One apartheid state, with liberty and justice for Jews only

settlements
(Photo: Reuters)

Heartfelt thanks (truly) to the New York Times for doing a public service by publishing this op-ed by Dani Dayan, the essential manifesto of the current state of Israeli colonialism, stripped of any pretense: one state in all of Palestine, run by the Jews in perpetuity, with a basket of limited rights for the lucky subject people—if they behave themselves.

And forget about the “right of return of Palestinians to Palestine,” the sine qua non of the so-called homeland of the Palestinian people. NB: I’m not speaking of Israel. Dayan makes clear: Greater Israel (i.e., what others call the occupied territories) will not allow itself to be overrun by returning Palestinians). That’s out of the question. The bizarre Israeli concept of democracy rests on controlling the demographic threat such that there must never be a Palestinian majority in the one state. So long as Jews are the majority, the thinking goes, they may in good conscience oppress the minority. That is the meaning of majoritarian democracy (also known as ethnocracy) as understood by Israeli Jews; a bill of rights protecting all does not figure in to this system.

Author Dani Dayan is not a crank in the sense of being a wild-eyed outlier. Rather, he is the chairman of the settler council in the “Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria” (to the rest of us aka the occupied Palestinian territories). He speaks truth to (1) the leadership of the Western world, too cowardly ever to challenge the voracious Israeli appetite for Lebensraum; to (2) all those Jewish organizations that supported Israeli aggression and colonialism through thick and thin in the name of a “two-state solution” that was being obviated by the very acts they supported; and to (3) all those individual Jews who have mouthed the two-state lies themselves while also denying the aggression and colonialism to critics. I know plenty of the number 3′s myself, and I know that many of you do, too.

There are many in the Jewish world—the Adelson types, the Malcom Hoenlein types, the Mort Klein (ZOA) types, the Aipac types, most of the Orthodox Jewish world—who were already on board with the apartheid program. But for the faux liberals—the JStreet types—this will be uncomfortable indeed, as playing pretend has been their stock in trade.

But the mask has been removed, revealing the ugly face of Israeli colonialism for all to see. The time for denial has ended, because this, then, is the dystopian vision of the single state of Greater Israel, in which the Palestinian population will live in its bantustans under the oppressive thumb of the Jewish overlords as Israeli Jewish colonists expand their illegal reach to every corner of Palestine, what the rest of the world considers the OPT (occupied Palestinian territories). The solution (Lebensraum) to the Israeli housing crisis lies on stolen land.

This is the apartheid one-state solution of which Jimmy Carter warned in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (2006). No doubt all recall that he was excoriated as an anti-Semite for daring to utter the words. Now we should welcome this bald, if grotesque, presentation by Dani Dayan because it is indeed the reality on the ground and it is time that everyone knew it.

Let the foolish Europeans sort this one out, for they know well that Dayan expresses the reality that comes out of Netanyahu’s government and yet, as we read not two days ago in the Guardian, the EU is piling up the presents it intends to heap on Israel—for bad behavior, apparently. Presumably President Obama, if reelected, will not embarrass himself with any more talk of two states. And presumably the Israelis advocating Israeli unilateralism to get toward a two-state solution (that is, of course, totally unfair to the Palestinians), e.g., Blue White Future, or Shaul Mofaz’s absurd 60 percent plan, will realize that they have been exposed as frauds by the settler movement and the government that backs it.

The question now is how the “world”—states, organizations, individuals—will choose to go forward. Will they continue to support the one apartheid state? One thing is for sure: the growing grass roots movement to end the occupation, including BDS, will continue to expand its push for justice and equality for all (i.e., for Palestinians, who are the ones lacking justice and equality). And that effort is looking more and more as if it must be in the context of the one-state reality created by the Jewish colonial project—only without the apartheid.

Dani Dayan pulls no punches: it’s there in blue and white for all to see.

Posted in Activism, American Jewish Community, BDS, Israel Lobby, Israel/Palestine, Settlers/Colonists, US Policy in the Middle East, US Politics

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

  1. eljay says:

    >> From the linked to NYT article:
    >> Israel’s moral claim …

    Israel has no moral claim to any land outside of Partition borders. It has no moral right to be an aggressive, oppressive, destructive, colonialist and expansionist state. It has no moral right to be an oppressive and Jewish supremacist state inside of its borders. It has no moral right to block the return of the Palestinian families it immorally cleansed from within its borders.

    Israel has no “moral right” to do many of the things it does, so it chooses immorality over morality.

    “Israel: We may not be as good as the best but, hey, at least we’re not as bad as the worst!”

    • NickJOCW says:

      @ejay

      Israel has no “moral right” to do many of the things it does, so it chooses immorality over morality.

      OK, but let me ask a question. From where do moral rights arise? I am no expert but I have never heard of any profound moral impulses inherent in Judaism, unlike, for instance, Christianity which seeks to show us how to be happy through love, charity and so on; or the Graeco/Roman religions which perceived earthly guilt as a crime against the Gods and punishment as its expiation. If you do not possess a moral perspective, why should you pay any attention to those who do?

      • I have never heard of any profound moral impulses inherent in Judaism

        just because you haven’t heard of them doesn’t mean they do not exist. that’s a pretty strong statement. one would assume all the major religions have moral doctrine but the ‘inherent’ part is determined by interpretation. certainly there are immoral christians so one could make the argument the plus factors are not inherent. no?

        • NickJOCW says:

          Annie, I am happy to defer to your greater knowledge, mine was an honest question, please point me to one. Any one will do; something like ‘Love thy neighbour…’ or ‘Do unto others…’

        • argh, i have no great knowledge of any religion nick. i was just assuming. don’t they have something like ‘thou shall not kill’? maybe a follower of judaism could weigh in here. my point was the ‘inherent’ assumes any follower will interpret morally. and all the religions have immoral followers amongst them. i would imagine.

        • NickJOCW says:

          No, Annie, inherent means deeply imbedded within it, fundamental to it. What I was wondering was if there exist any injunctions in Judaism which Israeli behaviour in Palestine defies. The West certainly defies Christian injunctions, no doubt about that, but at least they are there to be defied and it is clear when they are. Judaism certainly has many regulations but if you think about them, they are designed for nomads surviving under a relentess sun. Not to say they don’t have wider application but that is where they start.

        • chinese box says:

          @Nick,

          Like Annie, I’m not a religious expert, but there is a concept of mitzvah (good deed) in Judaism, as well as Tikkun Olam (“healing the world”, I believe). Although I’m not sure if the second is a religious or secular concept.

          However since many Israelis are athiests, I would assume they would take their values from sources other than religious texts.

        • sorry nick, i shouldn’t have interjected since i really do not know this topic. i thought inherent meant permanently attached or something. sorry i said anything, hopefully someone can provide a better response than myself.

        • yishai says:

          Annie’s right in principle. There are many moral imperatives. Christianity’s “do unto others” originates in Judaism, for example, but as a negative injunction to “not do unto others, as you don’t want done to yourself.” The Ethic of the Fathers, in the Mishna, which precedes the Talmud and is pretty ancient, are filled with very pleasing moral ideals. I have seen racist yeshiva-niks try to escape these moral clauses by claiming they only refer to Jews and not to non-Jews, but having read them in their original Hebrew, I never agreed with this, and fought my way through yeshiva as a teenager on these grounds. That said, the point to me is that Jews, Christians and others of their faiths need to fight to reclaim whatever good there is in their traditions, and to do so from within, with the knowledge the have, rather than yielding these traditions to revisionsts who want to bend the words to their current racist limitations…

        • yishai says:

          good point on the atheism… since most Israeli Jews are not religious at all, they actually derive their moral claims more from perceived Western/European values of civilization and democracy, which most of us on here could have a veritable field day critiquing…
          My favorite critique of Western moral superiority, btw, is Aime Cesaire’s Discourse on Colonialism. It is very helpful for these purposes, a truly devastating critique from 1955…

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          yishai,

          The fact that there are so many ancient religious teachings that essentially say the same things or varients of them (in and among the things that are unique to each religion) demonstrate to me that these are not, in any way, religious moral imperatives, but merely human societal ones that were co-opted by religion.

        • Basilio says:

          Personally, I agree that there are moral imperatives, but, as you said, many will try to say that it only applies to B’nai Israel not to the goyim because they’re not Chosen. They didn’t embrace the Jewish faith. Only if they embrace the Jewish faith would it apply. They would be part of the tribe. The reason why those people took such a stance with you, Yishai, is because parts of the writings historically give room to such chauvinistic thinking as you know. There isn’t simply just one opinion. You do have love your neighbor which came to Judaism before Christianity. Also, you have “Be kind to the “Ger” or stranger for you were once a stranger in Egypt”. There’s also the idea by Rabbi Hillel to not do what is hateful to others what you would find hateful to you, but the problem is many of the Jewish “religious” settlers think that doesn’t apply to the non-Jewish Palestinians they are dealing with. They’re emphasizing certain views of certain writings in the faith and a kind of mentality that led to the oppression of other Jews in Europe by other Jews when they were controlled by communal courts. In the end, Israel won’t be able to hold this charade together. I think in our global world, one needs a more global understanding of the faiths emphasized, or it will be deadly.

        • yishai says:

          Woody,
          I don’t see the necessity for your distinction here, but I do think the interesting point here is that none of these religions or cultures ever emerged or evolved in isolation, no immaculate conceptions as it were. All the ancient traditions are in dialogue, with traditions throughout what today is Africa and Asia, and all shared and learned from each other.

        • Mooser says:

          “I have never heard of any profound moral impulses inherent in Judaism”

          Well, if we don’t have profound moral impulses in Judaism, there’s nothing to stop us from adding one any time we want, and there is nothing to stop individual Jews, or any congregation of like-minded Jews from adopting profound moral impulses. Oh, there hard to formulate to the nth degree and every contingency, but by positing human life as paramount, and human needs as important, you can hardly go wrong.
          Of course, some people might argue that being Jewish prevents a person from adopting a Christian moral code. Is that what you wish to argue? Oh whoops, I didn’t mean Christian, I meant “profound”. Sorry.

          You know, I don’t like Zionism, the idea to start with, let alone the way it was carried out. I would be open, very susceptible to the argument that Judaism and Jews makes Zionism evil, if it wasn’t for the fact that so many other people have done the same thing. That’s not an excuse for it, that’s not a reason to stop opposing it. It’s just a reason not to waste time, and nurse bigotry (it could come to that) thinking about Zionism and the reasons for it from the wrong end.
          I could be persuaded that Zionism is making Judaism evil, that’s what happens in this situation. But it’s gonna be a tough job convincing me that something inherent (or the lack of something, like a “profound moral code”) in Judaism made Zionism evil.

        • gamal says:

          Jazakallah Khair Yishai,

          ” had it not been for God’s repelling some men by means of others, synagogues and churches and oratories and mosques, wherein the name of God is often memorialized, would surely have been pulled down” surat al haj (the pilgrimage). those traditions contain somethings of rare beauty and profound meaning.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          yishai,

          I think that the distinction is important because it would demonstrate that religion is irrelevant (or at least unnecessary) for human morality. This, to me, is a necessary point if human civilization is to advance.

        • Mooser says:

          “and fought my way through yeshiva as a teenager on these grounds.”

          I guess you didn’t have too many choices about your education then. An awful situation.

        • ColinWright says:

          “…these are not, in any way, religious moral imperatives, but merely human societal ones that were co-opted by religion…”

          If that were so, then human behavior would get worse if the religious injunctions weren’t there.

          But that isn’t what happens. The crimes of the Tsars pale compared to those of the Communists. Wilhelmine Germany was a humanitarian’s paradise compared to Nazi Germany. The church was weakened by Mexican independence and the rancheros in California promptly and literally halved the Indian population in California by working them to death.

          Add cultures that never had what we are accustomed to think of as the injunctions of religion. The Romans would literally slaughter eighty thousand innocents for their amusement in one good set of games in the Colosseum. Historians trying to figure out just why the Mongols would so assiduously kill everyone theorize that in the Mongol outlook, if there wasn’t an actual reason to leave someone alive, you killed them.

          Certainly cultures professing any one of the great religions have committed horrific crimes. But absent those religions, the crimes get distinctly worse. Indeed, the acts cease to be crimes. If it is politically convenient to kill ten thousand people — by all means, kill ten thousand people. Why not?

          Religion does more than merely ‘co-opt’ human societal values. Indeed, the behavior of areligious societies or societies professing something outside the Christian-Muslim-Buddhist range we think of as ‘religion’ suggests that these values may not exist at all without religion.

          As an atheist, you may find it preferable to believe otherwise, but it is true.

        • ColinWright says:

          To me the crux of this — and I am genuinely ignorant on the point — is whether all the moral rules of Judaism apply to all interactions in general or only to interactions between Jews.

