Steve Walt edges ever closer to… One democratic state

The most noble work inside the American establishment on our issue right now is to challenge our leaders on the two-state solution and say, How do you see that coming to pass? As I frequently say, I’m not against Partition (aren’t they about to do Partition in the Sudan?) but on what terms? What has Israel left the Palestinians with? Does it mean anything to you that Israel keeps stealing water and land and houses every day, and denies Muslims access to Jerusalem?

At Foreign Policy, Steve Walt uses Akiva Eldar’s brave piece in Haaretz on the death of the two-state solution to try and break the news inside the U.S.– and savage Dennis Ross’s responsibility for two-state’s demise. This argument is a noble one because if our leaders start to change their minds on this question, and American Jews start to wake up to democracy, the likelihood of massive bloodshed decreases. Italic is mine:

In what other line of work could someone fail consistently for two decades and still have a job? If you were a baseball manager and your team didn’t make the playoffs for two decades running, you’d have been canned long ago. If you were a CEO and you lost money for twenty straight years, the Board of Directors or the shareholders would have hired a replacement long ago. If you were a dean or a university president and faculty quality, student achievement and the size of the endowment kept declining on your watch, it’s a safe bet you’d be told that your services were no longer required.

But when it comes to U.S. Middle East policy, there is hardly any accountability. And the tragic irony is that advisors like Ross — who make no secret of their deep attachment to Israel — have in fact done an excellent job of scuttling prospects for a two-state solution that is Israel’s best hope of long-term security and international acceptances. After all, the only alternatives to “two states for two peoples” are 1) a binational democracy (which means the end of Zionism), 2) another round of ethnic cleansing (which would be a crime against humanity), or 3) some form of apartheid, with the Palestinians confined to a shrinking set of disconnected enclaves under de facto Israel control. And let’s not forget that this affects us too: our one-sided mismanagement of the “peace process” is one of the main reasons the United States is so unpopular throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

If Eldar is right — and I obviously think he is — then the post-Oslo peace process is over and the two-state solution is either dead or on life support. And as I’ve said repeatedly, if that is the case, then which of the alternatives listed above will the United States support? Which of the various possible solutions to the long conflict over the Holy Land are consistent with America’s supposed commitment to democracy, individual freedom, and basic human rights? (Hint: the United States is a liberal democracy where all races, religions and ethnic group are supposed to enjoy equal rights). When the two-state option is dead and buried and everyone admits it, what will presidents and secretaries of state say when they are asked what alternative they now support? For that matter, how would Dennis Ross answer that question?

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 97 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Dennis Ross may be out, but the two-state solution is never dead, until the people themselves vote for a single state.

    You see that happening?

    I’m sad to see Professor Walt flirt with giving up, as I’m sad to see Akiva Eldar.

    Only in a two-state setting does Palestine remain Palestinian. In a single state, with prohibitions against ethnically screened property sale, the land becomes dominated by Jewish, western, and affluent remote Islamic cultural features.

    Money, rather than family olive groves.

    Hamas should JUMP on board for Palestinian survival. Israelis should JUMP on board for universal recognition and an end to officially sanctioned disruption.

    Dissent should JUMP on board for the fulfillment of the people’s will.

    Its different than the status quo for any that will claim that peace is another name for preservation of the status quo.

    • MRW says:

      Who is Dissent?

      You’ve got Hamas and Israel jumping. They’re recognizable. But where does Dissent live or come from?

      ============
      BTW, the settlers uprooted the family olive groves.

    • libra says:

      RW: “In a single state, with prohibitions against ethnically screened property sale, the land becomes dominated by Jewish, western, and affluent remote Islamic cultural features.”

      Richard, I think you make a very perceptive point here. Rather than ethnic violence, I think this economic disparity and its consequences would be the greatest threat to a single-state. It really deserves a post of its own to properly address it. It would be great if you could flesh this out and get Phil to post it.

      But a quick response on an issue that deserves more thought. Israel is not immune to neo-liberal economics and sharply rising prices as the current (and wonderfully ironic) consumer boycott of cottage cheese demonstrates. So growing wealth disparity is already a problem for Israel, made worse by the fast-growing but non-productive ultra-orthodox community.

      Thus the scenario you envisage would be even more complex, creating two poor but fast-growing communities, each subject to religious extremism. But the more the rich hog the resources, the greater the demographic challenge and the economic burden of their negative productivity. It’s even conceivable that the interests of both Jewish and Muslim religious extremists converge in their mutual hostility to secular modernity.

      So the whole basis of how a single-state is organised would need to be looked at, perhaps benefiting from some of your (non-Zionist) liberal ideas. But don’t think this bleak future would be avoided by forcing the Palestinians to settle for a non-viable rump state. All you would have done it put a wall between Israel and a failing pseud0-state. It would be a temporary band-aid at best.

      I hope there will be a dedicated thread soon to discuss possible solutions to a very real concern.

    • Koshiro says:

      “In a single state, with prohibitions against ethnically screened property sale”
      I don’t know where you dug up this latest schtick: But prohibitions against discrimination do most definitely not mean that you have to sell your land to anyone. You can also refuse to sell it at all. In fact, I don’t have the slightest idea where you get this concept from in the first place. In a free economy, you can sell anything to anybody you want, no questions asked.

      Not that this is terribly relevant. Most of the land is state land. In a country with a highly politicized Arab population making up at least 50% of the voters, the chance that current policies earmarking 90% of the land for Jews remain in place is zero.

      • Money buys at that point.

        I can’t discrimminate against selling to anyone currently. Once I put my house up for sale, ANYONE can buy it if they can afford it.

        Settlements couldn’t be exclusively Jewish. Hebron couldn’t remain 99/1 Palestinian.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Money buys at that point.

          Remind me how you’re not actually a walking, talking anti-Semitic caricature.

        • You didn’t read?

          Jewish, European, Arab money.

          All not Palestinian, not olive groves.

          Is that your hope of what a single state would be?

          It would be wonderful if those that advocate for a single state from a Palestinian solidarity worldview, addressed the question, perhaps declaring:

          “I would love to live in my former village with expensive apartment buildings dominating the landscape, everywhere. I wish for prestigious settlements to dominate Palestinian land, just not only Jewish, mostly, but not only”.

        • Koshiro says:

          Nonsense. Sale of private land is just that: Private. If someone is interested in buying your land, and you don’t like their plans for it, you don’t sell.

