Harvard’s ‘one-state’ conference spurs ‘National Review Online’ to suggest expelling Palestinians from Jewish state

Israel/Palestine
on 0 Comments
Alan Dershowitz
Alan Dershowitz

There’s going to be a one-state conference at Harvard this weekend. One of the fascinations of my latest trip to Israel/Palestine was seeing how Palestinians have given up on the two-state solution because Israel has destroyed the possibility and the U.N. has pocket-vetoed Palestinian statehood, and people who are sick of occupation are desperately looking around for other ideas (including, inevitably, armed resistance).

The critics are going nuts. Carol Iannone of National Review Online writes:

however, as long as Harvard wishes to allow students to entertain different ideas, how about this — resettlement of the Palestinians now residing in refugee camps to Arab countries, with full financial compensation. Left-wing Israeli historian Benny Morris, whose earlier work often seemed to condemn Israel’s actions in 1948, has more recently argued that transfer even of Israeli Arab citizens residing in Israel proper cannot be ruled out if Israel one day faces an existential threat as it did in the year of its birth….

“Existential threat” from Palestinian babies? These people are off the rails. We can only hope that they are separating themselves from the American discourse with this type of speech. The dissociation is reflected in Caroline Glick, whom Iannone quotes. Glick seems to understand that her Jewish nationalist reality would be unpopular in the U.S. Because we’re Germany in the 1930s, or we’re liberals? 

Now, writes [Caroline] Glick, ”anti-Zionism” has replaced anti-Semitism among the fashionable, and the “embrace of the cause of Israel’s destruction by so many celebrity professors today is part and parcel of the destruction of the U.S. higher education system.” But Glick gives the most compelling rationale for the existence of Israel when she tells how she read about the one-state conference “as I was feeding my newborn son. I looked out the window at Jerusalem and all I could feel was thankful to be living in the independent, free Jewish state of Israel. I am thankful that these pseudo intellectuals no longer can determine the future of my people, as they could in the 1930s.”

Alan Dershowitz also targets the conference, with another bogus analogy, suggesting that anyone who calls for one state is denying Jewish peoplehood. There’s not really a connection:

What would Harvard do if a group of right wing students and faculty decided to convene a conference on the topic, “Are the Palestinians Really a People?” and invited as speakers only hard right academics who answered that question in the negative?…

They will claim that the “one-state solution” is a serious academic subject, whereas the question “are the Palestinians really a people?” is not. This is a pure rationalization. The question regarding the Palestinians was raised by a candidate for President of the United States and has been the subject of debate and controversy in the media and in academic writings. Both subjects are essentially political in nature and both have similarly phony academic veneers.

No Responses Yet

  1. Dan Crowther
    February 27, 2012, 1:21 pm

    This is how you know, you KNOW the zionists mean to expel palestinians from all of palestine. Babies are an existential threat. A nuclear power “faces extinction” from giving people civil rights.

    I do agree on one point – Israel is on its last legs.

    • lysias
      February 27, 2012, 3:45 pm

      And that is the only thing that makes sense of the Israeli desire for an attack on Iran: in a general Middle Eastern war, Israel would have the opportunity to conduct ethnic cleansing.

      • Pixel
        February 27, 2012, 11:27 pm

        “… to conduct ethnic cleansing.”

        … to complete ethnic cleansing.

  2. Kathleen
    February 27, 2012, 1:56 pm

    Glick is a radical nut case

    • Shingo
      February 27, 2012, 3:43 pm

      So is Dershowitz.

      • Charon
        February 27, 2012, 11:02 pm

        No doubt, Dershowitz is definitely a radical nut case too.

        If there was a contest between the two determining who is nuttier, Glick would win hands down. A while ago, I wrote her a personal email based on something ridiculous that she wrote. I had no idea who she was at the time. She is probably the only journalist to ever reply to an email I sent, and it was at that point I knew she was batshit insane. Not because she replied, but because she replied with further insanity

  3. pabelmont
    February 27, 2012, 1:57 pm

    Dan: nowadays, people on their “last legs” have walkers, motorized wheelchairs, and who knows what more — if they can pay for it — and their days are not particularly numbered! And Israel has shown it can pay for anything it wants. I’d prefer to believe — ethically — that Israel is on its last legs as it throws in its lot with the absolutely, crazed and murderous zealots among the nationalist settlers. I’d prefer it. But the USA rules the world, just now, and the USA has a taste for supporting some — if not all — crazed and murderous zealots.

    Let us hope — and work — for better days.

    • Dan Crowther
      February 27, 2012, 3:18 pm

      The US military is just about to the point of saying “FAH-Q” to Israel. The second some General with a monster brick on his chest gets up and says “Israel is a liability” its all over. So, that’s why I say “its on its last legs” — the military has just about had enough, Ive been talking to my buddies who are still in the service, and Israel is a hot topic – namely, how the F can we get rid of this ball and chain?

      The lobby might have the civilians, but certainly not the uniformed services – and based on the rumblings Ive been hearing, a public castigation of israel and its minions isnt very far off. Just look at the Vets for Peace statement the other day, talking about Washington’s warnings on “attachment to foreign nations” — they know the score.

      And aside from the US military, any country that builds walls the way israel does in today’s world is not gonna be very long for it

      • lysias
        February 27, 2012, 3:44 pm

        All the U.S. military would have to do is conduct an honest investigation of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, and it would be freed from the ball and chain.

      • pabelmont
        February 27, 2012, 4:17 pm

        Well. From your observation, things are better than I’d thought. If the uniformed military (which, here, better mean Major Generals and above) are rally tired of Israel AND have permission to say so (the permission thang is important in a hierarchical military and for people not ready to retire on short rations) — THEN, AAH THEN maybe you are right.

        [But recall that many of them hope to retire on a good pension AND into a job with one of the big armaments makers.]

      • Dan Crowther
        February 27, 2012, 7:59 pm

        Well, no. It actually has nothing to do with the generals themselves – it has to do with the current state of the US military enlisted ranks. The NCO’s know what is going on, and they also know that suicides, rapes, murders – drugs you name are rampant in the military right now. So, that’s where their anti-war sentiments are coming from; Officers know this.

        Their reaction to Israeli “intransigence” in this case is more about troop welfare than anything else. troop welfare and the prospect of NCO’s leaving the service in record numbers – “we arent fighting for the red white and blue, we’re fighting for kellog brown and root” is indeed the conventional wisdom, so whether israel is seen as an extension of the KBR’s of the world, or as a wholly separate entity, the enlisted ranks just flat aren’t on board with anyone sending them to another shooting war. The generals gotta worry about their institution first and foremost – post retirement positions got nothing to do with it.

      • Rusty Pipes
        February 27, 2012, 8:19 pm

        In which branch(es) of the military do your buddies serve? I don’t know what the ideological mix of the rank and file is in the Army, Navy and Marines, but the Air Force has a fair percentage of members who are heavily influenced by Islamophobia and Christian Zionism (and more than willing from a distance to bomb ‘em all and let heaven sort out the rest). Talk to Action has run many good pieces about Christian Zionism in the Air Force.

      • Dan Crowther
        February 28, 2012, 8:51 am

        The Marine Corps. And you are right, Rusty, about the evangelicals in the Chair Force – which is why, I think the administration/lobby want an air assault – (1) they wont receive pushback from the chair force, (2) another “ground” war would be catastrophic for the Marines and the Army in terms of recruitment and dissension.

