17 years as one long sham.
how unsurprising of you. little ad hominems. let me assure you many many more people realize the last 17 years as ‘one long sham’ than those you claim ‘indeed’ oppose ‘the existence of Israel’. i sense you simply don’t want let go of this bone, this mantel of ‘they just oppose us no matter what’ as if opposition to the apartheid state was divorced from israel intransigence. is it so hard for you not playing the ultimate victim?
WJ and Jon,
This may interest you.
link to nytimes.com
Apparently a deal was quite close in 2009. Not that the people on this blog would not have called Abbas a quisling for this deal, but a deal nonetheless.
your link,,according to mr napkin himself. i heard olmert speak in SF. he admitted he never let abbas even take the map over night because he didn’t want him to use it a pretext for further talks, ie grabbing the concessions while not agreeing. iow, ascribing to abbas the israeli negotiating characteristics. unimpressive evidence. olmerts claim he offered the palestinians a state on 67 borders been completely discredited.
It’s not the presence, but the domination, of a group defined by race that is wrong. The enforced absence of a group defined by race (Jewish or other) would be wrong too. I must admit that I can’t see an alternative to opposing in principle ‘no matter what’ a political organisation whose basic principle is local domination defined in that way. That doesn’t mean that I have to deny outright any proposition whatever that Israel or its apologists advance. If they say that it’s still possible for a version of the 2ss to win mass acceptance from the Palestinians I’m not sure that they’re wrong.
Don’t you therefore see the cognitive dissonance between this “conclusion” and your insistence that the 2ss (which can only be delivered by the Israeli government) is still viable?
And yet, what you’ve doing by refusing to accept reality it to hold hands with those who are actually hastening the demise of Israel.
Wondering Jew, Great comment, I especially share your attitude towards those who are celebrating what they perceive as the demise of the 2 state solution.
From a historical perspective , take note thet the idea of a Palestinian state, once considered a weird, far-out notion of the radical Left, is now at the center of an international consensus. The recently leaked documents indicate that , at least under the Olmert government, there were serious negotiations. The two sides had progressed beyond principles, and were discussing details: this neighborhood, that area, where the embassies will be located… So it proves that the line that “there’s no partner” is a lie, and it also proves that when the sides got together to talk, their positions were not that far apart.
It looks to me like the 2 state solution is not only alive, it’s still the only game in town, an idea whose time has come.
Unlike many of the posters here, if I were to be convinced that the 2ss is dead, it would certainly sadden , and maybe even terrify, me, since I’m convinced any other approach will lead to a bloodbath.
Finally, Phil’s piece includes a reference to Gaza as the Warsaw Ghetto, a comparison which is … I’m looking for a mild word here… inaccurate, shall we say? Seriously, mass starvation, mass shooting of entire communities in mass graves, deportation to death camps, gas chambers… need I continue?
It’s the kind of terminology which is likely to act as a turn off on the people you would want to convince, Phil. It could also be seen as a form of Holocaust denial, though I’m sure that wasn’t you intent.
Come to think of it, you have a point Jon. After all , the Nazis didn’t dump white phosphorous or use jet fighters to drop 500lb bombs on civilians. Nor do I recall the Nazis having picnics and popping bottles of champage from vantage points to witness the spectacle.
We always appreciate a post Zionist perspective around here.
obviously it is not holocaust denial. however i did read in the latest addition of the hasbara handbook (reut if i’m not mistaken, titled something like countering israel deligitizazation/too lazy, i’ve linked to it before) that comparisons w/nazi germany are to be considered a form of holocaust denial. silly.
The recently leaked documents indicate that , at least under the Olmert government, there were serious negotiations.
link please. i read about the napkin. is this what you mean?
>> Finally, Phil’s piece includes a reference to Gaza as the Warsaw Ghetto … It’s the kind of terminology which is likely to act as a turn off on the people you would want to convince, Phil. It could also be seen as a form of Holocaust denial, though I’m sure that wasn’t you intent.
