Walt, Munayyer, and Mearsheimer offer one state scenarios, and my response

AzNB3M2CAAE8SfP jpg large
Swimming pool in Ma’ale Adumim settlement, not far from Palestinian villages that lack water. Photo by Scott Roth

Jerome Slater first posted this valuable exchange over the two-state solution with John Mearsheimer, Yousef Munayyer, and Stephen Walt.

No serious observer doubts that a two-state settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is currently all but dead, thanks to the continuing Israeli occupation, repression, settler expansion, and creeping ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. An increasing number of activists and academic specialists on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict regard this process as irreversible. Consequently, many now advocate a “one-state settlement,” meaning the creation of a binational democracy in all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, with equal rights for all its citizens, regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity: the democratic republic of “Isratine,” as some have called it.

I have been very skeptical of both the feasibility and desirability of such a single binational state: I can’t imagine circumstances in which Israel will agree to it, I don’t think it is likely to be a democracy, and I think it is more likely to exacerbate the Jewish-Palestinian conflict than to end it. (I develop the argument at length in a forthcoming article in the journal Political Science Quarterly, entitled “Zionism, the Jewish State Issue, and an Israeli-Palestinian Settlement.”)

In the last few days I’ve had several email exchanges with three leading scholars of the conflict who believe that a one-state outcome is nearly inevitable–Steve Walt, John Mearsheimer, and Yousef Munayyer, the Palestinian-American scholar and activist who heads the Palestine Center in Washington. I think this debate will be of interest to many readers, so I have received permission from Steve, John, and Yousef to publish the most important parts of our email exchanges.

I began the exchanges by writing the following comment:

There is no serious doubt that the only reason that there hasn’t been a two-state settlement along the well-understood lines has been Israeli intransigence–i.e. not that of the Palestinians, including Hamas.  It is probably true that the two-state settlement is all but dead because of that intransigence.   However, the argument that the one-state position must address is this: every factor that accounts for Israeli intransigence on a two-state solution makes a democratic one-state solution, with a probable Palestinian majority,  doubly hard to imagine.  And if, by some miracle, Israeli attitudes should somehow change, that would make a two-state settlement attainable long before it could make a one-state settlement possible.
       What, exactly, is the counterargument to this assessment?

Walt responded:

I believe the main argument would run like this: even if Israeli attitudes were to change in the next decade or so, the two populations are by now sufficiently intermingled that it would be impossible—as a practical matter–to disentangle them.  The Palestinians will eventually shift from demanding independent statehood to demanding political rights within Israel, which Israeli Jews will resist at first (and for a while).  They will eventually be forced to accommodate these demands, however, because the alternatives (ethnic cleansing or permanent apartheid) will be untenable globally. This doesn’t make a one-state solution easy to implement at all, it just means that we’ll end up with a not very functional single state.  

I’m not saying this WILL happen, only that this is the basic logic that those forecasting one state seem to have in mind.

I responded:

Perhaps.  On the other hand, “untenable globally” in this context seems to mean morally and politically untenable in the eyes of the international “community.”   The problem is that the Israeli occupation and repression of the Palestinians already has been morally and politically anathema  (untenable) for many years now, with not the slightest impact on Israel or the U.S., which is the only member of the international community that counts for anything in Israeli eyes.   
       So, if you are right that’s the logic of the one-staters, they have a mighty thin reed to lean on.    For that reason, I still think the best strategy is serious pressure on Israel to agree to a two-state settlement—and, moreover, a two-state settlement is likely to be far more stable and less utopian than one state. 
      Put differently, sustained pressure on Israel is the only hope; as remote as the possibility that such U.S. pressures will materialize, the possibility that even serious and sustained pressures would force Israel to agree to anything resembling a one-state democracy with equal rights for the Palestinians is, for all practical purposes, unimaginable. 

Similarly, Munayyer has argued that if the Palestinians give up the chimera of the creation of an independent state in the occupied territories, Israel will be forced to agree to a binational state. In our exchange, he put it this way:

If the two state outcome is exposed for fantasy, and Palestinians en masse demand civil rights, it is hard to see a sustained, western objection. This will force Israeli decision makers to do the math; what costs them more power sharing or relinquishing the land? It is hard math to do, in part because the cost of power sharing is much harder to determine when new political realities will create a completely different political landscape from which coalitions are formed. Yet, with every passing day, the cost of relinquishing the land continues to increase.

Joining in these exchanges, Mearsheimer wrote the following:

I think the main problem with your argument is that there is no way the US is going to put serious pressure on Israel to accept a two-state solution. Obama tried and failed miserably; it wasn’t even close.

I might add that to create a viable Palestinian state would require us to put enormous pressure on Israel, because we would have to reverse so many facts on the ground and because the hardliners are so powerful in Israel. In my opinion, there is no chance this is going to happen. We now have and will continue to have for the foreseeable future a Greater Israel.

And by the way, as time goes by, it will become even more difficult to move toward a two-state solution as the settlement enterprise will grow even larger.

On the one-state solution, I think there is no question that Israeli Jews will mightily resist democracy inside Greater Israel. That situation will cause all sorts of problems for the Israelis and give them powerful incentives to expel the Palestinians. I worry a lot about that outcome and hope that the Palestinians have the good sense not to play into Israel’s hands.

You think there is a good chance that Greater Israel can maintain itself for the foreseeable future, even if it is not a democracy and is indeed an apartheid state. After all, they have been able to maintain the occupation all these years. You may be right; one does marvel at how Israel has been able to avoid serious sanctions for its past behavior toward the Palestinians.

Still, I think you are wrong. The world has changed and is changing in ways that will make it impossible over the long term to maintain an Israel that is an apartheid state, and here I am talking the next thirty or so years. Very briefly, here are my reasons.

1. Israel has benefitted greatly from the illusion that there will be a two-state solution; that will soon be over.

2. Greater Israel will be (is) an apartheid state and that will be hard to miss and very difficult to defend — I would argue impossible over the long term.

3. The face of Israel is undergoing a fundamental transformation with the steady drift to the right, the growing racism, and the growing numbers of ultra-orthodox. That, coupled with apartheid, will make it hard for Israel to sell itself as a “Western society,” as it has done so well in the past.

4. The internet makes it almost impossible to miss what is going on in Israel.

5. Israel’s “new historians” have made it clear what the Israelis have done and are doing to the Palestinians and that has generated a huge amount of sympathy for the Palestinians around the world. Israel in the past was very adept at selling itself as the victim. Now they look like brutal victimizers and the Palestinians look like the victims.

6. The lobby is powerful, but it now has to operate out in the open and engage in smash-mouth politics. That is not good; as Steve Rosen said, “A lobby is like a night flower; it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun.”

7. The American Jewish community is hardly monolithic and it contains a substantial number of people who are deeply critical of Israeli behavior and willing to voice their opinions. I believe those numbers will grow over time; Peter Beinart is a harbinger of things to come.

8. The Holocaust is receding into history and it will become increasingly difficult for Israel and its supporters to invoke that horrific tragedy to provide Israel with cover.

9. Elites in the Arab and Islamic world are becoming more Westernized and are much better able to engage in politics in the West than they were in the past.

10. The Arab world is likely to become more democratic and more educated over time and that is likely to make countries in the Middle East more critical of Israel. This is what is now happening in Egypt.

11. There is an important precedent that many will point to so as to delegitimize Greater Israel and make the case for turning it into a real democracy: South Africa.

For all these reasons, I don’t think it will be possible for Greater Israel to maintain itself as an apartheid state over the long term. Again, this is why I am fearful that Israel will pursue expulsion.  Of course, I may be wrong about all this, but I don’t think so.”

I responded:

I don’t think we disagree any of the most important facts; indeed, in some ways my views are bleaker than yours, at least in terms of their implications in the next few years.   As for what may occur over the next thirty years, who knows? My gut feeling is that the longer the occupation goes on, the more and more irreversible it will become.  
I also agree that in the current circumstances there is no possibility of serious U.S. pressure.  Still, my view is that the best strategy over the longer run is not to abandon the two-state idea but to work to change US immobilism and complicity with Israel on this issue. A very long shot, to be sure, but more imaginable to me than a one-state “solution.”
Regarding your specific points:
1. I’m not sure there are any knowledgable observers, or governments, that still have illusions about Israel’s torpedoing of the two-state solution.  The dispelling of those illusions, however, hasn’t stopped Israel from continuing on its present course.
2. For those interested in the obvious facts–to be sure, a very large caveat–Israeli behavior is already not merely very difficult but impossible to defend.  Yet, it not only continues, but worsens.  

3. I agree with your portrayal of what Israel is becoming, or already has become. I guess where I differ is my pessimism that Israel will be forced to change course simply because it will be increasingly difficult for it to sell itself as a “Western society.”
4. The internet has already had the effect—or should have had the effect– of making it impossible to ignore what has happened to Israel. Query: can anyone think of any other long-standing and highly visible conflict in which incontrovertible facts have mattered so little?
5. The work of the new historians goes back at least thirty years, proving not merely that the Israelis look like brutal victimizers and the Palestinians look like victims–but that the perceptions are true.  But the beat goes on.
6. In light of recent events, hard to see how the lobby has been hurt much by its need to operate in the open–to the extent that it has, that is.
7. It’s very hard for me to be optimistic that the growing minority of American Jewish dissenters have had, or will have, much impact on the U.S. or Israeli policy-making process.   Maybe Peter Beinart is a harbinger of things to come.  On the other hand, maybe the behavior of Obama, Romney and the Congress is a greater harbinger of things to remain the same.

8. I agree that “it will become increasingly difficult for Israel and its supporters to invoke that horrific tragedy to provide Israel with cover.” However, that has long been obvious….

9 &10. It’s too soon to know if the pro-democratic and moderate Arab elites as well as public opinion will prevail. Recent events suggest that the possibility that the Arab spring may yet turn into another—if different–Arab winter.

11. I agree that the South Africa precedent is a powerful and hopeful one. Still, I’m less optimistic than you that Israel will see it that way: the general Israeli reaction has not been to recoil in horror at the face in the mirror and reach the obvious conclusions, but to retreat further into defiance and a perverse belief that they are the victims.

I would love to believe that Steve, John, and Yousef are right in their basic analysis: that the growing international (and some Jewish) horror at Israel’s policies will force the Israelis to confront their behavior, which will lead to positive change.   I just don’t see it that way–on the contrary, nearly all the trends in Israeli society are going in the opposite direction.  (For a powerful statement of how an Israeli Jewish liberal sees it, see this:

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-final-moment-before-the-liberal-population-leaves-israel.premium-1.465231

).    Should these trends continue, we’ll soon be worrying about how civil rights/civil liberties/genuine democracy can be preserved for liberal Israeli Jews, let alone expanded to include the Palestinians.

I can’t resist adding this observation:  It is really interesting–indeed, heartwarming–that the most optimistic assessments of how the Israelis might be forced to reevaluate their present catastrophic course seems to be coming from the non-Jewish observers: John, Steve, Yousef, and others. Perhaps my pessimism is partially explained by the fact that, as a Jew and liberal Zionist, I am outraged by Israel’s betrayal (and the American Jewish cover-my-eyes-cover-my-ears-cover-my-nose-I-don’t-want-to-know  complicity in that betrayal) of so much of what was  worthwhile in the Jewish tradition. I fervently hope that they are right, and we can yet be saved from ourselves.

In the meantime, let me reiterate my main point: the burden of proof is on those who see the one-state solution as inevitable and/or desirable: as I see it, every obstacle to the attainment of a two-state settlement makes a one-state settlement inconceivable.   How do one-state proponents propose to deal with all the obvious problems of feasibility and desirability?  And if the argument is that under certain assumptions in the long run these problems can be resolved, then why can’t the obstacles to a two-state solution, under similar but not quite so daunting assumptions, also be resolved over the longer run?

Put differently, the necessary changes in the Israeli beliefs, attitudes and policies that would make possible a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would allow for the creation of an independent and viable Palestinian state long before they would allow for the creation of the binational democracy of Isratine.

About Jerome Slater

Jerome Slater is a professor (emeritus) of political science and now a University Research Scholar at the State University of New York at Buffalo. He has taught and written about U.S. foreign policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for nearly 50 years, both for professional journals (such as International Security, Security Studies, and Political Science Quarterly) and for many general periodicals. He writes foreign policy columns for the Sunday Viewpoints section of the Buffalo News. And his website it www.jeromeslater.com.
Posted in Israel/Palestine | Tagged

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

  1. seanmcbride says:

    What might be most likely to happen: Likud Zionists will succeed in consolidating Greater Israel and violently expelling most or all Palestinians under the cover of a generalized global war between “the West” and Islam. This has been their strategy for several decades now and so far it has been working like a charm — certainly it is still on track.

    I didn’t get the sense from this exchange that Slater, Walt or Mearsheimer are thinking about the big strategic picture, neocon-style. Whatever one wants to say about neoconservatives, they *are* big strategic thinkers and have the ability to manipulate the American political system with extraordinary effectiveness.