        They can’t pull off another “war” that means reservist activations and a mass mobilization, and the brass knows it. If you have the time, go look at a newspaper published near military bases, and look at the police blotter, it aint pretty, much worse than usual – the active duty ranks are teetering on the edge.

  4. marc b.
    February 27, 2012, 2:39 pm

    i’m sorry, but isn’t inaneony aware that harvard is/was home to that great proponent of 21st eugenics in the ME, martin kramer?

    link to juancole.com

    these people are clinically insane.

    I am thankful that these pseudo intellectuals no longer can determine the future of my people, as they could in the 1930s.

    no, caroline, of course, the future of ‘your’ people is securely in the ideological hands of the settler state. that should work out well.

    • Oscar
      February 27, 2012, 3:17 pm

      Yes, the Martin Kramer connection at Weatherhead did come to mind. There were at least two senior officials at Weatherhead who stated firmly that Kramer’s eugenic statement about eliminating “surplus young men” was odious. Maybe this is how Harvard makes amends.

      By the way, it’s infuriating to see this battle raging. What about the Islamophobic conference sponsored by Yale? “Academic freedom” and all that. What’s good for the goose . . .

  5. Annie Robbins
    February 27, 2012, 3:12 pm

    these people are off the rails. they don’t like the idea of one state but won’t allow for 2. sh*t or get off the pot israel.

  6. Annie Robbins
    February 27, 2012, 3:12 pm

    “embrace of the cause of Israel’s destruction…”

    bla bla

  7. GalenSword
    February 27, 2012, 3:30 pm

    If it makes sense to discuss complete ethnic cleansing of the native population, shouldn’t we also hold a debate on the completely reasonable alternative (and probably less costly option) of removing the Zionist conglomeration of invaders, interlopers, and thieves?

    • yourstruly
      February 28, 2012, 11:01 am

      after palestine is liberated its former colonizers will reveal just how closely they’re bound to the so-called land without a people for a people without a land – by the choice that the many dual citizenship israelis make when told they had to decide, palestine or wherever you (or your parents/grandparents) came from in europe or the americas.

  8. lysias
    February 27, 2012, 3:42 pm

    Even if the Palestinians were not a people, that would not mean that Palestinians are not people deserving of rights.

    • Talkback
      February 27, 2012, 5:18 pm

      Well the Zionists always want to hide the fact that it is not about being a people (dispersed all over the world) but being a citizen of a certain territory. Palestinian citizenship existeted since 1925. There’s no Jewish citizenship. And most of the Jews in Palestine 1948 weren’t even citizens of Palestine.

      • MHughes976
        February 28, 2012, 8:34 am

        Lysias makes absolutely the right point. The Palestinians are being subjected, river to sea, to rule by the Jewish minority, which is contrary to their rights.

  9. Shingo
    February 27, 2012, 3:47 pm

    Both subjects are essentially political in nature and both have similarly phony academic veneers.

    Seeing as Dersh’s own book was plagiarized from one of these phony sources, is this an admission by Dersh that he is a phony academic?

  10. ToivoS
    February 27, 2012, 6:52 pm

    If NRO can write: transfer even of Israeli Arab citizens residing in Israel proper cannot be ruled out

    it is a sign that the Zionists are becoming seriously unhinged. We have been seeing more and more signs of this recently. All of the Israeli war talk against Iran is one major symptom. What is more interesting is that AIPAC has accepted that insanity and has pulled out all stops agitating for war. They have thrown all caution to the wind. Remember, the words that MJ Rosenberg likes to quote from the early 1990s: ‘AIPAC is like a night flower, it blooms at night and shrivels during the day’. Today they are acting openly in the light of day pushing the US towards war on Israel’s behalf. Another crazy sign is all of the extremely repressive laws that the Knesset is considering. This latest law that all of area C will be annexed to Israel is a sign that they are completely disengaged with European diplomacy and public opinion.

    These words and actions are very dangerous. It may be safe to assume the lobby and Israel are no longer guided by rational considerations. They are in such a state of irrational hysteria it is very difficult to predict what they will do next. I really do not believe that even the US Congress will pass a resolution supporting the ethnic cleansing of the WB. Given that something like this cannot be done in secret I believe that such an act will lead to a serious rupture inside the US. However, it seems there is no voice in the US that can counsel caution — the debate has become so polarized that rational voices at the center are intimidated into silence.

  11. thetumta
    February 27, 2012, 8:16 pm

    Perhaps we can work with this? Relocate non-Jewish Palestinians to Manhattan, DC and Miami into the former homes of Zionists that have been relocated to West Bank settlements? An upgrade for the Palestinians, I would hope and the realization of the Zionist’s fondness desire?
    It could work with a little lubricant and a bit of force, don’t you think? The Vietnamese are doing well here I think and they arrived on boats from the Pacific. The key is Dersh and Mr. Las Vegas Sands get deported to a West Bank settlement, never to return.
    Just a bit more balanced thought on the distribution of hardship.
    Hej!
    P.S. We’ll see if this meets the new rules?

    • piotr
      February 28, 2012, 1:09 am

      Actually, since the ancestral home of Jews and all their venerated tombs are in Judea and Samaria, the most logical solution would be a land swap: Israel gets territory to the east of Green Line, and Palestinians — the the west. Nobody would move the settlers. Once we are “creative”, everything should be considered.

      • GalenSword
        February 28, 2012, 4:13 pm

        Except of course, the connection of modern Jews to ancient Judeans is completely mythological and based on a psychotic political system with no connection to to reality whatsoever. The descendants of ancient Judeans are modern Palestinians and certainly not Eastern European ethnic Ashkenazim, Moroccan Jewish Arabs, Yemeni Jewish Arabs, or Iraqi Jewish Arabs.

        If we wish to discuss returning Jews to their ancestral homelands, obviously ethnic Ashkenazim should return to historic Poland while the various Jewish Arab groups should return to their respective Arab homelands.

  12. OlegR
    February 28, 2012, 7:29 am

    It’s all quite simple actually as prof Finkelstein likes to say.

    1) One state solution equals the end of Israel as the national
    state of the jewish people.

    2) The jewish majority living in Israel won’t stand for it.
    And i am not talking just about the hard core settler zealots (which are quite a few)
    i am talking about left right and middle of the political spectrum.

    Hell i will find myself in the same trench as Yariv Oppenheimer the ceo of Shalom Achshav on one side and Erez Tadmor from Im Tirtzu on the other.(A scary thought in itself).

    3) If an attempt will be made to enforce on us such a solution Israel will object to it
    by all means available, including force.

    You guys don’t get it somehow or you get it and just don’t give a rats ass about
    what that would mean to BOTH peoples.
    One state means all bets are off and we are back to 1948 all over again.
    We don’t want that and trust me the Palestinians don’t want that either.

    The only ones who are interested in it that i have seen so far are the Purist Idealist
    nutters from the Ideological Far Left and the Messianic nutters from the
    Ideological Far Right.

    • Shingo
      February 28, 2012, 8:19 am

      1) One state solution equals the end of Israel as the national
      state of the jewish people.

      It’s not the national state of the Jewish people. It’s a state with aJewish majority, but that will change.