It could also be seen as a form of Israel hating and anti-Semitism, Phil, and it could indicate that you are a self-loathing Jew, though I’m sure none of those was your intent either. :-)
take note thet the idea of a Palestinian state, once considered a weird, far-out notion of the radical Left, is now at the center of an international consensus.
take note that the idea of a one state solution w/equal rights for all you currently considered a weird, far-out notion of the radical Left, but it too will likely one day be at the center of an international consensus. i say this not because i do not or would not support a two state solution (as explained here), i say so because if one thing we’ve learned about the ‘negotiations’ over the last week is that israel is not operating in good faith. by israel refusing even to witness, read or touch the latest plan and refusing the previous amazing concessions palestinian negotiation team previously made re jerusalem and virtually all the settlements except one. i seriously doubt any such offer re jerusalem will be made again because it is abundantly clear the vast majority of palestinians (not to mention the greater muslim world) reject such a plan, as do i. it is worth celebrating no palestinian negotiator was able to broker that deal, absolutely worth celebrating. the only gain out of that exchange was the revelation israel turned it down. it proved to us their unwilling to give an inch and want it all.
I especially share your attitude towards those who are celebrating what they perceive as the demise of the 2 state solution.
it’s worth celebrating the fact the mask has been ripped away and what we thought was going on was in fact true. transparency is always cause to celebrate.
Seriously, mass starvation, mass shooting of entire communities in mass graves, deportation to death camps, gas chambers…
Not at first.
The same could have been said fo Camp David and Taba, but based on this revelation, it’s safe to assume that the narrative that Arafat gave up a golden offer is pure fiction.
Prior to these papers being released, we’ve heard countless mentions of about Olmert’s wonderful offer, but these papers put that offer into a complete different light.
The recently leaked documents indicate that , at least under the Olmert government, there was an offer that was tantamount to absolute surrender by the Palestinians, and that even the so called doves in Israel, rejected it.
I’m convinced any other approach will lead to a bloodbath.
You and WJ are both convinced of this, but is your conviction well founded? Is it based on anything but long-repeated scaremongering slogans?
And if there is violence, is it not quite likely that this will be mainly initiated and carried out by Zionist fanatics?
And if there is violence, is it not quite likely that this will be mainly initiated and carried out by Zionist fanatics?
Yeah, it probably will be. Your plan is to take away a dream and the resulting reality that these ‘fanatics’ and their ancestors have been building for the last 60 years.
The Palestinians have been fighting for 60 years, who says these ‘fanatics’ wouldn’t fight for another 60? The difference will be one of the most powerful Armed forces in the ME will be at their disposal.
Why would you want a binational state with a bunch of fanatics anyways? Lots of smoke and mirrors in my opinion, what is the real ‘end game’ for the Jews of I/P?
Those fanatics are imbued with a lot of Dutch courage. They carry on as they do because they know they can. The government will tolerate them, the police will protect them and the legal system in on their side.
Level the playing field and see how fanatical they remain.
My fears are based on the 2nd intifadeh and Hamas building a “commemoration” to the destruction of the Sbarro pizza place. It is based on the rhetoric of the president of Iran and the rhetoric of Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon and the salute of Hezbollah and certain choice passages from the Holy Quran. It is based on the rhetoric of the Hamas charter and the rhetoric of Rantisi and many years of staring at Yaser Arafat as the representative of the Palestinian people. It is based on the fact that the Arabs have not been self ruling since the Mongols invaded Baghdad at the end of the 13th century.
What is your optimism based upon? South Africa and Turkey? The human spirit of tolerance and altruism?
I understand your fears, WJ. But what you face is the result of the evil of Zionism. It has been building up for years. Now you have to find some moral way of getting through the tough times ahead, and that will entail giving up a lot of the ideas and practices that you cling to now. You will have to accept that you will become a part of the Middle East.
I’m sure you do not seriously believe that Israelis can stand on a wall shooting Arabs forever.
The 2nd intifada was in reponse to the failure of the peace process, compounded by the the unconditional support by the US. There would be no need to repeat the intifada in the case of a single state.
Israel has nothing to fear from Hezbollah so long as they stay the hell out of Lebanon. The salute of Hezbollah actually originated in the US, and was a salute to the constitution. The Nazis copied it from them.