    One can easily imagine several scenarios (including scenarios triggered by spectacular false flag ops) in which the neocons might succeed in radically escalating the current level of tension and conflict between the West and Islam. Think about it. One of those scenarios is likely to unfold.

    It is predictable that the American Jewish establishment will go along with whatever game plan the Israeli government, the Israel lobby and the neocons provide for them. Jewish dissidents from the Jewish establishment will remain effectively marginalized — they are vastly overpowered in terms of financial resources and social networking among the power elite.

    What I am suggesting is that neither the two-state solution nor the democratic one-state solution is going to come to pass. Deal with it.

    • Jerry Slater says:

      “What I am suggesting is that neither the two-state solution nor the democratic one-state solution is going to come to pass. Deal with it.”

      That’s probably right. But “deal with it” how?

      • Donald says:

        “That’s probably right. But “deal with it” how?”

        That’s the key question. I can’t imagine the US government actually pressuring Israel to offer a workable 2SS that might be acceptable to the Palestinians, let alone a 1SS. If we Americans weren’t so deeply involved in enabling Israel’s worst behavior, I’d write them off as another country with a rotten human rights record that doesn’t want to change.

        Here’s another question. Supposing Israel won’t change. Could we at least change the US/Israeli “special relationship”, which so far as I can tell mostly consists of us uttering weak statements of mild disapproval when they build more settlements, and giving them weapons so they can drop them on Arabs? If anything, the example of Romney and the lack of support for Obama when he wanted a settlement freeze shows that the US is starting to become openly Likud-like in its attitudes, without even the pretense of evenhandedness. ( I don’t mean to imply any particular support for Obama above–he and his administration have said and done some pretty disgusting things too.)

        • American says:

          “Here’s another question. Supposing Israel won’t change. Could we at least change the US/Israeli “special relationship”, which so far as I can tell mostly consists of us uttering weak statements of mild disapproval when they build more settlements, and giving them weapons so they can drop them on Arabs?”…Donald

          Yep, that’s what it all comes down to……changing the US-Isr-US zionist relationship.
          Otherwise no chance for Palestine or change in Israel.
          Unless the world shut the US out of I/P and some international body took over the settlement of it.
          I would be delighted to see my country get a gaint kick in the ass over Israel and I/P by someone(s)…we deserve it, we gotten too fucking corrupt and too big for our own britches.

        • seafoid says:

          I don’t see how Israel can freeze everything as it is now. The Zionists are afraid of goy America waking up one day and realising that the relationship with Israel does nothing for them. As soon as the relationship is seen for what it is- a contrivance – everything looks different.

          Gaza is going to have to be abandoned between 2020 and 2025 . I can’t see hasbara working effective PR on that.

          Israel will be really extremist by 2020. The Orthodox will be calling the shots in league with the settlers. It will be very ugly. The clash of civilisations shtick will look very weak by then.

          We don’t know whjat will happen to the Israeli economy but we do know it doesn’t have the flexibility to cope with an existential crisis such as a cut off in funding or a run on Israeli bonds and the longer apartheid goes on for the more something like this is likely.

          And we don’t know how the Arab world will look by 2020 either.

        • Rusty Pipes says:

          The realities involve problems with Israel’s and America’s internal politics. Even if there had been a point in Israel’s past in which its leaders had been willing and able to negotiate a realistic settlement, those factors do not exist now and seem even less likely to be present in the future. Israel’s Jewish demographics are becoming increasingly right-wing (especially given the higher birth-rate among its most conservative communities), that demographic is entrenched among the settler population and a growing presence in the military and political leadership. They will not enter into good faith negotiations for human rights or redress for Palestinians either within a one-state or two-state framework.

          In addition, Americans are even in less of a position than before to apply pressure to both parties in order to bring about a negotiated settlement. In addition to all of the obstacles which M&W mentioned in their book, the Citizens’ United case has made major donors the largest influence in candidates’ political platforms and commitments. With the decline of labor unions and the economic pinch on middle class small donors, the Democratic Party is especially vulnerable to pressure from its major Zionist donors.

          The flaw is in assuming that since Israelis won’t negotiate in good faith and since American politicians not only won’t put pressure on them to do so, but will trip over each other to demonstrate who can enable Israeli intransigence more, that Palestinians have no options for securing their human rights. 64 years is an extremely generous amount of time to give Israel the opportunity to fulfill its treaty obligations and engage in good faith negotiations. It’s past time for the Palestinians to prosecute Israel through international courts and for the UN to enforce its mandates (and if the US continues to block the SC, the GA has enough cause to override the SC).

        • Rusty Pipes says:

          “The Zionists are afraid of goy America waking up one day and realising that the relationship with Israel does nothing for them.”

          You think so? Netanyahu thinks that America is a thing easily moved. Even some Israelis who don’t think it’s entirely easy are busy in think tanks working up new ways to spin and distract the American public. So, currently, we get daily doses of Assadwashing from even “intellectual” sources like NPR, and an occasional puff piece on Israeli culture, rather than updates on the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem. And those rare occasions when some daylight appears between the US and Israeli positions are prime opportunities to solicit donations and support for “Israel, your safe haven from anti-Semites” and possibly even encourage Jewish American aliyah.

        • Sumud says:

          Israel will be really extremist by 2020.

          And we don’t know how the Arab world will look by 2020 either.

          Hot tip:
          Israel – SELL
          Arab world – BUY

        • Hostage says:

          In addition, Americans are even in less of a position than before to apply pressure to both parties in order to bring about a negotiated settlement.

          That “negotiated settlement” nonsense is a ridiculous talking point introduced by the United States decades ago to head off calls for an arbitrated settlement. The parties have failed to come to an agreement for more than 60 years. During the Reagan administration, the General Assembly convened an emergency special session and proposed a real international peace conference (ala the Concert of Europe or Versailles) that could formulate an arbitrated settlement which would not be susceptible to any appeals. The United States has always opposed that idea on the grounds that it would derail its own non-productive peace initiatives.

          The US simply does not have the political capital or the support of key Arab states that it needs to go on controlling the international agenda under vague open-ended frameworks.

      • Kathleen says:

        Oh it will be dealt with all right with lots of death, injuries, more destruction and apartheid.

        And more awareness about the facts on the ground. Would not want to be an Israeli traveling around the world.

    • American says:

      “I didn’t get the sense from this exchange that Slater, Walt or Mearsheimer are thinking about the big strategic picture, neocon-style.”..Sean

      I think they are all fairly realistic. But Slater has the sense of urgency W&M don’t have and/or they are basically resigned to the 2 state solution being impossible now.

    • libra says:

      SM: “What I am suggesting is that neither the two-state solution nor the democratic one-state solution is going to come to pass. Deal with it.”

      Well Sean, as you’re suggesting massive, even complete, ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by the Israelis is the likely eventuality then we surely better “deal with it”. Preferably before it happens.

      How about a list (even a short list) of ideas to prevent it? Try to be creative. After all, that’s the sign of real intelligence.

      • seanmcbride says:

        libra wrote:

        Well Sean, as you’re suggesting massive, even complete, ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by the Israelis is the likely eventuality then we surely better “deal with it”. Preferably before it happens.

        How about a list (even a short list) of ideas to prevent it? Try to be creative. After all, that’s the sign of real intelligence.

        I don’t think there are any realistic options to prevent it. Do you? What are they?

        The Israel lobby is vastly more powerful and wealthy than critics of Israel in American politics, much better organized, and much more highly motivated — and especially at the highest levels of the American power structure — in Wall Street, in the military-industrial complex, in the mainstream media, in Congress, etc.

        What critics of Israel mostly succeed in doing is venting steam and losing ground year by year.

        Tell me I’m wrong.

        Israel is having much greater success at pushing the United States towards the fascist right than the United States is having in pushing Israel towards the democratic center or left. In the context of an all-out violent war between the West and Islam, ethnic cleansing would barely be classified by most Americans as an offense.

        • libra says:

          SM: What critics of Israel mostly succeed in doing is venting steam and losing ground year by year.

          Tell me I’m wrong.

          You’re not wrong which is why a change of approach is needed. That’s why I challenged you to think creatively. We should get more into that habit rather than just venting emotionally. But your current mood of resignation makes creative thinking unlikely. Or perhaps it’s not your strong point anyway. But you are good at analysis.

          So what are the weak points of the the “Israel Lobby” (in it’s widest sense)? Every opponent has weaknesses. That is axiomatic. A wise general does not directly attack his enemy at his strongest point. So that rules out trying to outspend them.

          But what about their moral foundation? It seems a vast effort is made to give Israel a facade of morality as it seeks to do the most immoral things (I’m with you on the direction it is going in). That looks like a massive potential weakness to me. What do you think? Could this be analysed for specific points of weakness? Ideally to find a point where pushing actually turns the machinery of Zionism against itself.

          As a final note. There seems to be almost hysterical opposition to the idea of Palestinians demanding equal rights in a single-state, often from people who don’t portray themselves as Zionists. Slater’s post here is a good example. That confirms to me that they know they have a weak moral underbelly that they don’t want exposed.

    • Krauss says:

      I view Israel as very likely to try ethnic cleansing. Here’s my comment on Jerome’s blog(just published it, so it’s not yet visible there):

      My own view is a hybrid of Jerome’s and Mearsheimer’s.

      I think Israel will continue for quite a long time. Probably at least 20 years hence.

      However, I don’t think that by 2030, things will be able to be contained.

      The demographics argument is actually interesting. There will be more Jews in Greater Israel in 20 years as a percentage of the population than now, thanks to the explosive Haredi birth rates.

      Yet, that is precisely why I am saying the situation cannot go on.

      Israel’s secular middle class will continue to shrink, squeezed by Israeli Arab birth rates and Haredi birth rates.

      The trouble will not only to sell themselves to the Western world but also that many liberal Jews, who are the bulk of the non-Orthodox Jewry, will become completely alienated. I see it in my own family.

      You just can’t sell spitting on small girls cross the street because of “immodesty” very well.

      And the economic implications are huge too.

      I also fear, like John Mearsheimer, that Israel will resort to ethnic cleansing. In fact I even view it as likely.

      Israel has done it twice before historically, this isn’t some novel, extreme step for them to take but merely a continuation of an old tradition.

      The problem is that they can’t do it as easily as before, the secular puppet dictators are gone, and we’re talking about millions of people, not hundreds of thousands.

      For these reasons it will be impossible for Israel to do it, unless there is a huge conflagration. A massive Middle Eastern war, involved Iran(but also others) would suffice.

      Is this why Bibi is seeking the war?

      Nonetheless, even in the event of an ethnic cleansing, it won’t be effective because of the inescapability of documentation. And the total disgust of the Western liberal classes.

      Sure, the lobby could strong-arm political support in Congress, but that would be the death knell for it in the media. Only the extreme likudniks like the folks at Weekly Standard or Commentary would continue to support it, or folks like Fred Hiatt at WaPo and Krauthammer.

      But the ‘moderate Zionists’(if you can call them that) would totally turn on Israel. Not because they are angels, but because they are, after all, a minority among liberal journalists and their entire social circle would treat them like pariahs if they started to defend the ethnic cleansing in the pages of the NYT.

      Won’t happen. Just look at Bibi’s attempt to intervene recently. If that causes an uproar, then imagine what that would do.

      Still, you never know.

      Even if we assume that it took place, because of the interior demographics, Israel won’t do much.

      50 % of all children in kindergarten today(inside the green line, or what remains of it) is either Haredi or Arab.

      Israel’s score on the latest PISA(in 2009), even exluding Arabs and Haredi children, is the lowest of all OECD countries(dead last out of 33 countries).

      And if you factor in Arabs and Haredi, you get to levels where Kazakhtan is, or perhaps below even that.

      Israel is facing a perfect storm internally. If the internals were strong, I think they could ride this out. But the internals are very brittle and it will get worse.

      Already today 400,000 Israeli Jews hold German passports. Once the educated, secular class finally leaves, the collapse will ensue as the self-reinforcing feedback will accelerate even faster.

  2. seafoid says:

    Very interesting discussion. I think Walt is right. What he could have emphasised more is the damage the drift to the right is doing to Israeli society. The other big factor is economics. With more Orthodox who are not as educated as their secular counterparts Israel will become economically weaker. Sure, they will pray but it won’t move the numbers. The squeeze on Israeli liberals by settlers, Zionist working class and Orthodox will force people out and that will also weaken the economy. Israel will more than likely have a property crash and economic recession which will add more pressure.

    And hasbara is dead.
    It all adds up to a grim picture for the bots.

  3. Ramzi Jaber says:

    As a Palestinian, it’s very hard for me to say this as it hurts my pride to the core BUT I will say it: how this conflict will end is ENTIRELY in the hands of israel either

    by what they consciously and deliberately do
    or
    by what they consciously and deliberately do not do.