          Since private land sales are such a miniscule part of the picture anyway, and seeing how bravely Palestinians cling to their lands when faced with far more brutal “incentives” than Jewish money, it is obvious that you are just waving a red hering around.

          The idea that in a one-state solution, the settlers would somehow have more leeway in acquiring Palestinian land – which they now “acquire” by just taking it by force under cover of the Israeli state – is so patently ridiculous that I can only conclude you’re really running out of ideas for discrediting the hated idea of giving up Jewish overlordship in Palestine. I mean, you are quite literally proposing that black is white here by claiming that more equality means more inequality.

          Oh, and by the way: If any Palestinian citizens in free country with full legal equality for all citizens should decide to give up their traditional lifestyle and sell their land to set up an urban existence: More power to them!

        • In a single state, there would be no way to preserve the “Palestinian nature of the state” is the point.

          (Currently, the status of land in Palestine is that it is illegal to sell land to a Jew – not exactly democratic. That would change.)

          Did that miss you?

          Some Palestinians prefer the cosmopolitan, some don’t.

          You’ve never studied the affects of money on society?

          A national approach is one that attempts to retain the national over the commercial.

          I assume that Palestinians desire to self-govern, rather than be governed by commerce.

          Unless you call the Israel side of the 67 borders “Palestine”, then your assessment is 178 degrees off.

          I am URGING the end of the occupation, with a peace treaty, at enough Israel.

        • Kathleen says:

          I thought a great deal of land in Israel is owned by govt. Jewish Agency.
          link to en.wikipedia.org
          Jewish Agency for Israel
          Maabara with new immigrants, 1950.

          Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the government created a new Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI) to facilitate economic development and the absorption of immigrants. In 1952 the “Law on the Status of the WZO and the Jewish Agency – 5713″ was passed formalizing the roles of each group. In June 1968 the Ministry for Absorption was created which took over some aspects of immigration from WZO/JA.[21]

          Since 1948, the Jewish Agency for Israel has been responsible for bringing 3 million immigrants to Israel. New immigrants are accommodated in one of 32 absorption centers across Israel. There they receive vocational training and go through an acculturation process. Most of the olim, or new immigrants, in absorptions centers are from Ethiopia. One of the most significant projects to bring Ethiopians to Israel was through Operation Solomon. Since there are fewer Jewish communities at-risk in the diaspora, the Jewish Agency is focusing on aliyah of choice. Staff are working closely with youth and religious movements to encourage immigration to Israel.[22] The organization was also instrumental in bringing over 1 million Jews from the former Soviet Union to Israel.[citation needed]

        • eljay says:

          >> I am URGING the end of the occupation, with a peace treaty, at enough Israel.

          But you are not URGING the end of the occupation until “enough Israel” has been acquired. (How much Israel is “enough Israel”?)

          True to your immoral, Zio-supremacist word, you’re all about “peace, not ‘justice’”.

        • 67 borders, with peace.

          Not that great a memory, Eljay.

        • eljay says:

          >> 67 borders, with peace.
          >> Not that great a memory, Eljay.

          Right. You’re the one who, only two posts ago in this exchange, was “URGING the end of the occupation, with a peace treaty, at enough Israel” and I’m the one with a poor memory.

          Nice to see, though, that you’ve qualified what “enough Israel” means to you.

        • pjdude says:

          the 67 borders are a violation of international law. and a good portion of the countries of the world can not accept them. the US included.

        • Mooser says:

          Just like every other half-Witted comment from Richard, this one adds up to:

          ‘Make one move, and the Palestinian gets in, right in the neck’.

          Yes, a walking talking anti-Semetic caricature. And he can’t understand why he can’t sell it here, when it does so well everywhere else.

        • Koshiro says:

          “In a single state, there would be no way to preserve the “Palestinian nature of the state” is the point.”
          Yes, in a unified state which is populated by two main ethnic groups with numerous subdivisions each, an exclusive ethnic identity for that state would not exist.

          Big deal. If the Palestinian population doesn’t have a problem with it, I certainly don’t either. I’m not at all a fan of ethnic-national identities in general.

          “I assume that Palestinians desire to self-govern, rather than be governed by commerce.”
          What an asinine sentence. First of all, I’ve told you before: There is no self government. Only a hermit on an unclaimed island can govern him- or herself.
          Secondly, in two states commerce is magically wished out of the picture? How and why? Your assertions are especially laughable as you continually insist on keeping settler communities in Palestine intact, which – according to your twisted logic – would then proceed to buy up the entire country.

          And by the way, it’s totally irrelevant if you call the unified, single state with equal rights for all “Israel”, “Palestine” or “Super Mario Land”. What counts is that it has equal rights for all. Which would mean modestly diminishing Jewish rights and greatly enhancing Palestinian rights – which is precisely why you oppose it.

        • Hostage says:

          the 67 borders are a violation of international law. and a good portion of the countries of the world can not accept them. the US included.

          The United States has never said the 67 borders are a violation of international law. In any event the UN and the international community of states have a commitment to preserve the territorial integrity of all the States in the region. The US and Israel cannot impose a requirement for the Palestinians to agree to any further territorial revisions or that they postpone their statehood while negotiations proceed. Israel’s statehood has never been labelled as an obstacle to negotiations.

          It is a matter of public record in the United States that our government said:

          Will we make good on our pledge to support the territorial integrity of all states in the Middle East?
          .
          Our best answer is that we stand by that pledge, but the only way to make good on it is to have a genuine peace. The tough question is whether we’d force Israel back to 4 June borders if the Arabs accepted terms that amounted to an honest peace settlement. Secretary Rusk told the Yugoslav Foreign Minister: “The US had no problem with frontiers as they existed before the outbreak of hostilities. If we are talking about national frontiers—in a state of peace—then we will work toward restoring them.” But we all know that could lead to a tangle with the Israelis.

          It is also a matter of public record that Secretary Rusk made clear to Mr Eban that US support for secure permanent frontiers doesn’t mean we support territorial changes.