          Obviously the ‘Judaism is just great’ thesis depends on the former. On the other hand, Israel remains the one case of Jews being autonomous moral operators — and it suggests the latter.

          On the other, other hand, the behavior of adherents of other religions hasn’t (ahem) necessarily been all that edifying either, so the question remains.

          Does Judaism effectively mitigate or at least attempt to mitigate amoral behavior by Jews towards gentiles? It’s one of those questions that suddenly becomes pertinent once Jews cease to be constrained by moral rules imposed by others.

        • ColinWright says:

          “…none of these religions or cultures ever emerged or evolved in isolation, no immaculate conceptions as it were. All the ancient traditions are in dialogue, with traditions throughout what today is Africa and Asia, and all shared and learned from each other.

          That sounds good — but it’s not actually true. Of course Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all successive developments of the same religious tradition — but you’d have a hard time demonstrating Buddhism was influenced by them to any extent, or vice-versa. Buddhism was conceived and developed to maturity before either Christianity or Islam existed, and I doubt there’s any evidence it was influenced by Jewish thinking. While there may have been contact, any significant interaction occurred long after both sets of faiths were fully developed. Muslim conquerors didn’t enter Afghanistan and acquire Buddhist ideas that they then brought back to Mecca.

        • yishai says:

          Mooser:
          “I guess you didn’t have too many choices about your education then. An awful situation.”
          For what its worth, yes, it was challenging. I developed a proto-anti-racist consciousness in 1984/1985 Crown Heights while attending a Baal Tshuva Yeshiva. My anti-racism was a reaction to the hardcore racism that was as common as air in the Lubavitch community, which jarred against my liberal color blind thinking from a secular reform background.
          It seemed to go against my earlier thoughts, but also against the values of Hassidic thought which I was immersing into, and which I generally found deep and worthwhile.
          As you might imagine, my views were not welcomed. In fact, it got really crazy after a while. The Rebbe himself refused to answer a letter we wrote him asking him to intervene and to speak out (with his intense influence) in what was clearly bad for the community, and against Torah values.
          I was kicked out of my yeshiva, more for being caught with a girl than my anti-racism, but in general I was starting to stick out.
          At my next yeshiva, the more modern orthodox Yeshiva University HS in Washington Heights, my views got stronger and instead of acceptance, my nickname became Jesus – which is saying something at an orthodox school…
          To be honest, I have found extremely few Jewish communities that want to talk about Jewish racism. Most white folks hate this topic. Black Jews, that’s another thing altogether, its a painful part of their lives, in almost all cases. Mizrahim, also commonly. But white, white-ish and white-identified Jews hate this topic…
          It needs work
          good times…

        • tokyobk says:

          youre kidding right?

          “don’t do to your neighbor what is hateful to you,”the original of Jesus teaching was from an earlier rabbi. it was said that this is the essence of the torah and “all the rest is commentary.” Jesus lived and died a Jew and a rabbi. Christianity applies Jewish laws universal minus certain obligations to law and without distinction of birth, of course.

          So to repeat,the statement you assume is christian which you have never heard of a jewish equivilant in fact was spoken by one rabbi quoting an earlier one whi further stated that this was the essence of the faith.

          and the ten commandments? you have heard of them right? there are earlier variants, but they are Judaism.

          and there are many etc. but those are your just ones.

          I agree thiugh with the later statement that these are basic humanisms that are taken as religious and repeated in all the major faiths.

        • Hostage says:

          Any one will do; something like ‘Love thy neighbour…’ or ‘Do unto others…’

          That sort of begs the question. The Christian scriptures relate that “Love thy neighbor was the 2nd part of the answer to the question “Which is the greatest commandment of the Torah?” (Mark 12:29) The text of the Golden Rule itself mentions two of the three traditional divisions of the Hebrew bible, the Tanakh: “The Law and the Prophets”. (Matt 7:12)
          * “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” (Deuteronomy 6:4-5 cited in Mark 12:30)
          *”The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Leviticus 19:18 cited in Mark 12:31)

          *“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” (reference to the Torah and Nevi’im in Matthew 7:12)

          *On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, ‘Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.’ Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder’s cubit which was in his hand. When he went before Hillel, he said to him, ‘What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbour: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it.’ Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbath, Folio 31a
          link to halakhah.com

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          ColinWright,

          “If that were so, then human behavior would get worse if the religious injunctions weren’t there.”

          You’re cherry picking your choices:

          The Belgians were much more religious when they were committing the atrocities in the Congo then they are today, when they are peaceable. The Germans during the 30 years War which destroyed central Europe were much more religious than they are today, a peaceful country in which a large percentage are atheists. (Indeed, today’s least religious countries are the most humane, exactly the opposite of what one would expect if your thesis was correct.) Both the Arab and Western slavers were more religious than today’s people who, for all their faults, condemn slavery nearly universally. Indeed, even in the USA, for all it’s crimes today, the crimes of the Americans were distinctly worse in the days when Americans were more religious (i.e., slavery, genocide of Native Americans, ethnic cleansing of Japanese Americans in WWII, etc.)

          The reality is that human nature has within it — by its very nature — the capacity for great good and great evil. It is foolish to think, as you appear to, that the good is a consequence of religion.

        • Nick, there are univeralist moral injunctions from the prophets that the Israelis routinely violate and Jews routinely applaud. But that merely raises the controversy over whether the prophets have any claim to being regarded as in the mainline of Judaism.

        • There are certainly moral teachings in Judaism. Unfortunately, according to Israel Shahak, they were interpreted in medieval classical Judaism as applicable only among Jews, not between Jews and the goyim.

        • Shmuel says:

          Unfortunately, according to Israel Shahak, they were interpreted in medieval classical Judaism as applicable only among Jews, not between Jews and the goyim.

          Just as Christians employed double ethical standards in the Middle Ages. In the Modern Era, both Christians and Jews have moved toward a more universal ethic.

        • Citizen says:

          NickJOCW, Annie, here, from 1985, is a two-hour debate between Meir Kahane and Allen Dershowitz on what being Jewish means, for example, in phrases such as “Jewish State; Jewish and democratic;” etc. Kahane, who’s views have been revived more and more of late in Israel, maintains that every Torah Jew knows the simple fact that Judaism is not Democracy, and although Democracy and equal rights, etc are fine for non-Jews, for those steeped in Western Civilization, it has no place in an organization or state run by Jews. He also says that Jews know they are a superior people, although they don’t say so when among non-Jews, but this is not racism because anybody can convert to Judaism and so, be just as much a Jew as anyone born as a Jew. The young Dershie takes the stance that every Jew has a choice whether to remain or be a Jew; it’s always their option, and each Jew can pick and choose what kind of a Jew he or she wants to be, and which Jewish laws/rules he or she wants to follow, or not. I fell asleep during the second hour, but plan to revisit the video:
          Bigot Vs. Bigot debating the notion of Jewishness link to gilad.co.uk

        • Citizen says:

          @yishai,

          You’re right, the Christian Golden Rule is pro-active; the Jewish version, defensive. When I think of the best values of Judaism, I always think of quotes attributed to Rabbi Hillel (e.g., “If I am not for myself, who will be fore me, and if I am only for myself…”. And when I think of the best values of Christianity, I always think of quotes attributed to Jesus (e.g., Sermon on the Mount, “Give to the Lord what is the Lord’s, to Caesar, what is Caesar’s”); also, aspects of the story line of Jesus suggesting how he went about his daily life, e.g., washing the feet of a prostitute, etc). I don’t listen to interpretations put out daily by Jewish or Christian Church “experts.”

          “After clarifying that the Golden Rule is more a general proposition than a fixed form of words, Alexander investigates the reliability of Golden Rule traditions and their meaning. Alexander concludes that the historical reliability of the traditions connecting Hillel to the Golden Rule is not as strong as those connecting Jesus to it. In fact, the link is weak enough to invalidate any attempt to compare how the historical Hillel and the historical Jesus used the Rule. Although the Rule clearly originated long before Hillel or Jesus lived, one cannot trace confidently the trail or direction by which the Rule passed between Chinese, Graeco-Roman, and Jewish traditions. Alexander does suggest, however, that although the traditions tell us nothing reliable about Hillel and Jesus as historical figures, the appeal to the Rule as summum ius in both traditions does illuminate the traditions themselves in helpful ways.” link to ambs.edu

        • Citizen says:

          Woody, I agree with you here. Certainly one example is The Golden Rule, whether pro-active (Christian) or defensive (Jewish)–even if the Jewish version predates the Christian one, the former itself goes way back beyond Hillel both in Jewish and other cultures, e.g., Chinese.

        • Mooser says:

          yishia, I did not see this comment replying to my comment on your choices in education until this morning. Again, I thank you for the information, gleaned, I can only imagine, at the expense of some pain. And I like your plain, understandable way of putting things, in a humane or humanist context it is easy for me to understand.
          After reading this, it is obvious to me that you qualify for inclusion in The Litvaks, my all Jewish sport-bike posse. If you’re ever in the Northwest of the US, come and see us, and you can eat, pray and ride with us. You will be inducted in a service full of ancient ceremony, and your bike will be brissed (we cut off the muffler).
          I send my best to you. Just between you and me, you should get in touch with the staff at Mondoweiss Plaza. I know I would be very glad to see an article from you, and I’m sure many others would, too.

        • Mooser says:

          To be honest, I have found extremely few Jewish communities that want to talk about Jewish racism.

          Wait as minute, pal, this took place in America? I thought you were in Israel! So why didn’t you tell ‘em to stuff, and go and find a real college?
          Really, there’s nothing to be afraid of, the Gentiles will treat you very nice till the moment they tear you to pieces to make Spam.
          So you’re in a country 3400 miles wide, wear you can re-invent yourself as anything you please, and you are stuck with the racist Jewish community? Go sell that load of clams to somebody else.

        • Mooser says:

          “I agree thiugh with the later statement that these are basic humanisms that are taken as religious and repeated in all the major faiths.”

          Funny, you would think those “basic humanisms” would get some traction in Israel. But I thank you, tokyobk (tokyo is a Jewish name?) for so succinctly pointing out that ZIonism has very little to do with Judaism, except to take advantage of the troubles of the Jews.

        • Mooser says:

          Shmuel, can you really be this dumb? Don’t you think that before we debate which religion makes you better or eviler, we need to establish that people’s behavior is, indeed, dictated by their religious teachings? The entire argument is backwards. You prove to me that people’s behavior is, in fact governed by their religious teachings (after you establish that they in fact have been subjected to the teachings in the exact context you claim for them) and not by some more proximate or immediate cause (you know, like reality) and we can discuss which religion is better. This argument is reaching a state of exquisite absurdity here.

        • Shmuel says:

          Shmuel, can you really be this dumb?

          I’m not sure how dumb that is, because you seem to have missed the entire point of my comment, but if you can quantify, I’ll try to give you an honest answer.

        • Donald says:

          “if you can quantify, I’ll try to give you an honest answer.”

          I didn’t look very hard, but it seems to me that someone should have a calibrated idiot meter somewhere. In fact I know this is the case because I remember being accused of breaking one once. Of course it’s possible I broke the last working model.

          dumbness scale google search

        • Mooser says:

          “I’m not sure how dumb that is

          Okay Shmuel, you have forced me to say this and have only yourself to blame! Frankly, pal, I think you are about half as dumb as me! (Mooser ducks, but not fast enough to avoid the sudden right Shmuel launches)

        • yishai says:

          Colin Wright:
          “To me the crux of this — and I am genuinely ignorant on the point — is whether all the moral rules of Judaism apply to all interactions in general or only to interactions between Jews.”

          As I said elsewhere in these threads, the point is to argue within Judaism, if that’s your home community, that morals should apply to all. This is sadly, a point of debate at this stage, and those who care about good should fight to win it. Its an easy argument to win on principle, because none of the ancient texts which hold weight ever created harsh Us/Them dichotomies, as they did not really exist yet in the epistemology of those times – that is a pretty modern conundrum.
          I just talked at a Presbyterian church this weekend to a group of 100 people, imploring them to wrestle with the crazy Christian zionists in their midst, and to win that fight for us as Christians, since I do not know the nuances of their theology, and don;t want to spend time studying it…
          Yes, as someone below pointed out, Jews started thinking in more exclusivist ways within their medieval ghettos, and some of this persists. But religious Jews care much more about older arguments and sources than the newer ones.

        • yishai says:

          Colin Wright:
          “…none of these religions or cultures ever emerged or evolved in isolation, no immaculate conceptions as it were. All the ancient traditions are in dialogue, with traditions throughout what today is Africa and Asia, and all shared and learned from each other.