    We are merely minor player victims, by-standers on the margins of history.

    UNLESS my people take things in their hands and begin DAILY MASS (and I mean MASS, in every city and every village) non-violent demonstrations where each man, woman, and child takes to the streets day in day out. Coupled with a courageous leadership that gathers global support including getting non-member state status at the UN/ICC/ICJ where we can create conditions on israel and their leaders to FEEL OUR PAIN, only then would we re-gain our power as central players in the outcome of this conflict that so deeply impacts my people and towards which we cannot afford to be mere spectators.

    • Newclench says:

      I agree with most of your comment. Though…. I think you don’t need every man woman and child. A lot can be done with smaller numbers. The trend in that direction is a source of hope.
      And
      Demanding that others feel your pain isn’t really a good strategy. Better they should feel your strength.

      • What good can protests inside the occupied territories do unless they exert sufficient influence on international opinion to force foreign governments to withdraw their support of Israel? Recently the Israeli government has been preventing outsiders from reaching the territories, which are effectively ghettoes inside Israel (defined not in legal terms but as the area controlled by the Israeli power structure). This makes me fear that if they consider it necessary they may be able to close all channels of communication between the ghettoes and the outside world, including communication by mail, telephone, fax, e-mail, etc. Inside the “black box” they can then shoot down demonstrators by the thousands, subject the cities to starvation — you name it. Hardly anyone on the outside would know. The Palestinians in the ghettoes are helpless prisoners, and their daily awareness of that fact is probably why they don’t protest in the way you suggest. Why be shot down for nothing? Only those on the outside, who are (more or less) beyond the reach of Israeli power, can do anything to change the situation. That is, it all depends on us.

    • Sumud says:

      As a Palestinian, it’s very hard for me to say this as it hurts my pride to the core BUT I will say it: how this conflict will end is ENTIRELY in the hands of israel either.

      Hi Ramzi ~ I hope you won’t think I’m talking out of turn (I’m in Australia, not Palestine) but I think you’re wrong when you say how the conflict ends is in Israel’s hands, not Palestinians.

      I want to relate a brief story to you. A very good friend of mine is Algerian. When the intifadas began in Tunisia and Egypt I was very curious to see what would happen in Algeria. And there were some murmurs in Algiers but it pretty much fizzled out. But Algerians know their country is rich (gas/oil) and that Bouteflika and his cronies rig the elections and steal the wealth of the nation. So I wondered why did the uprisings not take hold in Algeria also? Simply: Algerians are exhausted after the civil war of the 90s and ongoing bombing attacks that still occur in the country. And as long as they are exhausted there will be no uprising. This is not a matter of pride or something to be ashamed of, it just is. You might think of it as a post-traumatic stress disorder being experienced by the whole country, and normal civil society can’t function properly until that has been resolved – or until some other provocation(s) outweighs the PTSD in the national consciousness. Only then will the arab spring come to Algeria.

      I think the same mechanism is occurring in Palestine. So there was never anything like the hundreds of thousands killed as occurred in Algeria, but who will say life is easier in Palestine than Algeria? Not me. There is a strong security presence (army/gendarme checkpoints) on roads all over, but nothing even close to the situation in Palestine. The entire Israeli occupation is designed to frustrate and humiliate, to make life as hard as possible. To make you leave Palestine, and if that isn’t possible to grind you down and wear you out, completely. To exhaust you. And to a degree, it works.

      Is this something you or any Palestinian should be ashamed of? I say no, not at all. I chose my handle because I am in awe of Palestinian sumud. It’s a noble concept, it’s very positive and it’s something you should be proud of.

      The reason I say it’s not only Israelis that decide the outcome of this conflict, is because of the seachange that has occurred outside Palestine since the end of the second intifada.

      I think the move to non-violence and adoption of BDS has played a big part in turning the tables on Israel. They can and did justify anything in the name of ‘security’ during the 2nd intifada because of the suicide bombings, and those same attacks made it so easy for people outside Palestine to turn off and tune out in disgust. Now those have ended – look at the global outcry after what Israel did to Gaza in 2008/2009. Over what? Rockets that kill on average 2 people a year! Israel’s bloodbath was completely unjustifiable, and they made matters even worse a year later by the killings on the Mavi Marmara.

      I understand that all this has had hardly any effect on the ground in Palestine. But the effect outside is huge and Israel is widely and rightly now viewed as the villain. Even inside the US people know what’s happening, despite the silence and complicity of the mainstream media.

      So back to your original point – where’s your third intifada? I think of the period now as one of consolidation. There were 10 years between the 1st and 2nd intifada and short of some major provocation that’s probably a reasonable timeframe for the third, at least. It’s enough time for a new generation of youth to grow up with new ideas and new energy.

      This is pure speculation but I think the violence of the second intifada was blowback from Rabin’s “broken bones” policy. What will be the blowback from the second intifada? Hopefully a strong commitment to non-violence. That will definitely be the best in terms of BDS taking hold around the world and growing as strong as the BDS campaign against apartheid South Africa. The village demonstrations are inspirational and really help BDS, which is in the same stage: some boycott and divestment victories but lots of failures also, which is to be expected as this is a period of education. The challenge for BDS’ers is to maintain focus and just keep pushing, educating, challenging. Draw a little inspiration from Palestinian sumud along the way :-)

      To cut a long story short (too late), I think the uprising will come but the time is not right just yet. The next stage of the UN bid is underway and the outcome of that is important – will the PA be disbanded or not? Also a little time and distance from the second intifada will give occupied Palestinian time to really gather steam again. It’s much more in your hands than you think.

  4. seafoid says:

    It also appears that Slater assumes that the IDF can continue to control the Israeli Zionist narrative – ie everyone hates us and we have no choice but to abuse the Palestinians. The longer the occupation goes on post the collapse of the 2ss the wider the gap there will be between how goys see the conflict and how it is portayed in Hebrew inside Israel. Israelis who travel will be the first to notice this.

    It is inevitable that the debate will open up inside Israel . The universities should also see changes. The least bloody way forward would involve change within the Jewish community in Israel but that would require a national debate about the IDF and its role in how Israel got to where it is now.

    In 1979 Stiff Little Fingers released “Alternative Ulster”

    Take a look where you’re livin’
    You got the Army on the street
    And the RUC dog of repression
    Is barking at your feet
    Is this the kind of place you wanna live?
    Is this where you wanna be?
    Is this the only life we’re gonna have?

    20 years later things had changed in Northern Ireland. Israel needs its Alternative Ulster moment.

  5. seanmcbride says:

    Jerry,

    Deal with it: several possibilities: Suck up the pain. Go on a crying jag. Beat one’s head against the wall. Go with the flow. Attend to one’s garden.

    I am open to other suggestions. :)

  6. American says:

    I agree mainly with Slater, this is how I’ve always seen it….

    ” as I see it, every obstacle to the attainment of a two-state settlement makes a one-state settlement inconceivable.”

    Disagree with what Walt says is the One Staters arguement…I see no “intermingling” of the populations now, except as occupied and occupier. I don’t call that intermingling, even for Arab Israelis since they are in many ways “unofficially” second class citizens in Israel. The statement below is where my suspicions come in about the real goal and motivations of some One Staters. “As a practical matter” is just another way to say ”facts on the ground”.

    “I believe the main argument would run like this: even if Israeli attitudes were to change in the next decade or so, the two populations are by now sufficiently intermingled that it would be impossible—as a practical matter–to disentangle them.”

    I also agree with the points Mearsheimer made….
    That the US isn’t going to put pressure on Israel over I/P.
    That Israeli Jews will resist, probably violently, democratic rights for Palestines in
    Israel.
    But in this I think he is wrong and Slater is right…

    “Still, I think you are wrong. The world has changed and is changing in ways that will make it impossible over the long term to maintain an Israel that is an apartheid state, and here I am talking the next thirty or so years.”

    The problem with those who take the long view….30 years?…on One state is Israel apartheid will have rid itself of the Palestines before then. I would not count on the “Global world” refusing to tolerate Israeli apartheid quickly enough to prevent Israel getting rid of it’s Palestines. The world will find it even harder to act on Israel ‘ internally” than it has been to act on it’s external actions.

    We are basically all fiddling while Rome burns re Palestine. We all know the obstacle to 2 or even one state….the US and US zionist political control.
    You aren’t going to get enough Americans aware/engaged or riled enough about the Palestine injustice becuase they have their own problems
    You could get them riled enough about the great Israeli sucking out of Americans own interest and US politicians loyalty to a foreign country because they could fit that into their own concerns as another problem for themselves in the way their government is shafting or betraying them.
    It wouldn’t be pretty to move the politicians in this way because you would have to have hordes of Americans screaming…”traitors, treason, foreign loyalist, anti American’…loud and public.
    If you don’t have the money to buy the politicans and there are no better natures among politicians to appeal to, then you have to use something else to get them…good ole fear for their careers…with a grass roots outbreak similar to the tea baggers organization and tactics.
    If anyone can tell me another way to drive a stake thru Israel-firstdom and the zionist in Washington before Palestine does disappear , I’m all ears.

    • yourstruly says:

      not pretty but definitely effective, going after israeli firster politicians about the tail wagging the dog and U.S. politicians’ loyalty to a foreign country. Definitely effective based on the voice vote on Jerusalem at the Democratic convention + what commenters here and elsewhere have been writing on the subject. There seems to be a kind of consensus of anger at the way Netanyahu has bamboozled Congress. For said reasons I believe talk about the impossibility of turning out government on I/P is essentially giving up without a fight. After all, if it’s so hopeless, why even waste one’s time on the issue? Right now, though, by way of our going after the Zionist entity’s U.S. supporters for putting Israel before the needs of the public (including how it is that Israel firsters are harmful to our health and well being) there’s a real chance for tapping into the anti-elite sentiment brought out so recently by the Occupy movement. Yes, the public’s got other worries, major-major ones too, but doesn’t I/P tie into all of these? Didn’t the 9/11 commission indicate (albeit, in a footnote) that I/P motivated Al Qaeda? Oh we can’t bring this up because the public believes the one about their hating us because of our freedom & democracy? Yeah, and how many years ago was it that gay marriage was a taboo subject & look how far that’s advanced since then?

      So what matters isn’t how pretty it’ll be to go after Israel firsters, but since severing the U.S.-Israel special relationship can bring about meaningful change, what the hell is holding us back? And if one’s concern is that taking on Israel firsters will stoke antisemitism, surely the presence of significant numbers of Jewish-Americans in the ranks of those going after the Israel Lobby will mitigate attempts to apply the antisemitic label to those challenging the Lobby for being Israel-firster traitors.

      • American says:

        “And if one’s concern is that taking on Israel firsters will stoke antisemitism, surely the presence of significant numbers of Jewish-Americans in the ranks of those going after the Israel Lobby will mitigate attempts to apply the antisemitic label to those challenging the Lobby for being Israel-firster traitors.”..yourstruly

        Yea some people will see the risk of anti semitism in this tactic. But I think that risk is minimal. It would attack the “US politicians”, not the Jews, they don’t even have to be mentioned. The US politicians are bottom line those responsible, they are the gatekeepers to this kind of influence that have failed in their duties. Although the zionist would surely put the Jews in it…but, when zionist tie it to Jews…there’s the golden opportunity for Jews to join us and assert their “Americanism”. Might not be an easy choice for some of them to go against the special ‘unconditional’ relationship that this kind of protest would present as damaging to the US, but it is the heart of the choice for US Jews.

    • Ohm says:

      American wroteIt wouldn’t be pretty to move the politicians in this way because you would have to have hordes of Americans screaming…”traitors, treason, foreign loyalist, anti American’…loud and public.

      Witnessing the commentary recently embedded in an article on Bibi’s Red Lines ultimatum to Obama in the NYT … I would say that aprox 90% were very antagonistic toward Netanyahu’s intrusion into American electoral politics as a way to leverage the US into another war.

      Granted Bibi’s intrusive foray into the Presidential campaign demanding Obama commit to Iranian Red lines was so nakedly aggressive as to become obviously apparent to all _ but in reality it is only a matter of degrees removed from what is done by the Lobby day in and day out for 30 years now, so this political failure deserves study as to why this particular ploy was an epic fail and establishes a red line that Americans can delineate the unhealthy entanglement.

      So American anger must be leveraged to counteract congressional rubber stamps to Lobby pressure _ so the pertinent question becomes how that might best be accomplished.

      If you don’t have the money to buy the politicians and there are no better natures among politicians to appeal to, then you have to use something else to get them…good ole fear for their careers…with a grass roots outbreak similar to the tea baggers organization and tactics.

      Agreed. And again the question becomes how to get folks to care about the incremental subornation of American interests for “foreign interests” _ the Tea Party proves that Americans can become quickly mobilized to take mass actions.

      So it can be done _ you just need to understand the psychological levers that will motivate them to do so, one also needs to understand that mass actions do not generally start out big _ they start out small and then snowball as the message spreads out.