Seriously WJ, I can’t believe you’re really that childish. Do you fear the Russians because they goose step?
How is the rhetoric in the Quran any more alarming to you than the Old Testament? Have you actually studied the Quaran, or are you going by second hand information here?
I see, so deep down you think that Arabs are incapable of looking after themselves?
RoHa- Yes. I think Israel will have to adjust to the neighborhood eventually and deal quite quickly with the fiasco of the settlements in the West Bank or else it will have to adjust to the neighborhood quite quickly. I was asked a question (which may have been rhetorical) and I answered it honestly.
Shingo- You ask a question about my emotions, debase my fears as based upon mere slogans and then proceed to deal with the issue of my emotions with great superficiality.
Yes, I’ve read the Koran and I don’t like the possible implications of the verse that says that Allah turned some Jews into monkeys and pigs. If you need me to do research on all the negative verses in the Koran, I will do so, but a quick superficial read through reveals many verses that are not quite positive about the Jewish people.
Yes, I have serious doubts about the Arabs ability to rule themselves.
I worry about the Old testament because it led to the building of the west bank settlements and they have been an utter fiasco.
I worry about the Koran because though men of good heart can use it for good, men of evil hearts can use it for evil and there are still evil hearts on this planet even amongst Muslims.
I might not worry about the Russian goose step, but they don’t live next door. But ask the Ukranians or the Chechnyans what they think of the Russian tendency towards aggressive actions.
You tell me that I have nothing to fear from Hezbollah. Maybe intellectually you are correct, but fears are not intellectual. And there is really no reason to think that Nasrallah is not following orders from Tehran, so I am not sure that your assertion is even accurate on an intellectual level. And there are plenty of people in Lebanon who fear Hezbollah, so fear and Hezbollah go together like chocolate chip cookies and milk.
The fact that Hamas blew up the Sbarro pizza restaurant might be explainable by the breakdown of the peace process. The fact that they commemorated it with an exhibition is a sign of utter depravity. And don’t cite Israeli depravities to offset Hamas’s depravity. You asked the question about my fears and I gave you an answer.
No you haven’t read the Koran,
It does not refer to Allah turned some Jews into monkeys and pigs. That passae does not refer to Jews faith, but only a certain group of people from the followers of Musa.
The Ukranians are predominantly pro Russian. The Orange Revolution was a made to order production by Washington that quickly lost steam.
The Chechnyans are seperatists, who like the Palestininas, want to be independent, but unlike the Palestinians, do not suffer from land theft, check points and home demolitions.
If you have fears, then you have a choice to indulge them, or resolve them. Most fears are based on irrational perception, so engange your mind and look at your fears rationally.
If you fear Hezbollah, why do you fear them? Do they threaten Israel? No. Do they have the capacity to threaten Israel? No.
Whatever you think of Nasrallah, he’s a very smart operator and is no one’s puppet. I won’t bore you with the details, but ask Walid abotu him if you;re that frighterend of him. He might put your mind at rest.
Therer’s pleenty of people who fear the IDF, so I guess the IDF and fear go together like Humus and pita bread.
The peace process broke down because it was never going to go anywhere. The Palestine Papers expain that perfectly. Rabin’s asassination was probably the turning point.
So you have a choice WJ. Deal with your fears or indulge them. The choice is yours.
What is your optimism based upon?
I have no optimism. I expect the worst at all times.
But it’s clear to me from your remarks that your fears are indeed founded on nothing concrete and should not be used in any rational decision process. What people like you need is therapy, to cure you of the consequences of a lifetime of scaremongering.
And I would point out that the worst of your imaginings are negligible in comparison to the actual bloodbath that has been carried on by the Israeli state against the Palestinians.
The problem with this position is the exceptionalism – the insistence that nonJews must suffer a thousand blows in order that Jews might not suffer a single one.
The fact that they commemorated it with an exhibition is a sign of utter depravity.
