Netanyahu seeks war with Iran so he can ethnically cleanse the West Bank — Machover

Israel/PalestineMiddle EastUS Politics
on 104 Comments
Our fundraiser just ended, but you can still get a copy of Moshe Machover’s exciting and challenging new book, Israelis and Palestinians: Conflict and Resolution, by donating $60 by the end of July. Published by Haymarket, the book is a collection of essays from the last 40 years by a socialist intellectual who was born in Israel and moved to London to pursue a career in academic mathematics.
 
What follows is an exchange with the author. My headline comes from a question halfway through, about the opportunity Israel sees in regional turmoil to deal with the “ethnic peril” of a large Palestinian population in the West Bank.

You live in London. How much of the book reflects that removal from Israel?
 
Not very much because the bones of it, the kernel was formed before I ever moved to London, and also because as I keep stressing, the ideas were collectively produced with comrades, most of whom were living in Israel most of the time…. In my head as it were I’m living a lot of my time in Israel. I think as an Israeli, of course as a dissident Israeli. I follow what is happening. I am an Israeli exile. Part of the time I am living in an Israel that no longer exists.
 
Your book is about conflict and resolution. Where’s the resolution?
 
MosheMachover
Moshe Machover (Photo: Haymarket Books)
We believed right from the 1960s, before the June war, and I continue to believe, that the only hope for resolving the conflict between Zionism and the indigenous people and the surrounding Arab world, is the integration of Israel and the Hebrew nation into a regional union. The model for this is not a binational state, not a quota arrangement in which the legislature has so many seats for each nationality. This is looking at the real problem and its solution in a regional context, and for providing for the national rights of non-Arab national groups, of which the Hebrew nation is one: to accord it appropriate national rights within a regional federal union. This is a view we have always had in Matzpen (a longtime socialist organization in Israel). Whether this will actually come about, this solution, is really a matter of a race against time. Because what may happen if the conflict goes on long enough is that the Zionist side will manage to ethnically cleanse the remaining Palestinian population. That may eventually lead to a catastrophic result.
So I’ve never been completely confident that a benign resolution of the conflict will actually happen, but what we said is that the only chance for it is provided by integration of the Hebrew nation in a progressive socialist regional federal union.
 
Does your solution require a dissolution of the nation state paradigm? Isn’t the nation-state the governing idea in the world today?
 
I think this paradigm is in any case on its way out. Look at Europe. And of course the European Union is now in deep trouble, but it is in deep trouble because of the effects of the global capitalist crisis. I think that despite this, the idea that Europe is going to revert to self contained nation states, this is cloud cuckoo land. The trend of history, moreover in the region of the Near East, and especially in the Arab east– the whole notion of the nation state as opposed to an all-Arab union is laughable. The only stable national state in the region is Egypt, which is paradoxically, by far, far, far the oldest state in the world. When the first emperor of China unified China and made it into an all Chinese state, the Egyptian state was already 1000s of years old. It is as old as time itself. All the other so called nation states in the Arab world are Mickey Mouse states.…
All the problems in this region stem from the way that the imperial powers France and Britain divided the region after the First World War, to serve their purposes. Iraq was put together to serve British interests. Syria, Lebanon, and a country called Palestine were created or refashioned. This new country, Palestine, was an invention of British imperialism following the First World War; and it was designed explicitly as a domain for Zionist colonization. A whole complex of problems, including the Israeli–Palestinian conflict are a sort of fallout from the fragmentation and parcelization of the Ottoman Empire in its eastern flank.
 
Does the new Middle East give you optimism about such a change?
 
Very much so in terms of acceptance of these ideas, especially on the left, but what is sadly missing not only in the region but globally is an organized socialist force that could actually make use of the crisis. When the great economic crisis happened in the late 20s, early 30s, there were massive working class parties. There were enormous weaknesses because of Stalinism;  nevertheless, there was a massive organized working class in many countries. Even in the US, the situation was much better than it is now…
You can see the consequences of this, for example, in the outcome so far of the revolution in Egypt. What transpired in Egypt recently– there was no organized working class force. There used to be in parts of the Arab world, especially Iraq, massive working class organizations. Unfortunately they were Stalinist, and that led to the tragedy after the 1958 revolution in Iraq. But nothing like that exists in our region and in the world in general, with some exceptions of course. Though you can see it in parts of Greece and some parts of Latin America.
 
Your essays seem to anticipate the Arab Spring.
 
If credit is due it’s not by any means to me personally. It’s not I, it’s we. Look at the second chapter of the book, the homage to my late comrade, Jabra Nicola (1912-1974) a Palestinian Arab Marxist. He would not stress Palestinian; he would call himself an Arab Marxist. And he actually implanted this perspective in Matzpen, this idea that the problems of the region and in particular the Israeli Arab conflict, can only benignly be resolved in an Arab union following an Arab revolution. This was largely due to his influence. I adopted the idea in the mid 1960s because it made a lot of sense to me.
If you go back to the early 1970s, the late 1960s, this idea was not confined to Matzpen, but the radical left of the Palestinian movement also thought on the same basis. The PFLP– this actually was a transformation of a leftist all Arab nationalist party led by a Palestinian, George Habash; and a more radical leftist movement that split from it, the Democratic Front (DPFLP), led by Naif Hawatmeh, who was technically a Jordanian, born on the other side of the river, in Jordan. It was not a movement confined to Palestinians, and its message was not confined to Palestinians…. It was supported by leftist groups and individuals throughout the Arab world. Their perspective was one of Arab revolution. The idea that even the Palestinian Israeli conflict can only be resolved within a revolutionary regional context was not confined to us, or to Palestinians in the Democratic Front, but to Arab leftists generally. These ideas dissipated with the onset of reaction in the Arab East.  The 1970s became a period of deep reaction, and a right turn throughout the world. We are beginning to recover now.
 
Are you optimistic?
 
I’m not expecting things to change tomorrow. I am cautiously optimistic. I don’t hold my breath, but on the other hand I think it’s a mistake to lose hope and become pessimistic because of counterrevolutionary turns in Egypt and other places. There is an ebb and flow in these events. The story is not ended yet. I think we should keep our optimism but don’t expect anything in a hurry.
 
Let’s talk about what is happening in Palestine.  
 
You see there is a Zionist version of what in America was called “manifest destiny”. The Zionist leadership regards the various accords, for example their agreement to the Partition of Palestine in 1947– they regard it in the exactly the same spirit as the US regarded the Indian treaties. They have just made it explicit with the Levy commission. The Levy Commission actually submitted a report that is going to be problematic, because you see the Zionists want Palestinian land but they don’t want Palestinians. The reason why they have not annexed the bulk of the West Bank with the exception of Jerusalem, where there is a Jewish majority– the reason why they have not annexed, is they want to get rid of the population first.
People forget, they annexed not only East Jerusalem but the Syrian Golan Heights, but first they did a massive ethnic cleansing there. People who are focused on the Palestinian aspect forget about the Golan Heights because it is not Palestine. The occupied territories include also the Golan Heights. What happened in 1967, when the guns were still smoking, Israel executed a massive ethnic cleansing of most of the population of the Golan Heights, more than 100,000 people, with the exception of part of the Druze community whom the Zionists don’t consider Arabs. So some  Druze were allowed to remain, and Israel annexed it.
If this Levy commission says that the West Bank is not occupied, then what is it? If it’s not occupied territory, then Israel is free to annex it, and that would in the short term pose a problem to any Zionist government because they would have to annex an area populated by non-Jews. That is the horrible “ethnic peril”. They have to solve this. They are opposed to a Palestinian state, but they are even more terrified of being ethnically swamped by the Palestinians. So for them the way out of the dilemma is ethnic cleansing.
For this they need a prolonged regional crisis, and a war with Iran may come in handy. I’ve warned against this before. I have an article in the book about Sharon’s plan [in 2002] to “transfer” Palestinians from the West Bank. Shortly after I wrote this article, a rightwing British paper, the Sunday Telegraph, ran a piece by an eminent Israeli stratetgic expert, Martin van Creveld, and he said, Look, Sharon has a plan for ethnically cleansing a big part of the population  of the West Bank, and the opportunity for this will be an American invasion of Iraq. At that time many knew there was going to be an invasion of Iraq, and Israel anticipated disquiet and ferment through the Arab world. And particularly in the West Bank, this could be exploited for evacuating maybe more than 1 million Palestinians into Jordan.
Unfortunately for Sharon, the American victory came too soon. You remember George W. Bush standing on the ship with the V sign saying, we won. That came after only a few days. So there wasn’t enough time for a lot of ferment to develop in the region. It ended too quickly.
This is part of the reason that Netanyahu is so adamant about resolving the Iranian issue by war, rather than diplomacy or siege; he wants a full out war, because whatever the actual consequences of the war regarding Iran, whether it will end Iran’s nuclear program—and by the way there is no proof that Iran is committed to production of nuclear weapons– the opportunity will present itself for ethnic cleansing in the West Bank that will be a far more important result for him and far more desirable, than anything he can achieve with Iran itself.
 
What likelihood do you assign such a scenario?
 
I’m not a betting man. But I do read the Israeli press. I don’t think they have made the final decision themselves. Of course there is a flipside. It’s not guaranteed to succeed. Secondly, Israel may suffer casualties in such a war. It’s a costly thing. Of course, if the casualties are not too high, then an achievement of ethnic cleansing from a Zionist point of view will justify Israeli casualties, because that will guarantee the survival of the Jewish Zionist state for the foreseeable future, by ending the ethnic peril. But it’s a gamble.
As you probably know, a big part of the Israeli military and intelligence establishment are advising against. But this is revealing. Netanyahu makes a calculation as a politician, and has the future of Zionism in mind. Intelligence and military officials make a calculation focusing on the military aspects of the war.
 I don’t think it’s decided. But the most dangerous window would be from August to September, approaching the American election. In the period leading to the American election, then we have guaranteed support from the crazy American right. Obama would be very hard put to resist it. The risk for him is to be denounced as a sissy, and pusillanimous. Knowing Obama’s character, I don’t put too highly the prospect of his actually standing firm on many things.
But if Obama gets reelected, and Israel attacks Iran, he can hang Israel out to dry. Without any kind of American approval, Israel can’t go against Iran. There is a fantasy in some circles that the Israel tail is wagging the American dog. I agree that there is a special relationship, but Israel is the junior partner, and Israel cannot go it alone. The last time Israel went against the US in a major way was the Suez adventure, in 1956, with Britain and France. They were soon told what to do by Eisenhower.
 