      The only lever to counteract institutional subornation is to educate and alter public perceptions and opinion.

      Now how does AIPAC influence public opinion _ they threaten and discredit any and all media sources that are unfriendly to their narrative.

      There are plenty of folks from all walks of life that already recognize the mythic misrepresentations, and they are completely willing to speak out against the lies and manipulations, but for the most part they toil alone _ and are not organized to work together to combine their efforts and goals.

      So I would suggest an initial step would be to issue a general call to set up an umbrella political action committee to create an alliance of organizations _ to develop a set of coherent strategies to achieve some common goals in a stepwise fashion, a five year plan and the incremental steps one might take to achieve them.

      One goal should be to challenge the very concept of the “special relationship” _ that Israel will be an American ally no matter what their conduct _ our relationship with Israel should be established on the same ground as any other _ conditional to their attitudes, reciprocity, and actions.

      An ancillary goal would be to challenge the very concept of “Judeo-Christian Values” _ as that compound word phrase {itself drives me nuts} _ has both spiritual and psychological power that influences our belief in the “special relationship”.

      On that front I believe that Christian Zionism is a target rich enviroment to exploit along obvious faultlines and challenge the operational belief systems.

      An eventual idea I have thought of for political action is to “Occupy” the offices of AIPAC and the homes and offices of other opinion leaders that are the principal disseminators of “the false narrative” _ done as a method to educate the American public to the relentless manipulations that takes place in the public media daily, and culminating with a mass action on Washington illustrating what Pat Buchanan said long ago _ that the the US congress is itself Israeli occupied territory _ and there should be no question of it being “disputed territory” in recognising that as a dereliction of national alegiance and political duty.

      To become effective AIPAC and other Zionist orgs would have to be immediately tied to promoting “the false narrative”.

      Doing so in the correct way would be absolutely essential _ which would require a diciplined approach, orchestrated planning, and very carefully crafted messaging.

      • American says:

        @Ohm

        Valid strategy there. Only thing I would disagree with is involving or going after the christian zios…I think religion, Christianity or Judaism, should be left out of it….religion arouses too much irrational thinking and emotionalism imo.
        Just let the national disloyalty implications ‘circulate’ in their heads separate from their religious delusions.

  7. HarryLaw says:

    Here in the United Kingdom we have a situation where Northern Irish residents were effectively excluded from the political process of the state of which they have been an integral part for generations, simply by not allowing them to join the major Parties of state ie, Labour, Conservative or Lib dem, and by those parties refusing to organise and contest elections in the Province. Northern Ireland was given their own Parliament [Stormont] which they did not want, since their leaders realised that it would mean Protestants governing Catholics with the inevitable blow up,they simply wanted Westminster to govern Northern Ireland as they did in every other region of the UK, But Westminster knew best and paved the way for the “Troubles” 48 years later.Residents of N Ireland could only vote for the local catholic [Nationalist] or Protestant [Unionist] candidate effectively excluding them from the political affairs of their own state,since either only Labour or Conservative Parties governed the UK in this period. This undemocratic state of affairs is [after almost 90 years] only now being addressed, now anybody resident in N Ireland can join the Conservatives and just recently a N Ireland “Labour Party Forum” has been set up, Province wide which seeks to contest seats in all N Ireland Constituencies for the British Labour Party. Could the Israelis envisage allowing Palestinians to remain in a Greater Israel and deny them the vote just like the mother of Parliaments disenfranchised N Ireland residents for generations?

    • Eva Smagacz says:

      Hi HarryLaw,
      I believe this is exactly what will happen. Palestinians will get residency, but not citizenship in one state solution scenario.

    • Hostage says:

      Could the Israelis envisage allowing Palestinians to remain in a Greater Israel and deny them the vote just like the mother of Parliaments disenfranchised N Ireland residents for generations?

      Of course. The model that they would pursue to pull-off something like that would be the same one that the US, UK, and other governments employ to withhold the right of self-determination and keep selected portions of their own territories at arm’s length in a “dependent status” in order to prevent them from fully participating in the political life of the country. I’ve cited American Samoa and the Chagos Islanders as examples of those policies here in the past. In the Chagos case, the US and UK have protected their spoils – a US air base in the Indian Ocean – from being returned to the former inhabitants, despite the fact that the UK High Court ruled that the Islanders had been illegally removed by the UK government. To add insult to injury, the government declared the entire region, including 55 islands, a marine sanctuary in order to frustrate the attempts of the former inhabitants to return and restore their way of life.

      *Court victory for Chagos families
      link to news.bbc.co.uk
      *Britain blocks return home for Chagos Islanders
      link to nytimes.com
      *Britain protects Chagos Islands, creating world’s largest marine reserve
      link to washingtonpost.com

  8. libra says:

    Short summary of Slater’s synopsis:

    The failure to create a two-state solution makes a democratic single-state solution impossible so we must redouble our efforts for a two-state solution.

    Sorry Jerry. You’re the one who’s got it backwards. The onus is on people like you. We effectively have an extremely flawed single-state. You haven’t given a single concrete reason why it couldn’t (and certainly shouldn’t) be made a better place. Your whole piece is an exercise in futility. Not a single constructive suggestion. Have you ever had a job where you have to solve problems? Because if you had you’d soon learn to stop doing what hasn’t worked and think creatively about new solutions. And (hint to Phil) if you can’t do the latter, you’re fired.

  9. anmcbride says:
    September 22, 2012 at 11:43 am
    Likud Zionists will succeed in consolidating Greater Israel and violently expelling most or all Palestinians under the cover of a generalized global war between “the West” and Islam.”
    It is very much on the cards of the neocons but the way the war is currently shaping up between Islam and West it is unlikely that the west can maintain the momentum to its economic and political advantage. It might end up like England begging US to bail itself out but where US will turn to? US economic and political powers underpins the Israeli economic and political powers.US decline will enhance or even precipitate Israeli decline. Now Israel will have all the lands but it might end up a prisoner of its making. Without effective US support for Israel , other countries might start offering all kind of weapons including nukes to Israeli adversaries. Life will not be fun to be an Israeli citizen. Israel’s Massada/Samson complex will only get more extreme but the diaspora will not risk their lives for the sake of Israel.

    One state solution is actually going to work fro Jewish citizen more in the long run .It will provide them with the open opportunity of engaging in politics of wider Arab world in affecting the economic and civic lives and inserting themselves in powerful positions of different administrations of different Arab countries. Arab will look more and more like 18th-19th century Europe.

  10. pipistro says:

    In nature, things would have long time settled. One or the other way. One or two ss, or none, doesn’t matter.
    They didn’t. So, there is an element thoroughly innatural, that counters any forseeable natural solution.
    This element is… the USA and their funding and supporting, from afar, the State of Israel (3.5 billions/year, vetoes at the UN and so forth.)
    Insofar as we can’t erase the USA, nor we are willing or able to do it, to give P/I a reasonable chance, well, at least we can counter the irresponsible funding and the blind support to a part (which, by the way, acts like a hooligan) against the other.
    Conclusion in short, get rid of the Lobby and the solution is at hand. First, by showing the US people their tricks and how much, in one or the other way, they paid or will pay for getting the hate from half the world, and being blamed by the other half.

  11. “violently expelling most or all Palestinians under the cover of a generalized global war between “the West” and Islam.” – Sean
    ———————-
    As the Holocaust started under the cover of Germany’s war against Communist Russia.
    It may be a somewhat far-fetched analogy but not that far-fetched.

    • lysias says:

      The Heydrich character in the German Wannsee Conference movie has a line that goes something like: “Im Schatten des Krieges wird manches Unmögliche möglich [In the shadow of war, many impossible things become possible].”

      At least one historian that I’ve recently read argues that one reason the Young Turks decided to enter the First World War was that they expected to be able to solve their minorities problems during it.

  12. eljay says:

    Unless Zio-supremacists can be convinced to abandon “Jewish State”, both a single-state and a two-state solution will result in many more years of hardship for non-Jews in I-P. They will likely end up either on the losing end of a civil war in the former scenario, and cleansed out of Israel and into Palestine in the latter.

    Two possible solutions are:
    - Make “Jewish” a bureaucratic nationality, such that every citizen of “Jewish State” (a.k.a. Israel) becomes Jewish. Imagine, a 100% Jewish state – forever – without a single act of ethnic cleansing.
    - Make Israel the bureaucratic nationality (for everyone), and nurture the positive, attractive, desirable aspects of “Jewish culture”. Make Israel “culturally Jewish”, and make people appreciate and wish to embrace and maintain this culture. Anyone of any background who wishes to live in Israel can live there as an equal citizen and enjoy the “Jewish culture” because it is open to everyone.

    • Ellen says:

      But that is not Zionism.

      So I guess Israel might be stuck. Can it take an abstract idea of state and make all citizens bereaucratically Jewish for the Jewish State. Then being a Jew is like being a Bosnian or a Russian or a Canadian. Dependent on a passport only?

      Or is it some kind of genetic (where is the Jew gene?) race thing?

      • MHughes976 says:

        There is no scientifically verifiable test for being Jewish, of course, but Zionism has been built round the idea that those who do not call themselves Jewish and particularly those who accept another religion are not Jewish and therefore have no rightful place in Palestine. So I don’t think we can solve the problem by a stroke of the pen, only by a change of heart that won’t happen.

      • eljay says:

        >> So I guess Israel might be stuck.

        It seems so. With “Jewish State”, Israel and its Zio-supremacist supporters have painted themselves into a hateful and immoral corner. And based on everything being spouted by representatives of the Jewish state and by assorted Zio-supremacists both within and without it, it doesn’t look like there’s any way this is going to resolve itself gracefully.

  13. Carowhat says:

    I never did understand our supposed “special relationship” with Israel. It certainly wasn’t built on shared values. I can’t imagine there are too many countries with such differing founding philosophies than the US and Israel.

    As best as I can determine the concept of a special relationship began in some pleasantries John F Kennedy made in his welcoming remarks when Golda Meir came to visit the White House one day. From that humble beginning the “special relationship” has metastasized into a multi-tentacled monster. If you ask me America has to get beyond the notion that we owe Israel love and devotion so great that it’s hard to put into everyday words, let alone an actual treaty. What we really need to do is treat Israel the same way we treat any other county.

  14. seafoid says:

    I don’t like Slater’s cynicism. I don’t think it is “good for the Jews”, this attitude. This “get real, buddy , this is how the world works”.

    What Israel continues to do to the Palestinians is immoral- it makes a mockery of whatever Kashrut they follow in Israel. What is the point of insisting on separating dairy and meat while most of Gaza lives around untreated sewage and this is calibrated by ***s ? I don’t get it .

    So what Israel is doing is morally repugnant. It hollows out whatever the moral point of living in Erez Israel was.

    And the working assumption is that this is well enough established to be without question going forward. The goys will accept it because we are ***s and that is the way it will always be. I just think that is hubristic and that the whole thing will come crashing down . And it’ll be like Rupert Murdoch’s corporate response to the Milly Dowler phone bugging scandal. He was untouchable in June 2011. And now he’s seen very, very differently.

    The injustice is just too massive . And if ***s won’t do anything about it then we will have to.

    I am not so sure the “no daylight” is viable over the long term either. Zionism is about reinforcing Jewish otherness but without Jewish responsibility. It’s fine now as long as the news is managed and journalists know their place and love their careers more than serving their readers.

    But it is so wrong. I just can’t see how they can push it through indefinitely.

    And Americans should have zero to do with this. Israel is a Jewish problem. End of.

  15. yourstruly says:

    The Israeli settlement swimming pool scene reminds me of the aerial view of Johanessburg some 35 years ago. Scattered below in settler communities one could see many, many swimming pools and lots of vegetation, while, not far away, native Africans lived in shanty town squalor surrounded by barren fields with inadequate supplies of potable water & definitely no swimming pools. Yes, it’s true that scenes such as those described above can be seen today in western countries, but where they exist, more often than not, it’s the legacy from a colonial &/or slave past.

  16. giladg says:

    “Jordan is Palestine”, although totally ignored here, is looking more likely than any other option mentioned. King Abdallah’s days are numbered and the same radical reaction we see all over the Middle East will show up there as well. As Jordan is over 70 % Palestinian, the answer is staring at you right in the face.

    Regarding the Internet, again you have misread the trend. This article makes a grand statement that it is only Israel to be blamed for the lack of peace. The Internet allows this lie to be exposed. In the 70′s and 80′s the anti apartheid movement could say what it liked and it could impact many as the public did not the tools to find out easilly for themselves. Not so today. Israel has many supporters around the world helped by the Internet and the truth. The Arab and Muslim world has a lot of dirty laundry and there is no sweeping this under the carpet. Anyone who claims that it is only Israel to blame is living in Lala Land.

    • Sumud says:

      Yes giladg you’re 100% correct the internet has really helped the world understand what a wonderful peace loving democracy Israel is and now we all love Israel and hate those wicked arabs (the Fakestinians).