          That sounds good — but it’s not actually true. Of course Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all successive developments of the same religious tradition — but you’d have a hard time demonstrating Buddhism was influenced by them to any extent, or vice-versa. Buddhism was conceived and developed to maturity before either Christianity or Islam existed, and I doubt there’s any evidence it was influenced by Jewish thinking. While there may have been contact, any significant interaction occurred long after both sets of faiths were fully developed. Muslim conquerors didn’t enter Afghanistan and acquire Buddhist ideas that they then brought back to Mecca.

          I don’t honestly know how important this is, but ancient religions and cultures were far more in contact than you imply, especially Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, African traditions, — which is why their underlying details share so much, why the Kabbalah has so many commonalities with East Asian thought, and other traditions, things like shakra points, and other parallels…

          But to me this is probably a digression, because I/P is not a religious conflict, even if some religious zealots of various kinds inject that in — its always been a colonial, racial, political, land-grabbing power game of purely modern proportions, starting somewhere between the 1880s and 1917′s formal colonial demarcation…

        • yishai says:

          Shmuel:
          Just as Christians employed double ethical standards in the Middle Ages. In the Modern Era, both Christians and Jews have moved toward a more universal ethic.

          I think you are right, as was Shahak, in Sheldonrichmans reference.
          Israel has been cloaking itself in the more medieval rabbinic opinion, recently with a rabbi stating that it is permissible to kill Palestinians, even children, with impunity.

          Jews of conscience, who still adhere to or claim portions of their Judaism, need to wrestle back with these monstrous misinterpretations. I have no faith that the universalist trend is winning in many of these circles.

        • yishai says:

          Mooser:
          “After reading this, it is obvious to me that you qualify for inclusion in The Litvaks, my all Jewish sport-bike posse. If you’re ever in the Northwest of the US, come and see us, and you can eat, pray and ride with us. You will be inducted in a service full of ancient ceremony, and your bike will be brissed (we cut off the muffler).”
          Thank you truly for the kind invitation. If I do get out West, I will keep it in mind…
          And thanks for the encouragement. I am indeed trying to write some stuff up for sharing here. I hope it will be helpful in some small way…
          Peace

        • yishai says:

          Mooser:
          “To be honest, I have found extremely few Jewish communities that want to talk about Jewish racism.”

          “Wait as minute, pal, this took place in America? I thought you were in Israel! So why didn’t you tell ‘em to stuff, and go and find a real college?”

          This thread is getting long and convoluted, so hard to respond exactly to some of these points… But, in my case, I did get out of Crown Heights as a kid, and then into Yeshiva University High School, which lasted less than a year, and was also a failure of a different kind. My escape route, as you indicate, had the good fortune of a hippie Quaker international college that really opened up my world. So, yeah, tons of re-inenvention, sure, still ongoing, and all over the world too… Most of it with an anti-religious bent in my case, at least at first…

          As to this being in America and not Israel, I have remained fascinated by the connections, and flows of people back and forth between the US and Israeli Jewish communities so that they are not so separate as they once were. One recent example on Mondo that blew my mind was the Israeli/US zionist ownership of the Miami Heat – that was deep…

          While I have met many Jewish leftists in my travels, I have found very few truly radical Jewish communities, and I continue to find issues of racism in most Jewish enclaves, even progressive ones that desire to do otherwise – but that’s another story.

          The kind of electronic community this Mondo space provides is one partial exception, which is nice… And every city I have lived in in North America has a handful of jewish and non-jewish radicals to connect with. In my experience, the numbers are always smaller than they should be…

        • Shmuel says:

          I agree, Yishai.

          By the way, welcome and thanks for your comments. Your insights on the subject of mental illness and settlement were particularly interesting.

        • I just talked at a Presbyterian church this weekend to a group of 100 people, imploring them to wrestle with the crazy Christian zionists in their midst, and to win that fight for us as Christians, since I do not know the nuances of their theology, and don;t want to spend time studying it…

          thank you, it’s great to hear you’re out there spreading your thoughts.

        • Averroes says:

          @Woody Tanaka,

          I believe you’re doing some very selective cherry-picking of your own. Modernism and secularism, and their various offspring (communism, socialism, capitalism, fascism, imperialism, you choose your pick) have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people over the course of the past two centuries. These are for the most completely bereft of any religious connotations or persuasions. They have been responsible for World Wars, civil wars, class struggles, ethnic cleansing, genocide, and, lest we forget, the complete and utter destruction of the planet’s ecosystem, climate change and global warming, mass extinction of the world’s planet and animal life at a rate unprecedented in history, etc.. The list is nearly endless. All culminating of course in the possibility of perhaps another global WW (given the highly charged situation in the ME recently), and if not, even more inevitable is the extinction of the human race, due to the rape of the environment which has set the world’s ecosystem in super-drive mode on a one-way ticket train that’s bound to run itself off the cliff. And all of this being the result of a purely modernist, materialist, reductionist, and allegedly “progressive” worldview. These are also the children and offshoots of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, the great “advances of civilization”, devoid of any spiritual or moral compass. Interestingly, if you consider the fact that the above-mentioned carnage of modernism (non-religious) has happened pretty much within the past two centuries, and then project how much more death/destruction/carnage will be carried out in the future, if modernism continues to stick around for the next few thousand years (to make it comparable to dominant religiously-oriented culture of the past), then the picture to be imagined is a pretty bleak and depressing one. I don’t think anyone can honestly argue that the future looks appealing from this sense. I’m not even sure our modernist (and predominantly non-religious) world can expect to last beyond the next century, at the rate we’re going. So you’re assessment and comparison is way off.

          Also, vis-a-vis the US’s brutal role in the world in recent history as opposed to the religiously motivated massacre of Native Americans and slavery of African Americans, again your calculations seem to be way off, and your generosity to the non-religious camp of recent times is simply baffling. Even if you were to tally up the destruction, deaths, and mayhem carried out by the US and its allies in the past 50-60 years (to say nothing of the century before that), they would easily reach tens of millions of innocent lives, to say nothing other factors (environment, culture, etc..) Nothing from the religious age would even compare to current non-religious “progressive” advancements in pursuit of open markets, consumerism, profit, greed, expansionism, invasion, occupation, etc.. All in the name of human rights, democracy, and freedom of course, similar to how past religious wars and/or inquisitions were fought in the name of noble and righteous religious values.

          I’d suggest, if you have the time, to watch this lecture:

          And some of the other ones by Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr of George Washington University, for an alternative discourse to the dominant non-religious and non-spiritual worldview that permeates the globe. Even if you do not agree with the conclusions, it at least gives an interesting and mentally stimulating substitute to the status quo business-as-usual state of affairs today. Also check out some of the similarly interesting and informative works by Rajani Kannepalli Kanth, found here:

          link to amazon.com

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          Averroes,

          I was cherry picking. That was exactly my point. The good and the bad are all parts of humanity. The point I was making is that religion can be as much an accelerator on the bad stuff as a brake, because the thing that drives human to both good and ill is humanity.

        • Shmuel says:

          Mooser ducks, but not fast enough to avoid the sudden right Shmuel launches

          That’s a lie. I would never hit a moose when he’s down.

        • Citizen says:

          @ColinWright,

          Is Judaism a universal religion? Does any other religion have something similar to the 7 Noahide Laws in contrast to the 813 Laws? And how do the 10 commandments fit here? And how do such moral/ethical laws relate to, e.g., the Sermon On The Mount? Is Jewishness separate from Judaism in some way since one may have the former attribute but be atheist or agnostic? In comparison, one cannot be Christian, yet be an atheist or agnostic.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Mooser. Wouldn’t any profound moral code principle apply equally to all?

        • Taxi says:

          How come the 10 commandments don’t include forbidding the crimes of rape and pedophilia?

          And is envy really deadlier that sexual assault – especially of minors and infants?

        • kapok says:

          80 thou at one go? Where does that come from? That’s a lot of corpses to dispose of on a sticky summer’s afternoon in Rome.

          Curses on this unfollowable tree!

        • Rusty Pipes says:

          In America, this is generally true: “one cannot be Christian, yet be an atheist or agnostic.” One might be called “a nominal Christian” or “a Christmas and Easter Christian” or “from a Christian background,” but generally, Christianity is considered a matter of belief. In the Middle East, people are identified as Christian — even if their parents are atheists, they were never baptised and they are atheist as well — because their ancestors have been Christian for centuries.

      • talknic says:

        NickJOCW July 26, 2012 at 4:12 pm

        “From where do moral rights arise?”

        The moral rights of states arise through their self imposed obligations to adhere to Customary International Law, International Law, the UN Charter and the Conventions the state has ratified, all of which are binding.

        • NickJOCW says:

          I am on the other side of the world and have been sleeping since my last comment.

          talknic, There were moral values long before there were any of the institutions you mention. The Romans, who were tolerant of all religions that were tolerant of each other, were fiercely opposed to human sacrifice. That didn’t, of course, prevent them from crucifying prisoners who obstinately defied them but that was because obstinate defiance was itself regarded as highly immoral. The answer seems to be that there isn’t anything inherent in Judaism that would demand that a Rabbi, for instance, condemn on religious/moral grounds what Israel does in Palestine.

        • talknic says:

          NickJOCW July 27, 2012 at 3:41 am

          “There were moral values long before there were any of the institutions you mention.”

          Indeed and those values have been adopted by the International Community of Nations, from which sprang the League of Nations and subsequently the United Nations. A state what’s more, is considered a person.

          “The Romans ….. didn’t, of course, prevent them from crucifying prisoners who obstinately defied them but that was because obstinate defiance was itself regarded as highly immoral.”

          I doubt the Romans took defiance of the occupied as being immoral … More likely just another someone in the way of or threatening to upset their grand plans.

          “The answer seems to be that there isn’t anything inherent in Judaism that would demand that a Rabbi, for instance, condemn on religious/moral grounds what Israel does in Palestine.”

          “Treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.”

          Basic Judaism even an atheist can adhere to. The basic tenets of most religions are just common sense that don’t need no Rabbi to tell you how, when or why. Unless of course one’s feeling uncomfortable with whatever it is one’s doing.

        • Citizen says:

          @ talknic, And, like treaties, said obligations survive as legal obligations of the state, regardless of regime change.

    • lobewyper says:

      Here’s the plan and it’s not just that of the settlers: Continue to make life as miserable as possible for Palestinians in the WB and Gaza to encourage as many as possible to eventually emigrate. My Palestinian friends tell me that the younger generation would be happy to leave. Then, when a final settlement nears, Uncle Stupid (sorry, meant to say “Uncle Sugar”) and Sheldon Adelson et al. will cough up the necessary funds to accomplish massive emigration.

  2. thanks for the heads up Ilene. can anyone find comments @ the nyt for this article?

    • iamuglow says:

      Here is one letter to the NYT

      The One-Secular-State Solution – Eugene Schulman, Geneva
      link to nytimes.com

    • romweb says:

      For a comment check out:
      link to nytimes.com found “The futility of a two-state solution” (Views, July 26) by Dani Dayan beyond the pale.

      Connect With Us on Twitter
      For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
      In his opening sentence he repeats the oft-disproved canard that the “Arabs called for the annihilation of Israel in May and early June 1967, and Israel legitimately seized the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria in an act of self-defense.” But no one in the international community accepts the legitimacy of Israel’s occupation, and it has no moral claim on those territories.

      Mr. Dayan then goes on to claim that the possibility of a two-state solution is dead. With that, I agree. But not for the reasons the author gives — that the Palestinians have repeatedly refused to implement a negotiated two-state solution — when it is well known that it is the Israelis who have rejected that solution.

      Mr. Dayan seems to believe that Israel can continue on this path, and ultimately ethnically cleanse the Arabs from all of Judea and Samaria. I am afraid that, if he lives long enough, he will be in for a surprise, when the only possible solution to this conflict is one secular state for all its people, Palestinians, Jews and Christians alike.

      Eugene Schulman, Geneva

    • thanks iamuglow and romweb

    • ColinWright says:

      The Times usually doesn’t have a comments column for Op Ed’s. They also seem to avoid having comments for articles that are going to generate comments they don’t want to hear — but they really don’t ever seem to have them for Op Ed’s.

      …that this one’s written by a vicious lying crypto-Nazi probably genuinely has nothing to do with it.

      That ‘Lede’ feature is generally about the only venue where one actually has a chance to say something critical of Israel. I used to do okay getting posted there.

  3. radii says:

    carrying on the theme in the headline…

    Zionist Pledge of Allegiance:
    I pledge allegience to the blood-soaked flag of the Zionist, Serial War-Criminal Apartheid State of Israe, and to the ethnic-cleansing upon which it stands, one favored people citing their version of god, collectively insane, with supremacy and control for only us

  4. seafoid says:

    disputed teghitoghies
    Judea and Samaghia
    Left vingers
    Secughity

    All check

    Settler BS. “Jewish settlers are here to stay”- they said the same about Yamit in the Sinai and Netzarim in Gaza.