And what is it a sign of that Israel has erected a monument to honor its own terrorists and holds a commemoration for them every year?
link to en.wikipedia.org
Well, the thing with those comparisons is, they are always seen from the endgame point of view. In 1940, the Warsaw Ghetto was a cramped, walled-in enclosure in which hundreds of thousands of people were held, surrounded by a hostile military force which would sporadically kill some of the inhabitants. It was not yet what you describe above – but it rapidly moved to this endgame as the war progressed.
We do not yet know what the endgame for Gaza will be. We do similarly not yet know what the endgame for the escalating racism and discrimination against Arabs will be. But we know that their beginnings look not too dissimilar to other beginnings, more than 70 years ago.
awesome comment Koshiro.
Holocaust denial as in “if the Holocaust was like the situation in Gaza, then maybe the Holocaust wasn’t that bad”.
that’s not holocaust denial jon, that’s your nakba denial shining thru.
plus, you can’t make that statement without twisting the words around. phil didn’t say the holocaust was like the situation in gaza, as you earlier stated a reference to Gaza as the Warsaw Ghetto.
“Holocaust denial as in “if the Holocaust was like the situation in Gaza, then maybe the Holocaust wasn’t that bad”.
This is stupid. Next you’ll be telling us that the show “Seinfeld” was engaged in Holocaust denial, because if a bad-tempered soup vendor could be compared to the Nazis, then maybe the Nazis weren’t so bad.
I don’t like the Gaza comparison to Warsaw for exactly the reasons you and others have mentioned and I’ve said it myself–the scales are vastly different. But exaggerated comparisons of one evil to another are a pretty normal part of political discourse, and in particular Nazis come up so often there’s a term invented to make fun of the fact that they inevitably pop up in any political thread that lasts long enough–”Godwin’s Law”. I’d much prefer it if people said Israel was guilty of war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and in general, the sort of behavior typical of settler colonial regimes without going overboard with Holocaust comparisons.
But no, it’s not Holocaust denial to compare Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto. It’s an exaggeration and you can criticize it on those grounds, but when you pull the “Holocaust denial” card you just look opportunistic.
I think that if I were inclined to do so I could do a better job representing the liberal Zionist viewpoint than any liberal Zionist here.
I’ve seen other liberal Zionists at other blogs do a better job. You and WJ are usually pretty reasonable guys, but you just don’t seem able to make an argument today that doesn’t depend on asinine exaggerations.
If X bears a resemblance to Y but is on a lesser scale, is it more important that the scale is different or that the analogy exists? Does nothing short of exact resemblance, as to structure and as to scale, raise serious moral reactions of praise or blame?
Analogies often do more harm than good–compare X to Y when there are significant differences and immediately, rather than focus on how bad X is, you give apologists an opening to start discussing the differences between X and Y. And they might have a point.
I just don’t get the need people have to make comparisons whose merits are debatable when there’s an open and shut case to be made that Israel is guilty of immense cruelty in its treatment of the Palestinians. The case makes itself–one just has to lay out the facts.
I think it should be remembered that the pro-Israel side loves their Nazi comparisons–I’d rather the pro-Palestinian side retain the rhetorical high ground here.
I tend to agree Donald,
But analogies dominate our discourse, and symbols can be powerful. You may reject the Gaza./Warsaw comparison, but then all that does is allow the Israeli apologist to hide behind the meme that what was done to Jews in Warsaw justifies what Israel is doing because it is not as bad.
“that does is allow the Israeli apologist to hide behind the meme that what was done to Jews in Warsaw justifies what Israel is doing because it is not as bad.”