          Nothing has changed in the intervening years that alters the applicable law or the UN commitment to preserve territorial integrity. The author of resolution 242, Lord Caradon, spoke about the possibility of small mutually agreed upon swaps that some claimed were envisioned under the armistice agreements. But he limited those swaps to those that would benefit both sides and noted the armistice lines could not be altered without Arab consent. He made it clear that the land Israel was expropriating for the settlements violated resolution 242 and, like Mearsheimer and Walt, he warned that Israel was going to destroy itself:

          The process of colonisation of Arab lands goes rapidly ahead in disregard of objections from nearly every Government in the world, including’ even the American Government. These actions of the Israeli Government are in clear defiance of the Resolution 242. They constitute an open rejection of the policy so widely supported in 1967. They are in effect an endeavour to annex all the Arab lands of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza in an expanded Israel, and to condemn the Palestinian people to permanent subjection or exile. It is a policy which perpetuates injustice and enmity, and, if pursued further, will lead to disaster for everyone including Israel. I do not retract the phrase I used long ago about the Israeli settlements in Arab land. They are indeed “signposts to destruction.” — UN Security Council Resolution 242 – A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity’, Caradon et al, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, 1981, page 12

    • Hostage says:

      Dennis Ross may be out, but the two-state solution is never dead, until the people themselves vote for a single state.

      You see that happening?

      Nobody in Washington asked F. W. de Klerk if the people were ready to vote for a single state when they were deciding whether to apply economic sanctions.

      The other day Mondoweiss ran an article about PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s appearance at the Bilin demonstration where the IDF fired on a bulldozer. According to the Maan and Al-Ahram reports Fayyad said “either we achieve freedom from the Israeli occupation or we will demand instant Israeli citizenship, including the right to vote.” There is a reprint of the Al Ahram article here

      Many comments here reflect an assumption that Fayyad never says anything without the permission of the Western and Arab Quartets. If that’s the case, then this should definitively answer Prof. Walt’s rhetorical question about what comes next.

      • Sumud says:

        Hostage ~ I don’t think Fayyad is as much a yes-man as he is generally held to be here.

        I recall maybe 9 months ago (before the Eyptian Revolution) reading several pieces on the conflict between Fayyad and Abbas, how Abbas was bitterly opposed to Fayyad’s plan to request membership at the UN later this year, and this issue between them had been festering. Fayyad dropped out of view for a while but since Egypt it is Abbas who has dropped out of view, and Fayyad is back with a vengeance. I note also that the Hamas/Fateh reconciliation came so quickly after Mubarak exited the scene. I think Abbas has felt his power (what little of it there is) draining away now that Mubarak is no longer there to steer the Arab League where he and more importantly US/Israel wants it to be.

        I liked Fayyad’s quote you highlighted above. Despite appearances, Palestinians are in a much stronger bargaining position that most think, and it is ultimately in their hands whether or not Israel exists in it’s current form beyond the next 10 or 20 years.

        Below, Robert quotes all the Israelis leaders who have alluded to the danger Israel is in when Palestinians finally decide to get behind a one-person/one-vote civil rights campaign. Stupidly, they don’t seem to be able to act on it, but I’d bet my life that many sleepless nights are being had in Israel over just this issue.

        I wrote a few days ago on another thread to eee: don’t complain in the future when Israel does not exist. Don’t say you weren’t warned. Palestinians have been very patient but this won’t last much longer.

        Fayyad’s influence may be limited, but he is letting Israelis know he too is aware of the stakes, and aware of Palestinians superior bargaining position.

  2. Kathleen says:

    “For that matter, how would Dennis Ross answer that question?”

    He will never be asked by the big guns?

    From what Walt said at the Move over Aipac conference
    link to moveoveraipac.org he seemed to be leaning more towards Mearsheimers stance.
    link to mondoweiss.net
    Mearsheimer: There will be no two-state solution, only a greater Israel, and Palestinians will need the int’l community in the coming fight against apartheid

  3. Leigh says:

    Unconvincing. Dennis Ross hasn’t been failing, he has been succeeding. That’s precisely why he still has the job.

    Walt assumes that the US supports a two-state solution, which commits him to this strange idea that the US has kept a negotiator in the job who has been failing for 20 years, even though they’ve been desperate for a solution which he clearly can’t deliver.

    For various reasons, the US backs whatever Israel wants and opposes what Israel doesn’t want. In that sense Ross has been successful. Accordingly, I suspect that if Israel decides to unilaterally withdraw from, and completely wash their hands of, a piece of occupied territories, the US would help them push UN member countries to recognise it as a Palestinian state.

    I guess it’s back to this odd idea that Walt and Mearsheimer (and many of you guys) defend that the US has been consistently and systematically and deliberately acted against its own interests for decades. It just does not make sense.

    • Max Ajl says:

      Well, Leigh, you are partially correct. But I’d add a few points. The “US” has no interests.” Different people within the US have interests, and some of them include the people in the lobby, who have lots of investments in Israel. They may have chosen to put them into Israel because they were Zionists, or because they saw the opportunity for a buck, whatever the case may be, those interests are there, the investments are real, and so people defend them. Ending the occupation will require a great deal of change in Israeli society, there will have to be a lot of distribution, maybe from the top to the bottom, and the Israeli ruling class will do whatever it can to postpone that change, whatever form it takes.

      A lady from Ramallah told me she doesn’t think Israel will survive ending the occupation. Maybe she’s right. Provided that it doesn’t go up in a radiation plume, I won’t exactly be heartbroken over that, but the Israeli elite will, and so will the American elite, which, whatever some sectors of it may think of the occupation, do want Israel to continue to exist in the Middle East. Walt and Mearsheimer say as much in their book.

      So what do they do? They stall a lot, and Obama can’t even impose the apartheid solution that he’d probably prefer, given who funded his election. (Bush’s “peace process” was just window-dressing in my opinion.) If enough pressure mounts, and we are far from that point, a Democratic president may be able, or be forced to, ram through a nicer version of the apartheid solution, better than what Walt envisions perhaps but hardly justice. The quality of that version will depend on the amount of pressure mounting. At the moment, a veneer of concessions will do the job. Later as pressure mounts, perhaps real concessions will be in order.

      The lobby does represent a political blockage to getting those concessions. It does not represent even close to the sole political blockage to ending the Special Relationship, which is about arms sales, high-tech, and constricting oil supplies through a destabilized Middle East, in the process keeping oil prices and in turn gas prices high, and keeping the profits from those oil and gas prices cycling into Western hands.

      So finally the idea that Western pro-Pal activists should be lining up behind the agenda that the status quo is bad for the empire is self-defeating — or defeating for those who will have to live in the aftermath of a resolution imposed on imperial terms. Which won’t be the people commenting on this blog, for the most part.

      • ToivoS says:

        I disagree with your assertion that there is no such thing as US national interests. It is sometimes very difficult to define what it is, but when things go bad the picture comes into sharper focus. The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not in US national interest. Not the American people’s, not the workers, farmers, middle classes and even not the usual war mongering capitalists. Losing wars is bad. In this case we can make, as do Walt and Mearsheimer, the case that Israel and the Israeli lobby acted against the interests of the US when they manipulated the US into the Iraq war.