    He essentially says “there are too many of us so we can’t be evacuated”. This means it will take an even bigger trauma for Israelis to come to some sort of equilibrium. They will have to choose between settlers and their economy . There are no painless answers any more for Israel. That is the YESHA trap, the Jewish prison.

    • yishai says:

      Seafoid is right about their approach.
      Yamit was always their war cry…

      When I was repeatedly visiting the occupied WB and Gaza in the late 80s and early 90s to check in on my free-loading settler family and try to peel my brother out of those crazy places, they were already actively and openly talking about their demographic strategy to build too much infrastructure, and place too many settlements and settlers on the ground for them ever to be removed. They were at about 120,000 back then, if I remember correctly, and quite proud of it, and planning to grow as fast as they could. They promoted the having of settler babies as one strategy, and this too was talked about openly, reminding me of the US white supremacist strategy of inflating the white race by seeing white women as breeders for the cause.

      Also important to this plan was the funding: the only reason my post-hippie, quasi religious father ended up out there was the free ride that was offered, the subsidized housing, the subsidized jobs, the cheap and easy life that was presented for him and his family every time his free/subsidized yeshiva in Jerusalem went on religious break and he needed a bed to sleep in. But, while there, he gradually became socialized into the racist and neo-fascist discourse, finally relented into literally picking up guns to defend his new-found “home,” and this is tha path of so many Brooklynites and other US Jews who wander out to Israel without a plan, and wash up on the shores of their heavily funded white privilege in the Wild West (Bank) where they can live out real life fantasies of Davy Crocket, Rambo, and the rest…

      Like the others here, I am glad to see this baldly represented in the liberal bastion of the NYT, and like others I am not optimistic this alone will do much to change the left zionist illusions that are so deeply held… but it can’t hurt…

      • ritzl says:

        It’s incomprehensible that the proverbial international community was not aware of this strategy, as you say, 20 years ago. So not only does this article reveal and promote the Israeli/settler strategy, and incredible bad-faith and lies in support of that strategy for all to see, but it also reveals the complete corruption and complicity in perpetuating those lies of almost all the outside parties “involved.”

        That long-term corruption/complicity, and now knowledge that this Dayan manifesto is what that corruption/complicity has been knowingly supporting, makes anything other than the existing, geographical 1SS, pure vapor.

        It might be a good exercise to understand what Israel has on the whole world to get it to be complicit in this nightmare, and attack at that point. Failing that, individuals should not buy anything Made in Israel at least until Palestinians get the vote in Israel. At least individuals can honestly assess and act upon the realities of the situation.

        • Bumblebye says:

          The “international community” should have been aware. I can recall reading in an msm publication (though which, I can’t recall) an article about the settlers, with interviews, setting out exactly how they were going to do it, and how they intended to get their people into the right places in all the right ministries in order to make it so. Over 20 years ago, I’m sure. And there used to be much more reporting of corruption – ie money being syphoned out of one ministry or another and into settlement funding, causing not much more than short-term public embarassment to whichever politician was involved.

        • Citizen says:

          @ ritzl, it’s not really that Israel has the whole world’s complicity, only the Western (primarily white Christian) world. Other regimes that do go along do so because of the financial and military might of the US. A threat to cut off aid, economic trade, military aid, etc goes a long way when you are a weak or little country, hardly off its feet in real independency, as it were, or even a pretty big and powerful state if you want to stay that way. Always prime swing vote targets, e.g., at the UN. The Western World’s vote rubber-stamping Israel includes this aspect of basic bribery, along with, e.g., the power of a fat cat 5th column of Israel First folks in places like US, England, Australia, Canada where voting is a matter of who has most influence over campaign coffers and mainstream media resources. Too, we have “white guilt” over the patented Holocaust, and, lastly, Christian Zionist end-times mysticism.

      • Mooser says:

        yishai, that comment was really something, I literally broke out in a cold sweat reading it. That it should come to this. Couch surfing at the settlements, with guns.

        • yishai says:

          it is freaky, which is why I shared it…
          It gets worse…
          I can recall soldiers of fortune from South Africa rolling through the WB in 1989 with polaroids of themselves posing with dead “trophy” bodies in Angola (the greater South African territorial goal), and then “training” local settlers in WB in tactics, and looking for paid missions and action in this theater of war. As someone who was acting in solidarity at the time with ANC and its goals of ending SA apartheid, I was amazed how seamlessly the SA discourse merged with Jewish/Israeli discourse about Palestinians, always generically called Arabs.
          I was studying anthropology at the time, and it was interesting here too, in that racist SA intellectuals were using anthro to justify the supposed inferiority of Black South Africans, and then I found both mainstream Israeli anthropologists and settlers using similar theories about Arab and Bedouin inferiority, to justify their dispossession…

          Merk wonders far below in this thread why race is being injected. And yes, there are dark skinned Jews, who incidentally have experienced racism from the lighter skinned Jews, while in turn throwing racism at Palestinians of all colors in return — but racism needs to be seen as part of all this, and its erasure of race will prevent any real understanding of this conflict…
          Lets remember, that from its inception, steeped in the racist European origins of nationalism in general, zionism has always and fundamentally been a racial project, to dispossess natives and civilize and/or steal the land and resources for the superior conquering race…

        • your own father. that must have really stung. maybe i shouldn’t use the past tense.

        • Mooser says:

          “it is freaky, which is why I shared it…”

          And not without a certain cost in doing so, I’m sure. Thank you, and I hope you’ll continue to contribute.

        • yishai says:

          well, it did sting Annie. I believe this problem is pretty common, breaking up families in jewish circles, much like Vietnam did in his family when he was young. That’s the up side of this, at least there is some sort of crisis of conscience emerging in jewish families, and the unquestioned hold of zionism on families is now under some debate.
          I guess if it were a short story, it would be: zionism ate my father.
          interestingly, in the beginning, he thought Israelis were stupid, beneath his superior american way of being, and would have never considered becoming an Israeli citizen.
          However, when other options ran out, the zionist train started looking better, and the slippery slope took hold…
          I think one of the effects of this sort of white privilege, whether in the US or in Israel, is that it keeps people like him out of institutions, keeps people who need mental health assistance from getting it, props them up in ways that others will never experience.
          in the end, I ‘m not sure it is good for him, or for society, but it just is, its what happens…
          He is part of a wide array of washed up mental health patients that find their way to Jerusalem/Israel and because of who they are and where, they manage to stay out of institutionalization.
          Some of the WB settlements were actually like mental health wards, with strange individuals, families and other US/Euro rejects finding a strange perch on reality in the midst of a conflict zone, where they were strangely wanted as warm bodies in a place that calculates presence and demographics above all else.

        • @ yishai

          That was a vivid description. Gave me the chills. Thank you.

        • Shegetz says:

          Wow, thanks yishai. Very informative.

          Never thought about the West Bank as being the ‘Final Frontier’ for certain disaffected types. But that is the ugly nature of Colonialism, isn’t it? Squat on a property that isn’t yours and send waves and waves of ‘pioneers’, who are willing to take the risks and live in some (relative) hardship in order to escape religious/financial/emotional problems in their country of origin, against the locals.

          My old history teacher used to joke that in the in the pioneer times that the crazies, whackos, and malcontents would just keep plodding west to escape civilization and it’s ‘rules’ – and that this kept occurring until they ran out of space to run west into…

          …and they all accumulated on the west coast and gave us modern California.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Mooser: “Such a deal! How could I refuse?”

        • Mooser says:

          “@ Mooser: “Such a deal! How could I refuse?”

          Gosh, Gentiles are so presumptuous! Citizen, as I’ve told you many times before, you can be accomodated in “The Righteous Gentiles MC” and ride behind us, unless there’s danger, in which case we honor them with the lead.

        • MRW says:

          Thanks for this, Yishai. I knew about part of it from my mentor in NYC who made aliyah then beetle-assed it back to NYC, but the “washed up mental health patients” gives it another cast again, although my mentor’s phrase was “I didn’t like being pimped by Brooklynites pretending to be Sabras, coarsest people I ever met.”

        • Taxi says:

          Gracias Yishai shukrun shalom.

        • Blake says:

          I heard about apartheid soldiers posing with dead Angolan bodies and they cut off their genitals only to insert it in the mouths of the dead. Very disturbing especially since they wound up in Palestine with these incriminating polaroids. Hope they have since been arrested and incarcerated for the good of humanity. It shows you what indoctrination can do to one.

        • Citizen says:

          @ yishai

          Sounds like the French Foreign Legion. Maybe even, without France?

        • Mooser says:

          MRW, that’s why I get so upset about poor Silman, the Israeli man who set himself on fire, and died. The thought that his rightful place in the settlements may have been taken by a guy from Brooklyn makes me tremble with rage. What kind of a society is Israel anyway? Don’t they take care of their own?
          There should be a special agency in Israel to find people like Silman, and show them that there is hope, there is a useful place for them, and most of all, show them who is really at the root of their troubles.

    • chinese box says:

      “This means it will take an even bigger trauma for Israelis to come to some sort of equilibrium. They will have to choose between settlers and their economy . ”

      In terms of spending too much on “Judaea and Samaria” vs. green line Israel, and making the green line residents angry, or in terms of foreign aid and sanctions? If it’s the second, I don’t see that happening anytime soon. Someone else just posted that EU recently upgraded Israel’s trade status. The aid and investment from the US and Europe seems to keep flooding in, with no end in sight.

      I could see a bad recession and debt problems in Israel forcing them back to the peace table (not that I think that will accomplish anything). If I remember correctly that’s what spurred them to cooperate with the Madrid Conference in 1991. But from what I hear their economy is doing well at the moment. With the Palestinians out of sight and out of mind behind the Apartheid Wall Israelis will likely continue to be happy with the status quo unless there’s some kind of “Black Swan” event that forces them out of their complacency.

    • Mooser says:

      “This means it will take an even bigger trauma for Israelis to come to some sort of equilibrium.”

      Oh, don’t worry. All the Israelis who matter have a bolt-hole, a way out. Who do you think will be left to take the consequences?

  5. Dan Crowther says:

    Holy Shit. I mean it’s one thing when this sort of blunt talk is in israeli newspapers (especially in hebrew) – but wow, in the NY Times? Was someone at the times ( i know its not “the times’” RoHa) asleep at the wheel? How did this get printed? This really is the manifesto. The raw ideology. Even more shocking than it’s racist glee is it’s unbelievable arrogance, dude asks for further assistance from the international community to help make it ‘viable’!!

    Of course, Dayan might be privy to a bit more information than the rest of us, and this essay reflects what he thinks can/will actually fly

    • yishai says:

      yeah, it is a crazy land these settlers live in, and its good to have a window into it. If Israel is the tail wagging the US dog, the Settlers are the tail wagging the Israeli dog. In the past 20 years they have gone from being perceived as fringe extremists who make Israeli look bad, to centrist parts of the established ruling part and its politics. And a sizable voting bloc to be courted as well…

      • radii says:

        and they intentionally bred their way to dominance – yuck

      • Mooser says:

        “If Israel is the tail wagging the US dog, the Settlers are the tail wagging the Israeli dog.”

        That’s funny. So many liberal Zionists tell us the settlers are impotent in Israeli politics, and any day now a re-alignment two steps to the left will bring big changes to Israel. Why, I’m surprised they’re not here disputing your statement about the tail and the dog.

      • Citizen says:

        @ yishai,
        Meir Kahane would be proud of the way things are going. Can a big guy be more toothless and flabby than Uncle Sam? It’s disgusting. He needs to be put on that cable TV show Bully to meet his comeuppance in the iron cage. Problem is, nobody will volunteer to take him on to make him see the errors of his ways.

        Even Bob Dylan was infatuated with Meir Kahane. Has hid that episode in his life ever since.

        • Mooser says:

          “Even Bob Dylan was infatuated with Meir Kahane. “

          Always wear a helmet. It doesn’t take anything but a concussion to throw your reasoning off and scramble your emotions.

    • BillM says:

      Welcome to election season. The Israeli government knows the US Administration will support everything it says and does, so now is a great time to try to change the discussion by placing pieces like this in American media.

    • RoHa says:

      That’s quite all right, Dan. You made it clear first that it was the NYT you were referring to.

      And the article you are commenting on also makes it clear that it is an article in the NYT.

  6. Polly says:

    From the Times article Maale Shomron wrote:
    “If the international community relinquished its vain attempts to attain the unattainable two-state solution, and replaced them with intense efforts to improve and maintain the current reality on the ground, it would be even better. The settlements of Judea and Samaria are not the problem — they are part of the solution.”

    Could there be a more stark example of Israeli arrogance than this statement?
    The rest of the world is the problem. The rest of the world doesn’t get that it is backing the wrong guy in this fight. When will the rest of the world wake up?