But I think that argument is easy to shoot down. They get away with that sort of nonsense in the political mainstream only because serious critics of Israel are mostly kept out of the discussion.
i think the reason israel’s apologists have wrapped this comparison in with holocaust denial is because holocaust denial is so damning (as it should be) the same way anti semitism is daming (as it should be). it’s a successful rhetorical tool to slander ones opponent.
but it’s disingenuous to co opt either of those accusations for other usages and fling them like stones and attack people with them. it’s because they are both so damning they are used as a rhetorical weapon spreading a wide net around other ideas and concepts gathering them inclusively in with the accusations.
denying the holocaust existed is denial of the holocaust, denying the genocide. but certainly one can take events leading up to that genocide and notice similarities occurring elsewhere throughout history. were laws set in place that nurtured society along the path of acceptance (or believing in a necessity) and a facilitation of what was to lie ahead? is it fair to make comparisons?
when is the right time to observe when racist laws or policies compare to that era? when they are proposed? become law? implemented? if people are living inside an imposed ghetto under deplorable conditions and being attached under a policy of deprivation and cruelty it’s fair to make the comparison. that is not denying the holocaust. it is recognizing one is treading on a dangerous path.
I think that if I were inclined to do so I could do a better job representing the liberal Zionist viewpoint than any liberal Zionist here.
I agree. Which is why I’m glad you’re on our side :-)
“I agree. Which is why I’m glad you’re on our side :-)”
Thanks.
Seriously, though, it probably wouldn’t hurt to have a some liberal Zionists around here making the best case they can for their position.
It’s good to sharpen one’s arguments against smart people. WJ and JonS are smart, but a little off their game in this thread, IMO.
I think it’s a tough job for Liberal Zionists to make a strong case and be consistent, because as we see time and time again, there is a limit to what they will accept and admit before they shut down and return to their infantile mindset.
Take Jon S for example. I was impressed by his first column on this blog (when he first introduced the concept of post Zionism), but as we’ve gotten to know more about him, he’s demonstrated repeatedly that the incoherence of Zionism, it’s inability to fully accommodate human rights and it’s disharmony with justice inevitably beings them unstuck.
jon s has a Holocaust fixation, and he can’t break free of it to consider the larger questions of justice.
In fact, I believe it was jon s who claimed he didn’t believe in justice, only “peace,” which is to say, nobody bothers Jews.
there is a limit to what they will accept and admit before they shut down and return to their infantile mindset.
one of the things that bothers me the most about most ‘liberal zionists’ (well, most if not all i have ever encountered online anyway) is the inability to acknowledge or recognize the colonialist nature of the state, from the get go. we’ve had conversations about it numerous times and it invariably becomes a dead end.
For me, it’s the simple idea that they do not want to live with any other group of people or ethnicity. They will argue till they are blue in the face that it’s not a racist or supremacist thing, but it sure ain’t because they feel the love. The argument is as futile as white people arguing for why they want a white society and don’t want to mix with people of color.
Even if it can be argued that Zionist ideology didn’t start out that way, it’s clearly was has transpired.
Of course, how could it not be? if you isolate and community and cleanse it of all but one ethnicity, they are clearly going to become increasingly aware/fearful/distrustful of those that are different.
What’s worse, is that Israeli society had becoming so racist (clearly as a result of Zionism), that they are directing their racism towards fellow Jews.
Annie,
There was a continuous Jewish presence in Palestine from time immemorial and certainly over the last 2500 years. How does this make Jews returning to the area colonialists? That is easy, because the Jews coming are according to you not really related to the ones there. The Jewish nation is just an invention, go read Sands book.
Do you really want us to take you seriously when you think you can tell us what we are because that is the only way you can square your peculiar world view? We have had enough over the years of people with your mindset telling us what we are or are not. People that think they can define the Jews better than they can define themselves. You are just a living proof of how essential Zionism is so that Jewish identity will not be at the mercy of people like you but will be decided by the majority of the Jews.
On another note, I can only laugh when you define my refugee grandparents as colonialists.
Based on what evidence eee? The Bible, Mr Empiricist?
It’s called science eee, As an empiricist, I would have expected you to understand that world views are based ion evidence.
Sorry eee, but it seems every Jewish individual who comes to this blog seems to have a completely different theory of what it means to be Jewish, so you can’t blame us goys for wanting to help.
Laugh away, at least while you still can.
There was a continuous Jewish presence in Palestine from time immemorial and certainly over the last 2500 years.
So? There has been a continuous Jewish presence in Italy for nearly that long, a continuous Jewish presence in Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, etc.