Doesn’t the idea that Obama could allow a disastrous war to take place undermine your view that he is acting in the US’s material interests first?
 
No, this is not opposed to a materialist view. Christian Zionists, they have a special name for what will happen to the good Christians in Jerusalem– the rapture. Well this is really an ideological dress. They dress their material interest in ideological garb.
And there have always been differences within the US establishment about what real American interests are. And there have always been interests. The American right has always been more aggressive. They want to counteract the idea of decline of the American empire by going more aggressive. Material interests are one thing, but people have minds, and they interpret their material interests according to their understanding.
 
What about neocon pressure inside the establishment? Irving Kristol left the Democratic Party because he thought that Democrats would favor a small military, and that was not in Jewish interests because of Israel. Don’t many  American Jews put Israel’s interests first?
 
I’m not so sure of it. The evidence is not completely clear on this. Lenny Brenner has written a lot about this. Actually I think despite what Kristol said, the majority of American Jews vote Democrat. So when asked what is the main consideration, in voting one way or the other, Israel is not that important.
American Jews are Zionists at this moment, but it hasn’t always been like that. If you go further back, then a very big part of American Jewish opinion was non Zionist. But this is not the case now because Zionism does not seem to conflict with their American patriotism. Israel is the blue eyed boy of the United States, there is no perceived conflict between the countries’ interests. Many Jews are unhappy with what Israel is doing, but it’s quite patriotic to be Zionist. If this changes, you will see surfacing in the Jewish community, discontent, anxiety about Israel and so on.
And don’t let us kid ourselves that the self-appointed officials of American Jewry actually express the view of their community. I believe the feeling on the ground is better expressed by some writers, for example Philip Roth. He has not written as a Zionist. Even very remarkably in the book The Plot Against America, about the presumed threat to American Jews, there’s no Zionist aspect whatsoever. And in Portnoy’s Complaint, the episode with this Israeli woman soldier, he makes fun of Zionism. He has never actually come out explicitly against Zionism. He simply isn’t interested in it.
And when I come in contact with American Jews, I don’t find that uniformity that you would expect if you would just follow the media.
 
Were you ever disappointed with Matzpen associates for turning out to be religious nationalists?
 
I don’t know if I would go so far as to describe them as religious nationalists. Though it applies to some people who have been in Matzpen. Matzpen began to split, as you can see from the potted history on the website, after 1970. The biggest split was in 1972. Virtually all the leftist Marxist groups that existed and exist in Israel derive from Matzpen with the exception of those that came out of the debris of the Israeli communist party. And Matzpen itself was created by dissenters from the communist party.
If you read my review of the book by Michel Warschawski [On the Border], you will see that one thing that I criticize him for is reversion to Jewish identity politics. Not Hebrew identity politics, but ethnic Jewish patriotism. If you look at this review, you will see, he used to be very orthodox Leninist, as he understood Leninism, circa 1972, then he reverted to a sort of Jewish identity nostalgia, while remaining a very staunch and courageous fighter against occupation. And yes, some of the people who came out of Matzpen may have actually reverted to this identity politics.
Generally my position and that of those who remained  the core of Matzpen was that identity and ideology politics have very important things to tell us, but it depends on how you eat that particular vegetable. Take the feminist variety of identity politics. Is the main contradiction one between men and women, or the class contradiction? All the conflict and grievances and problems of women—how do they articulate with class? It is a gross mistake to ignore the problems that feminists bring up. But when it becomes the dominant thing, rather than looking at class, then it is a negative factor.
 
My difficulty with class analysis in this context is that I look at a great materialist analyst like Noam Chomsky and I believe that his own religious identity has played a very large role in his thinking on these questions, and I think that is reflective of all of us.
 
First of all, you can’t apply materialist analysis to individual people. Individual people can have ideas that are not typical of the class from which they come. Engels ran a factory. Secondly, Chomsky did not come from a religious Jewish background, but a secular Jewish background. He has always been a Zionist of the most benign type, relatively. But he is still a Zionist, he’s never denied it… He did not object and would not object on principle to a Jewish colonization of Palestine so long as it would somehow happen with the consent and the collaboration of the indigenous people. There were a lot of people like that, who genuinely believed that. At one time it was a significant minority trend within Zionism, the belief that such a thing was possible. These people were rightly told by Jabotinsky, Don’t make me laugh– natives don’t ever accept, not only a new master, but even a new partner to their homeland. So Zionism that calls for binationalism—this whole trend was self deluding.
 
Tell us a lesson from the essays in this book.
 
I think what is important and significant is the view of the conflict, first of all as a colonial one. It is not colonial like South Africa, but the most pertinent parallel is with the United States; Palestinians are “our Indians”. The US did not use indigenous labor, and the South imported slaves from far away, imported slave labor from Africa. Zionists imported Oriental Jews. Of course the situation was quite different. They were not slaves, of course, they were “our brethren”. They were culturally despised, but they were integrated in the dominant nation. There was a big difference in that respect.
But the pattern of colonization was similar to New Zealand, Australia, North America, where the local labor was not used. This created a huge difference. This is lost on those people like the followers of Edward Said who think that colonialism is an expression of contempt toward the culture of the east, rather than the other way around– that this racist contempt is a superstructure of colonization.
For a Marxist, there is a huge difference between the type of colonialism that exploits the local labor, where it is needed as a resource, and the US or Israel model, where natives are to be excluded and ethnically cleansed.
That doesn’t exhaust the nature of the problem. There is a further unique attribute to the nature of Zionist colonization. In all places where the pattern of colonialism did not exploit the local labor, a new nation of settlers was formed. The same applied to Israel. A Hebrew nation was formed, as a settler nation. But in no other place did the indigenous people form into a unitary single nation with its own identity. In the US you had many nations of so called Indians. In Australia, there were hundreds of languages, and there was no unified national movement of the indigenous people. The Palestinian case is the sole exception. Here you have a colonial conflict, at the core of it, which has taken the form of a clash between a settler nation and an indigenous nation. That is unique in colonial history.
This is why on the face of it, it looks like a symmetric conflict, with two nations fighting over a piece of land, and all you need is to make peace, while in a typical colonial conflict, either the settlers win out, as  happened in the U.S., or there is decolonization, as in South Africa or Algeria.
Unfortunately as you see there is no historical case in which decolonization took place after colonization followed the expulsive pattern. Because the settlers then formed the majority and they managed to marginalize the natives. But ours is an exceptional situation. You have a single Palestinian nation which moreover is part of a large national entity, Palestinians are a sort of second tier nationality of the Arab nation, which is one of the major world civilizations. Nothing like that happened in North America or Australia. In terms of world history, those indigenous people were a backwater. From a human perspective, no one is a backwater, but in global terms, the indigenous people in North America and Australia were marginal.
But what Zionism is confronted by is a single national group, Palestinians, which are part of a major major world civilization. So this is why the problem is so tough and is not going to be resolved very easily.
 
Will Zionism disappear?
 
Ultimately yes. If you compare their position to that of the American settlers, the Americans had a manifest destiny, and that manifest destiny was realized when they reached “from sea to shining sea”. That was it; at the far side of the continent, manifest destiny was fulfilled. But Israel, however far it expands, it will be confronted by more Arabs, realistically speaking, unless they expand as far as Iran. [laughing] 
So this is why I think ultimately– ultimately, I think– Zionism will be superseded. But ultimately takes a long time.
 

104 Responses

  1. Krauss
    July 23, 2012, 10:07 am

    Smart comment about the Iran war and ethnic cleansing. I’ve read little of that elsewhere except a few stray dogs and I am almost sure he thinks about it seriously. Bibi isn’t a stupid man, he knows Israel cannot solve it’s problems on a regular, democratic way. The slow-motion ethnic cleansing that is happening now(especially in East Jerusalem) is a preamble, something that Israel does waiting for the moment.

    So far we’ve had two major incidents of ethnic cleansing, in 1948 and a lesser known one happened in 1967. So Israel’s record is clear: do it whenever there is a major conflict. And no matter if Israel gets into a war with Hezbollah in Lebanon or whatnot, no conflict is greater than the one with Iran, which would be fought on multiple fronts and be severe enough to warrant ‘extreme measures’.

    It will all be done in the name of ‘security’ and ‘necessity’ and the ‘civil rights activist’ Abe Foxman will be agreeing with it every step of the way.

    The only question is: is it feasable? We’re talking about 2 million plus just in the West Bank and a sizeable Arab population within Israel. Still, one of the things a lot of people underestimate is just how segregted(like Jim Crow) Israel is inside the green line(or whatever remains of it).

    Tel Aviv is 90 % Jewish. And those remaining 10 % are not all Arabs, many are druze, Westerners etc. There are literally ‘Arab towns’ in Israel where most Arabs are concentrated. I don’t think this is a coincidence.

    And keep in mind the (passed) legislation of 2010-2011, which among other things allowed communities to reject people on the basis of ‘social cohesion’(a.k.a being an Arab). This, again, is a clear indicator of Jim Crow. Only back then the contention was ‘seperate but equal’. In Israel there is not even a pretense, it’s all done in the name of security and social cohesion. Not to mention that Bibi himself has referred to his Arab minority as a ‘demographic timebomb’.