    • Citizen says:

      @ Polly

      As Meir Kahane said, the main purpose in life of every non-Jewish organization, group, state in the world is to support the Jewish people in whatever they choose to do, and the Jewish state is Israel.

  7. evets says:

    Because it was so measured, almost suave, in tone, the piece was pretty enlightening (and scarier than the straight hard stuff). The arguments were clearly well-polished and the total omission of the citizenship issue was a brilliant, daring stroke. Especially since the reader is lulled into a kind of dreamlike state by the end and may not even notice. All in all a minor, but transfixing work of art.

    • Mooser says:

      “Especially since the reader is lulled into a kind of dreamlike state by the end and may not even notice.”

      You were? Thanks for the report.

  8. Shmuel says:

    Author Dani Dayan is not a crank in the sense of being a wild-eyed outlier. Rather, he is the chairman of the settler council in the “Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria”

    The Yesha Council lies at the extreme right of Israeli politics. It is not entirely without influence beyond Likud, Shas, Yisrael Beiteinu and its own Jewish Home Party, but it is hardly mainstream. Its chairman’s extremist vision thus comes as no surprise (Dayan’s predecessors have all held similar views and made no secret of them) and removes no masks. The denial crowd will have no trouble continuing to do what it does best: insisting that there is no inherent problem with Israel or Zionism, arguing that Israel is just going through a bad spell (largely the Palestinians’ fault), and firmly asserting that apart from the settlers, Russians, Arabs, Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox (and assorted Likud types, if you’re on the radical faux left), Israeli democracy is doing just fine.

    • Citizen says:

      @ Shumel, looks like to me like Meir Kahane lives on, stronger than when he was at his height, in the current Israeli Knesset: link to datehookup.com

      Like to hear and watch Hillary Clinton speaking to that issue. So we know what banal, well-intentioned, placid evil looks like.

  9. ColinWright says:

    This is definitely the hard stuff. I thought I should make myself read it. I got this far:

    “…Arabs called for Israel’s annihilation in 1967, and Israel legitimately seized the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria in self-defense. Israel’s moral claim to these territories, and the right of Israelis to call them home today, is therefore unassailable. Giving up this land in the name of a hallowed two-state solution would mean rewarding those who’ve historically sought to destroy Israel, a manifestly immoral outcome…”

    Let’s just assume — purely as an intellectual exercise — that the events of 1967 were as described. There’s no logical connection between that claim and the asserted right to Judea and Samaria. Nor is the notion that ‘those’ Arabs being punished somehow are part of a collective organism with ‘those’ Arabs who ‘historically sought to destroy Israel’ any more valid here than it was when the Nazis used similar thinking to justify the Holocaust.

    “…Of course, just because a policy is morally justified doesn’t mean it’s wise…”

    And here I signed off. No, I don’t need to ‘explore’ this. I need to destroy it, not understand it.

    • yishai says:

      This is indeed the core of Israeli racism, the idea that there are no Palestinians, only indistinguishable “Arabs,” all of whom think with one hive-like (Borg?) mind…
      But this is the truth of Israeli discourse, and it needs to be seen in liberal circles in the US, where such talk would be less acceptable.

      • Citizen says:

        @ yishai,
        Yep. ColinWright gave us a snippet, and that alone means I have no desire to raise my blood pressure by reading the whole subject article. It never fails to amaze me how such assumptions and glaring intentional ignorance of relatively recent history–available to us all on the internet, and through history books easily available via the internet too–how such assumptions, such glaringly wrong premises, such easily-assailed lies, just keep on coming via our US mainstream media and its pundits. I agree, democracy is a bad form of governance, but also, with the question, what is a better one? I’d say, one with a campaign finance system that is not an invitation to sell to the rubes as in a magic potion carnival side show. Who can change the fact so many voters are so ignorant, so easily manipulated? In America, we buy things that harm us because an absurd cartoon character tell us it will cure our worst fears.

        • Mooser says:

          “available to us all on the internet, and through history books easily available via the internet too–how such assumptions, such glaringly wrong premises, such easily-assailed lies, just keep on coming via our US mainstream media and its pundits.”

          You really don’t know that? Well, in that case you might as well consider my point-of-view on it. Everything in the MSM is shaped into a melodrama, since that has been the most predominant and profitable of all presentations. And since people have been watching and living these melodramas for two generations now, and think that’s what reality is really like.
          It’s sorta like when every question in the world was submitted to Scripture, and Scripture was the arbiter. Now Scripture has been replaced by the movie and TV. And so every event is shaped into a melodrama.
          A great local example of this is the way people think about guns. They are very confused between how guns are, in fact, used in real life, and how guns are used in TV and Movies. Even tho their lives may depend on it, they have no interest in the facts, since the melodrama of the gun apparently gives them something which is worth it. We just saw a great example of this with the Aurora shooting response.
          I also think these melodramatic contexts will effect you if you watch TV and movies, no matter what your conscious attitude toward the material is. Me, I’d rather watch grass grow, or the clouds move. People have been doing it for thousands of years and it hasn’t hurt anybody yet. TV and movies, I’m not so sure.

    • evets says:

      ‘This is definitely the hard stuff.’

      In content absolutely, in delivery no.

      I’ve heard Meir Kahane in person (lasted 20 minutes then went home to shower). This piece is smooth by comparison.

      It will open some eyes but I think many of the uninformed or half-informed will slide right by the lies and won’t sense the glaring omissions.

      That said, there’s probably some value in the Times getting an honest expression of the dishonesty on the record

  10. ColinWright says:

    “Heartfelt thanks (truly) to the New York Times for doing a public service…”

    If only. Yes, it is possible that the scales will fall from the eyes of some on account of this.

    Yet I suspect that for more, the Times’ publication of this will serve as a kind of seal of approval, as an endorsement of the idea and of its admission to respectable discourse. Indeed, when one couples it with Rudoren’s recent description of both Jews and Palestinians as ‘settlers,’ one might even want to consider the possibility that at least some at the Times are consciously seeking to recast and redefine the debate.

    They — and involuntarily, we as well — are moving still more clearly over to the side of darkness.

    “…for it is evil things that we shall be fighting against – brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression and persecution…”

    Let’s at least try to have the moral courage of that weenie Chamberlain. Please, no more fluff about a ‘nice’ Israel. It’s gotten to be about time to start thinking about what to do.

    • lobewyper says:

      Colin,

      I think your take on this is correct. This article is a stalking horse. No only that, but it directly contradicts UN resolutions prohibiting acquisition of territory by war (anyone here remember Norman Finkelstein?). If the US government lets this article go unchallenged, it will lose whatever respect I have left for it. I disagree with Phil that this took courage on the NYT’s part to publish.

  11. calm says:

    While I was reading this particular article and another By David Samel, I kept wondering how the Palestinian People can just continue to sit back and take all this abuse year after year?

    I can’t comprehend why the Palestinian People just don’t go out and begin committing extra-judicial killings like the Jewish Folks do in all parts of the universe.

    My temper is seething and I’m just a plain O’l Catholic boy from Canada.

    I guess the same thing could be said about the African Americans. If I were black, I would of struck back long before this.

    When will it be “Okay” for the trodden-down to get even?

    Calm

    • Dexter says:

      Calm,

      Haven’t you heard: it is NEVER ok for dark-skinned people to resist anything.

      • Koshiro says:

        Except other dark-skinned people, if we don’t like them. Then even the inherently immoral act of suicide bombing becomes heroic.

        • ritzl says:

          @Koshiro As a publicly stated US policy. Not anonymous blog musings.

          The depravity is chilling. If they can state (and do) that out loud (as well as Nulands “not consistent” remark), what aren’t policy makers and implementers capable of doing?

          Best I recall, even Kissinger didn’t overtly and publicly trash the moral target. He just ignored it or used it for cover.

          We’re all just literally one checked box away from being in a target group.

          Now back to your regularly scheduled demolition…

        • ColinWright says:

          “inherently immoral act of suicide bombing”

          As I think I demonstrated some time back, that ‘inherent immorality of suicide bombing’ is more or less an invention of convenience. Necessarily suicidal acts of violence have been presented as entirely praiseworthy when it’s been us committing them.

          Colin (no relation) Kelly diving his crippled B-17 into the Battleship Haruna and winning the Congressional Medal of Honor; the old guy with the crop duster in Independence Day flying his plane into the alien mother-ship and saving humanity.

          Both fictitious, but that’s beside the point. Suicide bombing is just fine if the suicide bombers are on our side. Per se, we demonstrably have no problem with it at all.

        • Shegetz says:

          Personally, I tend to see the whole ‘killing other people’ bit as rather immoral – guns, knives, fists, feet, bombs…..does it matter?

          In fact, I’ll even go so far to say that ‘suicide bombing’ is at least one hell of a lot more gutsy than, let’s say, dropping bombs on people with aircraft or killing them with remote control drones from halfway across the planet.

          Though the suicide bomber doesn’t have to actually live with the consequences of their actions, at least they’re putting their money where their mouth is.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Colin Wright, mmmm, suicide bombers, how about the Alamo, Custer’s Last Stand, John Brown? All suicidal missions at least, yes?

        • ColinWright says:

          Well, not necessarily — or even intentionally.

          Custer’s last words heard by a living witness were: ‘Come on boys, we’ve got ‘em!’

          Similarly, John Brown really thought he’d spark a slave revolt, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the defenders of the Alamo thought they had a reasonable chance.

          However, more seriously, there is a qualitative distinction between accepting certain death and taking a risk, however severe. There is also a distinction between actively putting oneself to death and merely putting oneself in a position where one’s opponent is certain to do it to you. A dissident in a brutal totalitarian state is not identical to a suicide bomber.

        • Citizen says:

          Colin,
          Yeah, your distinction is accurate. The young Japanese pilots near the end of the war actually accepted certain death, while the German youth pilots then still hoped they’d survive, however slim the chance.

      • Merk says:

        I don’t follow this dark skinned thing? you know there are many dark skinned Jews right? I don’t see how trying to turn this into a racial argument is constructive.

        • ColinWright says:

          It’s already been turned into a racial argument. ‘Israel is for the White Man,’ in case you hadn’t heard.

        • mig says:

          Merk :

          I don’t follow this dark skinned thing? you know there are many dark skinned Jews right? I don’t see how trying to turn this into a racial argument is constructive.

          Yup, “but they are OUR dark skinned”, which changes whole thing.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Merk, I agree, turning it into a racial argument is at the very least, not comprehensive enough due to the various factors involved and other examples of the same principles in action.

        • Cliff says:

          Stop being intentionally dense Merk. You are trolling.

          Stop feigning.

    • Mr Saigon says:

      “I can’t comprehend why the Palestinian People just don’t go out and begin committing extra-judicial killings like the Jewish Folks do in all parts of the universe.”

      That started 44 years ago with the attack at Athens airport, killing one. That was followed by another attack at Zurich airport a year later, killing the pilot and three passenger. In 1970, another attack, this time at Munich airport, killing one. One month later, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, blew up a Swiss airliner killing 47 people on board. In 1972, 11 were killed in the Munich in 1972 during the Olympic games. One year later, another one was killed in Cyprus by Black September. A few months later, a Back September suicide attack at Athens airport killed three and injured 55. Four months later, Black September blew up Pan Am’s office at Fiumicino airport in Rome, killing thirty two and injuring fifty. …and so on.

      As you can see, ‘Jewish Folks’ have been killed in all parts of the universe too.

      • calm says:

        Hi! Mr. Saigon

        I was wonderin’ ….

        If Jewish Folks were too afraid to walk the streets of any country in the world because of the fear of the Palestinians and their supporters carrying out extra-judicial killings as the Jewish Folks have been doing for years ….. do yuh think the American Jewish support for the occupation would increase or decrease?

        Would extra-judicial killings carried out by Palestinians and their supporters around the globe assist the cause or ruin it?

        Here we are 60 or 70 years after the Hitler-Trip and Jewish Folks are still entering courthouses across this universe and insisting on justice and the “Right-Of-Return” of stolen artifacts, property and jewels confiscated by Hitler.

        I think that the Palestinian people deserve the same “Right-Of-Return” and the same sense of justice that the Jewish Folks insisted upon in every courthouse in the land.

        Never once did I hear any Jewish Person suggest that the “Facts Had Changed On The Ground” and thus the Jews we’re not entitled to compensation for losses incurred under Hitler … but this is the claim that the Jewish Folks make with the Palestinian People and their “Right-Of-Return”.