      2) The jewish majority living in Israel won’t stand for it.

      That’s beside the point. It’s obvious that the jewish majority living in Israel won’t stand for anything. In antpy case, once the hard core settler zealots completely take over the place (and continue to refuse to pay taxes) the place will fall apart and the left right and middle of the political spectrum will abandon the place.

      Hell i will find myself in the same trench as Yariv Oppenheimer the ceo of Shalom Achshav on one side and Erez Tadmor from Im Tirtzu on the other.

      You’re all Zionists, so you always have been.

      3) If an attempt will be made to enforce on us such a solution Israel will object to it by all means available, including force.

      As if you guys have ever needed an excuse to use force.

      You guys don’t get it somehow or you get it and just don’t give a rats ass about what that would mean to BOTH peoples.

      We get it alright, but regardless of what incites it, the outcome is going to be pretty much the same. The current trajectory is going to lead a bloody genocide one way or another. After all, what are your plans for the 4 million Plestinians in the West Bank and the 1.5 million in Gaza?

      Yeah, I thought so.

      One state means all bets are off and we are back to 1948 all over again.

      Reality check. It’s been 1948 for he Palestinians ever since.

      The only ones who are interested in it that i have seen so far are the Purist Idealist from the Ideological Far Left and the Messianic nutters from the
      Ideological Far Right.

      And the only ones who think it won’t happen regardless are the ideological nut jobs in the Middle.

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 9:02 am

        Thank you Shingo for illustrating my point.

        A question, where do you live?

      • Bumblebye
        February 28, 2012, 9:29 am

        Israel won’t agree to one-state, yet it refuses to withdraw from the stolen lands, so what is the result going to be? Perhaps ‘humanist’, ‘liberal’ Oleg can tell us what the map will look like in a few more years?

      • Chaos4700
        February 28, 2012, 9:42 am

        Where were you born, Oleg?

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 9:53 am

        /Israel won’t agree to one-state/
        The Palestinians won’t either are you kidding they understand the meaning of it
        as well as we do.

        /what the map will look like in a few more years?/

        I have no idea actually, the variables are too great especially with the Arab Spring .
        Will the Palestinian leadership cut the BS and start negotiating instead
        of wasting time. (Right now it looks like they are quite happy with the current situation and don’t want to change anything.
        They are trying a reconciliation with Hamas but i doubt it will work
        they hate each other too much)
        Will the Arab spring reach the Jordanian kingdom at last, or is
        the working arrangement that the Brits set up for one bedouin family
        will last for a few more years.
        Whats gonna happen in Syria ?
        Whats gonna happen in Egypt ?
        What’s gonna happen with Iran ?

        Personally i think that there won’t be any final arrangement in the near future
        too much turmoil all around, too much open issues that we are not ready to solve.
        The point is that if we (Israeli/Palestinians) are smart we might avoid
        a lot of bloodshed during that time and allow both sides to work out some
        fundamental issues in our own societies.

        Any attempt to force a solution (especially Single state) now will fail
        and only bring turmoil and bloodshed , nothing else.

        That Leninst strategy “The worst it gets the better it gets” won’t work.

      • Bumblebye
        February 28, 2012, 11:22 am

        Check his profile, Chaos. He says Russia. Really deep Israeli roots, eh?

      • Woody Tanaka
        February 28, 2012, 11:27 am

        “Will the Palestinian leadership cut the BS and start negotiating instead
        of wasting time. ”

        Typical hasbarist nonsense. Israel could simply freeze construction during these negotiations (the absolute minimum any party should do to demonstrate good faith.) But it doesn’t. I think it is because that those who are pushing the Zionist/settler (if, indeed, they aren’t synonyms) are simple are culturally incapable of not stealing the Palestinians land.

        But, in any event, it is the Israeli’s theiving ways that has prevented progress in this area. You merely demonstrate your complicity with the crime by trying to blame the victims.

      • Shingo
        February 28, 2012, 12:09 pm

        The Palestinians won’t either are you kidding they understand the meaning of it
        as well as we do.

        The meaning is the reality they have lived for 45 years.

         I have no idea actually, the variables are too great especially with the Arab Spring .

        What had the Arab Spring got to do with it?

        I love how every time a single state is raised, you hasbrats screech that “we can’t accept that”.  When the  1967 borders are  mentioned and you screech “we can’t have that either, we need Jerusalem”. Then you’re asked to come up with your own proposal and you shrug your shoulders and say, “I dunno”.

        Will the Palestinian leadership cut the BS and start negotiating instead
        of wasting time.

        No, why don’t you cut the BS and fulfill your commitments under the Road Map that your leaders signed and ratified in 2002 – you know, the one that requires Israel to stop building settlements and stealing land BEFORE final status negotiations are to take place?

        The Palestinians would be crazy to negotiate with you until your leaders price that they can be trusted and are willing to honor past agreements.

        Right now it looks like they are quite happy with the current situation and don’t want to change anything.

        No, right now they realize that “negotiations” with only the Americans in the room is nothing but a cynical ploy by which Israelis  
        get to stonewall and steal land while maintaining the facade of wanting a solution.

        They are trying a reconciliation with Hamas but i doubt it will work
        they hate each other too much

        Will the Arab spring reach the Jordanian kingdom at last

        You mean George the US steps in and stops it in it’s tracks like they did in Egypt?

        Either way, that’s beside the point.

         Whats gonna happen in Syria ?

        Depends on the shit your government is pulling there right now.

        Whats gonna happen in Egypt ?

        What’s that got to do with withdrawing from the OT.

        What’s gonna happen with Iran ?

        You mean without crazed messianic leaders succeed in dragging the world into a regional war based on lies?

      • Shingo
        February 28, 2012, 12:19 pm

        Obviously I don’t live in Israel.

        What country did your family come from Oleg and how many passports do you have?

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 12:29 pm

        /Typical hasbarist nonsense. Israel could simply freeze construction during these negotiations (the absolute minimum any party should do to demonstrate good faith.) /
        Already tried that as good faith gesture to Obama nothing happened during that time.Abbas didn’t want to negotiate.

        /But, in any event, it is the Israeli’s theiving ways that has prevented progress in this area./
        Well you how can you argue with a guy that start a sentence with
        “In any event it’s your fault.” :)

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 12:29 pm

        Just an Israeli one sorry.

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 12:38 pm

        /When the 1967 borders are mentioned and you screech “we can’t have that either, we need Jerusalem”./
        Did i mention Jerusalem ?
        No i didn’t.

        /No, why don’t you cut the BS and fulfill your commitments under the Road Map that your leaders signed and ratified in 2002 /
        The one that said no more terrorism?

        /The Palestinians would be crazy to negotiate with you until your leaders price that they can be trusted and are willing to honor past agreements./
        That’s the attitude that worked so well for them in the past.

        /You mean George the US steps in and stops it in it’s tracks like they did in Egypt?
        Either way, that’s beside the point./
        No it’s not Jordan has an overwhelming Palestinian population
        the only reason it’s not a Palestinian state is because of their nice
        king who got his job from his grandfather that got it from the Brits.

        /Depends on the shit your government is pulling there right now./
        Oh i am sorry i didn’t know that it’s IDF that is bombing the hell out
        of their cities.How could i have missed that.
        Blaming us on everything that is going on in the neighborhood ,nice going.