    So even if the ethnic cleansing would be a large task, there are already measures in place inside Israel to deal with an interior revolt. Israel has built a large amount of detention centers in just the last few years to keep people indefinitely. They’ll first be used on Africans to be deported(last week, the Knesset passed a bill which would make it impossible for an African migrant to protest the deportation, there went the rule of law), but who says Arabs won’t be next?

    Whoever is president in the next 4 years, I find it unlikely either of them will even lift a finger. Obama has completely allowed himself to be humiliated on numerous occassions. He might not even survive the election and if he does, I don’t buy the whole ‘final term President is free to do what he likes’. Bush turned into a lame duck the last two years. Obama could turn into a lame duck the last 4 if he goes against the lobby, who will threaten his senators who do want to stay there for years to come.

    The question is, what would Egypt do? Saudi is going to sit still. Turkey is the wild card. But ultimately, the lobby will pressure whoever is in charge to help Israel militarily. Wouldn’t surprise me at all if U.S. resources directly or indirectly would go to help the ethnic cleansing.

    If Israel/Iran truly get down to it, you’ll have massive chaos. People will not see everything clearly and whatever happens, we’ll be sure to get massive propaganda via the American media to make sure nobody publicly dissents. When it’s all over, who would care? The acusations of anti-Semitism(‘how dare you deny the right of Jews of self-defence, have you learned nothing of the Holocaust?’) would fly all over the place and it would be sufficient.

    • Annie Robbins
      July 23, 2012, 10:30 am

      I’ve read little of that elsewhere except a few stray dogs

      i’ve made that point right here in the comment section. i don’t think it is an uncommon thought although it’s not articulated often.

    • anan
      July 23, 2012, 11:02 am

      Israel has not tried a genocide against Palestinians living in the West Bank since 1948. Why would they try now?

      Israelis are focused on economic growth and technological innovation. These priorities require stability. Ethnic cleansing of Palestinians reduces stability.

      In any case, don’t Israelis need Palestinian knowledge workers to power Israeli product development and economic growth?

      • Mooser
        July 23, 2012, 11:28 am

        “Israel has not tried a genocide against Palestinians living in the West Bank since 1948.”

        Thanks for admitting the true nature of the Nakba in 1948. I’m glad you understand it was an attempt at genocide. And the way you put it is so witty.

        • Citizen
          July 24, 2012, 2:45 pm

          Mooser,LOL , would that be (Richard) witty? Not exactly, as he’d be holding his nose. Harder to talk that way.

        • Mooser
          July 24, 2012, 6:26 pm

          I sort of thought so, until he claimed not to know who Annie Robbins is in another post. A subterfuge like that is beyond Witty. No, I don’t think this is The Ghost of Dick Witty come back to haunt us. There is a distinct resemblance, but it’s hard to imagine there’s two of them. I mean, what with mankind surviving the Ice Age, and learning to use tools and master fire and all.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 23, 2012, 12:07 pm

        israel doesn’t prioritized stability over expansion. if they did they’d freeze settlements.

        • anan
          July 23, 2012, 2:05 pm

          “israel doesn’t prioritized stability over expansion. if they did they’d freeze settlements.”

          When you make that point to Israelis, what do they tell you? This is something I don’t understand. Doing right by the Palestinians benefits Israelis. So why don’t Israelis do it?

        • justicewillprevail
          July 23, 2012, 3:09 pm

          If that was so, they would have done it a long time ago. They simply don’t care, and have the arrogance to claim all the land as their own, as if Palestinians hadn’t been living and farming there for centuries. They have dispossessed the Palestinians to the point where they are unable to exist, which is the whole point of the slow motion cleansing.

        • Mooser
          July 23, 2012, 5:17 pm

          “Doing right by the Palestinians benefits Israelis. So why don’t Israelis do it?”

          Maybe they aren’t nice people, and don’t want to “do right”.

        • Citizen
          July 24, 2012, 2:48 pm

          Annie, the longer Zionist strategic view is that expansion brings Israel more stability in the longer term. Israel can afford to put up with whatever instability its settlements cause in the near term because America backs it up
          By the time America wakes up, it will be unstable, not Israel.

        • Citizen
          July 24, 2012, 2:54 pm

          anan, the Israelis, and their 5th column in the US believe that the goy is always just around the corner, waiting to do a pogrom–because it’s in the goy’s born nature to produce simple jew-haters every generation, and has always been so. Bibi told us Americans that not long ago. Our leaders applauded.

        • Citizen
          July 24, 2012, 3:38 pm

          Mooser, Israel is just trying to give you self-identified Jews around the world a safe haven for when your Gentile in-laws come to settle the score. Wake up!
          You think Jews have a monopoly on revenge? Nobody likes folks who stop raising their kids in the traditional manner. Hatfields and McCoys are reality. That’s why Shakespeare is known by most folks only for Romeo and Juliet. The unwashed masses everywhere can relate! Forget about his other stuff; has no resonance outside the ivory tower.

        • anan
          July 24, 2012, 4:23 pm

          What is goy?

        • Mooser
          July 24, 2012, 6:28 pm

          “Nobody likes folks who stop raising their kids in the traditional manner.”

          Ha! I fooled them! I threw the baby out with the bris water.

        • Mooser
          July 24, 2012, 6:31 pm

          “What is goy?”

          You’ve never been to a Chinese or other Asian restaurant? It’s the dark brown, salty condiment. “Goy sauce” or just “goy” for short.

      • Shingo
        July 23, 2012, 7:19 pm

        Israelis are focused on economic growth and technological innovation.

        All Neteneyhu talks abotu is Iran and announcing new settlements. Obviously, he’s not too concerned with economic growth and technological innovation.

        • Citizen
          July 24, 2012, 2:59 pm

          Not true, Bibi is always happy to entertain more ways Israel can rip off US business folks and copyright holders via US trade agreements and on-going “working tightly with American enterprise”, and any reverse engineering and slight cosmetic change to any free US military product he is able to sell as “Israel made” war weapons is a happy moment–akin to what he felt when 9/11 happened.

      • ColinWright
        July 24, 2012, 12:03 am

        “Israel has not tried a genocide against Palestinians living in the West Bank since 1948. Why would they try now?”

        Israel drove out some very large number of Palestinians in 1967. 200,000? I forget.

        During the Second Intifada, Israel started openly bandying about the idea of expelling the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank to Jordan. Jordan had to very clearly and publicly tell them to not even think about it (and I imagine the US repeated the message in private).

        I’m confident Israel would jump at the chance to expel her Palestinian population. Once they’re out, it’s a fait accompli, and she can stone-wall until AIPAC makes it all better in the US.

        This might indeed be what all the fussing is about. Israel is just trying to kick up a big enough dust storm so she can finish the job she started in 1948.

        If this is actually her plan, it’s one of her better ones. Could work.

        • Citizen
          July 24, 2012, 3:02 pm

          Why not? A regional ME war, or even one morphing to WW3 would be a small price to pay to get rid of the Palestinians on all the land Israel wants.
          The US will pay the highest price by far. A worthy goal for Zionists!

        • anan
          July 24, 2012, 3:40 pm

          “Why not? A regional ME war, or even one morphing to WW3 would be a small price to pay to get rid of the Palestinians on all the land Israel wants.
          The US will pay the highest price by far. A worthy goal for Zionists!” That is horrible. :-( Don’t joke about stuff like that.

        • Mooser
          July 24, 2012, 5:25 pm

          “:-( Don’t joke about stuff like that.”

          Why not? Give me one, one even somewhat rational reason why we shouldn’t make all the jokes we damn please?
          I mean, damn “anan” look at all the lousy jokes you make about Israel being a “free democracy” and “a great and generous people”. And those aren’t even funny jokes. Just ordinary lies, from a guy who was shocked, shocked! to find out there is discrimination against Palestinians in Israel.

          And you must be a very old person “anan”. Only senior citizens remember old stuff like” :-( ” . What the hell is your game, chump?

      • vivarto
        August 1, 2012, 3:09 am

        “Genocide” against Palestinians in 1948???
        Absurd.
        In 1948 the term “Palestinian” was referring exclusively to the Jews from Palestine. The Arabs were simply known as Arabs, and they did not have any “Palestinian-Arab” nationalism. Most they considered themselves Syrians.

        Secondly 1948 was a war. People died on both sides, more Jews were killed than Arabs in that war.

        Now mister moderator, show some intellectual courage and publish this comment.

        • Woody Tanaka
          August 1, 2012, 10:29 am

          “Absurd.”

          Nope. Pretty clear.

          “The Arabs were simply known as Arabs, and they did not have any ‘Palestinian-Arab’ nationalism.”

          Typical Nakba denial. Typical gutter-dwelling zio.

          “Secondly 1948 was a war.”

          So? The massacres, murders and ethnic cleansing that the israelis committed in that war were crimes against humanity and war crimes.

        • vivarto
          August 1, 2012, 1:02 pm

          Personal attacks are logical fallacy, whether I am a “typical gutter-dwelling zio”, or not, is irrelevant to the fact that in 1948 there was no “Palestinian-Arab” national consciousness of any consequence. On the contrary, the original meaning of “Nakba” was applied some 30 years earlier when Britain and France divide Palestine from Syria. Most of the Arabs living in Palestine considered themselves Syrians (and many indeed were from Syria, and came there a couple of generations earlier because of the famine and had their clan connections in the North), and considered the separation from Syria as catastrophe, Nakba.
          However I am not saying this to you my dear Woody Tanaka’s as I have no expectation of you having any interest in facts. I am writing in for the sake of possible other readers.

          The second point you also missed, and will continue missing. Yes, it was war, and yes, atrocities are common in wars. However there was no “genocide” committed in that particular war. People died on both sides, more Jews than There were massacres on both sides. Fortunately none of them on nearly as large scale that are normal to Arab wars with each other. (Such as Lebanon civil war, where 200,000 were killed, the 30,000the in the current Libyan, and 20,000 in Syrian civil war.
          None of that, however constitutes a genocide, as per definition, as no whole nation, or tribe was killed.
          In any case, don’t take this personally. I understand that this amount of factual information is not easy for someone like you to digest, and I certainly don’t expect you to.
          I am just exploring the intellectual level of the participants of the mondoweis.net. I have heard a lot about this blog and got curious.