        I agree with your point that in the long run, many of the foreign policy types have a conception of US national interests that are not something in which I or many of us here would agree.

        • Max Ajl says:

          Oil and weapons firms did incredibly well off the Iraq War. Stocks in general headed off deflation — which Greenspan and others were warning about. Finance did great until 2008. Who “lost” the war?

        • Kathleen says:

          neo, oil, theo cons pushed for the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. The neo cons (mostly Jewish) were the biggest, most embedded war pushers. Wolfowitz, Libby, Feith, Wurmsers, Hadley, Rubin, along with Cheney, Rumsfeld

        • Kathleen says:

          Scooter Libby

        • Max Ajl says:

          Kathleen, at some point you might choose to try to understand the distinction between cheer-leaders and players. They play different roles. The cheerleaders are important. But the game needs the players. No one has denied the role of the lobby and the neo-cons in pushing for the war. But if you want to understand policy, you look at its beneficiaries and funders. That would be the weapons and oil industries. You can also choose not to understand that link, nor the fact that Rice, Cheney, and Bush are not Jewish and they were in the upper echelons of decision-making. You don’t have access to the archives. What you have access to are data on campaign funding and the profits from the corporate sectors whose candidate got into office. Read this:

          A growing body of evidence, and even greater body of speculation built on that evidence, has been compiled over the last three years. Based on it, here is the short answer to the first question: In connection to the war in Iraq, there are two main groupings of interests in the current White House. The upper echelon, Bush, Cheney, and Rice, is closely connected to Big Oil, and so are dozens of administration officials. On the level directly below the top, the launching of the war was handled by neo-conservatives such as Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Bolton, and Cambone; the neocons were mostly brought to the White House by Cheney. The neo-conservative team in government was supported by a strong cast of characters on the outskirts of government, including Perle, Wurmser, Ledeen, Gaffney, and many others. The so-called neocons drew their power from two constituencies, the defense industry and the Israel Lobby.

          Three observations are needed to finish the picture. First, the defense industry is the dominant economic force in Washington, a position that is inherently tied to the size of the defense budget. Cheney, Bush and many other top officials have deep ties in the defense industry. Second, it is a mistake to view the connection to Israel as a purely ideological affair. In so far as it is a factor in American politics, Israel stands for the small elite of military, business and political figures with close ties within the U.S. Third, there is a silent element in this picture: the larger part of the U.S. ruling class outside the directly involved industries. While there is no evidence I am aware of there has been a push for war outside the oil and defense industries and the Israel Lobby, it is quite improbable that the war could have be launched without at least the tacit acceptance of the broad corporate/capitalist class.

          link to dissidentvoice.org

  4. eee says:

    The usual lack of imagination. There are many more options available if the two state solution does not materialize. For example, Gaza becoming part of Egypt and the WB becoming part of Jordan. In the very worst case for Israel, it will just withdraw to the security fence unilaterally and respond if attacked.

    • Pamela Olson says:

      LOL! You really believe that, don’t you?

      That’s adorable.

      • Max Ajl says:

        Pamela, eee is a right-wing Zionist troll, but through the filter of his/her racism it does occasionally perceive some truth. There are other options than the ones Walt outlines. They’ll be ugly as hell, for sure, and we should do everything we can to oppose them. But insofar as we simply say that a “one-state settlement is inevitable” after a civil rights struggle, don’t you think that faith in the future to provide justice provides a certain balm for people to avoid action, or avoid more urgent or radical or transformative action? I think it does, unfortunately, for some people.

    • annie says:

      In the very worst case for Israel, it will just withdraw to the security fence unilaterally and respond if attacked.

      oh yeah, ‘very worst’ ..it sounds so horrible! just having to retreat to ones borders like every other normal country would do.

      . For example, Gaza becoming part of Egypt and the WB becoming part of Jordan.

      what a novel idea! why didn’t anyone think of that before. but you don’t mean the entire west bank do you? you mean whatever happens to be left over from israel’s carving out. you don’t mean the jordan valley do you? you don’t mean the land of the west bank do you? because we all know if you meant the entire west bank that would essentially be the same as israel ‘ withdrawing to the security fence ‘ which is the VERY WORST, according to you.

      so what is it you really mean by ” the WB becoming part of Jordan”? do you mean the people of the west bank, the palestinians, becoming part of jordan?

      • eee says:

        Let’s put the hysterics aside.
        If you think a one state is possible, how can it be possible with 99% of the Jews in Israel being “racist” like me?

        Do you really think we will one day look around and say: Wow, what a great idea, let’s be a minority in an Arab country!

        That will never happen. There is only one way to reach a peaceful solution, and that is through negotiations. Nobody is forcing the Palestinians to negotiate, but they will figure out soon enough that it is a big mistake not to.

        • Max Ajl says:

          Simple. We will put enough pressure on Israel through BDS that the Israeli upper-class has to let the refugees back. And then we will put even more pressure such that there will be massive redistribution of resources. And if you think America will come to your aid, we’ll carry out enough social disruption here that the American government will break the Special Relationship in the process of trying to let off enough steam to prevent a social revolution. And if you don’t like those strategies, cool. Don’t help. We will do it without you. You’ll be in good company with the populist chatterboxes.

        • annie says:

          eee, who are you talking to? i didn’t even reference racism so what’s w/the quotes around the word racist? and what’s w/the ad hominem referencing me as being hysterical?

          you didn’t address even one of my questions or remarks you just diverted.

          just answer me this eee, what do you mean by ‘WB’ when you say “the WB becoming part of Jordan“? and how pray tell is that any different than “the very worst case for Israel, it will just withdraw to the security fence unilaterally“?

          iow, whether the west bank is part of jordan or its own palestinian state it wouldn’t be inside israel so what difference would it make?

          just what is it you are saying? the land of the west bank? or the people? spit it out, don’t be diversionary. back up your words with meaning we can all understand.

        • Pixel says:

          When the pain of something remaining the same becomes greater than the pain of changing, things change.

        • eee says:

          Max,

          Give it your best shot.

          May I just point out a few inconsistencies in your strategy? According to you, isn’t it the case that all Israeli elites have second passports? Won’t they leave according to you before letting the refugees back? And will the Israeli lower classes accept having to give to Palestinian refugees the little they have? And aren’t you forgetting that according to you the Israeli state cannot control the settlers, so how how are you going to force the right in Israel to accept this solution? Maybe we can have an interesting talk in 20 years when you are a Republican.