        /What’s that got to do with withdrawing from the OT./
        Well if they become a threat again that is the kinda of things that change priorities for people.

        /You mean without crazed messianic leaders succeed in dragging the world into a regional war based on lies?/
        You really should start reading staff other then what you usually read.

      • Woody Tanaka
        February 28, 2012, 12:56 pm

        “Already tried that as good faith gesture to Obama nothing happened during that time.Abbas didn’t want to negotiate.”

        Another Hasbarist lie. There was not settlement freeze, there was, at best, a “slow down” and it didn’t include the theiving in Arab East Jerusalem.

      • Chaos4700
        February 29, 2012, 8:19 pm

        Don’t be sorry, Oleg. That’s one less passport the Mossad can use to strangle people in hotel rooms.

    • Woody Tanaka
      February 28, 2012, 9:44 am

      “One state means all bets are off and we are back to 1948 all over again.”

      You really demonstrate the worthlessness of your ideology, here. There’s been a one state solution since 1967. The problem with the one-state which has existed since 1967 is that in that one state, one ethnicity amounting to 1/2 the population (yours) has full and complete control over the other half and keeps them in a state of near-peonage. All we are asking is that those people, too, get a say in the way the government is run, and be provided with equality and their full compliment of civil and human rights.

      Given your complete dominance over the lives of the Palestinians, it is little wonder that you, and from your post, all the Jews in the land of Palestine, would favor this system. There is an evil attraction in being the slave-holder, the dictator, the Master Race, the Judge-Jury-and-Executioner. But it’s bullshit and should be rejected by every decent, thinking, even marginally civilized and liberal-thinking person, even when it means that you, yourself, is giving up the power.

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 9:57 am

        The Palestinians were offered a 2 state solution a number of times
        in the past.They refused , period.

        If they agree to it most Israelis with me in them will back it up.

        2 States,
        1967 borders with exchanges of land of equal values.
        No more demands on both sides.

      • Woody Tanaka
        February 28, 2012, 10:55 am

        So I see there is something in your vile ideology that precludes you from accepting equal rights for all. Shameful.

        “The Palestinians were offered a 2 state solution a number of times
        in the past.”

        We all know what kind of “offers” you people give.

        “2 States,
        1967 borders with exchanges of land of equal values.”

        Let’s say that they don’t want to exchange ANY land beyond the 1967 border. Let’s say that they don’t believe that the land offered by Israel is of equal value? Then what? DO they get to refuse or do you master-race, slave-holder, judge-jury-and-executionor types make another of your famous Israeli-style offers. (you know, an offer, the net result of which is Arabs children die and you pretend to be sad.) Or do they merely have to meekly accept what you “offer”? (And, indeed, why should they offer any land swaps to normalize your criminal behavior? The 1967 lines is already grand theft. Why not 1967 lines and all the settlers get to slither back under whatever rock in Tel Aviv or Brooklyn they came from?)

        “No more demands on both sides.”

        So then the Palestinians are free to control their airspace, free to control their own border, (especially with Jordan), establish whatever defense measure they deem appropriate to protect themselves, free to enter any alliance they want, free to develop any weapons systems they want, including nuclear weapons? Or is this “no demands” jive simply a way of you people worming out of paying the reparations you owe??

      • Shingo
        February 28, 2012, 11:53 am

        The Palestinians were offered a 2 state solution a number of times
        in the past.They refused , period.

        Yeah right, you thugs stile their land from under them and offered them crumbs and they didn’t show any gratitude for your generosity.  

        How unreasonable! 

        And yet here you are, threatening violence if they try to take it back.

        If they agree to it most Israelis with me in them will back it up.

        Rubbish. Most Israelis have elected increasingly right wing governments, the last of which campaigned on a platform of rejecting a two state solution.

        The same leader got a massive bump in the polls when, in a speech before Congresd, he rejects 2 States along
        1967 borders with exchanges of land of equal values.

        No more demands on both sides.

        You mean like no demands to be recognized as a Jewish state, or demands boy the Palestinians disarm?

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 12:01 pm

        /So I see there is something in your vile ideology that precludes you from accepting equal rights for all. Shameful./
        Are you sure you are talking to me?

        /We all know what kind of “offers” you people give./
        “You people” that sounds a bit familiar.

        As for the rest.
        You know Woody i don’t think you like us and that sort of thing clouds
        judgement.
        Try calming down and rephrasing you ideas without too much cursing ,
        “Let’s say ” and without giving your own answers to your own questions
        and we will try this again.

      • Shingo
        February 28, 2012, 12:12 pm

        You know Woody i don’t think you like us and that sort of thing clouds judgement.

        Yes Woody, can we not have a discussion without you cutting so close to the bone?

        What ever happened to diplomacy, ignoring the ekephsnt in the room and telling a few white lies to keep things civilized?

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 12:40 pm

        You and Woody are not having a discussion at the moment
        you are making accusations based on your biases and preconceptions
        of the conflict.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 28, 2012, 12:47 pm

        Try calming down and rephrasing you ideas without too much cursing

        nice divert oleg (and yes, i am talking to you). i noticed you did not address any of his points.

        The problem with the one-state which has existed since 1967 is that in that one state, one ethnicity amounting to 1/2 the population (yours) has full and complete control over the other half and keeps them in a state of near-peonage. All we are asking is that those people, too, get a say in the way the government is run, and be provided with equality and their full compliment of civil and human rights.

        your answer to this was The Palestinians were offered a 2 state solution a number of times in the past.They refused , period.

        this is almost laughable because we all know olmert’s ‘offer’ was never even written down. we also know palestinians jumped tru hoops at olso and netanyahu is on record in the leaked video bragging about pulling a fraud designed to steal more and more WB land for the purpose of israel’s alleged security @ camp david. so please don’t peddle your “They refused , period.” bs.

        here’s who specializes in refusal. you know it, i know it, everyone knows it.

        Israel wants to be seen as ready and willing to negotiate a peace deal with the Palestinians

        that’s all israel cares about, it’s image while it proceeds to steal more and more land.

        i don’t think you like us and that sort of thing clouds judgement.

        “us”? speaking for all jews, all israelis, or all zionists? pulling the anti semitism card eh? zokay. we’re used to it, it’s kinda the zio hasbara calling card. a one stop solution to deceiving and diverting. try being honest and addressing the argument instead of relying on insinuation and ad hominem crutches.

      • eljay
        February 28, 2012, 1:06 pm

        >> 2 States,
        >> 1967 borders with exchanges of land of equal values.
        >> No more demands on both sides.

        A few questions, if I may:
        1. Will Israel partially or completely scrap the Palestinian RoR? Will it pay compensation in lieu?
        2. Will Israel recall its occupation colonists living outside of ’67 borders?
        3. Will Israel demand that restrictions be placed on Palestine’s right to secure its borders, develop a military, acquire weapons and defense technologies, etc.?
        4. Will Israel insist on retaining the natural resources it has “secured” for itself, or will it agree to let them be divided impartially and fairly between the two states?
        5. Will Israel evolve into a secular, egalitarian and democratic nation of and for all Israelis, or will it remain a religion-supremacist “Jewish state”?

        Thanks.