        • Shingo
          August 1, 2012, 4:56 pm

          In 1948 the term “Palestinian” was referring exclusively to the Jews from Palestine.

          False. Everyone in Palestine was referred to as Palestinian. Bem Girioon noted that Palestinian Nationalism was alive and well in 1914.

          Secondly 1948 was a war. People died on both sides, more Jews were killed than Arabs in that war.

          That’s like saying both sides died in WWII witout accepting that Germany were the perpetrators.

          Now mister moderator, show some intellectual courage and publish this comment.

          Yes Mister moderator, please ban vivarto for Nakba denial.

        • Shingo
          August 1, 2012, 5:10 pm

          is irrelevant to the fact that in 1948 there was no “Palestinian-Arab” national consciousness of any consequence

          That is Zionist myth. “Palestinian-Arab” national consciousness was alive and well before any Jewish national consciousness. The Huseeing McMahon treaty was made 2 yeras before the Balfour Declaration.

          On the contrary, the original meaning of “Nakba” was applied some 30 years earlier when Britain and France divide Palestine from Syria.

          That’s simply Nakba denial and you wil be banned if you continue with this argument. The Nakba terms is a word which like the Hebrew word Shoah, but both are accepted as terms which refer to specific events in history.

          Most of the Arabs living in Palestine considered themselves Syrians

          Another Zionist myth aliong with the claim that most Palestinians immigrated to Palestine. This has all been debunked repeatedly.

          I am writing in for the sake of possible other readers.

          You are merely spouting decades old lies that have been repeatedly debunked, so don’t waste your time recycling this hasbra.

          Yes, it was war, and yes, atrocities are common in wars.

          That’s a fmailiar defense, but as we saw at Huremberg, it didn’t hold water. The Zionist leadership made it clear from the beginning that these atrocities were planned well in advance and that they were considered necessary to achieve particular aims.

          None of that, however constitutes a genocide, as per definition, as no whole nation, or tribe was killed.

          That would make the Holocasutr less than a genocide as many Jews were spared.

          You are clearly and intellectual midget who is not only ignorant, but hasn;t thought through his arguments.

          I will be reporting you to the moderators for Nakba denial.

        • RoHa
          August 2, 2012, 12:49 am

          “in 1948 there was no “Palestinian-Arab” national consciousness of any consequence.”

          Does this justify driving them out of their homes and off their farms,?

    • chinese box
      July 23, 2012, 12:55 pm

      @Krauss

      One problem I can see with this scenario is that in order to expel people you have to have a place to expel them to. Even assuming there is a logistical way to push millions of Palestinians into the chaos that is currently Syria, it would create a “state within a state” effect that would make the PLO’s days in Beirut look like a children’s picnic. I have a hard time believing the the Obama administration would allow this, not out of any love for the Palestinians, but for fear of the entire region collapsing into anarchy. And pushing them into Jordan or Egypt would likely ignite a second regional war on top of whatever Israel has going already with Iran. I don’t think even Israel is reckless enough to instigate a situation like that (at least I hope she isn’t).

      • Stephen Shenfield
        July 23, 2012, 4:35 pm

        There is an essay by one Boris Shusteff at link to freeman.org entitled “The Logistics of Transfer.” Although out of date (it was written in July 2002), it is of interest as an example of a pro-transfer Israeli grappling with the practicalities of the project. Shusteff is against carrying out transfer under cover of war; he wants to do it in a planned and open fashion over a period of years. This, he argues, would be more humane.

        His first stage would use financial incentives to maximize voluntary transfer, thereby reducing the numbers who eventually have to be transferred against their will. He wants to explore the option of creating a Palestinian state in Saudi Arabia or Iraq (this was written before the invasion of Iraq). But he seems to expect this option to fail. Eventually Israel will have to resort to “forced expulsion into Sinai and Jordan.” He admits that the governments of Egypt and Jordan will not be very happy about this operation, but he hopes to persuade them that as Israel is going to do it anyway they would be better off bowing to the inevitable and taking in the new refugees in an organized way with the expenses of absorption paid by Israel (in practice the US?).

        If Jordan and Egypt still refuse to cooperate, he proposes to dump Palestinian communities over the border with supplies to enable them to survive for a certain period of time. It seems that the IDF will first need to occupy the dumping zone, then transfer the people and supplies, and eventually withdraw back over the border. Note that these people are being transferred mostly into the desert. Then it is up to Jordan, Egypt and the international community to cope with the humanitarian crisis. Of course, any suffering that results if they fail to cope very well will be their fault!

        • Citizen
          July 24, 2012, 3:13 pm

          Shenfield, what a scenario Shusteff posits as a way of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by Israel! Hard to imagine in the wake of the Arab Spring this would be stomached by ME Arab states today.

        • Citizen
          July 24, 2012, 3:23 pm

          @ Stephen Shenfield

          Shusteff: “Abstractly speaking, it is of course unethical to arbitrarily force large number of people to abandon their homes and move elsewhere. In the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict, however, in the interest of preserving lives, and making a normal future suddenly possible for huge numbers of people who previously had no hope at all, transfer in fact becomes the most moral choice. It is time that the issue was turned from its head back onto its feet, so that it can stop being taboo in Israeli society and politics. The Israeli leftist camp constantly insists that they “do not want to rule over another people,” and the transfer option is of course completely in line with this slogan.”

          This reminds me of Himmler’s pep speech to his SS officers in Pozen about the great task before them that they are called upon by Providence to do: See link to holocaust-history.org

        • eljay
          July 24, 2012, 3:36 pm

          >> There is an essay by one Boris Shusteff at link to freeman.org
          entitled “The Logistics of Transfer.” … Shusteff is against carrying out transfer under cover of war; he wants to do it in a planned and open fashion over a period of years. This, he argues, would be more humane.

          It’s nice that he wants humanely to wipe Palestine off the map and push Palestinians into the sea.

        • lysias
          July 24, 2012, 4:05 pm

          I’m reminded of Heydrich’s line in the German Wannsee Conference movie. I forget his exact words, but he says something like, “Im Krieg wird manches unmögliche möglich [In war many impossible things become possible].”

      • ColinWright
        July 24, 2012, 12:07 am

        ” I have a hard time believing the the Obama administration would allow this, not out of any love for the Palestinians, but for fear of the entire region collapsing into anarchy…”

        I think the Obama administration is a lot more afraid of giving the Israel lobby ammunition than they are of the entire Middle East collapsing into anarchy.

        In fact, if Israel is going to do this, now would be the time. Get a big enough uproar started, then do it before the election. Ol’ deer in the headlights can be bullied into acquiescing.

        • Citizen
          July 24, 2012, 3:29 pm

          Colin, if what you are saying is Obama’s main concern is getting reelected, no matter what the cost, I agree. Due to the heavy breath of AIPAC and Sheldon Adelson et al, Obama will have to fish or cut bait, likely in the window of August-September this year–re War on Iran.

        • anan
          July 24, 2012, 5:28 pm

          ColinWright, this is unfair. Obama is a good man with a good heart. I have no doubt he values the welfare of the American people more than his reelection or the mostly imaginary Israeli lobby.

        • eljay
          July 24, 2012, 6:17 pm

          >> Obama is a good man with a good heart.

          A good man with a good heart would not condone assassination or torture. Obama condones both. This says much about you.

          >> … the mostly imaginary Israeli lobby.

          The Loch Ness Monster is mostly imaginary. The Israel lobby is very real. How much power it has may be the subject of dispute, but its existence is unquestionable. Well, to anyone but you, evidently.

        • Mooser
          July 24, 2012, 6:35 pm

          “ColinWright, this is unfair. Obama is a good man with a good heart.”

          The next time you and Barack have one of those long intimate talks, and he opens his heart to you, give him my regards. BTW, “anan” do you and Obama talk before, or after he selects drone targets?

        • anan
          July 24, 2012, 6:54 pm

          eljay, who has Obama tortured? For that matter GW Bush only authorized torture against 3 top AQ leaders. A mistake in my view. It seems like GW Bush thought so as well, since he never authorized torture again.

          Regarding assassinations . . . yes Obama has surged these kinds of SOF strikes as well as drone strikes by orders of magnitude versus GW Bush. Drone strikes and SOF strikes have serious limitations. More so Drone strikes than SOF strikes.

          It is a very difficult situation. I have no doubt that a lot of Russian, Indian, European, Chinese, Shiite, Iranian, Iraq, Afghan, Pakistani, European civilians are alive today because of what you call “assassinations.” The Takfiri want to attack, hurt and kill us all, including you.

          This does not make it any less problematic. It is best to do things through the judicial system. Unfortunately how to do this when some very powerful countries are de facto letting large parts of their establishment back Al Qaeda and Taliban linked networks? From countries that publicly claim to be friends with America and the free world.

          Eljay, I don’t think you understand the gravity of the situation. You don’t know what Obama, Putin, Singh, Maliki, Erdogan, or Merkel get briefed. Try to see the world through their eyes.

          Do you realize that Al Qaeda central formally declared war on the democratically elected fully legitimate Tunisian government less than a month ago? Do you understand how much consternation and fear this caused among Tunisians?

          I don’t think you have any idea how dangerous it is to be a muslim minority or a decent honorable Sunni these days.

        • eljay
          July 24, 2012, 8:29 pm

          >> eljay, who has Obama tortured?

          I never said he tortured anyone. I said he has condoned torture.

    • lysias
      July 23, 2012, 12:56 pm

      Can Israel’s preferential trade position with the EU survive a large-scale ethnic cleansing? Wouldn’t such an ethnic cleansing give a big boost to BDS throughout the world?