      There is no apartheid.
      There is no occupation.
      The arabs are better off in the West Bank ($400 income per annum) than anywhere in the arab world (even Qatar @ $86,000 per annum).
      Gaza is not a ghetto cum concentration camp.
      25,000 arab homes have been demolished since 1967 and this is a good thing. Even the son of that guy from Hamas said so.
      Jews made the desert bloom.
      Cherry tomatoes!

    • pjdude says:

      true but there are some serious moral quandries with that. like jordan and palestine are distinct entities and going down that path only validates the bigots who have tried to deny the palestinians their peoplehood.

      • giladg says:

        The Palestinians were offered a whole lot more than what they are publicly asking for now. They rejected the offer and because they rejected the 1947 Partition Plan they have caused the death of many Israeli’s. No Palestinian action is going to bring back those who have died and heal those who have been injured.
        If Jordan has a majority of Palestinians, what do you think is going to happen in that country when the monarchy is overthrown? What are the going to call Jordan then? And with whom do you think they will try and link up with?

        • andrew r says:

          It’s interesting how Israelis are never responsible for their own actions. They flagrantly broke the partition agreement that they were supposed to have accepted and they get a free pass because the Arabs made them do it. The Arabs also made them expel the Palestinians which incidentally led to the result they were after, a Jewish demographic state. But of course if the Arabs accepted partition without any resistance (or alternately, accepted unlimited immigration sans partition), the Yishuv would have dropped their demand for a Jewish state, which is why they went to Palestine in the first place. The Zionist settlers have no moral responsibility for their own actions because they have an unconditional right to what they want damn the consequences for anyone else.

          Of course this can be expanded to killing Palestinians by air (rockets made us do it), killing pregnant women at checkpoints (suicide bombers made us do it), demolishing houses on either side of the Green Line and fill in the blank…

        • pjdude says:

          what they were offered was a direct violation of their rights not that you would care given your support of the Israeli thuggacry. the deaths of Israelis are entirely on Israel they pushed for conflict be invading palestine and attacking the palestinians’ rights

        • MHughes976 says:

          Well said. No one has an obligation to consent to the partition of their country.

        • Hostage says:

          The Palestinians were offered a whole lot more than what they are publicly asking for now. They rejected the offer and because they rejected the 1947 Partition Plan they have caused the death of many Israeli’s.

          Nice try, but FYI: both Palestine and Israel made declarations to the UN in line with their acceptance of resolution 181(II). Furthermore, the same day that the UN recognized Israel’s statehood, all of the Arab states signed the Lausanne protocol accepting the map from resolution 181(II) as the basis for a negotiated settlement. BTW, Israel has killed many more Palestinians as a result of its attempts to reformulate the original allocation of territory in its favor.

          For example, at the Lausanne conference it demanded the Gaza Strip, which the Security Council subsequently reaffirmed is an integral part of the Palestinian state. How many years do you think it will be before it reaffirms that the West Bank and East Jerusalem are not part of Israel’s territory or jurisdiction?

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “‘Jordan is Palestine’, although totally ignored here, is looking more likely than any other option mentioned. ”

      Jordan is not Palestine. Palestine is Palestine. And it may only be “likely” in the fevered dreams of you war criminal zionists.

    • Hostage says:

      “Jordan is Palestine”, although totally ignored here, is looking more likely than any other option mentioned.

      LOL! Obviously not, since it was overlooked by the Israeli and Jordanian officials who negotiated and ratified the treaty of peace between the two countries. I nearly fell out of my chair the first time I read the damn thing, because it didn’t even contain any specific references to the rights or status of the Palestinian refugees living in Jordan prior to the 67 war. It merely contained a safeguarding clause regarding the status of the Arab territories that came under Israeli military control afterward.

      In short, there’s little substance to the notion that “Jordan is Palestine”, unless you are referring to the Jordanian territories in the West Bank. That wouldn’t be very wise, since Jordan is a founding member of the International Criminal Court.

  17. Sin Nombre says:

    libra wrote:

    “Sorry Jerry. You’re the one who’s got it backwards. The onus is on people like you.”

    With all due respect I don’t think so, libra.

    What, after all, is THE difference between Slater and One-Staters like W&M & Co.?

    Well I think while disguised by Slater for personal reasons, it’s this: Unlike W&M & Co. he doesn’t think the Israelis and their Diaspora support are gonna be moved by being called apartheidists, or are gonna be stopped from ethnically cleansing their One State of arabs and moslems, and that’s a remarkable—but remarkably well-grounded assertion.

    While this may just be a matter of my judgment Slater seems to me to have the better of the knowledge and experience base than those others in terms of judging Israeli/jewish attitudes. But beyond that even what’s the concrete *evidence* that Israel and its Diaspora supporters are going to prove susceptible to a bi-national One State solution? And, essentially, just give up what they say with lots of evidence has been their 2000 *year* longing for a uni-national state? A uni-national state they have militantly and indeed fanatically fought for and insisted upon and have never wavered in pledging allegiance to ever since its founding over 50+ years ago?

    Now, Slater I think disguises this difference with W&M & Co. because he has some considerable affection for the jewish cause and people, and thus he wants to avoid coming right out and saying “Oh no no no, my people are far too … racist/tribalist/insular/ethno-centric/etc. to ever ever ever consider sharing their state with any goyim,” but let’s face it, that’s *exactly* along the line that he’s taking. Israelis and their Diaspora supporters are just never never never gonna agree to share power in a State of Israel with non-jews, period. No matter what.

    And note too the difficulty if not utter impossibility of *any* recent major Israeli/jewish figure standing up for bi-nationalism. *Any.* Indeed, along the lines of just how fanatical the opposite feeling goes one is reminded of the comment of the usually ultra-sober Martin Van Creveld talking about how, before Israel were to “go down” and stop being a State of the jews it would essentially pull down the entire *world’s* house via the so-called Samson Option.

    So *that’s* the kind of fanaticism one senses. And thus, forgetting even what might be called Slater’s closer knowledge of Israeli/jewish thinking, we have that 2000 year and 50+ year history on his side. And during that last 50+ year history simply *tons* of times on various issues big and small that the Israelis and their supporters have told the world (and are still telling it) to go pound salt. Including re: occupying and developing illegally seized lands, war crimes, and possessing nuclear weapons.

    So how come the onus is upon those who say, essentially, that suddenly Israelis and their Diaspora supporters are gonna *change* and start thinking differently? Where indeed is the *whit* of evidence that suddenly they’re gonna go all Desmond Tutu gooey over the world’s opinion?

    (Note: While irrelevant, because all I’m saying is let’s talk evidence here, I suppose to escape the charge anyway I should note that this doesn’t make me a Two-Stater, because I’m not. Nor indeed am I a One-Stater really, but like I say, all this is irrelevant.)

    • Jerry Slater says:

      Sin Nombre:

      Could you spell out what you think I’m disguising about my views? I certainly haven’t intended to disguise anything. My overall views are that the case for the establishment of a Jewish state was a strong one, and even the case for the maintenance of a Jewish state today, while not as nearly as strong, is still substantial. I suppose that makes me a “liberal Zionist,” but in view of the nature of this Jewish state, I’m just barely hanging on by my finger tips.

      Undoubtedly one reason–besides the overall historical case for a Jewish state–that I haven’t been quite ready to abandon liberal Zionism is that there are great many wonderful Israelis who are also in despair of what their country has become, but who still think the case for the maintenance of a Jewish state, provided there are full and equal rights for all minorities, is a strong one. To be sure, there are also a number of wonderful Israelis who are perfectly willing to join with the Palestinians in a binational state; even so, for reasons I have argued, I think that is a chimera.

      • seanmcbride says:

        Jerry Slater wrote:

        My overall views are that the case for the establishment of a Jewish state was a strong one….

        When I reviewed all the debates and arguments within the Jewish world about Zionism that preceded the creation of Israel, I was struck by the fact that Jewish anti-Zionists made a great deal of sense. In fact, now they appear to have been visionaries and prophets — some of their worst nightmares have already been realized. Israel has been backed into an ever-shrinking corner from which it has no exit, other than the Samson Option.

        What think you?

        • lysias says:

          Jerome Slater argues in his book Einstein on Israel and Zionism: His Provocative Ideas About the Middle East that Einstein’s true views on Israel and Zionism (that it would have been better just to have a Jewish national home in Palestine, and no Jewish state, i.e., a binational state with a large Jewish presence) have been ignored in favor of a myth that Einstein was a strong believer in a Jewish state.

          As it happens, just as I was reading Slater’s book, I also watched Elia Kazan’s 1947 movie Gentleman’s Agreement about anti-Semitism here in America. And one of the characters in the movie, the world-famous physicist “Dr. Lieberman”, an obvious Einstein figure played by Sam Jaffe, complete with wild hair, is skeptical about the idea of having a Jewish state, as opposed to a Jewish state. This was a major Hollywood movie in 1947. Einstein’s views cannot have been a secret to the American public at that time.

        • lysias says:

          Sorry, the Einstein book is by Fred Jerome, not Jerome Slater.

      • Sin Nombre says:

        Jerry Slater wrote:

        “Could you spell out what you think I’m disguising about my views?”

        Hello Mr. Slater:

        First off let me hasten to add that I should have said that my opinion is that you were *unconsciously* describing your view as being milder than it is—due, as you have indeed again asserted here, to your (understandable) remaining affection for liberal Zionism and your equally understandable affection for the other jews and Zionists like you who would be perfectly willing to be a part of a bi-national state.

        So: No offense meant whatsoever. I thought it was clear that I was not indicting you whatsoever for anything, but I see now I could have explained this further.

        And in terms of how your original words disguised things, let’s first note that you don’t seem to dispute my take on your views that what you were really saying was that your Israelis and their Diaspora supporters are simply too “racist/tribalist/insular/ethno-centric/etc. to ever ever ever consider sharing their state with any goyim.”

        And now go back and look at all the different ways you believe you said that, with perhaps the most pungent way that you put it was that “as I see it, every obstacle to the attainment of a two-state settlement makes a one-state settlement inconceivable.”

        Thus, I don’t think that formulation, nor any of the other ways you described it was as flat out harsh as I put it, and hence my observation that what you were saying was “disguised” somewhat.

        But and again I hasten to add that this wasn’t out of any deliberate attempted distortion of yours; just a totally understandable desire to not hear things put in their harshest manner, that’s all.

        And, like I said, I think your crystal-ball gazing here is correct over that of Walt & Mearsheimer and other One-State boosters. Just like Israel has repeatedly told the world to go pound salt for all of these last 50+ years on any number of things, one way or another it ain’t gonna hesitate to practice whatever apartheid or ethnic cleansing or etc. it needs to so as to prevent a bi-national One State, period.

      • Woody Tanaka says:

        “the maintenance of a Jewish state, provided there are full and equal rights for all minorities, is a strong one. ”

        How can such a thing exist? Either Jews would have a special place in the law solely by virtue of being Jews, in which case there cannot be “full and equal rights for all minorities” or there is “full and equal rights for all minorities” in which case the state is not, in any sense, “Jewish.”

        How do you propose to square this circle, by defining “full and equal” to mean “not really full and/or not really equal” or by defining “Jewish state” to be meaningless (in which case, why have it?)?

        • Jerry Slater says:

          Tanaka’s question is a very good and necessary one. My answer is complicated. In late December the journal Political Science Quarterly is publishing a long article of mine, entitled “Zionism, the Jewish State Issue, and an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Settlement.” In that article I try to answer that question. I’m not ducking the issue, but I don’t want to go into it here. Sorry.

      • Dexter says:

        “My overall views are that the case for the establishment of a Jewish state was a strong one…”

        Comments like this are laughable. There is not a single credible argument as to why the creation of a “Jewish state” in Palestine was justified then, or now.

        Ilan Pappe said that “liberal Zionism” is like Coke Light; i.e., it’s basically the same horrible thing. This author, a self-professed Zionist, views the conflict from the same racist viewpoint that Zionism demands.

        When you view things through racist dogma, you are just not credible.