      • Woody Tanaka
        February 28, 2012, 1:21 pm

        “Are you sure you are talking to me?”
        Positive. The Zio who can’t find the quote key. Check.

        ‘”You people’ that sounds a bit familiar.”
        Yes, “you” – second person, plural, and “people” – homo sapiens. Given that English contains no clear second person plural, it is sadly necessary to create neologisms to make it clear that the “you” is plural. (Other examples include “all y’all,” “you guys,” “youse” and my favorite “yinz”, etc.) So unless you are saying that you are not an Israeli or that Israelis aren’t people, then what’s your complaint?

        “You know Woody i don’t think you like us and that sort of thing clouds
        judgement.”

        Oh, I’m sure you like to chalk up opposition to your actions to mere animus from critics. A claim that people oppose you because they dislike you is a real cheap and convinent way to absolve yourself of your sins. But it’s patent crap. If it wasn’t for your actions, I wouldn’t give you people a second thought. You’re not really interesting enough to hate or even to consider, aside from your disgusting actions.

        “Try calming down and rephrasing you ideas without too much cursing”

        My post contained no cursing. So now you’re just stretching for excuses.

        “without giving your own answers to your own questions
        and we will try this again.”

        Okay. Fine. I’ll edit to protect your delicate nature…

        “2 States,
        1967 borders with exchanges of land of equal values.”

        Let’s say that they don’t want to exchange ANY land beyond the 1967 border. Let’s say that they don’t believe that the land offered by Israel is of equal value? Then what? Do they get to refuse or do you master-race, slave-holder, judge-jury-and-executionor types precious flowers make another of your famous Israeli-style offers. (you know, an offer, the net result of which is Arabs children die and you pretend to be sad that you spread joy like candy.) Or do they merely have to meekly accept what your “offer”? (And, indeed, why should they offer any land swaps to normalize your criminal behavior creative zoning? The 1967 lines is already grand theft actually a big fat birthday present to the Palestinians. Why not 1967 lines and all the settlers get to slither stroll back underto whatever rock neighborhood in Tel Aviv or Brooklyn they came from?)

        “No more demands on both sides.”

        So then the Palestinians are free to control their airspace, free to control their own border, (especially with Jordan), establish whatever defense measure they deem appropriate to protect themselves, free to enter any alliance they want, free to develop any weapons systems they want, including nuclear weapons? Or is this “no demands” jive statement simply a way of you people worming out of paying the reparations you owe being generous??

        There. I took out all the oogy-boogy scary parts. Are you willing to answer the questions now, or are you coming up with some other excuse?

      • Woody Tanaka
        February 28, 2012, 1:25 pm

        “You and Woody are not having a discussion at the moment
        you are making accusations based on your biases and preconceptions
        of the conflict.”

        Not much point in giving the Klan the benefit of the doubt.

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 1:28 pm

        /this is almost laughable because we all know olmert’s ‘offer’ was never even written down. we also know palestinians jumped tru hoops at olso and netanyahu is on record in the leaked video bragging about pulling a fraud designed to steal more and more WB land for the purpose of israel’s alleged security @ camp david. so please don’t peddle your “They refused , period.” bs./

        You are very conveniently leaving out the Barak offer in 200o at Kamp David
        On which
        Saudi Arabian ambassador Prince Bandar Bin Sultan said, “If Arafat does not accept what is available now, it won’t be a tragedy, it will be a crime.”

        /here’s who specializes in refusal. / That’s a nice tactic giving links to
        your own article as proof to your own words.

        / try being honest and addressing the argument instead of relying on insinuation and ad hominem crutches./

        So far on this site i was called a thief a Nazi a murderer of babies
        a racist and a few other things.
        You really shouldn’t be talking about ad hominem crutches :)

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 1:29 pm

        That’s funny just below Annie accused me of making ad hominem attacks.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 28, 2012, 1:40 pm

        all those articles were full of multiple links to msm articles including jpost etc. israel refused to hand in proposals as requested by the quartet. that’s not my opinion, it’s what happened.

        the leaked video of netanyahu was oslo, not camp david. i misspoke. i recommend this article and thread:

        “The history of the Camp David Accords reveals that even a sympathetic president could not stand up for the Palestinians”

        link to mondoweiss.net

      • Bumblebye
        February 28, 2012, 2:06 pm

        Oleg, you participated in the Gaza Onslaught, so how are you not a murderer of babies? You condone theft of land, the erasure of Palestinian history, etc, your role as a reservist ready to be called up to defend these thefts *makes* you a thief. Your rejectionist attitude towards all things Palestinian displays your racism. You’re not ‘humanist’ or ‘liberal’, you’re a Zionist ethno-supremacist who expects and demands to get away with crimes against humanity. We’re not wrong about you, it’s you that’s looking ino a zionized distorting mirror that makes everything you do look pretty to you.

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 2:12 pm

        1) RoR is a no go always has always will be.
        The rehabilitation of the refugees in the Arab states is responsibility of
        those states just like Israel rehabilitated the refugees from you Europe
        and those expelled from the Arab countries after 1948. (Did you know btw
        that Palestinians in Lebanon still have no civil rights)
        2)
        We already demonstrated on Gaza that it can be done.Land swaps of equal value will be made when the settlement is too large to move.
        3)
        Yes with some restrictions.It can be enforced on an agreed upon time frame.
        let’s say 20 years.
        4) It will obviously have to be divided.

        /5. Will Israel evolve into a secular, egalitarian and democratic nation of and for all Israelis, or will it remain a religion-supremacist “Jewish state”?/

        How do you propose to enter something like this into a peace agreement?
        How do you quantify it.
        What does it has to do with the Palestinians?

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 2:14 pm

        “The history of the Camp David Accords reveals that even a sympathetic president could not stand up for the Palestinians”

        What does the this has to do with the 2000 Barak / Arafat talks?

      • Shingo
        February 28, 2012, 5:29 pm

        What does the this has to do with the 2000 Barak / Arafat talks?

        Becasue Shmolom Ben Ami, who was foreign minsyter at the time, stated that he woudl have rejected the Camp David offer had he been a Palestinian.

      • Shingo
        February 28, 2012, 5:40 pm

        1) RoR is a no go always has always will be.

        ROR is a human right, It’s nto for ISrael to decide on their behalf.

        The rehabilitation of the refugees in the Arab states is responsibility of
        those states just like Israel rehabilitated the refugees from you Europe
        and those expelled from the Arab countries after 1948.

        What absolute rubbish!

        1. Europe has been paying reperations to Israel ever since WWII. Israel will have to do the same
        2. Very few JEws were expelled from Arab countries after 1948, but they should receive reperations too yes.

        Did you know btw that Palestinians in Lebanon enjoy the same civil rights as those in the WB?

        2)We already demonstrated on Gaza that it can be done.Land swaps of equal value will be made when the settlement is too large to move.

        False. Gaza was a land swap in the sense that more of the West Bank was taken as a price for the pullout from Gaza. The hard liners in Israel decided that the cost of preptecting 8000 illegal settlers in Gaza was better spent put towards protecting even more illegal settlers in the WB.illegal

        3) Yes with some restrictions.It can be enforced on an agreed upon time frame. let’s say 20 years.

        LOL. In the mean time, Israle wil lsteal the rest fo the West Bank abnd flood it with another 1 million religious nut jobs who would rather to go to war with the IDF than move.