        • MRW says:

          Max, you actually wrote something I like. ;-)
          July 7, 2011 at 1:59 pm

        • eee says:

          Annie,

          You are really paranoid. I mean a solution like in 1948 till 1967.

        • yourstruly says:

          The U.S. government will break the special relationship in order to let off enough steam to prevent a social revolution? A futile attempt to avert a revolution, that is. So many other “boils’ in our society simultaneously coming to a head – a failing health care system, multiple perpetual wars, debt, double-dip recessions, collapse of education, infrastructure, name it.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          You mean the one where Israel built up an invasion force in order to take land from Occupied Palestine, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria? Did I leave any of your neighbors out that you stole from? There’s Jordan, but you only stole from Jordan what you arranged for them to steal from Palestine, so.

        • Robert says:

          eee,

          You are not required to have warm relations with Arabs. Merely live side-by-side, debate each other in the Knesset, and do business in a formal, correct fashion. There doesnt need to be any love whatsoever. (That’s for down the road.)

      • libra says:

        annie: “oh yeah, ‘very worst’ ..it sounds so horrible! just having to retreat to ones borders like every other normal country would do.”

        annie, I don’t think the security fence eee had in mind withdrawing to is on Israel’s legal 1967 borders, but I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong. Because if he did mean the 1967 borders then such a unilateral withdrawal would be a great idea and should enable Israel to reach a full peace agreement with all its neighbours, as per the Saudi-led proposal, and thus secure its long-term future as the “Jewish state”.

      • Sumud says:

        oh yeah, ‘very worst’ ..it sounds so horrible! just having to retreat to ones borders like every other normal country would do.

        annie eee’s apartheid wall is a very long way from Israel’s declared borders…

        • annie says:

          annie eee’s apartheid wall is a very long way from Israel’s declared borders…

          and still he claims a retreat to it amounts to the very worst case for Israel.

    • MRW says:

      The usual lack of imagination. There are many more options available

      Well, eeeinstein, you’ve had 60 years to create and exercise your imagination and options. The only ones you’ve come up with are land theft and lying about it.

      • tree says:

        The only ones you’ve come up with are land theft and lying about it.

        Don’t forget the ‘forward into the past!’ suggestion to have Gaza be a part of Egypt and the West Bank part of Jordan. I wonder how long it took him to come up with that unimaginative idea?

        Did I mention how much I love Firesign Theatre?

      • eee says:

        What if the Palestinians and Arabs had used their imagination and put in place a Palestinian state in 1948? Till 1967, Israel did not occupy any part of the WB or Gaza. Why do they have to negotiate what they already had?!? That shows some imagination!

        • Chaos4700 says:

          What if the Palestinians and Arabs had used their imagination and put in place a Palestinian state in 1948?

          Because what? Because they were too busy being “ignorant savages” waiting for your kindly pasty-white European grandparents to come along? Please.

        • pjdude says:

          pray tell how does one create a state when one is occupied by three different states?

        • Hostage says:

          What if the Palestinians and Arabs had used their imagination and put in place a Palestinian state in 1948?

          Of course, that is exactly what they did. The Israelis simply used their imagination and ignored what had happened.
          *The UN refused to admit Transjordan as a member state in 1946 because it was part of the joint Palestinian mandate that had not been legally terminated. The Security Council recommended that a decision be postponed until the UN could determine the status of Palestine as a whole. –Minutes of the 57th Session of the Security Council, S/PV.57 pages 100-101 (pdf file pgs 3-4 of 52)
          *The General Assembly subsequently partitioned the territory west of the Jordan river into Jewish and Arab States of Palestine. Many people incorrectly claim that the Arab state was never established.
          *A day before the mandate was supposed to be terminated, the Jews declared the establishment of a State within the boundaries of the UN resolution.
          *A UN Mediator appointed by the General Assembly (Resolution 186) and the Security Council (Resolution 54) recommended the formation of a union of the former Arab territories of the Palestine mandate, including Transjordan. The proposal was not adopted, since the mandate had been terminated and the UN no longer had any say in the form of government adopted by the emancipated peoples.
          *The Permanent Members of the Security Council always refused to recognize the governments of their former war enemies. The All-Palestine Government in Gaza formed by the associates of Haj Amin al-Husseini was no exception. Most of them chose to accept the recommendation of the UN Mediator and called for a union of all the former Arab portions of Palestine. See for example Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume V, Part 2, Pages 1447-1448
          *The Second Arab Palestine Congress named Abdullah the “King of Arab Palestine”. Note: only in Hasbaraland do you prevent the establishment of a Arab state by naming an Arab King of the place in question.
          *Israel, Arab Palestine, and Transjordan were all Palestinian states.
          *There never was a Jordanian “occupation” because the government of the new state was composed of the legal representatives of the inhabitants of the Arab portions of the former Palestine mandate. You can’t “occupy” yourself with your own armed forces.
          *Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (not Transjordan) signed an armistice agreement formally recognizing the belligerent rights of the other party. Both sides acknowledged the legal competence of the other party to conclude a final settlement regarding their boundaries. Note: In the case of a King the legal principle of sovereignty is not abstracted. So, Israel and the United Nations recognized the government of Jordan when they negotiated, accepted, and endorsed those armistice agreements with it. See for example Security Council resolution 73
          *Under customary international law “Once the decision has been taken to recognize an insurgent government as belligerent, the legal consequences of the decision are not limited to its concession of belligerent rights. So long as it maintains an independent existence, the insurgent government is considered to have all the normal rights and liabilities of a State. Its legal position is not merely that of a military occupant as defined by the Hague Convention No. IV, of 1907. — See Ti-chiang Chen, “The international law of recognition, with special reference to practice in Great Britain and the United States”, Nabu Press, 2010, page 307-308.
          *So, the Jewish State of Palestine was named “Israel” and the Arab State of Palestine was named “Jordan”. The non-contiguous territory of Gaza was administered by Egypt as part of Arab Palestine under an Arab League agreement. The 1950 Jordanian Act of Union which placed both territories under the same municipal system of government contained a protective clause which preserved Arab rights in Palestine and was without prejudice to any final settlement. See Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 2, U.S. State Department (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pages 1163–68
          *In 1988 King Hussein dissolved the union and immediately recognized the PLO as the provisional government of the State of Palestine. Within a year 104 other states had recognized Palestine too.