        Calm

        • Blake says:

          Completely correct and let’s not forget their so called 2000+ year so called “inalienable rights” to Palestine

      • Mooser says:

        Wow, did you just screw yourself, Saigon. In 44 years, that’s all the Israelis who were killed? You want to compare that to the amount of lands, assets and lives the Palestinians have lost. What you just proved is the incredible forbearance, charity and reluctance to commit violence in the face of a provocation (invasion and pillage and colonisation) which has always been considered the only righteous reason for killing.
        Unless, of course you are suggesting that Jewish lives have a value about a hundred times more (maybe somebody could come up with a more accurate figure) than Palestinians lives. In which case I beg you to give me the proper mutiple, the proper order magnitude to use when comparing the value of the two.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Mooser,

          Maybe the proper sizing can be equated to US military spending versus the spending of all our likely enemies? In the 19th Century, the British Navy sized its Royal Navy by making sure it was equal to its two strongest likely enemies. America’s military spending is 7X the combo sum of Russia’s and China’s. Other likely enemies individually spend peanuts, not even worthy of entering the equation. Yet are politicians are crying like Chicken Little all over the place that if we cut our military spending even a tad its doomsday for us. Israel sizes Palestinians lives in a much more imbalanced way; perhaps America is trying to catch up with Israel’s 100 eyes for an eye?

        • pjdude says:

          you have to remember what Israel intends for the palestinains is something more than genocide. at least with genocide the history and knowledge of those gone remains intact. we still know about the dacians even though they were genocided by the romans what ISrael intent is to erase them from history. they are going after the bonds the connections that make the people. look at the judization of palestine. eventually they are going to prohibit the arabic language. hell just look at the amount of arabic cuisine Israel has co-opted.

      • ToivoS says:

        Dear Mr Saigon

        It started more than 44 years ago but your summary is accurate ( a little one sided but accurate). Israel, or the Zionist entity as many Palestinians prefer to call it (or my favorite, the Zionist Experiment in Palestine, ZEP) has created a total mess in the region. This war will not be over until The ZEP’s realize that having a Jewish state in Palestine is not possible. Maybe a multicultural state that includes Jews, Muslims and Christians is possible but it is difficult to see how that could happen with all of the blood shed over the last 60 years.

  12. Castellio says:

    I think Colin has this right. Israelis have made a choice that the nation, even a ‘democratic’ nation, is there to serve the interests of its ‘natural people’, in this case, Jews. Only limited ‘inherent rights’ are given to other individuals.

    And now the elite that supports that position wants to make the principal publicly acceptable. The debate has moved from one state or two state to “do you agree that a unified Israel is there as a reflection of Jewish collective values and should govern accordingly?”

    With this comes collective guilt, collective punishment, and a caste system based on birth, and a legal and state apparatus to implement it all. These systems are in place in Israel today.

    One thing, I know, however, is that progressive Islam will not accept its people being treated as second class at birth: to support those Israelis and Americans who support a racist Israel is to lengthen the long war against that which is most admirable in Islam.

    • Citizen says:

      @ Castellio,
      Seems to me Israel is morphing towards total revitalization of Meir Kahane’s view of Torah Judaism, which believes that Jewish democracy is an oxymoron, and so, contrary to Western values at its root, and, accordingly, Israelis have not only made a choice that the Jewish ‘democratic’ nation, is there to serve the interests of its ‘natural people’, Jews, but that ultimately all non-Jewish nations exist for the same purpose, to serve G-D’s chosen people on earth, as it is in heaven–if there is a heaven.

  13. Newclench says:

    “But for the faux liberals—the JStreet types—this will be uncomfortable indeed, as playing pretend has been their stock in trade.”

    Horsefeathers. As if J Streeters aren’t quite clearly aware of this kind of stuff. They know about it, and oppose it, and are actually liberals. Suggesting that perhaps they didn’t know about this right wing zaniness is a suggestion backed by prejudice.

    One of the foremost biographers of the settler movement is Gershom Gorenberg, author of ‘The Accidental Empire’ and other books. And he’s appeared more than once at J Street forums.

    If you think J Streeters aren’t liberal, just ask a leftist.

    • Koshiro says:

      There’s two possibilities of what J Streeters are, if pieces like the following are any indication:
      link to thejewishweek.com

      The more flattering possibility is that Rachel Lerner, who shall serve as an example here, is a little fool, a useful idiot for the Settler Power. So clueless that even the ironically perfect timing of the Levy report with her smugly congratulating herself for her “success” in stymying another effort at the only thing that can bring about a just two-state solution – pressure on Israel – leaves her unable to connect the all-too-obvious dots and conclude that Israel will gladly take her lobbying work to shield it from all harm but laugh its collective rear end off at the suggestion that her political ideas about “democracy” and stopping the settlements should be given even the least amount of consideration. The added bonus for Israel being the ability to point at fools like her and say “See, we are pluralistic and peace-loving. Look at our (ignored and ineffective) peace camp. See how much better we are than the Arabs?”

      The less flattering possibility is that she is not that monumentally naive to the point of being delusional but does it all on purpose.

      Either way: The sooner “liberal Zionist” groups like J Street are marginalized and vanish from the political scene the better. They achieve nothing, actively obstruct needed pressure on Israel and serve as a fig leaf for the actual, wholly ugly face of the Settler Power.

    • chinese box says:

      @Newclench,

      J Street is against BDS. I think they are even against Beinart’s watered down alternative to full BDS. From what I understand their platform consists of advocating a resumption of US-lead peace talks, which have now have a twenty year track record of disastrous failure. At best (and this is being kind), they’re completely out of touch with the realities on the ground in the Occupied Territories. But I’m sure Dennis Ross thinks of himself as a good liberal too, so what do I know?

    • ColinWright says:

      My take on J Street is that they want a ‘nice’ Israel.

      I suspect that is an oxymoron. The logic of the situation dictates the Israel that is in fact there.

      It can’t be fixed. It has to be dismantled. Indeed, as a practical matter I am perfectly happy with many of the ‘fixes’ that are proposed — but only because I’m fairly sure Israel can’t survive them. Go ahead: actually treat all the Palestinians as fully equal citizens of a secular state. Adopt a ‘faith-blind’ immigration policy.

      It’ll spell the end of Israel…and that’s fine with me.

      Everyone’s going to have to make up their mind on this — and J Street almost by definition hasn’t. They want to have their Zionist cake and keep their liberal values too. Well, they can’t. If they want to fool themselves, I’ll play along — but only because I can see perfectly well where it will go.

      • chinese box says:

        @ColinWright

        I think that’s correct. For a colonial state to survive it needs either to exterminate or expel most of the indigenous population or be willing to mix and intermarry like the Spaniards did. The first option will be very hard to pull off in this case (although I think Israel may try it) due to the numbers of Palestinians and the small size of the landmass, and pigs will fly before the second option is chosen. They haven’t even shown the ability or inclination to integrate themselves into the broader region, let alone live on equal terms with the P’s. Trying to maintain a Jewish majority state in such a situation over the long haul is a pipe dream. I think they could have survived if they had made some different choices years ago but things are just too screwed up now.

        But I think it’s going to get very ugly before Israel finally self-destructs.

        • Citizen says:

          @ chinese box ,
          I think, given the mindset of the Israelis, the romance of Massada, the idea that ultimately, Gentiles are only made to serve Jews as per Meir Kahane’s vision of Torah Judaism, which seems to be revitalized, the Samson Option Executed is something to be expected. The Christian Zionists look forward to it. The possible foil is Russia, or more likely China and/or India, but certainly not the USA or EU.

    • Mooser says:

      “If you think J Streeters aren’t liberal, just ask a leftist.”

      ROTFLMSJAO!! Ask a leftist? Like you?

  14. West Bank Palestinians including East Jerusalem Palestinians are the offended population that is most obvious. Given the impracticality of the two state solution, the next step is granting the vote (citizenship) to these people. Presently they are not asking for the vote. Presently there are x number of East Jerusalem Palestinians who could apply for citizenship, but only y number of East Jerusalem Palestinians applied for citizenship in the last year.

    Then there’s the question of attitude, which includes “demographic threat” being the title given to a pregnant Palestinian woman and necessity being the title given to the continued existence of a Jewish army. Whereas demographic threat is innately offensive, the necessity of a Jewish army is not inherently offensive, it is either accurate or inaccurate. (Viewed from a global perspective or specifically from an American Jewish perspective, the necessity of a Jewish army is not self apparent. Viewed from a Jewish Israeli perspective it seems rather self apparent.)

    Staking one’s battle goal as the dissolution of a Jewish army or the dissolution of Jewish sovereignty puts one at odds with the will to survive of a given portion of the Jewish world. Just so that it’s clear. (Is Jewish sovereignty identical with a Jewish army? I don’t know. I suppose not. “sectarian militia” is part of the definition of Israel given by one of the Palestinian “troublemakers” (katzelmachers?) I believe. Can full citizenship rights coexist with a sectarian militia of a different sect being the only military on a certain piece of turf? obviously not the easiest proposition, but a useful thought experiment.)

    • Koshiro says:

      Can full citizenship rights coexist with a sectarian militia of a different sect being the only military on a certain piece of turf? obviously not the easiest proposition, but a useful thought experiment.)

      Q: What purpose would, under considerations of external security, the exclusion of some ethnicities from the military serve?
      A: None.
      Q: Which other possible reasons for such an exclusion are there, then?
      A: a) Inertia of traditional prejudices. b) Possible use of the military by one ethnic group against the other in internal conflicts.
      Q: If one of these two conditions apply, can we truly speak of equal citizenship?
      A: Nope.

      End of discussion.

      • Citizen says:

        @ Koahira, so you have a clue as to what yonah fredman is saying here? I don’t. Does anyone else? The IDF is there for one purpose: to enforce Israel’s agenda, an agenda that has nothing positive to do with any other country in the world except to the extent any other country allows Israel to do what it wants. Is there any doubt about that? If so, what is it?

        • Citizen- Not every comment is a self contained logical proposal standing independent of what came before. We don’t have the liberty of conversation here, being limited to words and needing to overcome the gaps of time.

          So I will explain my thinking.

          The two state solution is dead. This is the conventional wisdom and I am not going to tilt at that windmill. So the one state reality must be dealt with directly rather than excused as something temporary.

          If I were in charge I would give the West Bank Palestinians the vote in one Knesset election, and then the resulting Knesset would educate the Israeli public on whether they really want to go down that path.

          But separating voting from citizenship is not going to happen and a temporary citizenship for a short span is not going to happen. So this is mere fantasy.

          So where is this one state located and which population has not been included: West Bank Palestinians. So give them the vote. Well, right here my thinking process comes up against status quo thought. The refusal of Jerusalem Palestinians proves that a piecemeal solution is not possible. But in fact there is a trickle of Jerusalem Palestinians who are applying for citizenship. It’s not my major point here, but it was on the cover of the JPost weekend section a few weeks ago and if my desire to win debating points was alive I would research it and find the glimmer of light that the number yields.

          The point is that a slow evolution into giving the vote to West Bank Palestinians is not happening either.

          Netanyahu is not going to give the WB Palestinians the vote. If some Israeli were to run on the platform: Give the WB Palestinians the vote, he would lose badly. So my proposal is not main stream.

          The vested interests of Fatah and Hamas are not in the direction of my proposal either. The proposal infers Israeli ownership and this is against int’l law in terms of considering the WB occupied territory. So why should Fatah and Hamas make things easier for Israel?

          If I had a time machine I would have severely limited the settlement project and stated plainly that I was doing so because I was keeping it for an eventual Palestinian state, when Damascus is as calm as Boca Raton. Damascus is not as calm as Boca Raton and handing over sovereignty next door to Tel Aviv to Hamas makes no logical sense and thus the two state solution although not dead, sleeps like Sleeping Beauty.

          (That’s not the only reason it sleeps like sleeping beauty, but it is also a reason.)

    • Mooser says:

      So Newclench, if Palestinians get the vote, and some political power, they will, as is only just, ask for reperations. You do think they deserve reperations for what was stolen from them, don’t you? What kind and how much reparations would you recommend? How many settlers should have to leave?
      And BTW, if some radical change is going to take place in Israeli politics (it is to laugh, but lets do a “thought experiment”) who will supervise this change and make sure it occurs, and protect the Palestinians from harm? Or do you figure the GOI is up to the task?

      • Koshiro and Mooser- I understand. You have an image of the enemy- the zionist/settler and ziocaine. You have an image of the ideal: the South Africa paradigm (plus reparations. there were no reparations in south africa, i think, but here they will be necessary and a commission of reconciliation will calculate what the reparations should be). You have a tactic: BDS. And how is this going to play out? How are you going to convince Israeli Jews to give up? How do you see the history playing out?

        • Citizen says:

          @ yonah fredman,
          Do you really think Mooser or Koshiro appreciate your lame Socratic answering of questions with questions? If BDS doesn’t work as it did with apartheid S Africa, don’t you think that reveals something negative about Israel? If not, why not?

        • Mooser says:

          “How are you going to convince Israeli Jews to give up?”