      • eljay
        February 28, 2012, 6:47 pm

        >> 1. Will Israel partially or completely scrap the Palestinian RoR? Will it pay compensation in lieu?
        >> 1) RoR is a no go always has always will be.

        Convenient.

        >> eljay: 2. Will Israel recall its occupation colonists living outside of ’67 borders?
        >> OlegR: 2) We already demonstrated on Gaza that it can be done. Land swaps of equal value will be made when the settlement is too large to move.

        Convenient.

        >> 3. Will Israel demand that restrictions be placed on Palestine’s right to secure its borders, develop a military, acquire weapons and defense technologies, etc.?
        >> 3) Yes with some restrictions.It can be enforced on an agreed upon time frame. let’s say 20 years.

        Will Palestine be permitted to place similar restrictions upon Israel?

        >> 4. Will Israel insist on retaining the natural resources it has “secured” for itself, or will it agree to let them be divided impartially and fairly between the two states?
        >> 4) It will obviously have to be divided.

        That’s good to hear.

        >> 5. Will Israel evolve into a secular, egalitarian and democratic nation of and for all Israelis, or will it remain a religion-supremacist “Jewish state”?
        >> 5) How do you propose to enter something like this into a peace agreement?

        This question is separate.

        >> How do you quantify it.

        Quantify? It’s either a secular, egalitarian and democratic state of and for all of its citizens, or it’s not.

        >> What does it has to do with the Palestinians?

        It has to do with the 20% non-Jewish minority. It has to do with Israelis making the excuse that non-Jewish Israelis now have their own country and can therefore be expelled from the “Jewish state”.

      • GalenSword
        February 29, 2012, 3:26 am

        If Neo-Ottomans invaded the Balkans and rampaged into Austria to drive out the entire German-speaking population, would Germany have the responsibility of resettling the expelled Austrian population?

        Gaza is an open air prison. What does it demonstrate except that Zionists can brutalize and slaughter a population that they already drove from its home?

        Anyway, why should decent human beings care about the opinions and desires of criminal Zionist conglomeration of invaders, interlopers, and thieves?

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 10:09 am

        You can’t correct one wrong by committing another .
        That what 1State solution will try and achieve.
        Sorry we are not ready to commit suicide just to appease
        some peoples sense of justice.

        And again have you actually asked the Palestinians if they want
        a 1State solution?

      • Annie Robbins
        February 28, 2012, 1:00 pm

        we are not ready to commit suicide

        bwwwahhhh. more ‘death to jews’ hasbara. doesn’t it get old relying on that kind of rhetoric?

        And again have you actually asked the Palestinians if they want
        a 1State solution?

        what difference does it make? israel will not allow for 2 states so their options are limited. do you think they should advocate for their own transfer. israel has all the power here, why aren’t you somewhere hassling those who refuse to grant palestinians a state if you’re so against one state? why aren’t you screaming at the obama for vetoing UN resolution that sound like they could have been written by his own administration. but no, you’re here. not too convincing frankly.

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 1:11 pm

        /what difference does it make?/
        Why are you deciding what it best for them?
        / israel will not allow for 2 states so their options are limited./
        Wrong they can settle the choose not to.
        / why aren’t you somewhere hassling those who refuse to grant palestinians a state if you’re so against one state?/
        Again the Palestinians are not ready to settle.
        /but no, you’re here. not too convincing frankly./
        Not trying to be convincing actually.
        Don’t you find it boring to talk to people that agree with you all the time.

      • Mooser
        February 28, 2012, 1:16 pm

        “You can’t correct one wrong by committing another .”

        Isn’t that exactly what yopu propose to do? You stole it, that’s one wrong, and now you won’t give it back, or even pay for it, that’s two.

        Or do you, as Prof. Emeticus Slater suggests, need “another chance”?

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 1:30 pm

        I am talking about 1State solution.
        Nothing else.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 28, 2012, 1:30 pm

        Why are you deciding what it best for them?

        divert! i’m asking you, what difference it makes what palestinians choose if there is no option for two states anyway? just answer.

        Wrong they can settle the choose not to.

        obviously that is not true (notice how nice i am not calling you a liar) as we learned from the palestine papers and just recently when israel refused to turn in a proposal.

        Again the Palestinians are not ready to settle.

        ahh…stuck on your little one trick pony eh? poor lil israel is just so ready to make two states and the palestinians won’t so israel is contemplating ANNEXATION LEGISLATION as an alternative! how very generous of them/ not. (btw, i thought if i capitalized it you wouldn’t be able to pretend it didn’t exist, like you did with my earlier links/evidence)

        earth to you oleg, no one is buying this crap your pushing about palestinians holding all the cards. frankly, it’s not very believable even from a casual observers standpoint.

        maybe you’ve read the hasbara handbook so many times you’ve internalized their messaging:

        pg 6. people tend to believe something if they “hear it first and hear it often”…. “once people believe something it is hard to convince them they were wrong in the first place.””

        you are stuck on “they can settle and choose not to”

        Don’t you find it boring to talk to people that agree with you all the time.

        nice divert. but clearly we are not in agreement on fundamental principles. and, since you asked, i do get a certain thrill from decimating your hasbara, not boring for me. i wouldn’t be here if i was bored.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 28, 2012, 1:32 pm

        mooser, oleg is playing stupid and pretending israel wants to make two states and just can’t because of all those palestinian rejectionists. or something along those lines.

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 1:53 pm

        /divert! i’m asking you, what difference it makes what palestinians choose if there is no option for two states anyway? just answer./
        The difference is will we have another cycle of violence or not that’s all.

        /obviously that is not true (notice how nice i am not calling you a liar) as we learned from the palestine papers and just recently when israel refused to turn in a proposal./

        Still waiting on you comment regarding the Kemp David proposal.
        You keep ignoring it because it just so inconveniently messes with you
        beliefs?

        /ANNEXATION LEGISLATION/
        You keep sending me links to your own articles as proof to your own
        words that’s kinda of unusual in an argument.
        Please talk to me when we actually annex something.

        /earth to you oleg, no one is buying this crap your pushing about palestinians holding all the cards. /

        They don’t hold all the cards but they sure as hell aren’t willing to play
        for now.

        /but clearly we are not in agreement on fundamental principles. and, since you asked, i do get a certain thrill from decimating your hasbara/
        Glad to be of service you enjoy your self.

        Ps. Why do you guys so thrilled using the hasbara word instead of good
        old propaganda which has much more sinister connotations?

      • Woody Tanaka
        February 28, 2012, 2:12 pm

        “Why do you guys so thrilled using the hasbara word instead of good
        old propaganda which has much more sinister connotations?”

        It’s more precise. And I believe that “hasbara” is more sinister. Propaganda can simply be dismissed as propaganda. Hasbara is a specific kind of lie.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 28, 2012, 2:12 pm

        Please talk to me when we actually annex something.

        hello? golan anyone? jerusalem?

        /obviously that is not true (notice how nice i am not calling you a liar) as we learned from the palestine papers and just recently when israel refused to turn in a proposal./

        Still waiting on you comment regarding the Kemp David proposal.

        still waiting? your comment was at 1:28 pm.45 minutes after i mentioned two recent examples of israel refusing to comply or agree to extremely reasonable offers of 2 states, you won’t address either of them. didn’t barak walk out of taba?