      • American says:

        ”and even the case for the maintenance of a Jewish state today, while not as nearly as strong, is still substantial.”
        &
        ”Undoubtedly one reason–besides the overall historical case for a Jewish state–that I haven’t been quite ready to abandon liberal Zionism is that there are great many wonderful Israelis who are also in despair of what their country has become, but who still think the case for the maintenance of a Jewish state, provided there are full and equal rights for all minorities, is a strong one”

        Every time a liberal zionist makes the argument for Israel based the historical story of the Jews today – they lose.
        The world in reality was never responsible for the Jews in past history any more than it was responsible for the persecution of Christians in past history, and in reality those who were responsible for the holocaust are long dead and gone.
        This argument is like beating a dead horse.
        The more you claim this the more the world is rejecting it..and ironically enough, because of what Israel is today and has exposed about zionism and the victimhood claim.
        The idea of the Jews and therefore Israel as being the special case and responsibility of the world ‘forever’ is not selling to the vast majority of the world today.
        What you are doing in using this argument is forcing the world to choose Jews and Israel as special entitled entity above it’s and everyone else’s own interest.
        Imagine the thinking process of liberal zionist who in effect still put the Jews interest ahead of all others in the justification for Israel.
        Well ,in the end that will be the same thinking process of the others also, they will put their own interest above yours. That is how the world and people work when forced into choices.
        There is no special case for Jewish victimization anymore–there is just the world’s “problem” of the Jewish State and Israel and zionism is responsible for making itself a problem.
        You cannot live off victimhood in perpetuity with special behavior exemptions or privilages in the world.
        The day Israel, zionist Jews accept they are not ‘owed’ by the world they will have a shot at normal existence. If they want to keep this idea of always being treated as a special entitled case , then it and they will always be a special problem and have a problem with the world.
        I do not know why those who cling to this special reason for Israel and Jews cannot see this.

        • Sin Nombre says:

          Lemme take issue on what is at least one implication of what you’re saying, American, even though you don’t quite come out and endorse that implication expressly.

          Of course there’s nothing to disagree with in terms of most of what you say, however, the fact is that the world *did* see fit—inasmuch as “the world” can ever speak—to grant the jews a state. And even the Arab League now is ready to recognize that state.

          So while you observe that “the world” didn’t owe the jews this, the fact is it essentially disagreed with you.

          Now, of course it’s still true that this can be seen as a “special case,” unfair to all the other ethnicities who once had land and/or a place of their own and were driven off or fled in terror or etc. But it goes without saying that just because you can’t or don’t do the “right” thing for everyone doesn’t mean that it’s wrong when you do it for one.

          And again I think the world has essentially said the initial creation of the jewish state was indeed the “right” thing to do.

          The implication then of what you have written is that one should work to strip Israel proper of its recognition, although again you haven’t quite come out and said that and may indeed not endorse that. But it is the strong implication. And because of what I said above about the world having decided Israel proper was the “right” thing I believe doing what that implication tends to urge is wrong.

          I.e., people ought to support the existence of Israel proper. And not just because of the above ideas I have tried to articulate, but also—and this I think just cannot be over-emphasized in importance—because of the purely pragmatic benefits of recognizing some stability in the world by recognizing some precedent. It’s been 50+ years now that the world has said Israel proper is okay; you overturn that now and what are you saying? What’s your statute of limitations for overturning what you see as historical wrongs? You really, for instance, wanna throw open the borders of Europe again for dispute? And what about our *American* borders? Boy, the Mexicans would sure love that.

          Throwing such things open is like lifting the lid on Pandora’s box, it seems to me. Which is why Bush, for instance, is to be so condemned. It was, after all, the *American* led idea after WWII and Stalin and Hitler that the worst thing in the world was aggressive war, usually launched for territorial aggrandizing or colonial/imperial reasons. That, as Judge Jackson said at Nuremberg, was *the* cardinal crime, from which the vast majority of other crimes and sins flowed.

          So Bush came along with invading Iraq and, fool that he is, on a whim essentially overthrew that hard-won wisdom like opening a pack of chewing gum.

          And if the world were to endorse the idea that we can re-jigger 50+ year-old history that Pandora’s box would just be thrown even wider open. Wars here, there, everywhere, constantly, saying “we want to rectify this (fill in the blank # of years-old) historical wrong.”

          I also endorse the idea of not questioning Israel’s existence (Israel proper that is) even though it clearly was allowed as a “jewish” state, so meaning it’s not necessarily democratic. There’s lots of state’s that aren’t democratic in the world, and once again I think there’s a sharp limit on trying to go back and redo history.

          This is not to say I have any great sympathy for Israel and the present questioning of its basic right to exist. (Although I think that questioning even makes the present situation worse.) It has essentially *invited* it by *not* remaining “Israel proper” and now trying to be Greater Israel, and absolutely none of that ought to tolerated. And Israel trying has been nothing less than *inviting* people to rail against its basic existence.

          But even though it’s done that I don’t think that invitation ought to be taken up. The world decided that Israel proper ought to exist and we ought to live with it. But the world also decided that nobody had the right to do what Israel did since outside its borders and the answer to this is similar in that Israel ought to be made to live with *that.*

          My 2 cents at least….

        • American says:

          @ Sin Nombre

          You’re reading too much into what I said.
          My whole point, whether I made it well or not, was that Israel and the Jews cannot go on ‘forever’ as a special entitled case, supported regardless of what they do.
          The exemption from all rules that the rest of the world is expected to abide by or at least recongize, based on the idea that the world owes them/it special treatment is the exact reason why Israel is a “problem’…it acts out all it’s special privileges and flaunts all laws.

          For the rest of it.
          Opinions can differ on whether creating Israel was even a good idea or ‘solution’ for Jews, I don’t think it was. I think instead of solving whatever problems of the Jews, pre or post the holocaust, it has in effect ‘recreated’ a problem that has once again put Jews at the center of controversy. The good conditions for Jews in the US and elsewhere outside Israel I think proves that Israel wasn’t necessary. That Jewish and political support for Israel in the diaspora has created controversy and conflict of interest within the other nations they live I think also proves that Israel has created a conflict or problem for Jews and other countries. I think these problems are why MW exist and we are even here talking about them.

          As to the world thinking the establishment of Israel was a good idea, it wasn’t the world, it was mainly Britain and the US who decided.
          And it was decided by Truman against the advice of the US State Department , Military and every other US agency involved in the question.
          I think their warnings and predictions in 1947 have proven to have been absolutely correct.

          I am not concerned with questioning Israel’s ‘existence’ today, although as I said I don’t think the reason for establishing Israel was/is valid. I don’t think my or anyone else questioning it’s right to exist though has anything to do with it present day. Bottom line is if Israel is allowed to continue as the world’s rampaging pet…..it will cease to exist as Jewish State one way or another.

          What I didn’t say in my comment but what is my personal opinion is Israel can continue as a Jewish state……within the original land parcel it was given by the UN…and ‘if’ it ceases it’s aggression…and ‘if’ the US doesn’t have to unconditionally support it…and ‘if’ Israel ceases it’s subversion of US policy and politics.
          IOW, if it can be a half way normal or peaceful state “on it’s own” without special behavior exemptions and special support it is in fact not owed , I see no problem.
          If it can’t do those things, it can go however it goes.
          It’s time after 67 years and trillions of dollars pumped into the zionist enterprise to put Israel on it’s own with no special behavior exemptions or entitlements and let it sink or swim.

        • Sin Nombre says:

          American said:

          “You’re reading too much into what I said.”

          Understood. As I noted it was just some of the implications of what you had said before that I took from, but that you had not expressly signed on to them. (And they weren’t *necessary* implications either.)

          “if [Israel] can be a half way normal or peaceful state ‘on it’s own’ without special behavior exemptions and special support it is in fact not owed , I see no problem.”

          What about its artificially maintaining its jewish monopoly on power? That I think was the biggie I was getting at. (Clumsily for sure.)

        • Hostage says:

          Opinions can differ on whether creating Israel was even a good idea or ‘solution’ for Jews, I don’t think it was.

          The UN never intended to “create Israel” or for the Jewish state to drive its Arab inhabitants into permanent exile. They recommended the creation of two democratic states with constitutions that guaranteed equal rights for women and minorities; equal representation for all of the citizens in the law making bodies; an internationally supervised regional economic union between the two Palestinian states that allowed for redistribution of revenues between them to meet their needs in the areas of non-self supporting essential services; a special regime – administered directly by the UN Organization itself – to safeguard the exercise of rights and transit of the various religious groups to their respective holy places.

          The economic union, common market, and rights of transit meant that it was a “two state solution” in name only. The UNSCOP reported that from the outset, the Arabs would constitute a slight majority of the population of the proposed “Jewish State”. The obvious implication for the Zionists was that the Arab voters, and their representatives in the government, would in short order be in the position to adopt legislation that would put an end to their proposals for continued Jewish immigration.

          Ben Gurion drove home that point when he explained why he had not attempted to annex the West Bank: it contained too many Palestinians who would destroy the necessary demographic advantage the Jews had just obtained. The opposition in the Knesset claimed that demographics didn’t matter, because multitudes of Jews throughout the world were willing to come to Israel. Ben Gurion replied that the foreign multitudes were irrelevant, since the existing Arab majority would simply adopt laws to prevent them from ever coming.

        • American says:

          @ Sin Nombre

          “What about its artificially maintaining its jewish monopoly on power? That I think was the biggie I was getting at. (Clumsily for sure.)”

          If the Jewish State could be squeezed back into it’s original parcel and exist on absolutely no aid or outside support, and had to compensate those Palestines that lost their property, let them have it as a small Jewish enclave.
          And I would be for that simply to avoid mass relocation, probably at US expense, of 7 million Jews. And no matter how bad it sounds I don’t want any millions of committed zionist use to being the privileged class in their fantasy land on the loose in the US to recreated or add to the zionist problem here and I don’t imagine any other countries want that political problem either. Not a doubt in my mind if Jews were forced out we would have the whole holocaust part II and reparations bandwagon start again.

          But this would effectively neuter Israel’s pretensions to any Greater Israel and regional power hegemony and wipe out their ability to be aggressive in the region…they couldn’t afford their ME meddling and aggression without outside support .
          If they could exist on whatever resources within their own boundaries without their current confiscating of Palestine water and resources, fine…they could have their Jews only commune and get by however they can.
          This won’t happen, but it’s what should happen.

      • pjdude says:

        My overall views are that the case for the establishment of a Jewish state was a strong one, this right here is the problem with your views in my opinion at the end of the day you think the basic argument of zionism we want a state therefore we have a right to one and fuck the rights of those who get in our way is a strong shows a crass indifferance that holds quite a bit in common with sociopathy.

        to reiterate you think that the mentality of Zionism which when boiled down to an individual would be a sociopath as ok

        • American says:

          @pjdude

          I do think the mentality of zionism is….”we want a state therefore we have a right to one and fuck the rights of those who get in our way “.

          Because that’s exactly what they’ve done. Anyone who can’t see that is in crass denial.

        • eljay says:

          >> I do think the mentality of zionism is….”we want a state therefore we have a right to one and fuck the rights of those who get in our way “.

          This meshes nicely with what Zio-supremacists refer to as “negotiation”, which is “give us what we want, or we will take it from you”.

        • pjdude says:

          well i firmly believe if you took the zionist and than Israel and boiled them down to a single entity that that entity would have to be viewed as a sociopathic creature.

        • ColinWright says:

          “My overall views are that the case for the establishment of a Jewish state was a strong one…”

          I can think of few propositions I’ve ever heard that are as utterly indefensible as the case for the establishment of Israel. It’s based on a demonstrably false history, assumes a superior claim based on a racial identity that doesn’t exist, posits a nation that isn’t there, implicitly denies the rights of an entire people, and involves completely unnecessary suffering for millions and benefits for no one.

          What’s not to hate? It’s an almost perfect lose-lose, with no valid justification whatsoever.

        • seafoid says:

          I think a Jewish state was a great idea but that it should have been established in Europe or else North America.

          Taking over Palestine was madness.

        • Hostage says:

          I think a Jewish state would have been okay, but it should have been limited to a federation of the Jewish-owned quarters of the four Holy Cities and its prospects kept in line with the actual population and property rights of the indigenous Jews. That would have only called for self-determination and autonomy within the confines of a few, non-contiguous, San Marino-sized city states.

          I don’t believe that anyone has ever suggested that new states should be created half a world away to relieve the suffering of oppressed populations living elsewhere. Just this lone, bizarre example – and the UNSCOP was opposed to the idea of attempting to use Palestine to solve the international Jewish question.

        • MHughes976 says:

          And of course you can’t easily combine liberal rejection of special status based on ancestry with any kind of nationalism that demands special status of just that kind. You can’t easily draw triangular squares.
          But we face the fact, which I think emerges over again from the discussion between Sin Nombre and American, that the false history is believed, the superior claim is accepted, the rights of an entire people scorned and the unnecessary suffering disregarded. All this with enthusiasm or at least with hardly a thought. This is the enormous weight of western opinion and consensus. When I meet it, rather as Phil did at the party which he mentioned, I don’t know where to begin.