          It will take the most stringent kind of pressure, or more possibly force. And Israel has nuclear weapons, that’s what all that “How are you going to convince….” nonsense is all about huh? So the Israelis, loose off a couple of nukes, and the name of “The Jews” will be hailed throughout the rest of man’s history.

          I don’t think (remember, Phil and Mondoweiss think differently, so don’t tar them with this brush, slimy) there will be any convincing, they will be either compelled to, or forced too. Assuming, of course, Israel can keep itself together long enough not to collapse on its own, which means (to put it in ethnic approximations) the Ashkenazim (love that name) get out, and the “Arab Jews” and others get screwed.
          What’s the matter, yonah, don’t you know anything about Jewish history and colonial history? Perhaps you would like to point us to the sucessful project of this type which Israel hopes to emulate.

        • Mooser says:

          “You have a tactic: BDS.”

          WHat are you on, yonah? (Never mind, I know) Find me one comment from my entire archive (and it’ll do you a lot of good to read it,too) where I endorse BDS, or claim it will change Israel’s behavior. I never have. (Of course, I entirely approve it on principle and practice it myself)

          So just come out and say it, yonah: If we push Israel too far, they will start throwing nuclear bombs around. Or will IDF troops invade Europe or the US, take us over and install Israel friendly regimes?

          However, it’s much more likely that internal collapse, and elites deciding to get out while the getting’s good, will lead to a massive tragedy and a great number of Jews (and a lot of other people) dieing and suffering. There, is that clear enough. It should be. After all, you convinced me of most of this.

        • Koshiro says:

          Koshiro and Mooser- I understand.

          You asked a question. I answered it. Apparently you don’t like the answer, but as it is based on inescapable facts and rational conclusions, you can’t really argue against it.

      • Merk says:

        Mooser,

        how would they ask for reparations from a state they are part of? kind of counter productive if you ask me.

    • Avi_G. says:

      West Bank Palestinians including East Jerusalem Palestinians are the offended population that is most obvious. Given the impracticality of the two state solution, the next step is granting the vote (citizenship) to these people. Presently they are not asking for the vote. Presently there are x number of East Jerusalem Palestinians who could apply for citizenship, but only y number of East Jerusalem Palestinians applied for citizenship in the last year.

      Not so fast.

      Palestinians in East Jerusalem hold Jordanian passports while Israel has imposed on them Israeli residency. Should they apply for Israeli citizenship, they would lose their Jordanian passports and as a result — and more importantly — lose the ability to travel to neighboring Arab states (Read: Remain isolated).

      Similarly, as a result of Israeli policies, Palestinians in Israel have been isolated from their fellow Arabs for 65 years now. If any Palestinian from Israel visited an Arab state (Including Jordan until recently — mid 1990s; and Egypt prior to 1978), Israel would have upon his/her return charged him with aiding and cooperating with an enemy state and imprisoned him for life. There have been cases like this, by the way. But such isolation is not limited to Palestinians. Syrians in the Israeli occupied Golan Heights have been unable to visit their families in Syria since 1967.

      So they have resorted to going up what has become known as the Hill of Shouts and communicate by shouting, while separated by a few hundred feet of barbed wire.

      Getting back to Palestinians in East Jerusalem, with their Jordanian passports they can travel to neighboring Arab states — again, a privilege that Palestinians in Israel do not have — The Jordanian passport, however, does not grant them full Jordanian citizenship rights; they can’t vote in Jordanian elections, for example.

      In addition, you seem to be implying that by providing them with a path to acquire Israeli citizenship, which in your view would improve their political circumstance, except that — in your view — Palestinians from East Jerusalem refuse to do so due to their desire for a two-state solution or a state of their own.

      Your presumptive claims are problematic for two reasons:

      (1) You are basing your claim on mere conjecture.
      (2) You are applying the age-old Hasbara lie by describing Palestinians as rejectionists.

      There are additional reasons that explain their reluctance to acquire Israeli citizenship.

      For example, Jerusalem is the third holiest city in the world for more than 1,500,000,000 Moslems.

      Over the years, Israeli authorities have destroyed Moslem religious holy sites in the city, have engaged in a process of Judaization, forced evictions, home demolitions, land theft and document forgery to acquire said land.

      And while Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza continued to live under a brutal military occupation, would you have felt morally comfortable to betray your fellow countrymen and take up Israeli citizenship knowing full well that every other Palestinian will continue to live under occupation?

      Under these circumstances, if you were a Moslem living in East Jerusalem, you wouldn’t even bother with an Israeli citizenship.

      • Avi_G. says:

        I should also add that it is not only the Palestinian Moslem community of East Jerusalem that has been suffering under Israel’s boot.

        Palestinian Christians of East Jerusalem have also been the victims of Israeli policies and oppression. See, for example, the Christian exodus from Bethlehem and the 60 Minutes report about Palestinian Christians.

        So, again, under these circumstances it is no wonder that East Jerusalemites — whether Moslem or Christian — have been reluctant to obtain Israeli citizenship.

        • Avi G. – I understand your rejecting my line of thought because it resembles hasbara. I am trying to think what is the next step? Where could Israel head? Where is it headed? The West Bank Palestinians probably have a thousand good reasons not to apply for citizenship, that is not the question. The question is: what is the way forward? Obviously the way forward is being determined by Netanyahu and not by me and so my question is hypothetical. But what is the goal and what is the way to get there. Phil wrote in a recent post that Jewish sovereignty (on this spot on the globe) endangers Jews in America. Well, it’s good to define one’s goals. His goal is to take sovereignty away from the Jews and give it , I guess, to all the people living in the bounds of Mandate Palestine and to all who can claim roots in 1947. It seems to me that the strategy here is let the settlers and Netanyahu alienate the world to the point that the American public wakes up to the actions of its government and forces its government to set Israel straight. And setting Israel straight means what? Giving up sovereignty? Giving the vote to all the people in Israeli controlled territory? But you are now rejecting Israel giving the vote to all people in Israeli controlled territory, because it does not suffice or because it puts the occupied palestinians in a bad spot. So what do you propose to do. A UN resolution placing UN troops in area captured in 67? A UN resolution taking over sovereignty in the Palestinian Mandate? It is unfair to demand specifics from you, but I am trying to see where you wish the future to be headed, so that I can see it. I proposed something very tangible, a counter proposal would help me crystallize the gap between our positions.

        • Citizen says:

          @ yonah fredman ,
          RE: “Avi G. – I understand your rejecting my line of thought because it resembles hasbara. I am trying to think what is the next step?”

          Avi G is well-equipped to speak for himself, but what is he to think of your poor understanding of his view on your line of thought? The point is not merely that your delivered line of thought “resembled hasbara,” but that, put more simply, your line of thought delivered clear lies about facts. I imagine Avi G would desire you get your facts straight as preliminary to any discussion regarding “what is the next step?” In short, get your facts straight–that’s the next step.

        • Mooser says:

          “I am trying to think what is the next step? Where could Israel head?”

          Are you near a bathroom with a flush toilet, yonah? Well, push the lever, stare into the bowl, and behold Israel’s future!

        • Avi_G. says:

          WJ,

          The problem is that in your previous post you drew conclusions from the current state of affairs and applied those conclusions to your description of East Jerusalemites and their willingness — in the future — to obtain Israeli citizenship.

          It’s as though you deliberately changed your line of reasoning mid-argument in order to extricate yourself from a difficult spot.

          But, I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. So next time, I suggest you state your thesis at the outset of your comment and then elaborate on said thesis.

        • The dude says, “I’m sure it’s down there somewhere let me look again.”

        • Avi G. – I look at things from a certain perspective and mere intertia makes my arguments gravitate towards grooved lines, that you would call Hasbara. It is not insignificant that Jerusalem’s Palestinians won’t even vote in municipal elections. It certainly doesn’t help the city of Jerusalem. And it would be great if they would vote in Israeli elections. But it isn’t going to happen for many reasons. It is not their job to make it easy for Israel to end the current situation. If they wanted to make it easier they could help, but their job is some form of “sumud” which doesn’t include the slow incorporation of the WB palestinians into the Israeli electorate.

          Is there something called temporary citizenship? Could there be? Silly ideas, probably. But Israel has got itself into this bind and it’s going to have to get itself out.

          And to mooser and the flushing toilet. If you are my age, you will probably die (actuarial tables giving you less than 41 years according to my crystal ball) before you see that flush. But I wish Israel was less dependent on US money and on the US veto, because the US is really the weak point in Israel’s survival. The original Zionists said, “In our hands” and that meant, not leaving the solutions to God, but taking fate into their own hands. And the settlement enterprise has put Israel’s fate into the hands of others.

  15. Roya says:

    Delusional Dayan writes, “Arabs called for Israel’s annihilation in 1967, and Israel legitimately seized the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria in self-defense.”
    Conquering land requires offensive military force; it is an offensive act.There is nothing defensive about it. If Israel were truly defending itself in the ’67 War, it would have focused on securing the land it had already conquered, not chasing after more. Hopefully the logical minority of NYT readers will pick up on this.

  16. Mooser says:

    Aw, you people are just kill-joys. Americans need Ziocaine, too. Sure, you make it yourself, but it needs something to kick off the syndrome, and something like the article in the Times is just what the doctor ordered.

    I have a funny feeling we are about to encounter some people who will not only be saying the Palestinians don’t exist, they will be telling us (gee, I think they already started) the settlers don’t exist. It’s just back-to-nature Israelis camping out.

    • ColinWright says:

      “Aw, you people are just kill-joys. Americans need Ziocaine, too.”

      That is all too true. Indeed, I’d say it’s the crux of the problem. If just Jews loved Israel, she’d be a dead duck. At most, she might be able to finesse the 1967 borders, no right of return, and a conspicuous respect for the civil rights of Palestinian Israelis.

      • Citizen says:

        @ Colin Wright,
        Aw, come on, haven’t you ever seen Revenge Of The Nerds? Never underestimate Jewish romanticism, whether in Hollywood films or on the foreign policy front.

  17. karendevito says:

    That Dayan used the phrases “moral claim” and “inalienable rights” to support his argument makes the mind gag.

    • ColinWright says:

      Add ‘moral claim’ and ‘inalienable rights’ to the ever-growing list of possible last refuges for scoundrels.

      • Citizen says:

        Kinda hard to use the phrase “inalienable rights” without looking at the US Declaration of Independence. Yes, it is inconvenient for Israel that equal rights is part of that document. Makes me wonder how the concept of man being made in the image of God entails degrees of same. Some folks are just born looking more like God than others?

  18. talknic says:

    Challenge: find the words “defensive war” in International Law, Laws of War, UN Charter, UNSC resolutions, Conventions, Ceasefire/Armistice/Peace Agreements.

    It’s quite simply ziosh*te for the gullible.

    • ColinWright says:

      Well, that’s the meat and potatoes of the Zionist argument. It always has been. One glib, vaguely plausible verbal formula after another.

      It’s an endless parade: ‘a land without a people for a people without a land,’ ‘National Home,’ ‘five invading Arab armies,’ ‘the Israeli David,’ ‘Islamofascism,’ ‘only democracy in the Middle East,’ ‘America’s only ally in the Middle East,’ ‘existential threat.’

      Now ‘defensive war.’ I know I’ve missed a bunch.

      In fact, I saw some program for generating plausible-sounding academic theses. Surely it could be adapted to write ‘defenses of Israel.’ In fact, maybe somebody has. It would explain much of what I read.

      • mig says:

        @ColinWright

        It’s an endless parade: ‘a land without a people for a people without a land,’ ‘National Home,’ ‘five invading Arab armies,’ ‘the Israeli David,’ ‘Islamofascism,’ ‘only democracy in the Middle East,’ ‘America’s only ally in the Middle East,’ ‘existential threat.’

        Now ‘defensive war.’ I know I’ve missed a bunch.

        Don’t you worry a bit Colin, if situation changes even a little, ziobot army is making all new arguments just to suite their agenda.

        “Please don’t let the facts get in the way of the Zionist narrative, and make a new ones if necessary”

        • Blake says:

          They sure make things up as they go along.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Blake,

          Is that a problem only because they do it better than any other state regime?
          Well, there’s good, but not that good–nothing helps more than having the only superpower state supporting you no matter what you do. This is a new deal in world history. It is a direct product of the power of money in the seminal democracy which is the USA. I doubt it will ever be repeated again, but how long it will last is any one’s guess; China is not really going to be a such a super power, and even it does become so, AIPAC clones will not be nearly so successful within China, where they would be much more of a graft.

        • ColinWright says:

          “…if situation changes even a little, ziobot army is making all new arguments just to suite their agenda…”

          The worst of it is that they’re not really arguments. They’re just glib little decoctions of obvious lies, attractively packaged and arranged so that those who prefer to believe them can.