        “The Myth of the Generous Offer
        Distorting the Camp David negotiations”

        “Locking in occupation ”

        link to fair.org

        The Taba talks are one of the most significant and least remembered events of the “peace process.” While so far in 2002 (1/1/02-5/31/02), Camp David has been mentioned in conjunction with Israel 35 times on broadcast network news shows, Taba has come up only four times–never on any of the nightly newscasts. In February 2002, Israel’s leading newspaper, Ha’aretz (2/14/02), published for the first time the text of the European Union’s official notes of the Taba talks, which were confirmed in their essential points by negotiators from both sides.

        “Anyone who reads the European Union account of the Taba talks,” Ha’aretz noted in its introduction, “will find it hard to believe that only 13 months ago, Israel and the Palestinians were so close to a peace agreement.” At Taba, Israel dropped its demand to control Palestine’s borders and the Jordan Valley. The Palestinians, for the first time, made detailed counterproposals–in other words, counteroffers–showing which changes to the 1967 borders they would be willing to accept. The Israeli map that has emerged from the talks shows a fully contiguous West Bank, though with a very narrow middle and a strange gerrymandered western border to accommodate annexed settlements.

        In the end, however, all this proved too much for Israel’s Labor prime minister. On January 28, Barak unilaterally broke off the negotiations. “The pressure of Israeli public opinion against the talks could not be resisted,” Ben-Ami said (New York Times, 7/26/01).

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 2:15 pm

        /didn’t barak walk out of taba?/
        didn’t arafat walk out of camp david?

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 2:20 pm

        /hello? golan anyone? jerusalem?/

        Divert !
        We are talking about the West Bank right now.

        Oh the boring link war again.

        Here is what Clinton though about the talks.
        link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

        This really won’t get us nowhere Annie.

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 2:32 pm

        I hope anthropologists enter this place.
        You can probably write a whole Phd on it.

      • tree
        February 28, 2012, 2:36 pm

        Please talk to me when we actually annex something.

        Israel already has. It annexed half of the UN proposed “Arab State”, and 78% percent of Mandate Palestine and ethnically cleansed three quarter of a million people in ’48 and the years immediately after. And it annexed a large swath of the West Bank and called it Jerusalem after 1967. Israel extended Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries and put it all under its sovereignty and civil laws almost immediately. However, it was not until 1980 that it passed a law explicitly annexing East Jerusalem and its surrounding West Bank environs. The major Israeli settlements, and the forty percent of the remaining West Bank called “Area C” are in the same position that East Jerusalem was between `1967 and 1980. The settlements, and all of Area C, are under complete Israeli sovereignty and subject to Israeli civil law. Israel has simply not yet explicitly annexed these areas. Its all one state, implicitly, as far as Israel’s control is concerned, with small, disconnected and completely surrounded potential bantustans (or Indian reservations) all that Israel will allow the Palestinians to “negotiate” for.

      • Donald
        February 28, 2012, 3:11 pm

        “Still waiting on you comment regarding the Kemp David proposal.
        You keep ignoring it because it just so inconveniently messes with you
        beliefs?”

        Annie responded to it before and after you posted this, but anyway, it’s depressing though not surprising to see yet another person spreading the notion that Barak made a generous offer at Camp David, when even Shlomo Ben-Ami, who is no fan for Arafat, said that the Camp David offer was inadequate. The myth of the generous offer at Camp David has been discredited over and over again. It doesn’t matter what some Saudi prince says–it’s kind of funny how someone from the Saudi monarchy suddenly becomes an expert on what is an acceptable solution to a human rights issue when he says something favoring Israel.

        Here’s a link to a debate/discussion between Finkelstein and Shlomo Ben-Ami on Camp David and Taba–

        link

      • Annie Robbins
        February 28, 2012, 3:28 pm

        We are talking about the West Bank right now.

        oh, you mean talk to you about israel annexing the west bank after they already do it? like all those settlements are not ‘facts on the ground’ enough for you? i am not diverting anything. israel has already annexed parts of the west bank because east jerusalem is in the west bank. or didn’t you know that?

        btw, unlike you, i don’t need to divert. are you going to yap to me about what some prince said camp david? i’ve never even heard of the guy. israel likes to pretend offering to let palestinians design their own postage stamps is tantamount to offering to agree to a state, it isn’t. don’t gloss up occupation and pretend it is an offer of anything. barak walked out of taba negotiations, not palestinians.

    • Chaos4700
      February 28, 2012, 9:44 am

      You know what else Finkelstein has to say about Israel that speaks to the truth?

      link to normanfinkelstein.com

      A picture speaks a thousand words.

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 9:58 am

        Boring chaos really boring.
        Also not true and you know it.

      • Shingo
        February 28, 2012, 11:45 am

        Boring chaos really boring.
        Also not true and you know it.

        Yeah who you gonna believe Chaos, Oleg or your lying eyes?

      • Chaos4700
        February 29, 2012, 8:20 pm

        “Boring” and “not true?” Remind me how this doesn’t look like Holocaust denial.

    • dahoit
      February 28, 2012, 10:40 am

      One state with liberty and justice for all(well, advertised as) was a catalyst for millions to flock to our shores in the 19th,20th and even now, the 21st century.
      Are you implying Arabs and Jews are incapable of said longing?
      Or that a radical theological state devoid of Constitutional justice is a goal of alleged enlightened people?
      Insanity.

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 12:11 pm

        /One state with liberty and justice for all(well, advertised as) was a catalyst for millions to flock to our shores in the 19th,20th and even now, the 21st century./
        A very successful and unique model.
        /Are you implying Arabs and Jews are incapable of said longing?/
        No of cause not.
        We are unwilling to pursue that path.
        Both Zionism and the Palestinian Arabs movement wanted
        to create a National state with a clear ethnic majority on the territory
        known as Eretz Israel or Palestine (as you wish).
        And that HAS NOT CHANGED.

        The Palestinians want a national state with an Arab majority
        whose law and culture will be defined by the Arab culture of the region
        with heavy Islamic influence.That is what they want.It’s their right.

        We on the other hand want to preserve our state with our clear ethnic majority and our culture.That is what we want.That’s our right.
        Both of our peoples deserve the right of self determination as we
        (not you or anyone else) wish it.

        This is the basis of our struggle with them.
        We both want the same territory to achieve our just national
        aspirations.

        /Or that a radical theological state devoid of Constitutional justice is a goal of alleged enlightened people?/
        This state exists only in your uninformed mind not in reality.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 28, 2012, 12:29 pm

        Both Zionism and the Palestinian Arabs movement wanted
        to create a National state with a clear ethnic majority on the territory
        known as Eretz Israel or Palestine (as you wish).
        And that HAS NOT CHANGED.

        the Palestinian Arabs movement? can you link to this movement? palestinians wanted, and were promised a state on the land they were living on. they already had a clear majority so it wasn’t anything they belabored over, unlike zionists who have always been obsessed with demographics. they lived as muslims, christians and jews whether they were arab or not. don’t conflate the zionist obsession with any drive of some alleged “Palestinian Arabs movement”. the bds movement is for equal rights not for a “clear ethnic majority”. no amount of screaming and capitalization will transform palestinians into some equivalent political movement like zionism.