      • Bumblebye
        July 23, 2012, 3:28 pm

        Infuriatingly, and as of tomorrow, the EU is upgrading Israel’s relationship
        in trade, migration, energy, agriculture.
        It “will remove obstacles impeding Israeli access to European government-controlled markets and enhance Israel’s co-operation with nine EU agencies, including Europol and the European Space Agency.”
        All these moves are at the “request” of Israel, and have passed with zero opposition.
        link to guardian.co.uk
        “despite private complaints of the inconsistency of chastising Israel with one hand while rewarding it with the other, not one minister was prepared to oppose Tuesday’s agreement.”
        sickening. just sickening.

        • Citizen
          July 24, 2012, 3:44 pm

          Bumblee, not to mention isn’t Israel like a 99% NATO member now?

        • anan
          July 24, 2012, 4:29 pm

          ” isn’t Israel like a 99% NATO member now?”

          100% wrong. Israel is under US weapons technology transfer sanctions. The US will not sell Israel the same weapons platforms and technologies that the US sells NATO countries such as Turkey, (or Brazil, India, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Japan and other responsible countries)

          Israel is not allowed many other NATO joint training, joint exercises, technology, joint R&D benefits.

          Part of this might be because of Israel’s close relationship with China and Russia. Israel’s close de facto alliance with India (and close ties with Japan) are not a problem because India and Japan are close to Turkey, Europe and America.

          Do you really believe that Turkey, England, France and mainstream Europe will ever let Israel into NATO? ;-)

        • Mooser
          July 24, 2012, 6:39 pm

          Amazing, isn’t it, how “anan” finds aspects of the situation never discussed at Mondoweiss. Why, I never knoew that Israel’s “close relationship” with China and Russia has damaged Israel’s standing with the US. WHy isn’t this discussed here?
          And how can NATO justify denying Israel, who has complied with every single UN Resolution (!) admittance? Smells like latent covert anti-Semitism to me.

      • ColinWright
        July 24, 2012, 12:09 am

        Maybe temporarily, but (a) Israel is crazy enough not to care, and (b) it’ll eventually blow over.

        Endless talks. Terrorist attacks by frustrated Palestinians. Aid from the US to offset the effects of the boycott. It’ll be cool…or so Israel may tell herself.

  2. Annie Robbins
    July 23, 2012, 10:28 am

    This is part of the reason that Netanyahu is so adamant about resolving the Iranian issue by war, rather than diplomacy or siege; he wants a full out war, because whatever the actual consequences of the war regarding Iran,….– the opportunity will present itself for ethnic cleansing in the West Bank that will be a far more important result for him and far more desirable, than anything he can achieve with Iran itself.

    yep, that’s the big tamale. what happened in iraq too, massive settlement expansion.

  3. Annie Robbins
    July 23, 2012, 10:31 am

    But if Obama gets reelected, and Israel attacks Iran, he can hang Israel out to dry. Without any kind of American approval, Israel can’t go against Iraq. There is a fantasy in some circles that the Israel tail is wagging the American dog. I agree that there is a special relationship, but Israel is the junior partner, and Israel cannot go it alone.

    i think he means Israel can’t go against Iran in this passage.

    • Citizen
      July 24, 2012, 3:48 pm

      Annie, yes, but he actually thinks the US is top dog and its tail is wagging free. Must live in a bubble.

  4. Amar
    July 23, 2012, 11:03 am

    You see there is a Zionist version of what in America was called “manifest destiny”. The Zionist leadership regards the various accords, for example their agreement to the Partition of Palestine in 1947– they regard it in the exactly the same spirit as the US regarded the Indian treaties. They have just made it explicit with the Levy commission. The Levy Commission actually submitted a report that is going to be problematic, because you see the Zionists want Palestinian land but they don’t want Palestinians. The reason why they have not annexed the bulk of the West Bank with the exception of Jerusalem, where there is a Jewish majority– the reason why they have not annexed, is they want to get rid of the population first.

    I’ve long believed Netanyahu had this in mind from long ago. He is on record as saying this in 1989 after the Tiananmen Square massacre:

    ‘Israel should have taken advantage of the suppression of the demonstrations in China [Tiananmen Square], when the world’s attention was focussed on what was happening in that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the Territories. However, to my regret, they did not support that policy that I proposed, and which I still propose should be implemented.’

    link to richardsilverstein.com

    • ColinWright
      July 24, 2012, 12:13 am

      “…I’ve long believed Netanyahu had this in mind from long ago. He is on record as saying this in 1989 after the Tiananmen Square massacre:

      ‘Israel should have taken advantage of the suppression of the demonstrations in China [Tiananmen Square], when the world’s attention was focussed on what was happening in that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the Territories. However, to my regret, they did not support that policy that I proposed, and which I still propose should be implemented.’ “

      That is significant. The odds that this is what Israel is shooting for with all this Iran nonsense just got a lot better.

      Obviously, if Netanyahu seriously thought Tiananmen would have provided sufficient cover, he’s going to be sure to figure he’s got it if things go seriously south vis-a-vis Iran (or even Syria).

      All he needs is enough dust, and he’ll try it on.

      Well, here’s hoping the Europeans stand up to him if he does. I know we won’t.

      • Citizen
        July 24, 2012, 3:51 pm

        War as pixie dust for lebensraum. Gee, where have I heard that policy before? Sounds like we need a non-PC Disney move. Oh, tough luck. Look at who’s in charge there.

  5. Kathleen
    July 23, 2012, 11:07 am

    “If credit is due it’s not by any means to me personally. It’s not I, it’s we. Look at the second chapter of the book, the homage to my late comrade, Jabra Nicola (1912-1974) a Palestinian Arab Marxist. He would not stress Palestinian; he would call himself an Arab Marxist. And he actually implanted this perspective in Matzpen, this idea that the problems of the region and in particular the Israeli Arab conflict, can only benignly be resolved in an Arab union following an Arab revolution. This was largely due to his influence. I adopted the idea in the mid 1960s because it made a lot of sense to me.
    If you go back to the early 1970s, the late 1960s, this idea was not confined to Matzpen, but the radical left of the Palestinian movement also thought on the same basis. The PFLP– this actually was a transformation of a leftist all Arab nationalist party led by a Palestinian, George Habash; and a more radical leftist movement that split from it, the Democratic Front (DPFLP), led by Naif Hawatmeh, who was technically a Jordanian, born on the other side of the river, in Jordan. It was not a movement confined to Palestinians, and its message was not confined to Palestinians…. It was supported by leftist groups and individuals throughout the Arab world. Their perspective was one of Arab revolution. The idea that even the Palestinian Israeli conflict can only be resolved within a revolutionary regional context was not confined to us, or to Palestinians in the Democratic Front, but to Arab leftists generally. These ideas dissipated with the onset of reaction in the Arab East. The 1970s became a period of deep reaction, and a right turn throughout the world. We are beginning to recover now.”

    Interesting and honorable to share where one’s ideas and stances have been cultivated.

  6. Kathleen
    July 23, 2012, 11:10 am

    “You see there is a Zionist version of what in America was called “manifest destiny”. The Zionist leadership regards the various accords, for example their agreement to the Partition of Palestine in 1947– they regard it in the exactly the same spirit as the US regarded the Indian treaties. They have just made it explicit with the Levy commission.”

    Have always thought about what Israel has been doing as a “Manifest destiny” strategy. Big difference is that the crimes against humanity that took place in the creation of the U.S. via genocide and enslavement without having nations all around you that can call you on your crimes against humanity as Israel has surrounding them

    • Citizen
      July 24, 2012, 3:58 pm

      Yes, Kathleen, we are in the 21st Century, post WW1 & WW2–it’s just that Israel has yet to recognize this except by not instituting its own per se death camps because that would not be good for PR in these times. Call it, a realistic policy on the part of Israel. Israel just needs to accomplish ethnic cleansing that slips by the Nuremberg Trials and Geneva progeny. Uncle Same is trying its best to help Israel do this, honest injun.

  7. justicewillprevail
    July 23, 2012, 11:17 am

    That point has been made several times here. Even Olmert and Barak have admitted that Iran poses no real threat to Israel. The ulterior motive is no doubt more conflagration and destruction, as we have seen from Israel many times before, with the goal to alter the map once again. They seem content to surround themselves with broken and failed states, which will only breed more terrorism and violence (see Iraq), whilst they barricade themselves in their cleansed state, entirely indifferent to the human cost they have inflicted on the region for their ersatz theme park.

  8. Abu Malia
    July 23, 2012, 11:40 am

    On a different more positive note, Gaza’s Rafah border with Egypt is open – maybe permanently!

    link to news.antiwar.com

    • Citizen
      July 24, 2012, 4:07 pm

      Thanks, Abu Malia,

      Will we see this breaking news in the US mainstream media? Will Hillary come out in public and say this is a good thing for humanity? No.

  9. YoungMassJew
    July 23, 2012, 11:44 am

    In my view, Romney as president + Zionist lobby = war with Iran, thus making the apocalypse a self-fulfilling prophecy. I don’t think Obama will go there(war with Iran). Romney seems to have no limits. Remember, this is the guy who is on record regarding the Guantomimo Bay torture site that he would “double it.” I’m not saying Obama hasn’t gone there. He still gives Israel a blank check and has increased the drone war from Afghanitstan and Pakistan to Somalia and now Yemen. But war with Iran, I don’t know it Obama will go there. It’s only going to get worse in the run up to the U.S. election as gas prices keep creeping up, American and world unemployment keeps increasing and war with a proud and ancient civilization, Persia, looms large on the horizon. My generation is f**ked.

    • Kathleen
      July 23, 2012, 1:24 pm

      Mitt Romney Foreign Policy Team: 17 of 24 Advisors Are Bush Neocons

      link to policymic.com

      link to online.wsj.com

    • Citizen
      July 24, 2012, 4:12 pm

      YoungMassJew,

      Yep. And I sure wish I didn’t have to pay for it. I see war in Iran in August or September if at that time Mitt is beating Obama in the polls, or right after Mitt’s election if Mitt wins–payback. Either way, I really resent the fact I as an average American, have no influence on this. I blame, ultimately, US campaign finance system. It’s just bribery. It makes the US a de facto plutocracy.