I must be missing some profound empirical-epistemological step here that turns that into the right to exclusive sovereignty for anyone, anywhere in the world who happens to share the same religion/ethnicity.
Long live greater Etruria – A land without a people for a people without a land!
(As recent events have shown, the Italians aren’t capable of ruling themselves anyway.)
” How does this make Jews returning to the area colonialists? That is easy, because the Jews coming are according to you not really related to the ones there.”
It doesn’t matter whether they were related or not. What matters is that they were foreigners who intended to take over the land from the natives.
If a bunch of Canadians from Nova Scotia went to Glasgow and set up a state there, they would be foreign colonists even if every one of them could show a family tree proving descent from Hamish and Fiona MacDonald of the Gorbals.
Donald, thanks for the sort-of compliment. Maybe I’m having a bad day, but Phil’s Warsaw Ghetto remark really pissed me off.
eee, i have never argued there has not been a continuous presence of a jewish community in the holy land so your response to me is a non sequitur and not related to any point i’ve made. furthermore the rationale of a miniscule minority of world jewry remaining in the holy land thru the ages is not an argument the hundreds of thousand who started arriving as a result of the zionist movement divorces them from being part of a colonialist project. in fact they called themselves colonialist back then, or have you forgotten.
because the Jews coming are according to you not really related to the ones there
oh really, if that was ‘according to me’ you should have no problem w/a copy paste, because this is not part of my argument either. you’re arguing a strawman, one you’re quite comfortable with.
the next time you respond to me try copy pasting my words instead of making up pretend arguments of mine to do battles with.
Do you really want us to take you seriously when you think you can tell us what we are
you brought up sands, not me. go hump your little strawmen all day for all i care. if you want to be taken seriously engage me seriously in relation to what i’ve said.
Maybe I’m having a bad day, but Phil’s Warsaw Ghetto remark really pissed me off.
jon, that was on the 26th. today is the 28th and there’s an amazing beautiful revolution going on. this is the beginning for a new day!
For me, it’s the simple idea that they do not want to live with any other group of people or ethnicity.
nah, most liberal zionists do not even live in israel. they just want to reserve the right for the ones that do, or for a back up nation or a vacation/second home option. if most liberal zionists didn’t want to live w/other groups of people none would be living in the US.
other than that, i totally agree w/your comment shingo and so many of your contributions here and your persistence.
Annie, I wish I could be so optimistic. Don’t you think there’s a danger of Islamic fundamentalists taking over in Egypt? Aren’t you concerned about the survival o of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty?
jon i urge you to read Helena Cobban’s excellent post on the muslim brotherhood from just yesterday. i am not afraid of democracy.
Shmuel,
Changing the subject when all else fails? Jews immigrated to Palestine and fairly bought every peace of land they sat on. It was in fact the Arabs that demanded exclusive sovereignty and wanted to stop Jewish immigration. It was in fact the Arabs that rejected the partition compromise. Calling Jews coming into mandatory Palestine “colonialists” is just laughable.
oh, about that israel-egypt peace treaty. here’s helena:
surely a peace treaty should be in the best interests of both countries. let israel and egypt make a peace that does not depend on the subjugation of millions of egyptians and propping up a dictator. any treaty worth maintaining should be able to be maintained by democracies on both sides. who says we should only respect democracies when the people choose the neoliberal dictator we impose? you either support people’s self determinations or not. a democracy is not real when it only takes into account the voices of the people you want to hear from.
eee, Calling Jews coming into mandatory Palestine “colonialists” is just laughable.
for your edification:
wiki: Palestine Jewish Colonization Association
Changing the subject …
Actually my comment was very much to the point. The issue of Jewish sovereignty is essential to political Zionism, which claimed that right (regardless of the will of the native population of Palestine – including native Palestinian Jews) on the basis of ancient Jewish sovereignty and, to a lesser extent, continuous Jewish presence (the point you were trying to make). To pretend that Zionism is merely about the right of Jews to live peacefully in Palestine is disingenuous to say the least.
Annie,
Yeah sure, “colonization” just means “settlement” in this context. It has nothing to do with the European style “colonization” that is quite different.