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 12:57 pm

        Sorry Annie but you what you are saying is nonsense that has nothing to do with reality.

        THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER:
        Resolutions of the Palestine National Council, July 1-17, 1968

        Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

        Article 5: The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father – whether inside Palestine or outside it – is also a Palestinian.

        Article 15:
        The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Absolute responsibility for this falls upon the Arab nation – peoples and governments – with the Arab people of Palestine in the vanguard. Accordingly, the Arab nation must mobilize all its military, human, moral, and spiritual capabilities to participate actively with the Palestinian people in the liberation of Palestine. It must, particularly in the phase of the armed Palestinian revolution, offer and furnish the Palestinian people with all possible help, and material and human support, and make available to them the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue to carry out their leading role in the armed revolution, until they liberate their homeland.

        The rest is here you are welcome to educate yourself.
        link to netaxs.com

        Palestinian Declaration of Independence
        Algiers, November 15, 1988
        link to al-bab.com

        “The State of Palestine is an Arab state, an integral and indivisible part of the Arab nation, at one with that nation in heritage and civilisation, with it also in its aspiration for liberation, progress, democracy and unity. The State of Palestine affirms its obligation to abide by the Charter of the League of Arab States, whereby the coordination of the Arab states with each other shall be strengthened.”

        You are also welcome to read the Hamas charter.

        / the bds movement is for equal rights/

        The bds movement ignores reality which is sad.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 28, 2012, 1:13 pm

        oleg, you claimed “Both Zionism and the Palestinian Arabs movement wanted
        to create a National state with a clear ethnic majority on the territory”

        your ‘evidence’ is from 1968. that’s at least 20 years too late.

      • Bumblebye
        February 28, 2012, 1:22 pm

        Oleg, how about a few choice quotes from the Likud Charter, or other Israeli parties? None of them want to retreat from their stolen properties, do they?

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 1:41 pm

        Well beside Hamas the PLO are the only recognized leaders
        of the Palestinians that i know of.And that is what the said before
        and that is what still say now.

        If you are interested in the view of the Palestinians leadership as far as 1948
        and before you should read Benny Moris “1948″.
        Or if you prefer
        Rashid Khalidi
        “Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness (1997)”

        It was like i stated before a Nationalist movement.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 28, 2012, 3:46 pm

        Well beside Hamas the PLO are the only recognized leaders
        of the Palestinians that i know of.And that is what the said before
        and that is what still say now.

        hamas wasn’t even invented by israel back in 48. my point was to refute your allegation trying to make some equivalency between the zionist colonial project which intended to ethnically cleanse palestinians from their land from the very get go with palestinian aspirations for their own rule back in the day. you tried peddling the zionist “clear ethnic majority” meme whereas palestinian aspirations to rule themselves was not any different than any of the other mandated territory carved up by europeans or whoever did that. nobody was peddling racist colonialist ethnic nationalistic lingo except zionists. they already were the majority (and multi religious too), so achieving that was not on the top of their list. that’s my point, to refute your allegation.

        so yeah, after zionists ethnically cleansed them from their natural palestinian homeland since the beginning of time then establishing a state of their own on a tiny fraction of their own land became a goal. but guess what? now that everyone and their brother is realizing israel’s greedy appetite is requiring every square inch remain under it’s control forever then people are shifting their focus to equal rights.

        go take a look in the mirror and pat yourself on the back for that. and while you’re at it blame yourself for wasting your time here instead of harassing rightwing nationalist zionist fundies, because you think we’re more threatening to the zionist state than they are.

        what a joke.

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 4:01 pm

        /their natural palestinian homeland since the beginning of time/

        Hell why not the beginning of the universe.

      • Chaos4700
        February 29, 2012, 8:20 pm

        Whatever you say, Russian man.

  13. MHughes976
    February 28, 2012, 8:53 am

    The only fair outcome is one where there is no disfranchisement and where there is no partition amounting to disfranchisement in its effects.

    • OlegR
      February 28, 2012, 9:13 am

      This is not a question of what should be this is a question of what will be.

      • Shingo
        February 28, 2012, 12:17 pm

        This is not a question of what should be this is a question of what will be.

        In other words, Israel is not going to agree to anything unless it is forced to do so.

      • OlegR
        February 28, 2012, 1:03 pm

        In other words, Israel is not going to agree to anything
        that spells it’s destruction.

      • Woody Tanaka
        February 28, 2012, 1:38 pm

        “In other words, Israel is not going to agree to anything
        that spells it’s destruction.”

        Interesting that the Israelis conflate “not oppressing someone else” with its own destruction. Pathological, this attitude is.

      • Shingo
        February 28, 2012, 5:27 pm

        In other words, Israel is not going to agree to anything
        that spells it’s destruction.

        Note that destruction has become an Israeli euphamism for debning Israelis everythign they want.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 28, 2012, 6:11 pm

        noted shingo, the destruction lingo is on full speed ahead.

      • Donald
        February 28, 2012, 6:37 pm

        “In other words, Israel is not going to agree to anything
        that spells it’s destruction.

        Note that destruction has become an Israeli euphamism for debning Israelis everythign they want.”

        Using inflated language like that seems to work for them in the propaganda wars. It shifts the goalposts–Israel’s theft in 1948 is automatically off the table and then negotiations begin over what is left, and then the next step is to call Israel’s willingness to give up some remaining portion of the 22 percent a “generous offer”.

        Even if one supported the 2ss out of some belief that it is the pragmatic solution, as Finkelstein does, it’s a mistake to use Israeli language (the “destruction” of Israel) regarding the 1ss the way Finkelstein did. That’s what annoyed me the most about his recent interview (the one he then requested be pulled offline). If the Palestinians choose to go for a 2ss, they’re already conceding 78 percent of their homeland and that’s the “generous offer”. If instead one talks about their right of return as “the destruction of Israel” then that’s like telling the Israelis that they had every right to steal the land, the Palestinian ROR is somehow genocidal and should be given up right from the start, and the Israelis are being very decent in showing the willingness to someday allow Palestinians any land at all, after they negotiate for it (during which process Israel further tells the Palestinians which portion of land it is willing to give up and which parts it intends to keep. ) Which apparently is how some of our recent commenters see it.

      • MHughes976
        February 28, 2012, 7:09 pm

        If there was a fair solution – and am not predicting that there will be – it has to negate all (or all major) forms of unfairness. This does imply the destruction of the system of supremacy for the river-to-sea Jewish minority, which is by almost everyone’s standard massively unfair. Not the destruction of any human being, of course.

      • lysias
        February 28, 2012, 7:16 pm

        In other words, Israel is not going to agree to anything
        that spells it’s destruction.

        Did the end of apartheid spell the destruction of South Africa?

      • MHughes976
        February 29, 2012, 6:42 am

        A regime was destroyed, one that was based on minority rule and had itself destroyed many people. At the end of the regime the members of the minority were neither destroyed nor expelled nor expropriated. Still none of this seems to alter the fact that the Israelis are determined to maintain the minority rule regime that they have set up. They can certainly do this in the short run. In the long run many things could happen, not all of them good.

  14. dahoit
    February 28, 2012, 10:43 am

    PS;Back to 48?Maybe this time they’d get it right.Duh!

Leave a Reply