  19. lobewyper says:

    There will be one state, but Palestinians will for the most part be confined to bantustans. The Israelis are very fearful of further terrorist/rocket attacks, and will do everything in their power to deny Palestinians full freedom of movement as well as many other basic human rights. What is more, they will do so without the slightest feelings of guilt and claim that it is necessary for “security reasons.” It will be deja vu all over again.

    • straightline says:

      lobewyper: “The Israelis are very fearful of further terrorist/rocket attacks”.

      It is clear that Israel provokes rocket attacks in order to justify to their US audience visiting further violence on the Palestinians – witness Cast Lead among many. The game is about “persuading” the Palestinians to leave. So in what sense do they fear these attacks?

  20. Mooser says:

    So let’s see. I’m supposed to look at Zionists, who made this situation, as the saviours of the Jews? How surprised and hurt they are when they come here and fingering their kippah nervously, and blubbering “I don’t get no respect!”

  21. ColinWright says:

    ” …Yossi Beilin, a left-wing former Israeli minister, wrote a telling article a few months ago. A veteran American diplomat touring the area had told Mr. Beilin he’d left frightened because he found everyone — Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan and Saudi Arabia — content with the current situation. Mr. Beilin finds this widespread satisfaction disturbing, too.

    I think it is wonderful news. If the international community relinquished its vain attempts to attain the unattainable two-state solution, and replaced them with intense efforts to improve and maintain the current reality on the ground, it would be even better…”

    If one takes this professed ‘satisfaction’ and compares and contrasts it with the actual, concrete reality — Palestinians kept from their fields, Palestinians expelled from their homes, Palestinians stoned, Palestinians shot, Palestinians denied water, Palestinians herded into what are fast becoming walled ghettos — the piece becomes literally obscene in its hypocritical evil.

  22. So where is the Palestinian leadership?

    Doesn’t the Palestinian leadership read the tea leaves or Mondoweiss or Dani Dayan’s NYTimes Op Ed piece.

    With annexation imminent, the Pal leaders should be on the phone with the Quartet clamoring for an immediate peace summit ( if only to forestall the annexation).

    Am I wrong? What gives? Did I miss something?

    • ColinWright says:

      Yeah. You missed the part where the Palestinians figured out ‘the peace negotiations game.’

      Unlike Charlie Brown, at a certain point they do stop running up and trying to kick the football. Israel knows perfectly well what she has to do if she wants to enter into serious negotiations. So do you.

      Stop stealing land.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “With annexation imminent, the Pal leaders should be on the phone with the Quartet clamoring for an immediate peace summit ( if only to forestall the annexation).”

      “Pals”?? Racist. How would you like if the Hebrew-speakers were referred to as “Heebs”?

      Also, when has the PALESTIANS’ participation in the so-called “peace process” resulted in the zios halting, even for a second, the spread of the cancer of zionism on the land of Palestine? Hell, the Palestinians couldn’t even get ‘yahoo to completely halt the continued settlement expansion for one second. Why would now be any different if the Palestinians were to run to israel’s lawyers as you suggest?

      And it’s also pretty scummy of you to suggest that there is fault with the victims here. It is the israelis who are committing the crime. Your statement is like the guy who says about the woman who’s about to become a rape victim: “She really should take off her clothes and just let the rapist have his way. If she resists and her dress is torn, she only has herself to be blamed.”

    • talknic says:

      proudzionist777 July 27, 2012 at 3:18 am

      “So where is the Palestinian leadership?”

      UNICEF for one … drip … drip

      “With annexation imminent, the Pal leaders should be on the phone with the Quartet clamoring for an immediate peace summit ( if only to forestall the annexation).

      Am I wrong? … Did I miss something?”

      Yes. Quite a lot. The act of annexation is A) admittance that the territory you’re annexing is not your own and; B) LEGAL annexation under Customary International Law, which the US was instrumental in eventually being adopted by the International Community when it first held a referendum amongst the legitimate MEXICAN citizens of Texas (sans US citizens) asking them, if they WANTED to be a part of the USA, then held a referendum of US citizens asking if they wanted Texas to be a part of the US.

      The attempted annexation of East Jerusalem missed one important step. A referendum amongst the actual citizens of the territory Israel was annexing, sans Israeli citizens. That’s why it was condemned by the UNSC Resolution 252 and SEVEN reminders. UNSC Res 476 encapsulates it rather nicely.. Ever read it?

      It’s Israel who must negotiate. An agreement can circumvent the consequences of the law, from which Israel is protected by only one veto vote in the UNSC. All those illegal facts on the ground in one basket. Faced with the law and UN Charter, Israel would be bankrupt for decades, not to mention having to re-locate hundreds of thousands of very angry Israeli citizens who’ve been duped for 64 years into thinking they were living in Israel.

      • Taxi says:

        “… hundreds of thousands of very angry Israeli citizens who’ve been duped for 64 years into thinking they were living in Israel.”

        Peh! Don’t you believe this, Talky. First, it’s millions not “hundreds of thousands”. Secondly, everyone in israel KNOWS EXACTLY what’s going on here.

        The greed, the greed, that leads to horror!

        • talknic says:

          Taxi July 27, 2012 at 7:22 am
          “First, it’s millions not “hundreds of thousands””

          Quite, but let’s not quibble about how many hundreds of thousands. Some might choose to become Palestinian citizens.

          “Secondly, everyone in israel KNOWS EXACTLY what’s going on here”

          Yes and to that extent, the Palestinians and Arab States have been more than generous in agreeing to forfeit territory. Israel has yet to offer anything.

  23. straightline says:

    Where are the Palestinian leaders? Most of them have either been killed or locked up by Israel.

  24. Taxi says:

    So like , that picture of settlements and the Apartheid israeli flag:

    I see olive groves taking over the land soon again and the Palestinian flag flying soft in a peaceful breeze.

    Zionists can build and omh and aah about a one state and democracy blah blah blah – non of it means anything when zionism’s days are numbered.

  25. jonah says:

    The Palestinians are by now politically death. On the one hand, Hamas – considered a terrorist organization by Europe and America – has no weight in the political process, since it reject any kind of peace negotiation with Israel, as written in its Charter. It is committed to the liberation of all of “Palestine” and will never relinquish to its wet bloody dream.
    On the other hand, the Palestinian Authority, headed by a PLO veteran and Arafat’s former right hand man, remains in power without mandate of the people and is too weak (and unwilling) to pursue a policy that would bring about a lasting peace with the Jewish state. Moreover, the ruling clique in Ramallah is corrupt to the core and is interested in safeguarding privileges and monetary interests, derived from the millionaires donations from around the world, Europe and America in the forefront. The international community – in the absence of alternatives – prefers to turn a blind eye to its failed child rather than draw the necessary consequences of its bankruptcy support. All actions taken by the PA are nothing but a bad omen for any progress in the peace process: their incitement to hatred of Israel, the glorification of terrorists, the anti-Israel propaganda and the failed attempts to be recognized as state in the UN, the futile efforts to reunify with Hamas. But it has, indeed, a clear intent: to do everything possible to ensure that nothing happens. The Palestinian people
    Israel for its part will not want to go beyond what Olmert offered Abbas in 2008 and was dropped by the Palestinians without any answer. Even the Netanyahu government t accepted the principle of a Palestinian state, but the Palestinian refusal to negotiate does not come as a surprise.
    Thus, the status quo is by far the best solution, until a new pragmatic generation of Palestinian politicians will be able to reach a durable peace agreement with Israel. Until this comes true – it will takes years, probably decades – the Jews will continue to build in Judea and Samaria, as do their closest neighbors the Arab Palestinians.

    So relax and be optimistic: The ‘disputed territories’ will eventually become the model of peaceful coexistence of different ethnies for the whole Middle East and beyond. With tacit, wise blessing of the world. Inshallah!

    • So relax and be optimistic: The ‘disputed territories’ will eventually become the model of peaceful coexistence of different ethnies for the whole Middle East and beyond. With tacit, wise blessing of the world. Inshallah!

      shorter jonah: enjoy your own execution, there’s peace in submission to the inevitable.

      • Shmuel says:

        shorter jonah: enjoy your own execution, there’s peace in submission to the inevitable

        Even shorter jonah: “War is peace”.

        • Averroes says:

          The famous Roman historian Tacitus had an insightful quote some 2000 yrs ago:

          “To plunder, butcher, steal, these things they misname empire: they make a desolation (or wasteland) and they call it peace.”

          With slight modification, add “and they create settlements”, and would fit beautifully.

        • ColinWright says:

          This is very unfair to the Roman empire, which — unlike Israel — did not feel the need to pointlessly bait subject populations and also proved entirely willing to extend Roman citizenship to them. Somewhat ironically, even the Jews were eventually incorporated into the Roman power structure.

          Of course, this helps to explain why it was close to 2000 years from the probable approximate date of the founding of Rome to the fall of Constantinople in 1453. I give Israel somewhere between ten and thirty more years, depending.

        • Averroes says:

          Colin,

          I agree, but was specifically referring to the part about calling a process or strategy “peace” or “peaceful”, when in fact they are manifestations of the complete antithesis of peace. Also agree with your assessment that it’s the proverbial ticking time-bomb for the Zionist state of Israel. Only a matter of time.

      • jonah says:

        enjoy your own execution, there’s peace in submission to the inevitable.

        still dreaming the destruction of the hated enemy rather than see the own sinking ship …

        • tree says:

          jonah,

          The quoted text was a merely a shorthand text of your longer post. You are the one gloating over “the destruction of the hated enemy”. We can all see the hatred oozing through your comment. You aren’t fooling anyone here.

    • Averroes says:

      Ah yes, the Palestinians are the rejectionists, while the Great State of Israel is always so ecstatically eager in pursuit of peace and resolving the shitload of problems that it’s created over the past 60+ years. The Palestinians should not only accept whatever bones and scraps are thrown to them, but be unreservedly thankful and grateful for these generous concessions by the the State that has dispossessed and expunged them from their land and from the mainstream discourse of history. There is a short clip by the comedian Eddie Griffin, in reference to the Mexicans and indigenous communities of the US, that applies almost perfectly to the situation in Palestine:

      • MHughes976 says:

        That’s the heart of the matter, isn’t it? The Zionist principle is that only Jewish people are in Palestine by right, others only by grace and kindness. So gratitude for any small mercy is in order.
        As I write I’m watching the Olympic opening ceremony 24 hours late. The Palestinian team duly appeared. A small mercy of another sort.

    • jonah says:

      ADDENDUM: The PA through the mouth of Fayyad is complaining again ……

      link to ynetnews.com

    • talknic says:

      jonah July 27, 2012 at 6:13 pm

      Here’s a few indisputable facts for you to ponder over..

      Israel was recognized as a state before having recognized any one.

      Israel was recognized whilst at war in its neighbour’s territory.

      Israel was recognized whilst acquiring territory by force, territory it has never legally annexed or withdrawn from.

      Israel was accepted into the UN before ever having signed an Armistice Agreement or Peace Agreement with anyone.

    • anan says:

      Jonah, Khaled Meshaal told Charlie Rose that he was open to a two state solution. Why don’t you believe Khaled Meshaal?

      I am a fan of Mustafa Barghouti, are you? Do you admire Fayyad’s free market pro business reforms?

    • Roya says:

      On the one hand, Hamas – considered a terrorist organization by Europe and America – has no weight in the political process, since it reject any kind of peace negotiation with Israel…

      The PLO also had no weight in the political process but that was because it was willing to negotiate with Israel. Israel has already made it clear to the Palestinians that negotiating is not going to get them a state, so is anybody really surprised about Hamas resorting to violence? When you silence the moderates you strengthen the hardliners. As Bradley Burston of Haaretz wisely noted, Israel was Hamas’ campaign manager for the 2006 elections.

    • ColinWright says:

      “…Thus, the status quo is by far the best solution, until a new pragmatic generation of Palestinian politicians will be able to reach a durable peace agreement with Israel…”

      This is a hasbara standard. The stinking, reeking hypocrisy of such statements from people who have clearly demonstrated they are unwilling to come to anything resembling a ‘peace agreement’ is really hard to take. I dread reading the next demand for ‘compromise’ from a party that has taken 4/5ths of the land at issue and isn’t willing to settle for that.

  26. AllenBee says:

    the housing is ugly.

    Leila Shawa’s family had orange groves in Gaza. She and her family were forced from their home and their family’s plantation in 1948. Shawa, an artist, says the land and architecture were magically beautiful. She comments that the buildings that Jewish settlers built to replace the indigenous architecture was an “arrogant statement that we now control you.”

  27. jonah says:

    …. errata corrige: politically dead, it rejects, Palestinian people ….

  28. notatall says:

    “The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.”
    Alexander Stephens, “Vice-President” of the “Confederate States of America,” March 21, 1861