The people continuously residing in Judea are still residing there. They are called Palestinians now, but somehow they aren’t considered worthy of sovereignty.
The Diaspora Jews left the place. Unlike Rahm Emanuel, they didn’t retain residency and they have no right to walz in and reclaim it from the residents who remained.
Shmuel,
That the Zionists hoped one day to have a Jewish state does not make the enterprise of immigrating to Palestine “colonization”. The Zionist project could have gone many ways depending on the Arab attitude to Jewish immigration.
“colonization” just means “settlement” in this context.
you’ve got it turned around. ‘settlement’ is just a less offensive/obvious word for colonization. that is what they are doing as we speak, colonizing palestine. they’ve been doing it from the get go. wake up eee, you’re in denial.
The Zionist project could have gone many ways depending on the Arab attitude to Jewish immigration.
Which is why Zionist leaders and settlers sought to cultivate understanding with the native population of Palestine from the very beginning, rather than appealing to European powers (Germany, Russia, Britain) to impose a colonialist Jewish state (Judenstaat) in Palestine, to accommodate the needs and aspirations of a non-native population. Had Zionism followed the latter path, it would certainly have been a colonialist project in thought as well as deed. Good thing it didn’t, eh.
You bring up an excellent point Donald. This argument could similarly be used against those who insist it’s now 1939 all over again and that Ahmadinejad is Hitler. There can be described as Holocuast denial too in a sense, seeing as Iran hasn’t even fired a shot at Israel amd that having a Jewish state hasn;t prevented another Holocaust.
Iran hasn’t fired a shot? How about their supporting and supplying the Hizbullah? The bombings in Buenos Aires of the embassy and the Jewish community facility , carried out by Iranian agents? Their intentions are all too clear.
Oh Jon,
Are you really that stupid or just pretending to be? So what if Iran supplies and supports Hezbollah? Was it Israel or the US that massacred 1,400 Palestinians during Cast Lead?
Neither Hezbollah nor Iran had anything to do with the bombings in Buenos Aires.
You can read about that BS theory here. No evidence of Iranina or Hezbollah complicity. Just a Washington talking point….as always.
link to thenation.com
The bombings in Buenos Aires of the embassy
lol
See here:
link to news.bbc.co.uk
yes i know, 12 years after the bombing they blame iran. typical and unconvincing jon.
To inflate a few isolated instances into a fullblown plan for frontal assault isn’t rational. Israel has done the same to Iran. Israeli-backed terrorist agents are prowling all over the place, assassinating and sabotaging. “Their intentions are all too clear.”
Come on. Let go of the paranoia.
from Porters arctile:
and
Gt that Jon. They blamed Hezbollah purely on the basis that the explosion was a suicide bombing. Of course, they have’t even been able to prove it was a scuide bomb.
Gabriel Levinas, a researcher for AMIA’s own legal team and member of a leading Jewish family in Buenos Aires discredited the theory by Argentine prosecutors that argued that pieces of a white Trafic imbedded in the flesh of many of the victims of the explosion proved their case for a suicide bomb.
last but not least, the
It turns out that Telleldin was paid and told the prosecutors what they wanted to hear.
This is what Phil wrote:” the Warsaw ghetto that the Israelis have made of Gaza”.
jon s – look up “metaphor”
Metaphor, shmetafor, leave the Warsaw ghetto out of it.
I’m now accused of having a Holocaust obsession, yet I’m the one who vowed never to use the Holocaust to justify present-day Israeli policies, and I never have. I reacted because of Phil’s comment.
Dear Colleagues,
metaphors are always dodgy. Why not call it what it is? The largest open air prison in the world. Even this description is not perfect, since it doesn’t convey the internationally applauded imposition of precisely calibrated malnutrition and the random right to die for working within a variable distance of the border.
Instead of feeling offended at the comparison between Warsaw and Gaza, perhaps those whose feelings are so easily hurt should look into why many others have made that comparison. And if the comparison bothers them, then surely, working to end the ghetto conditions in Gaza is the best way to make such comparisons go away.
It seems that introspection is not one of their strong suits.