    • ToivoS says:

      eee you missed the opportunity to bring up the option favored by the rightist and settlers — the widely support the transfer option. Transfer is an euphemism for ethnic cleansing.

      That is why civilized commentators mention two option — one or two state solution. The alternatives are either impossibly impractical or utterly inhumane. We all know the alternatives that are being considered behind walls of secrecy inside the Zionist state.

    • Sumud says:

      The usual lack of imagination.

      …says eee, and then, without even a trace of irony proposes the clock be wound back to pre-1967 where Jordan controlled the WB and Egypt controlled Gaza. Wanna see if Abdullah of Jordan can be cloned also?

      In the very worst case for Israel, it will just withdraw to the security fence unilaterally and respond if attacked.

      That’s not going to solve anything. Each of BDS three goals will be unmet so that campaign will continue apace. The three goals:

      1. Israeli withdrawal from occupied arab lands
      2. Full equality for Palestinian Israelis
      3. Right of return for Palestinian refugees

      The idea that withdrawing to the apartheid wall (which gobbles up 8.5% of the West Bank) end the issue is ludicrous.

      And then there’s the issue which talknic has raised of Israel having already declared it’s borders in 1948 and 1949 to be that of the UN Partition Plan, and having failed to legally annex any land beyond those borders.

      • I thought the BDS demands were:

        1. Israeli withdrawal from 67 borders (not the vague “Arab lands”)
        2. Full equality for Palestinian Israelis
        3. Right of return to Israel for those that originally resided in Israel

        • Sumud says:

          No need to be passive aggressive and/or infantile Richard.

          You’ve been supplied the link to the BDS Movement’s 2005 BDS call by myself about ten times – and you know it – and by others many times more.

          Look it up.

        • I looked it up, posted the original on my website.

          Its different than your description, with the ambiguity that I’ve described for years.

        • A year ago:

          1. Ending its occupation of lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall;
          2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality
          3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return in accordance with UN Resolution 194.

          Today:

          1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
          2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
          3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

          You find this to be a clear statement of demands, that can be fulfilled? Or a vague rhetorical ploy to establish permanent struggle?

        • Shmuel says:

          Richard,

          There is only one version of the goals of BDS – published in the “Unified Call” of Palestinian civil society in July 2005, and it reads as follows:

          1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
          2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
          3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

          The terms “occupation” and “colonization” are clearly defined at the beginning of the call, as referring to:

          the Palestinian West Bank (including East Jerusalem), Gaza Strip and the Syrian Golan Heights

          The term “Arab lands” is obviously meant to include the Golan Heights (as well as whatever undefined parts of Lebanon Israel tends to occupy from time to time), which are Arab but not Palestinian. The context of the “dismantling of the Wall” (in the occupied WB) in item 1, and the reference to “Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel” in item 2, further clarify the distinction between “occupied” lands and Israel.

          The call is crystal clear in its objectives, which are entirely based on the requirements of international law (as explicitly stated in the call). International law has also clearly defined which territories it considers occupied by Israel and which it does not. Your obsessive repetition of a baseless argument is tiresome, to say the least.

        • Sumud says:

          Your obsessive repetition of a baseless argument is tiresome, to say the least.

          Thank you Shmuel.

          I see no contradiction or inconsistency between my 17 word summary of the BDS call and the full 50 word statement Shmuel quotes. At just over a third as long it’s quite economical, if I may say so myself.

          Richard, are you actually accusing the BDS Movement of falsifying their own 2005 statement in the last year?

        • Shmuel,
          If you don’t perceive ambiguity in the call that is posted on one of the websites, then you are really not reading, particularly as Hamas continues to refer to all of Israel as occupied, and as “Arab land”.

          I’m sorry that this continues to be the case, but it certainly is.

          The BDS movement is attempting to have the liberal principled solidarity audience, AND the international Arab and Muslim audience (which needs the language to be vague, regarding all of the land as “Arab land”, all Jews as interlopers).

          That ambiguity is the difference between dissent and war frankly, depending on which side of the fence is the truth.

          The theme of “all Arab lands” is the militant warring language. The theme, 67 borders, is the conditional prospective peace.

          For those that advocate for a single democratic state. Do you regard Israel as “Jewish land” and the West Bank as “Arab land”? If you believe that the land is “Arab land”, can you honestly state that you are an advocate of a single democratic state, or rather an Arab nationalist one?

        • Falsifying? No.

          Revising. Revising to a “bigger tent” ambiguity.

        • Sumud says:

          Falsifying? No.

          Revising.

          You appear to be quoting two different texts Richard. Are you suggesting the text the BDS Movement presents as being from 2005 has been changed (revised, whatever) in the last year? Yes or no.

          What are your sources for the two versions you quote? Links please.

        • Shmuel says:

          As much as you would like the BDS call to be illiberal or at least “vaguely” illiberal, it is nothing of the sort. It clearly defines what it means by occupation and colonisation, and demands Israeli compliance with international law – no more, no less.

          The document in question is thus neither maximalist nor open to maximalist interpretation. If it fails to be conciliatory in its language that is because it is not a peace plan, but a demand for rights and justice – in light of the fact that “all forms of international intervention and peace-making have until now failed to convince or force Israel to comply with humanitarian law, to respect fundamental human rights and to end its occupation and oppression of the people of Palestine”.

        • Bumblebye says:

          RW
          Why do you Witter on so about Hamas referring to ‘Arab’ lands when you fail to even notice that Israel, along with its govt, refers to all the occupied lands as ‘Israel’? Y’know, ‘Land of’ and ‘State of’, and has an ever stronger tendency to term all Palestinians as ‘infiltrators’? There’s no big difference here, except that Hamas is merely mirroring what Israel started.

        • Sumud says:

          As much as you would like the BDS call to be illiberal or at least “vaguely” illiberal, it is nothing of the sort.

          I suppose Shmuel we must keep in mind Richard’s version of liberal is somewhat special.

          He advocates a plan more extreme than Avigdor Liebermen’s and still thinks he gets to call himself a “liberal” zionist.

        • eljay says:

          >> … “all forms of international intervention and peace-making have until now failed to convince or force Israel to comply with humanitarian law, to respect fundamental human rights and to end its occupation and oppression of the people of Palestine”.

          That’s because “enough Israel” has not yet been acquired. Once it has, perhaps then the occupation will end with a peace treaty. Certainly, RW will be URGING peace (but clearly not “justice”) at that time.