    • Mooser
      July 24, 2012, 5:31 pm

      “It’s only going to get worse in the run up to the U.S. election as gas prices keep creeping up, American and world unemployment keeps increasing and war with a proud and ancient civilization, Persia, looms large on the horizon. My generation is f**ked.”

      My advice to you is to start drinking heavily. And you better listen to me, I’m in pre-med.

  10. American
    July 23, 2012, 12:03 pm

    Palestine still trying…..

    link to dailystar.com.lb

    Arab League backs bid for UN nod to Palestine July 22, 2012 11:37 PM

    RAMALLAH, West Bank: The Arab League on Sunday backed a Palestinian plan to ask the U.N. General Assembly to recognize a state of Palestine, but stopped short of setting a date for the bid, Palestinian officials said.

    Instead, Arab League representatives meeting in Doha asked a committee to prepare the U.N. appeal and report back on Sept. 5, said Saeb Erekat, an aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, speaking by phone from Doha.

    Timing is crucial, with a U.N. bid before November potentially disrupting the U.S. presidential race.

    The U.S. and Israel oppose the quest for unilateral recognition. They say a Palestinian state must be set up through negotiations. Israeli-Palestinian talks broke off in 2008 and the two sides disagree on how to restart them.

    The Palestinians want a state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, territories Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war. Israel has increasingly blurred the pre-1967 frontier by moving half a million Israelis into the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

    The General Assembly could at best accept “Palestine” as a non-member observer state. Palestinian officials have said the main purpose of winning General Assembly recognition is to reaffirm the 1967 lines as the borders of a future Palestinian state.

    Last year, Abbas sought full U.N. membership for Palestine but failed to win the necessary votes in the U.N. Security Council.

    Palestinian officials have said they are confident they can win the required majority in the General Assembly.

    Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki, who also attended the Doha meeting, said the Palestinians would contact U.N. member states individually and in groups to affirm their support for recognizing Palestine. …

  11. HarryLaw
    July 23, 2012, 1:47 pm

    American, The Palestinians have not said when they will apply for observer state status, the US/Israel still have plenty of options to get them round that famous table, you know the one they have been sitting around for nearly 20 years while their territory is being ethnically cleansed, The US/Israel are going to get real nasty, have the PA the backbone to withstand the pressure? Here is the full quote Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki, who also attended the Doha meeting, said the Palestinians would contact U.N. member states individually and in groups to affirm their support for recognizing Palestine. He suggested the Palestinians are not in a rush, saying that they would seek General Assembly recognition “when all other options are closed and there is no hope to return to negotiations.”

    • American
      July 23, 2012, 2:11 pm

      May be Harry….but I believe they will go ahead with it when negotiations don’t materialized……..and we know they won’t.

  12. seafoid
    July 23, 2012, 2:42 pm

    Israel can’t ethnically cleanse the West Bank because if it tried it would lead to total war and just as Israel has its nukes, others have their weapons of choice.

    link to haaretz.com

    “Israel is unprepared to face the threat of Syria’s chemical weapons

    Netanyahu warns against Syrian weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, but in practice 47 percent of Israelis do not have protective kits and it will take two years to make all the needed ones.”

    • Avi_G.
      July 23, 2012, 3:39 pm

      In Israel, I remember once examining the gas mask filter that I was issued; it had a NATO stock number on it. If push comes to shove, wouldn’t Germany ship Israel an emergency supply of masks if Israel made that request (Read: Demanded).

      In recent months, Germany had increased the amount of Holocaust reparations it was sending to Israel.

      The point is, I don’t think a shortage in such supplies is going to stop Israel. It has plenty of options, including the ever-generous Uncle Sam.

      • seafoid
        July 23, 2012, 5:39 pm

        If Syria or anyone else fired chemical weapons at Israel the Iron Dome wouldn’t be much use. The region is so volatile and nobody wants to be ruled by the bots. The IDF thinks a lot of itself but it hasn’t won a war in 40 years. I think the situation could easily develop beyond Israel’s control.

        And the Arab shabaab hate them just in case anyone thinks the hasbara translates into Arabic.

  13. Eva Smagacz
    July 23, 2012, 3:16 pm

    Quite a few Israeli commenters have said that as Jordan is already 70% Palestinian, it will only take a Arab Spring type unrest in Jordan for king Abdullah to be overthrown. Then it is very likely that Palestinians will take over the government.

    • seafoid
      July 23, 2012, 5:45 pm

      If Israel actually went ahead and started deporting Palestinians en masse I would be very concerned about Jewish institutions in Galut. Many Jews in Europe have nothing to do with Zionism but would become vulnerable to the inevitable backlash especially in an economic depression. Sacha Baron Cohen’s jokes about Jews lie on a potentially very unstable foundation.

      Zionism has this very, very dangerous messianic streak , somewhat like the accusation they make constantly against the Shia. They should appreciate what they have and not put it all at risk.

      • YoungMassJew
        July 24, 2012, 3:54 pm

        Yes very true seafoid. Aren’t you a congressperson btw? I guess you got sick of being diplomatic with the bots so you developed this internet alter-ego? I love your commentary most of the time whether its commenting on that sonofab**ch Lieberman, dumb Ashkenazis in comparison to pale yeshiva boys bent over the Torah, LOL, and the soundtrack of the “f**king special” Zionists, even if you take it too far sometimes with the adjectives… Off to my crappy office supply job, will be back later around 10.

        • Mooser
          July 24, 2012, 5:40 pm

          Wow YMJ, you have a talent for saying the right thing. Not! And watch it with the smart remarks about “pale yeshiva boys” My tan might be lousy, but I have a mean left.

        • YoungMassJew
          July 24, 2012, 11:34 pm

          Also, “dumb Ashkenazis” and “pale yeshiva boys bent over the Torah” should have been in quotes and cited as (seafoid). My bad.

      • PeaceThroughJustice
        July 24, 2012, 4:32 pm

        “They should appreciate what they have and not put it all at risk.”

        But that’s difficult when your most cherished possession is a sense of persecution.

      • Mooser
        July 24, 2012, 6:49 pm

        “They should appreciate what they have and not put it all at risk.”
        Think about it, what does Israel “have”. All they have is the 67 borders, and that’s not enough for them. You are insinuating that there is a default position Israel can return to. Israel does appreciate what it has. It has a brainwashed, malleable, politically disciplined and motivated population, and outside support. So they are doing the best they can, the only thing they can, with the resources they have. And I’m sure every Israeli who can arrange a safety-valve has done so. As for all the Jews from the area, who won’t have a nice dual-citizenship country to go to, well, they can stay and face the consequences. Remember, a schlemiel is a guy who he walks through the forest and trees fall down. A schlimazel is the guy the trees fall on. Israel is a diverse country, and has plenty of both.

    • Avi_G.
      July 23, 2012, 8:37 pm

      Eva,

      Not to nit pick, but currently the percentage of Palestinians in Jordan is about 60%.

    • talknic
      July 23, 2012, 9:35 pm

      Eva Smagacz July 23, 2012 at 3:16 pm

      “Quite a few Israeli commenters ..” … spout nonsense

  14. Eva Smagacz
    July 23, 2012, 3:17 pm

    Ghettoisation is an important step in direction of Genocide.

  15. Newclench
    July 23, 2012, 3:33 pm

    I don’t see how you can talk about Machover’s ideas without talking about the fate of his organization.

    • Mooser
      July 23, 2012, 5:21 pm

      “I don’t see how you can talk about Machover’s ideas without talking about the fate of his organization.”

      Oh. That’s nice.