        • American says:

          seafoid says:

          I think a Jewish state was a great idea but that it should have been established in Europe or else North America.”">>>>>>

          It perplexes me that you would think that. Actually it perplexes me anyone would think that.
          Let’s consider the problem.
          The story has been Jews couldn’t live among others because their differentness or tribalism was resented and made them targets for discrimination and persecution.
          The final expression of this, attributed to anti Jewishness generally, was Hitler’s holocaust of Jews.
          But after that holocaust, at the shock of it, the world more or less guaranteed that Jews would be holocaust and persecution free forever after in any country.
          So what happened?
          Instead of saying …..Yes! We are now recongized and guaranteed our human rights anywhere in the world we wish to live!
          The zionist went right back to Jews can’t live among others….reinforced the original problem and perception of some Jews and whatever gentiles of impossible to get along together and with a Jewish State recreated a Jewish problem.
          ‘The Jews’ were home free..but the Zionist would have none of it.
          So now we have a Jewish State practicing zionism and Jews once again have a problem with the world to some degree because of it.
          Its crazy….persecution because of or blamed on differentness and tribalism…..responded to with more differentness and separation tribalism because of persecution….. round and round like a merry go round.

          Not to mention, what if the world did this for every persecuted minority, carved out nation states for victims? Victimization being a state’s ‘reason’ for existence leads to maintaining that victim mentality to continue the State and meet it’s needs or goals and justify everything by victim status and that leads to the kind of actions we see Israel exhibit now.
          I don’t think I can be convinced this works. Least not with a ideology like zionism.

        • Meyer says:

          America,

          I’m sorry, I realize that this is an older post, but after reading it I am a little incredulous. Is it intended as a sort-of extrapolated, could have maybe been kind of world, had different decisions been made?

          For example…

          “But after that holocaust, at the shock of it, the world more or less guaranteed that Jews would be holocaust and persecution free forever after in any country.”

          Is that something that you believe occurred in real-life? If so, does that mean you are unaware of all the pogroms and massacres of Jewish Holocaust survivors that immediately followed the Holocaust?

          “Instead of saying …..Yes! We are now recongized and guaranteed our human rights anywhere in the world we wish to live!”

          If the Jews were recognized and guaranteed human rights anywhere in the world they wished to live then what exactly was the problem with them living in Palestine? The events following WWII would indicate the exact opposite of what you are saying happened here. No one was taking in large numbers of refugees. Jews who attempted to return home were in many instances not allowed to or were simply murdered.

          Who exactly do you think told the Jews, “We recognize you now, and we’ll never try to kill all of you ever again so go live in the world wherever you want and be happy?” And what are you saying went wrong with it? The Jews rejected it or something?

          So, like, what is this? Is this intended to be… history? Or like an allegory or something?

      • Ellen says:

        Mr. Slater,
        What is a state? An abstract an agreement with neighbors on mutual borders and recognition of sovereignty. A few state institutions to serve a population. That is all.

        So right, one or two states is irrelevant at this time.

        Israel remains unwilling to define and accept borders. It’s institutions remain dependent upon others.

        The Zionist enterprise emerged out of racist ethnic colonial ideas of 19th century Europe. Most all Jews everywhere found it to be crackpot nonsense,which it was.

        And now Israel, like many sort-of-states simply exists. Right or wrong is irrelevant. It is there and if it gets over itself and becomes a real state with real borders and independence, it will likely flourish.

        Most of the wealth of Israel is held by few families and many of those are connected with the arms and conflict industry. This is not the economics of a real country, no more than chopped up Balkan states dependent on NGOs and conflict.

        Sure Israel is filled with some wonderful people, which part of the world is not? But to think that dreams of “liberal Zionism ” will bring peace and deliverance is a delusion.

        • MHughes976 says:

          Are you saying, Ellen, that because the essence of a state is agreed borders and because Israel has no agreed, or even clearly claimed, borders, we actually have a ‘zero state’ situation? And that this fact implies that whether one or two genuine states will emerge or should emerge is not worth discussing? I think you may be on to something but I’m not sure of your argument.

        • ColinWright says:

          MHughes says: “Are you saying, Ellen, that because the essence of a state is agreed borders and because Israel has no agreed, or even clearly claimed, borders…”

          But Israel does have agreed borders. She agreed to accept the 1947 UN Partition Agreement.

          There was no Palestinian body then that could speak for Palestinians, but happily, there is now. The PA’s a reasonable choice.

          So let’s just ask the PA, shall we? Does the PA now accept the 1947 UN Partition? If yes, then our problem’s solved!

        • Hostage says:

          There was no Palestinian body then that could speak for Palestinians, but happily, there is now.

          By way of clarification:
          *The real armistice negotiations were conducted by King Abdullah at his palace at Shuna after he had been formally proclaimed King of Arab Palestine by an Arab Palestinian Congress.
          *The first head of the PLO, Ahmad Shuqayri, had been a member of the Syrian delegation to the Lausanne Conference.
          *Jordan was comprised exclusively of citizens from the Arab communities of the former Palestine mandate. For example, Jerusalem-born Husayn Fakhri al-Khalidi served as a Foreign Minister and Prime Minister of the government of Jordan (despite the fact that he was also an alumnus of the Arab Higher Committee and the All-Palestine Government of Gaza). After the Jericho Congress, King Abdullah dissolved the Transjordanian parliament in preparation for the April 1950 national elections. The new Parliament was composed of a House of Notables (Majlis al-A’yan), or Senate, and the House of Deputies (Majlis al-Nuwwab). Half the seats in the House of Deputies were reserved for representatives from the West Bank. The King appointed many senators and cabinet officials from the West Bank too. They participated in the process of making the laws and conducting the affairs of State.

          The Palestinians and King Hussein certainly did have a violent falling-out, but the Palestinians were formally represented in the government of Jordan and in the UN until the day the political union between the East and West Bank was dissolved. Jordan, like all of the members of the League of Arab States, recognized the de jure existence of the State Palestine in line with the Annex to the League Charter.

        • giladg says:

          Colin, are you telling us there was no, or little collective identity of the local Arab population whom you now call Palestinians? Finally we agree on something. The invented identity of Palestinians gained momentum after 1962. As you say Colin, before that they did not identify as a group therefore they had no leader. Arab culture places loyalty first to the local families and “chiefs”.

        • seanmcbride says:

          giladg,

          Those two questions I asked you earlier:

          1. Which ethnic nationalist movements around the world do you care about other than your own?

          2. Why should ethnic outsiders care about your ethnic nationalist movement when most of them are not even ethnic nationalists for themselves?

          Any response or thoughts?

          I think these questions go to the heart of the crisis that Israel and Zionism are facing in their relations with the modern democratic West and the world at large.

          Are you into big thinking at all? Or is your mind entirely boxed in by ethnocentrism?

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Colin, are you telling us there was no, or little collective identity of the local Arab population whom you now call Palestinians?”

          Is it that you can’t think gilad or merely that you can’t read? He clearly said there was no “body” — something far apart from the racist drivel you’re spreading here.

          “As you say Colin, before that they did not identify as a group therefore they had no leader.”

          Baloney. The Palestinians were a single people (in a larger ethnicity) living in a single land, sharing a single culture and language and sharing one or two main religions.

          Compare that to the pre-zionism Jews, who lives in hundreds of places, in dozens of different cultures, speaking scores of differnet languages and living as many different lifestyles. They were groups of people with nothing in common but a religion. If your racist assertion is that the Palestinians were not a “people” then neither were the Jews. Indeed, while you might say that post 1967, there is a such thing as an “israeli” people but, by your definitions, nothing more.

        • Hostage says:

          They were groups of people with nothing in common but a religion.

          It would be more correct to talk about the cultures of the Jews and various Judaisms. Even the standard pre-mandate era 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article on Jerusalem contained a page-long digression explaining the historical details about the official recognition of the Sephardic Jewish community by the Ottoman government, via a decree issued by the Sultan.
          link to books.google.com

          Its chief rabbi, the Hakam Bashi, was a government official tasked with responsibility for collecting taxes for the Empire from the Jews. He was vested with authority to collect and administer communal taxes too. The article explained that the Ashkenaziim refused to accept the authority of the Hakam Bashi; that they were not officially recognized as a community by the Ottoman government; and that most enjoyed the protection of some foreign consulate. Even today, the Israeli rabbinate remains divided along the Askenazim/Separdim confessional lines and several of the non-orthodox Judaisms are only recognized by the State Sports Ministry.

        • giladg says:

          seanmcrbride, I tried answering you earlier but my post never made it. I’ll try again. Do you classify the goings on in Dafur as ethnic nationalistic? The only thing I have been able to do is donate money for refugees as the Janajweed Sudanese Arabs don’t really care if the Sudanese embassy is picketed or if export trade is blocked.
          Now I also support a solution for the Kurds. The Turks have gotten away with murder on this one. So I ask you, have you done anything for the Kurds and if so, what?
          The problem I have with you seanmcbride, and many out the of the left, is attacking Israel is easy for you. You have the tendency to block out any past negative action taken by the Arabs (yes Palestinians are Arabs). Israel is a western based economy, is active in businesses, arts and sciences all around the world, has computer chips in the cell phone you now carry and the computer on which you just wrote your post, has produced medical devices and medicines you may be using right now, and significantly, Jews care about other people. Jews are also allowed to freely criticize their own country and people, unlike the Arabs. Israel is a high profile target, easy to find. What makes Israel’s position even worse than it should be is the “blame me first” cowards who have joined the movement against Israel. These are the Jews in crisis as they do not understand the ways of the real world and place the bar at a height that no other country has been able to achieve, and because Israel has not reached that height, they condemn it from a position that reflects their own insecurities. Meantime they push the possibilities of peace further away because they do not make demands on the Palestinians, the main one being to accept that Jews have a history in places like Jerusalem, Hebron and yes, the West Bank, places that are as important to Jews as they are to anyone else. You probably think I am speaking Greek. So go run with the pack seanmcbride, it’s the “in” and the easy thing to do right now.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “These are the Jews in crisis as they do not understand the ways of the real world and place the bar at a height that no other country has been able to achieve, and because Israel has not reached that height, they condemn it from a position that reflects their own insecurities.”

          I’m not going to speak for anybody else, but I don’t oppose israel because it’s not perfect or because it hasn’t reached some mythical bar, but because it has held a population equal in size to its own as stateless serfs without rights, based on their ethno-religious background, while stealing their land. That’s the problem, and not your bullshit stories about immigrants from Russia or Brooklyn having a mystic “connection” to Hebron based on 2,500 year old myths and stories.

        • giladg says:

          Woody, there is a word in Hebrew for “stuck”. It is “Takua”.
          Tanaka is Takua. Most of the Arabs in the West Bank live under Palestinian rule, pay taxes to the Palestinian Authority and have very little contact, on a day to day basis, with any Israeli.
          This should be enough until a peace deal is worked out, a deal that insures the security of the Jewish State and a deal that takes into account the many wars and terror campaigns waged by Arabs and Muslims against Jews.

        • eljay says:

          >> Israel is a western based economy, is active in businesses, arts and sciences all around the world, has computer chips in the cell phone you now carry … , has produced medical devices and medicines you may be using right now, and significantly, Jews care about other people.

          Israel is also an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state, born of terrorism and ethnic cleansing and maintained and expanded by means of a 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder.

          I never cease to be amazed by how easily hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists like giladgeee are able to gloss over all the ugliness that lies at the rotten heart of “Jewish State”.

        • American says:

          “place the bar at a height that no other country”

          Huh?…….I think ‘don’t steal others land and kill them’ is a pretty minimal bar.

        • seanmcbride says:

          giladg,

          I am still unclear about what ethnic nationalist movements around the world you support other than your own — Jewish ethnic nationalism.

          Kurdish ethnic nationalism? Have you written about that subject anywhere on the Internet? Can we take a look?

          Do you support white nationalists in Europe and the United States? Or do you oppose them? On what grounds, either way?

          Why should non-Jews who are not ethnic nationalists for their own ethnic groups support, care about or make sacrifices for Jewish ethnic nationalism?

          Modern Western democracies oppose ethnic and religious nationalism within their own borders.

          Why should we make an exception for Israel, Zionism and Jewish ethnic nationalism? On what grounds? Simply because it is in *your* self-interest for us to do so?

        • Hostage says:

          This should be enough until a peace deal is worked out, a deal that insures the security of the Jewish State and a deal that takes into account the many wars and terror campaigns waged by Arabs and Muslims against Jews.

          Sorry but the ICJ affirmed the fact that no state has the right to peace and security while it violates the rights of the inhabitants of the territory in its Kosovo decision.

          Unless Israel pays compensation to the refugees who opt for it, or allows them to be repatriated, it has no inherent right to live in peace or security. In fact, the Court ruled on that issue in the Wall case. It said that Israel could not cite security or a state of necessity to avoid the responsibility for the wrongfulness of its own actions, because Israel had contributed to the state of necessity. The Mitchell report also noted that Israel has to withdraw its armed forces before it can expect the Palestinians to terminate their belligerent claims.