        • eljay says:

          >> Why do you Witter on so about Hamas referring to ‘Arab’ lands when you fail to even notice that Israel, along with its govt, refers to all the occupied lands as ‘Israel’?

          Don’t kid yourself, he notices. However:
          - he’s a hypocrite and a Zio-supremacist apologist; and
          - it’s all Hamas’ fault.

          Damn you, Hamas!!!

        • Shmuel,
          Why don’t calmly reply 67 boundaries, rather than an elaborate condemnation.

          And, if so, why isn’t that clearly in the headline of the demand.

          “Arab lands” is vague and threateningly so, and you know it well.

        • Sumud says:

          Answer my questions please Richard.

          You’ve claimed the BDS call from 2005 has been “revised” in the past year, and you’ve quotes two different texts. Now please back them up with links.

          This is an extremely serious accusation you’ve made.

        • “An extremely serious accusation”. Don’t exagerate the point.

          But, yes, it is a point about deception.

          Its possible that the PACBI site have presented the same stated goals consistently since 2005.

          Other sites have been referred to as “the” BDS source, that used the 67 language. I posted the juxtaposition from another BDS advocacy site, which I couldn’t find easily.

          In any case the “Arab lands” quote is both ambiguous and CONFLICTS with the concept of democratic single state in favor of the pan-Arab national state (in which Israel is the little blue dot).

          Contrary to Shmuel’s contention, the language is very ambiguous, probably to be palatable to an inclusive tent of Arab audiences, more than palatable to western.

          The Arab audience tent contains those that want
          1. No Israel, Jews gone
          2. No Israel, unlimited right of return so Jewish minority
          3. 67 borders

          Ambiguous. Appealing to jihadists, resistance, and peace-seekers under the same tent.

          Whereas that comprises NO intersection that yeilds peace, if it contains any that articulate “no Israel” in any format.

          And, until you clarify which of those views the BDS movement seeks, then Israel will be right in regarding it as an act of war (even war of ideas).

          Its stupid to restrict freedom of speech to prohibit BDS from being mentioned or advocated.

          But, I’ll continue to oppose it for multiple reasons.

        • Shingo says:

          Other sites have been referred to as “the” BDS source, that used the 67 language. I posted the juxtaposition from another BDS advocacy site, which I couldn’t find easily.

          Didn’t I tell you Sumud? Anotehr web site that apprently exists, but Witty can no longer find.

          Of course, Witty could go to the BDS web site (http://www.bdsmovement.net) and put all doubts to rest, but instead, he surveys the perifery in search of any interpretations he might find that suggest any malevolent agenda.

          Like the Goldstone Report, he’s afaid to actually read what it clearly spelled out on the fron page, becasue once he does, he won’t be able to feigh ignorance, drop innuendo and conflate, as is his passion.

        • Shingo says:

          The Arab audience tent contains those that want..

          So being unabel to substantiate his lies, Witty rerots to maligning the BDS movement by blaming them for every Arb in the Arabs world, good or bad.

          That’s like saying that Israel cannot be trusted because Baruch Goldstein was an Israeli.

          Witty, you have to be without a doubt, the sleaziest, most pathetic and most dishonest commenters I have ever come across.

      • pjdude says:

        And then there’s the issue which talknic has raised of Israel having already declared it’s borders in 1948 and 1949 to be that of the UN Partition Plan, and having failed to legally annex any land beyond those borders

        you mean the one where here pretends treaties aren’t worth anything. and that all of Israel was gained through illegal warfare even the the land in the “partitian” as the partitian was never passed.

    • Kathleen says:

      Keep spinning, diverting…stringing the process and a solution out. Time’s up. Mearsheimer conclusion makes a great deal of sense. If Israel does not sign a deal, really compromise, acknowledge the 67 border, stop building, expanding ILLEGAL settlements. Israel will become even more isolated, hated. The apartheid government will become even more exposed. No way around this. Unless they start really negotiating honestly

      • I agree with most of that assessment that Israel is becoming more isolated, unless they start negotiating honestly.

        I disagree with your hot language, obviously, which seems to me to be the majority of your intended message.

        Nice star by your name.

  5. eljay says:

    >> Does it mean anything to you that Israel keeps stealing water and land and houses every day, and denies Muslims access to Jerusalem?

    To me, it’s unjust, immoral and disgraceful.

    To Zio-supremacists – who are all about “peace, not ‘justice’” – it probably means nothing.

    >> After all, the only alternatives to “two states for two peoples” are … 2) another round of ethnic cleansing (which would be a crime against humanity) …

    Yes, it would, but you’d be surprised at how many Zio-supremacists could get behind it if it were labelled as “necessary” or as a “required” evil. Sure, some might have to “hold their noses” while their more robust co-collectivists did the dirty work, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t support it.

    Like the ol’ Zio-supremacist saying goes: “I cannot consistently say that ‘ethnic cleansing is never necessary’.”

  6. Dan Crowther says:

    Can we stop with the “brave” BS please? Lets stop congratulating people for commenting on things that are self evident. Eldar’s article is not “brave”

    also, ive read dick witty’s comment about ten times, and I still have no F’ing clue what he is talking about. Dick Witty: Also not brave.

    • Shingo says:

      also, ive read dick witty’s comment about ten times, and I still have no F’ing clue what he is talking about.

      That’s the idea Dan. Witty’s aim is to conflates and derail.

      Wait for his follow up explanation – it will confuse you even more.

      To cut to the chase, Akiva Eldar is an honest reporter and fearless critic of Israel, who Witty was able to hold up as a pillar of support for the 2ss. Now that Eldar has finally abandoned that position, Witty’s in a flap.

    • ToivoS says:

      Dan says: also, ive read dick witty’s comment about ten times, and I still have no F’ing clue what he is talking about.

      My experience also on most of his posts. It does no good to try to translate his gibberish into any kind of meaning for he will just respond that he is being “misinterpreted”. I do not understand why people argue with him since he is so incomprehensible. He posts over at Walt’s blog and as far as I have seen no one ever responds to him probably because no one has any idea what he is trying to say.

  7. RE: “when it comes to U.S. Middle East policy, there is hardly any accountability.” ~ Walt

    MY COMMENT: When it comes to U.S. Middle East policy, there is only AIPAC, the ADL, the ZOA, the AJC, CUFI, the Israel Project, The Emergency Committee for Israel…..[continued virtually into infinity]. Hence, there is little, if any, accountability to others. And AIPAC, et al. are very happy with the “progress” made by Dennis Ross, Elliott Abrams and their ilk.
    One Israeli commentator referred derisively to the aforementioned groups as “the alphabet soup of pro-Israel groups in the US”. But in actuality, these groups are far more pro-Likud than they are pro-Israel.