  16. seafoid
    July 23, 2012, 5:53 pm

    Bibi wants war. He doesn’t care about regular Israelis

    link to haaretz.com

    At the precipice of death, Moshe Silman did not scream. Flames were consuming his flesh. In what he thought would be his last moments, Silman was smiling.
    Around him, horrified people were trying to douse the fire using water bottles, waving their hands and calling desperately for help.But Silman was calm and calculated – strangely quiet for a man burning alive.
    The entire episode – in which Silman poured gasoline on himself and burned alive in the middle of a protest designed to mark a year since the beginning of the social protest movement in Israel – probably only lasted about 30 seconds. But it might as well have been an hour, it seemed to drag on so long. When it was over and the fire went out, Silman sat up, raised his badly burned hand and shouted two words: “Social justice.”
    Then he quietly ate a popsicle given to him by someone who thought it might cool him down. His burns were so severe, the doctors later explained, that his nerves had been destroyed and he couldn’t feel pain anymore. People who were there that night just assumed he wasn’t that badly hurt.
    Silman, 57, became the first person to immolate himself since the start of the social justice protests (others have since tried and one remains in hospital). That’s quite a historic landmark.
    His act was born of a decade of trials, tribulations and Kafkaesque bureaucracy. He turned him from a proud and well-off businessman to a broken, crippled shell of a man and made him a symbol of the protest he spent the last year participating in. It also touched a nerve with Israeli society.
    In the week following Silman’s self-immolation, at least six separate incidents of people trying or threatening to set themselves on fire because of financial hardships were reported across Israel. Up until Silman’s act, people thought things like this only happened in other countries, like Greece or Tunisia. Now many people suspect he’s started a trend.
    But Silman just wanted to be heard.
    Up until mid-July, he was an activist, well-known and loved by members of the “Social Front”, the northern Israeli branch of the social protest movement. He would come to meetings, get angry about what he perceived to be the impotence of his fellow protesters and tell his life story over and over again. In recent months, he expressed serious disappointment. He had belonged to the protest movement since first finding shelter in the Haifa tent community last summer. But the movement had seemingly died down, falling victim to a cold and bitter winter – disintegrating into a mess of egotistical quarrels.
    In the meantime, Silman’s personal life continued a downward spiral that began 12 years ago, when he received notice that he owed the National Insurance Institute NIS 5,000 in pension payments.
    Back then, Silman was not poor, depressed or crippled. He owned his own business: a small but successful trucking company. He had his own apartment in Jaffa. Life was good. When he was told about the debt in 2002, he refused to pay – feeling it was unjust – and filed a lawsuit against the NII. Thus began a long legal saga that eventually cost him business, his health and eventually his life.
    A string of unfortunate bureaucratic mishaps, including a government strike that prevented him from filing a few documents on time, resulted in his debts growing bigger and bigger and one of his four trucks being repossessed. He paid his debt, but because of another strike, could not save the truck from foreclosure in time. It was eventually auctioned off by the government. As a result, his business collapsed and he lost his house.
    Desperate to get back on his feet, Silman moved to Bat Yam, and then to the much-cheaper Haifa, where he worked as a taxi driver. But his debts grew bigger, eventually causing his driver’s license to be revoked. He tried to explain that without a license he couldn’t work, and therefore couldn’t repay his debts – but no one was there to listen. Then a stroke rendered him unable to work anyway.
    The courts rejected his claims, as did the clerks and officials at the welfare department. Growing increasingly ill and having trouble standing at times, Silman spent the last few years barely getting by, reliant on medicine and groceries brought to him by his sister and friends. His meager welfare check was too small for him to both pay rent and buy food and drugs, so he usually just paid rent.
    After years of protracted legal battles, he was finally granted total disability status, earning him an extra 400 shekels every month. For the past year, he lived rent-free in a friend’s apartment. His friends from the protest movement would check in on him and leave him baskets of groceries from time to time. But then he received notice that he had to evacuate the apartment. He could not allow himself to become homeless. He was too proud for that. So he decided to do something.
    His activist friends from Haifa say that over the past few months, Silman constantly talked about killing himself. He even called the NII office in Haifa and threatened to set himself on fire.
    “Fine, just don’t do it here,” was the reply from the other end of the line.
    As time wore on, Silman felt a growing need to act on his threats, believing that only an extreme, desperate act could spark the popular revolution he desired. Knowing that his mental state was deteriorating and that he was becoming more and more desperate, the activists in Haifa assembled a group to prevent him from harming himself. Silman noticed this and was outraged. “I’m not a child,” he said angrily.
    The day he set himself on fire, activists were prepared to keep an eye on him at the protest in Haifa. Knowing this, Silman went to the protest in Tel Aviv instead. There, where almost no one knew him, he could take action without interference.
    On Friday, after six days of fighting a doomed battle for his life, Moshe Silman finally succumbed to his injuries in the burn unit of Sheba Hospital.
    Doctors say his chances for survival had been slim from the start. Given his age, his health problems and the severity of his burns, it seemed unlikely he’d survive his burns. It took two days to get him into the special burn unit, since it only has eight beds and none were available.
    Silman has become a symbol for the disenfranchised, an icon of the protest movement and a controversial figure whose life story is dissected and debated from every angle by journalists, pundits and politicians. Even the prime minister spoke about him, referring to his self-immolation as a “personal tragedy”. On Facebook, activists are changing their profile picture to his. The small section of the street where he took his own life hosts vigils in his honor. Activists gather to light candles and mourn.
    Moments before he set himself on fire, Silman scattered copies of a suicide letter, telling his story and accusing Prime Minister Netanyahu, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, the State of Israel and a host of other officials of being cruel to him throughout his ordeal. For a decade, he felt, he had been totally alone, completely isolated, with no one to hear his story. That’s probably why, even as he was burning, Moshe Silman was smiling. He knew now, someone would finally hear

    • Mooser
      July 24, 2012, 5:44 pm

      Cannot understand why Silman was not given a useful job and place to live in the settlements. If all the anger and disappointment he felt was directed at its real cause, he would have been a real asset to Greater Israel. The man was obviously on the edge of a breakdown. If Israel wastes the kind of resources needed in the settlements, how do they expect to prevail. A complete failure of the social system. I’ll be very angry if Silman was not directed to the settlements so that some nut from Brooklyn would have a spot.

      • seafoid
        July 25, 2012, 9:38 am

        Sliman was a non conformist. The settlements are for cult adherents.
        How many works of art have come out of YESHA?

        • Mooser
          July 25, 2012, 4:03 pm

          “Sliman was a non conformist.”

          You mean he wasn’t a Zionist? I still think, a man as troubled as that should have been aproached and offered at least relief from his debts and a place in a settlement. With the right aproach, for the right price, it could have been done, and tragedy averted.

  17. anonymouscomments
    July 23, 2012, 6:46 pm

    people are referring to the crazy, put very plausible, scenario of transfer under the cover of regional (global?) war.

    i think this is in the realm of possibility, and have mentioned this multiple times.

    but if israel attempts this, i think many are not considering the parallel actions israel (and israel’s agents and supporters) would likely take, in order to ensure western passivity and even support… essentially what actions israel would take to ensure success, over possible national suicide.

    during and after the transfer, israel would enter a new “iron wall” policy with her neighbors, and the world would need to be in a real “clash of civilizations” paradigm for israel to retain (required) western support. to allow israel’s ethnic cleansing to occur, the west would require a much deeper shift in not only the perception of mulsims/arabs, but perhaps even greater repressive and antidemocratic measures within their state structures.

    how is this to be achieved? 9/11 brought the US far along this path, including the MSM and islamophobic pressure groups moving public perception in the decade since 9/11. in europe, you also have a rise of the right, and increasing islamophobia… also fanned by the MSM and by select politicians on the right (and even “centrists”).

    but the final shift in western public opinion would need to come in the form of multiple false-flag attacks blamed on muslims, or at least two very major attacks. at a minimum, one event is required in the USA, and at least one event in europe. the event in the US could “kill two birds with one stone”, if the party blamed is iran. but it is possible the event that finally brings the US into war against iran is an event (staged or provoked) in the straight of hormuz, or even the fallout after an israeli bombing campaign of iranian sites (should iran respond against US assets in the region).

    there you have it….

    the key ingredient is false-flags and mayhem in the west, with perhaps a NATO/US war on iran finally sparked off. with these ingredients, israel is free to do whatever she wants. can israel, israel’s agents, fascists, and christian zionists make these pieces fall into place? sadly, i think they can. and i think it likely they at least give it a try.

  18. NickJOCW
    July 24, 2012, 8:21 am

    I’ve never been completely confident that a benign resolution of the conflict will actually happen, but what we said is that the only chance for it is provided by integration of the Hebrew nation in a progressive socialist regional federal union.

    This would require a leader able to command the attention, respect and obedience of both Arabs and Hebrews and I don’t believe there exists anyone even close to that. As for the mounting fears of Armageddon, maybe the Russian Bear will bare its claws? I watch a fair bit of Russian television and of late there has been a marked increase in less than flattering coverage of matters Israeli/Palestinian. This was on yesterday (Susan Abulhawa is a gem, her key challenge is at 24:00).

    link to rt.com

    • anan
      July 24, 2012, 10:09 am

      Do you support the reunification of Palestine and Israel into a single free plural democracy. Restoring the Union so to speak, where all Israelis become Palestinians and all Palestinians become Israelis?

      Some Palestinians are open to this idea. Most Israelis seem to get heart palpitation just listening to it. Israelis chose to divorce over their spouse’s (Palestine’s) objections. How can there be remarriage without mutual love, respect and understanding?

      • Mooser
        July 24, 2012, 6:53 pm

        “Israelis chose to divorce over their spouse’s (Palestine’s) objections.”

        Of course, your desire for a remarriage is commendable, “anan” but tell me, when was the “divorce”. And what were the (fault on both sides, I’m sure, we must be “fair”) problems in their “marriage”?

  19. Richard Congress
    July 24, 2012, 11:44 am

    “The model for this is not a binational state, not a quota arrangement in which the legislature has so many seats for each nationality. This is looking at the real problem and its solution in a regional context, and for providing for the national rights of non-Arab national groups, of which the Hebrew nation is one: to accord it appropriate national rights within a regional federal union. This is a view we have always had in Matzpen (a longtime socialist organization in Israel).”

    to take up an issue no one has so far addressed:

    While he makes the occasional astute discrete observation about the US, Israel and the Palestinians, Machover’s problem is that his broader statements (reflecting his Marxist grand overview) are nonsense.

    I wasted enough years being a Marxist-Lenninist-Trotskyist to recognize this kind of pie in the sky drivel, which in practice dissolves the real, living and breathing Palestine national struggle into a shining, utopian chimera.

    Holding up this “regional federation of socialist Arab and Hebrew states” model is the perfect excuse to abstain from real struggle while smugly lecturing us peasants about the only true Marxist path.

    If you act on this illusion, then you can’t do anything practical. If you act rationally and just think that ultimately the “Arab/Hebrew federation” will come to fruition…some day in the remote future, then this belief is irrelevant.

    Also, in trying to make his case about the future of nations vs international entities using the EU and its component nations as an example, Machover displays surprisingly shallow thinking.

    The class content of the EU is that of international capitalism. The Greek workers, for example, are fighting back against the capitalist EU’s austerity and one of their tools they use is nationalism. More Greek control over the economy means better conditions for Greek workers. So does Machover defend the “forward thinking bankers of the ” against the “reactionary” Greek workers?
    High-flying, grand ideology always leads to idiocy.

    • Mooser
      July 24, 2012, 7:01 pm

      “The model for this is not a binational state, not a quota arrangement in which the legislature has so many seat…/…This is a view we have always had in Matzpen (a longtime socialist organization in Israel).”

      All you have to do to make almost any “plan” for a peaceful resolution in any context is ask: And who will administer the plan? And who will enforce it?
      Boom, the entire thing falls to pieces.
      Of course, any liberal Zionist who knows can tell me which organisation/ State (or any combination thereof) Israel will comply with, and co-operate with. Please, I’m waiting.
      And any liberal Zionist who wants to give me an overdose of the best medicine can tell me that Israel will handle the matter internally, between itself and representatives of the Palestinian people, if you can get Israel to acknowledge they exist.

  20. Citizen
    July 24, 2012, 2:39 pm

    Re: “The last time Israel went against the US in a major way was the Suez adventure, in 1956, with Britain and France. They were soon told what to do by Eisenhower.”

    Precisely: It’s been well over half a century since any POTUS stood up to Israel. In the interim, Israel has become the biggest benefactor of US foreign aid and diplomacy in all of US history. All carrots, no sticks, no matter what Israel does. How is this pattern grounds for hope, especially when AIPAC now controls US foreign policy via its key vetting of any US politician with a possible hand in US foreign policy? Cash donations to US politicians and wannabees is everything in today’s America, approved by SCOTUS as “free speech.”

    Re: “Well this is really an ideological dress. They dress their material interest in ideological garb.”

    What American best interest supports a foreign policy based on Hagee’s view of “the end times?” And when that POV is combined with Jewish Zionist agenda, how can this combined religious fanaticism be anything but a disaster for common sensical America and Israel? (Not to mention the rest of the world). American interests? A segment of Americans are Scientologists, others are Satanists, etc. Didn’t you forget some Americans are Quakers? And so on. What “material interests” are you talking about? (Doesn’t the idea that Obama could allow a disastrous war to take place undermine your view that he is acting in the US’s material interests first?)

    RE: “Zionism does not seem to conflict with their American patriotism. Israel is the blue eyed boy of the United States, there is no perceived conflict between the countries’ interests.”

    In case you have not noticed, Pat Boone is no longer the icon of US cultural love. Hollywood movies have portrayed blonde, blue-eyed frat rats as the epitome of evil in hundreds of teen movies for decades. American sit-coms and stand up comedians have made the blonde-blue eyed “all American type” a malicious and/or stupid buffoon for decades. Perhaps you are confusing the lingering love-hate of American Jewish writers with the blonde-blue-eyed dumb shiksa with the official US cultural seal of disapproval on “blue eyed boys of the US”? Didn’t Phil Roth nail Charles Lindbergh to the Jewish cross in his Plot Against America? If that’s not pro Jewish Zionism, what is? What a fantasy–premised on the notion that that the Jewish push for the 1965 Immigration law (with it anchor babies and chain migration of non-whites as the new quotas) never succeeded. Who cares if the younger Philip Roth rather have jacked off to blonde shiksas than Jewish girls in IDF uniforms? What’s your point? That even the Coen Bros in A Serious Man indulged in gentile stereotypes, the alluring shiksa next door, along with the idiot macho, terrorizing goy guy?

    RE: “For a Marxist, there is a huge difference between the type of colonialism that exploits the local labor, where it is needed as a resource, and the US or Israel model, where natives are to be excluded and ethnically cleansed.”

    Where is the source for the implied idea here that Britain, and then its replacement, the US, did not desire to exploit the local labor force as well as the land’s natural resources? The American natives simply were not willing to work as industrial slaves or even co-workers of the whites–they were mostly a hunter culture, not farmers–can you say that about the native Palestinians the Jews encountered? And, in any case, Marxists were against colonial exploitation of foreign land resources, or were they not?

    RE: “But what Zionism is confronted by is a single national group, Palestinians, which are part of a major major world civilization.”

    Yes, and I recall, e.g., the US State Dept and Foreign Diplomatic Service both tried to tell Harry Truman just that in ’47 & ’48. But as he said, he had no Arab constituency, and the Jewish Zionists told him point blank if he didn’t go along with their program, they’d pour all their Zionist cash, and media control into Dewey’s election, along with the Jewish vote in key swing areas, such as NY. Turns out State was right about the price of Truman’s decision for the US.

    RE: “But Israel, however far it expands, it will be confronted by more Arabs, realistically speaking, unless they expand as far as Iran. [laughing] .”

    Yep; that’s a big sea, and rather a thick one, to expand to…

    • Mooser
      July 24, 2012, 7:05 pm

      “What a fantasy–premised on the notion that that the Jewish push for the 1965 Immigration law (with it anchor babies and chain migration of non-whites as the new quotas) never succeeded.”

      It did succeed? Then indeed, I do have something to be proud of. The white majority in the US cannot be displaced fast enough for me. As a Jew, white majorities make me very nervous.

    • Mooser
      July 24, 2012, 7:13 pm

      “In case you have not noticed, Pat Boone is no longer the icon of US cultural love. Hollywood movies have portrayed blonde, blue-eyed frat rats as the epitome of evil in hundreds of teen movies for decades. American sit-coms and stand up comedians have made the blonde-blue eyed “all American type” a malicious and/or stupid buffoon for decades. “

      It must be hell for you, seeing the people you admire and hope to emulate portrayed negatively. I just want to warn you, Citizen, next season one of the big cable networks will show an action-adventure series with a ‘buddy’ theme, featuring a detective team of an African-American and a Jew. The African-American co-star is called “Jitsu” So you know what the name of the show is. Don’t watch it, it will just make you sad.

      • Mooser
        July 24, 2012, 7:22 pm

        Citizen, isn’t it awful that Jewish entertainment executives (there must be some) can get inside you an minipulate your very soul. Well. not just you, of course, all Americans, and twist them to their Jewish purposes? First they got the women smoking ( and for that, they named a sauce after him!), then Abbie Hoffman and the leftist professors caused them all, men and women alike, to lose their morals and appreciation for Western Culture and the free market! It’s like, like something that crawls and…..well, I better not say, The Moderators wouldn’t like it.

    • ColinWright
      July 24, 2012, 8:34 pm

      “…Didn’t Phil Roth nail Charles Lindbergh to the Jewish cross in his Plot Against America? If that’s not pro Jewish Zionism, what is?”

      Hey, that was a good book. Mooser will beat me up if I say more — but it was a good book…and how it was ‘pro-Jewish Zionism’ escapes me.

      • Mooser
        July 25, 2012, 4:09 pm

        “Mooser will beat me up if I say more”

        Moi? I’m no Phillip Roth fan. I glanced at “Portnoy’s Complaint” once (the guys at Schul were all snickering over it) and thought it was the product of a sexually deviant Jewish self-hater. It’s literary poison. And the damn book was so short.

        • Mooser
          July 25, 2012, 4:19 pm

          “and how it was ‘pro-Jewish Zionism’ escapes me.”

          I guess you’ll just have to read some ‘anti-Jewish Zionism’ and compare and contrast.

  21. NickJOCW
    July 24, 2012, 3:17 pm

    @anon

    ‘Machover’s problem is that his broader statements (reflecting his Marxist grand overview) are nonsense.’

    Not exactly nonsense, simply abstract concepts he tries to apply to the real world. All isms fall into a pit when attempts are made to apply them in the real world, as do concepts like Democracy and Human Rights. Up there they are fine and everyone can applaud them but down here they rapidly decay under the influence of human imperfection. One of the most destructive early 20th century isms has been Liberalism which is simply Marxist/Leninism/Socialism in a shirt and tie. The Western world is riddled with it and it corrupts all it touches while inhibiting responsible decision making. Israel sees this and cuts a swathe of devastation across Liberal sensibilities like a Palestinian olive grove. We need to learn to be less idealistic, something we might learn from them?

  22. Mooser
    July 24, 2012, 7:41 pm

    “So I’ve never been completely confident that a benign resolution of the conflict will actually happen, but what we said is that the only chance for it is provided by integration of the Hebrew nation in a progressive socialist regional federal union.”

    Oh please! This man’s job is to a) sure admit to some of the facts, that’s always nice, and gives people hope and b) propose pie-in-the-sky solutions. To obfuscate and distract until the job is done, and there are no more Palestinians. Then he’ll go on a big campaign to mourn and remember them.

  23. Moshe Machover
    July 25, 2012, 1:42 pm

    Richard Congress is furiously barking up the wrong tree.

    I am not a “Marxist-Lenninist[sic]-Trotskyist”, just plain Marxist. So I cannot answer for his wasted years with that crowd and the subsequent disenchantment that appears to have scarred him for life.

    But the arguments he raises against my views on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict are answered in some detail in my book. See especially the penultimate chapter: “Resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – a socialist viewpoint”. I suggest he read that chapter carefully.

    He does however seem to have remained a socialist, albeit with some nationalist dross. So he should consider whether he can propose a resolution of the conflicts of capitalism – as manifested in the present global crisis – short of a socialist transformation of the entire world, or at least of a substantial region of it.

    If he thinks he can, then he is deluded. But if he cannot offer any alternative, any shortcut, does this constitute a “perfect excuse to abstain from real struggle while smugly lecturing us peasants about the only true Marxist path”? According to his logic – not mine – it does.

    Or perhaps he believes that a socialist Arab East is more of a “pie in the sky drivel” (as he so delicately puts it) than a socialist world.

    His position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict amounts to seeking a bourgeois-nationalist resolution for a conflict that cannot have such a resolution. To understand why, he should read the penultimate chapter of my book.

    As for Greece, the choice is not between Greece as member of a capitalist EU and a stand-alone socialist Greece. It is a dangerous nationalist illusion that the Greek working class would be better off in a stand-alone capitalist Greece. Fortunately, most Greek workers seem to understand this, and have not voted for parties that advocate secession from the EU.

    Significantly, the most ardent advocates of secession are the extreme right Golden Dawn. They don’t mind if Greek secession would lead to a fascist military coup – as it might well do: the colonels are waiting in the wings. If I were Richard Congress I would worry if I found myself in such company.

    • Mooser
      July 25, 2012, 4:14 pm

      “His position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict amounts to seeking a bourgeois-nationalist resolution for a conflict that cannot have such a resolution”

      Why couldn’t I say it like that? So clear! Thanks.

Leave a Reply