  8. Jake says:

    One secular state. Right of return for Jews and Palestinians. Tear down the wall. No special roads. Constitution giving equal rights to every citizen. Deal with the problems one by one. It would be one of the most desirable destinations to visit in the world.

    • Julian says:

      We have Muslim States in 99.95% of the region, that seem to need your incredible expertise more than Israel.

    • Sumud says:

      Right of return for Jews and Palestinians.

      Do you mean right of return for ME jews where it can be proved they were expelled? Or that the return of non-indigenous jews to (mostly) Europe and the US be facilitated?

      Surely not that the zionist “law of return” continues? Israel as a haven for jews is unnecessary. Most countries in the world are signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention.

  9. BillR says:

    “Let’s put the hysterics aside.
    If you think a one state is possible, how can it be possible with 99% of the Jews in Israel being “racist” like me?
    Do you really think we will one day look around and say: Wow, what a great idea, let’s be a minority in an Arab country!
    That will never happen…”

    The last time I left a comment of any kind on a website was here at Mondoweiss. Seeing as how it was essentially a middle finger to Phil and this site, I never expected to leave another one. I still check in here from time to time, though. On my first encounter I had high hopes for this site which, for reasons that could fill a monograph, I eventually lost. That is no biggie to Phil and the site I’m sure, cuz to quote an old proverb, “It’s your world, I only live in it.” Because of that I expect this comment will be interpreted as a hostile one. It is not and I write it with sadness. In spite of his rather bizarre suggestion that I left out from the above quote that it is Palestinians who have failed to negotiate in good faith with Israel, eee is far more prescient and correct in his assessment than Phil and his followers on the current state of the Israel/Palestine question. I don’t say this happily, cuz I find eee’s views repulsive. But the future for Palestinians is, I believe, an extremely bleak one. Not that a website could change that, cuz it couldn’t. But unfortunately, I am afraid this site will become not more, but less relevant in the coming weeks/months/years. Again I say this with sadness, and I hope that I am proved wrong.

    • annie says:

      bill, that comment of eee’s was addressed to me. note my comment above it. i never claimed 99% of the Jews in Israel being “racist” like like eee. this was him arguing a strawman. your comments here might seem more relevant if you address a comment that relates to reality, not eee’s fantasy debate partner.

      Do you really think we will one day look around and say: Wow, what a great idea, let’s be a minority in an Arab country!
      That will never happen…”

      i’ll tell you what else will never happen, palestinians will never say ‘hey, i’m cool without a country or human rights’. so while no one expects israel to do a flip and beg to dezionize you might consider the whole conflict doesn’t revolve around what israel would accept. there are two sides to this and you should be weighing both sides, not one. this means you have a few options to choose from. since you don’t think 2 states is possible what is it you think israel will offer palestinians will accept? because palestine has already offered up the farm and israel rejected it already (check PP link below)

      it is Palestinians who have failed to negotiate in good faith with Israel

      perhaps you missed the news of the palestine papers? the myth israel has no partner in peace has been thoroughly debunked.

      • RoHa says:

        Annie, in case you didn’t notice, in reference to the suggestion that “it is Palestinians who have failed to negotiate in good faith with Israel”,
        BillR says it is bizarre and specifically excludes it from the things he says eee is right about.

    • Robert says:

      BillR,

      Remember Desmond Tutu who said,

      “For goodness sake, this is God’s world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.”

      This is correct. I am saying this as a Jew, former liberal Zionist (actually, I didn’t know much about the truth), and opponent of Apartheid in the 1980′s. The Palestinians haven’t played the key card yet, which is to Demand Citizenship and the Right to Vote.

      This will absolutely gain traction in the United States and in the World.

      The President of Israel agrees with this: link to haaretz.com

      Netanyahu alludes to it: http://www.haaretz.com/…/netanyahu-israel-needs-to-separate-from-the-palestinians-1.368795

      Barak mentions it: link to guardian.co.uk

      Olmert warns of it: link to haaretz.com

      Sharon plans for it: link to haaretz.com

      Really BillR, eee doesn’t understand America, he doesn’t understand the American view of itself and of the importance that we are on the right side. That’s why we tell ourselves so much bullshit, but the bullshit will come to an end for the mass population of the United States.

      The Palestinians need to make One State their primary plank, and publicise it, and refrain from violence (even if richly justified), and it will take off in the United States.

  10. nmi says:

    annie

    The Israelis take.

    They have not and will not “give” anything to the Palestinians and why should they? What’s to compel them?

    That very radical anti-Zionist news organ known as TIME Magazine ran a cover story not long ago. The heading was “Why Israelis don’t want Peace.” The conclusion of the article was quite reasonable if not obvious. Time Magazine’s conclusion was that the Israelis don’t want peace because they already HAVE peace. Once the Israelis had managed to transfer all of the death and destruction, all of the horror and misery to the Palestinian side of the ledger, their incentive to grant human rights to Palestinians fell to zero.

  11. yourstruly says:

    Given that the unconditional U.S. support for the Zionist entity israel is why they hate us in the arab/islamic world, isn’t the most urgent task of anti-Zionists that of informing the public of the dire consequences of our government’s all out support of Israel? Is there anything that would advance the cause of justice for Palestine more than a popular outcry for severing the israel-U.S. special relationship? Alone and totally isolated, the Zionist entity would have only two choices, deal with the Palestinian leadership (Hamas included) or be sanctioned by a world that’s had it with Israel’s conquest of Palestine. Will the resolution of the I/P conflict be one or two states? That’ll be up to the Palestinian & Israeli negotiators, but with the former now setting the agenda.

  12. RoHa says:

    ” When the two-state option is dead and buried and everyone admits it, what will presidents and secretaries of state say when they are asked what alternative they now support?”

    Whatever Israel tells them to say.

  13. dbroncos says:

    “After all, the only alternatives to “two states for two peoples” are 1) a binational democracy (which means the end of Zionism), 2) another round of ethnic cleansing (which would be a crime against humanity), or 3) some form of apartheid, with the Palestinians confined to a shrinking set of disconnected enclaves under de facto Israel control”

    Two states is dead. The alternatives listed above need to be put to our reps, the sooner the better.