        • giladg says:

          I’ll tell you why seanmcbride. The wheel turns and history seems to repeat itself. The non ethnic nationalist, as you describe yourself, eventually understand that they need to belong to something. And when times are tough with inflation and poverty, a dynamic politician will come along and promise you things and tell you that only he can makes things better. Just sign up and pledge your allegiance to the leader (Hitler). Socialism destroys families seanmcrible, never succeeds and usually ends badly with a lot of violence.
          Jews, who you call ethnic nationalist, place their believe G-d, do not follow the socialist line and place emphasis on family and community, with no desires on other people neither to rule or to blame for their own problems.
          Socialist however, look to blame everyone but themselves. Is this who you are seanmcbride?
          I will support any ethnic nationalist movement that does not try to dominate others and looks to want to improve their own community, which is usually hard enough without the unachievable lies the left tells you about being able to fix the world. The thing you have not understood is that the Zionist movements has no desire to rule over the Palestinians. The desire to remain alive and safe as Jews is still the pressing issue.

        • eljay says:

          >> I will support any ethnic nationalist movement that does not try to dominate others …

          Zionism – and the supremacist state it created – have been dominating non-Jews in Palestine for 60+ years. When you say “I will not support any ethnic nationalist movement that does not try to dominate others … ” you are very blatantly lying.

          >> The thing you have not understood is that the Zionist movements has no desire to rule over the Palestinians.

          Here, giladgeee openly advocates for the cleansing of all non-Jews out of Israel.

        • Citizen says:

          @ giladg

          So this is Greek to you: No other country but Israel is an occupying power, and has been one for 45 years, all that while draining the resources of the natives, walling them in “on a diet,” and daily bulldozing their homes and stealing their land.

          No other country but Israel gets so much annual US funding, and without strings but with interest so that it the biggest recipient of US foreign aid in US history despite being the size of NJ. And no other country’s debt is underwritten by the US. And no other country’s oil supply and cutting-edge arms are guaranteed by the USA.

          No other country but Israel has the USA’s UN SC veto in its pocket, protecting Israel from accountability to the international community of nations.

        • seanmcbride says:

          giladg,

          I am not a “leftist” — I am a progressive libertarian and have always been strongly anti-Marxist and anti-Communist.

          I am an Americanist and a supporter of modern Western democratic values. Modern Western democracies do not organize their politics around single ethnic or religious groups — they have moved on to a higher level of social organization, and with great success.

          Apparently the only ethnic nationalist movement you really care about is your own — Jewish ethnic nationalism — Zionism.

          And so far you haven’t provided a single argument to explain why non-Jews, who are not ethnic nationalists for themselves, should care about your ethnic nationalism or provide it with any support.

          Don’t you see where this is going? Israel’s relations with the United States and Europe are already coming apart at the seams. Unless Israel joins the Western democratic camp, the Western democratic camp is going to cut it loose — just as it abandoned apartheid South Africa.

        • seanmcbride says:

          giladg,

          I didn’t see your response to these two points:

          1. Kurdish ethnic nationalism? Have you written about that subject anywhere on the Internet? Can we take a look?

          2. Do you support white nationalists in Europe and the United States? Or do you oppose them? On what grounds, either way?

        • mig says:

          @giladg

          The wheel turns and history seems to repeat itself.

          And unfortunately, as it is, same mistakes are done over and over again.

          The non ethnic nationalist, as you describe yourself, eventually understand that they need to belong to something.

          Human race ? I guess we all have done that already.

          And when times are tough with inflation and poverty, a dynamic politician will come along and promise you things and tell you that only he can makes things better.

          We try not to leap that hole here. “The wheel turns and history seems to repeat itself”.

          Just sign up and pledge your allegiance to the leader (Hitler).

          It’s 2012. Not 1933 as you think it is. So, i think that its just little late to join that boy scout.

          Socialism destroys families seanmcrible, never succeeds and usually ends badly with a lot of violence.

          Same goes with right wing stuff.

          Jews, who you call ethnic nationalist, place their believe G-d, do not follow the socialist line and place emphasis on family and community, with no desires on other people neither to rule or to blame for their own problems.

          And pretty good number of early zionists were commies. But its all different now ?

          Socialist however, look to blame everyone but themselves.

          But, thanks to God, not with zionists. Oh no.

          I will support any ethnic nationalist movement that does not try to dominate others and looks to want to improve their own community, which is usually hard enough without the unachievable lies the left tells you about being able to fix the world. The thing you have not understood is that the Zionist movements has no desire to rule over the Palestinians.

          Thats true gilad, they wish to kick them out, not to rule em’. You have learned something after all.

          The desire to remain alive and safe as Jews is still the pressing issue.

          Yup, classic case of PTSD. Post-traumatic stress disorder. I would argue that you have created the whole new disorder : Pre-traumatic stress disorder.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “The thing you have not understood is that the Zionist movements has no desire to rule over the Palestinians.”

          LMAO. No, they just want to steal their land.

        • Citizen says:

          ” I would argue that you have created the whole new disorder : Pre-traumatic stress disorder.”

          Atzmon’s book, The Wondering Who?, calls this the Jewish Pre-traumatic stress syndrome. He develops this mental disorder significantly.

        • eljay says:

          >> When you say “I will not support any ethnic nationalist movement that does not try to dominate others … ” you are very blatantly lying.

          Correction: When you say “I will support any ethnic nationalist movement that does not try to dominate others … ” you are very blatantly lying.

        • giladg says:

          seacmcbride, a true libertarian would not support the Palestinians in the way you are. They have done plenty to warrant a hard look by people like you, but for some reason you either find excuses for them or you ignore past transgressions. You also seem to place very little weight on Jewish history backed by the Torah, archeology and written works from the time (Dead Sea Scrolls and the works of Josephus Falvius) and the Bible. The Palestinians, as Palestinians have nothing in regard to specific history, archeology or written works that establish anything Palestinian Arab. The Palestinian movement only really started in the early 1960′s. A libertarian, if involved in the conflict as you are, would do the hard work and look at both sides.

          And regarding democracy and the US being one, this is a joke. First of all the US is a Republic, which is different to a democracy. But carrying on your line about democracy, have you not noticed that you have given up so many freedom’s that the supreme court rules as it wishes and makes a mockery of the constitution. A true libertarian would be talking constitution, constitution all the time. I don’t know about your actions seanmcbride, but by your words you are no libertarian. You are emotionally involved in the Palestinian cause in a deep and one sided way. I would hope that true libertarians have a better want for the truth and are not so quick to accept the Arab narrative, that discounts Jewish history as “insignificant”.

          Regarding the Kurds, I have not written anything of siginificance on the subject. Regarding Europe, the loss of freedom I talked about above with political correctness, has allowed radical Islam to take roots. I don’t care for white nationalism in Europe but what I would like to see is communities that have the same positive goals in common. Multiculturalism in Europe has not been successful. I care little for many of the Europeans who allowed the Germans to carry out their evil. There are some exceptions, like Bulgaria and Denmark. Most of the Europeans went over the edge with nearly everyone else in WWII. The period prior to WWII is looking very similar to what is going on now. Will you go off the edge again?

        • giladg says:

          seanmcbride “And so far you haven’t provided a single argument to explain why non-Jews, who are not ethnic nationalists for themselves, should care about your ethnic nationalism or provide it with any support.” …
          - I don’t mind if you don’t really care about Jewish ethnic nationalism. But at the same time do the same for Palestinian national aspirations. The Palestinians have managed to pull the wool over your eyes. You think the conflict is a Israel/Palestinian one when it is really an Israeli/Arab(Muslim) conflict. If the Palestinians have established a track outside of the Arab/Muslim one, then this should fit your definition of ethnic nationalism. You support them and at the same time they, the Palestinians, reject Jewish history. The only reason why you would do such a thing is the baggage you carry, which is antisemitism. I cannot see any other reason because the talk about colonialism and apartheid are all lies. Israel/Jews has reacted to Arab rejection-ism since the 1880′s. Just look at the large number of wars and terror campaigns waged against the Jewish people. The Palestinians need to take responsibility for those. Don’t let them off the hook.

        • seanmcbride says:

          giladg,

          We have achieved a major breakthrough in mutual understanding here: you admit that you are not much interested in any ethnic nationalist movement other than your own (no surprise there — why should you be?), and you agree that there is no good reason for non-Jews to care much about Jewish nationalism, or any form of ethnic nationalism that is not their own, or about ethnic nationalism in general.

          Regarding Palestinian nationalism: I have no connections to Arab, Palestinian or Muslim culture and, since I am not an ethnic nationalist for my own ethnic group(s), obviously I am not a Palestinian nationalist.

          However, I am strongly opposed to any American foreign policies that enable the mistreatment and abuse of any human group, and Israel has indeed been mistreating and abusing Palestinians for quite a few decades now. The mistreatment and abuse should stop immediately and the American government should do everything in its power to make it stop. At a minimum, Palestinians are owed major reparations for the suffering they have endured at the hands of the Zionist movement.

          Regarding modern Western democratic values: I was referring to the belief that members of all ethnic and religious groups in a democracy should enjoy equal status, rights, opportunities, etc. under the law and be treated as *individuals* — not as members of ethnic or religious collectives.

          If the United States and Western Europe officially declared themselves to be white Christian states, and treated Jews the same way that Israel has been treating Palestinians, I think you would raise some objections.

        • Hostage says:

          The Palestinians have managed to pull the wool over your eyes. You think the conflict is a Israel/Palestinian one when it is really an Israeli/Arab(Muslim) conflict. If the Palestinians have established a track outside of the Arab/Muslim one, then this should fit your definition of ethnic nationalism.

          The “Jewish” Diaspora isn’t “Israeli”, but it started the conflict in the first place and has intentionally prolonged it. Ambassador Micheal Oren made an ass out of himself recently by trying to quash a 60 Minutes program segment which described how the government of Israel is persecuting the Palestinian Christian communities of Bethlehem. The signatories of The Kairos Palestine Document include Latin, Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopal, Greek Orthodox, Armenian, and other Christian groups. So why are you trying to pull the wool over our eyes by claiming this is a conflict with Arab Muslims, instead of one against all non-Jewish Palestinians?

        • Hostage says:

          You also seem to place very little weight on Jewish history backed by the Torah, archeology and written works from the time (Dead Sea Scrolls and the works of Josephus Falvius) and the Bible.

          The Torah itself explained that God would drive the Jews into exile (e.g. See Deuteronomy 28:15- 36). Judaism is a religion that is suited to life in the Diaspora, but the Knesset has never adopted the Torah to govern the day-to-day operations of the government of the State of Israel. In fact it requires one law for both the children of Israel and for strangers living in the land, not the two tiered apartheid laws that you have in place today.

          The Bible established the “historical connection” of many other ethnic nationalities, including the Edomites, Moabites, Philistines, Phoenicians, & etc. The scriptures establish that God himself had brought some of those other peoples into the Middle East in exactly the same way that the Patriarch Abram had been brought there from the land of the Chaldeans. The Torah prohibited the Israelites from obtaining title so much as an inch of the lands God had given to them by conquest or any other means. But by the era of the Second Commonwealth, the ancient Israelites had long since ignored or violated those prohibitions.

          FYI, modern archeology confirms that Josephus was completely wrong in many instances, including the history of the Samaritan Temple on Mt. Gerazim.
          link to antiquities.org.il
          link to bib-arch.org

          In any event, Josephus had nothing good to say about the nationalist and religious factions that started the Wars of the Jews. Rabbi Johanan ben Zakai also sided with Vespasian against those same nationalist and religious factions. FYI, the Dead Sea sect considered members of the Jerusalem Temple cult, like Josephus and the Rabbi, to be sons of darkness that they hoped to massacre in a final apocalyptic battle. Little else about them is known with any degree of certainty.

          The Israeli Supreme Court refused to honor claims and the public debts created by the mandatory in the course of establishing the Jewish national home in Palestine. This, despite the fact that the Jews living there had always been obligated to do so in accordance with Article 28 of the Mandate and the terms of the UN partition plan. See the references to public debts and treaty obligations in:
          *Article 28 of the Palestine Mandate link to avalon.law.yale.edu
          *UN General Assembly Resolution 181 link to yale.edu

          The representatives of the Zionists had helped draft both of those documents and had formally “accepted” the terms. The High Court ruled instead that all rights under the mandate had ended when it was terminated. See CApp 41/49 Simshon Palestine Portland Cement Factory LTD. v. Attorney-General (1950) link to elyon1.court.gov.il

          So your own religion and government didn’t set a very good example when it comes to honoring the “historical” claims of the other peoples living in Palestine.

        • giladg says:

          seanmcbride, how about the Arab and Muslim world mistreating Israel and the Jewish people by wagging war after war on the basis that Jews don’t have a connection to this land? Why do you let them get away with this abuse? When more and more Jews started returning to what is now called Israel, they were buying land legally. When the local Arab population felt that too many Jews were showing up, they shouted no to the Ottomans, and the Ottomans complied. No more land to be sold to Jews. Was this okay?
          If Jews do have the connection we know they do, and the non violent sale of land was then banned, what options did this leave the Jewish people, in their historic homeland? When the Arab and Muslim armies marched on Israel in 1948, it was not because Jews had forced anyone to leave their homes. The leaving of the homes occurred after the outbreak of war, that was started by the Arabs and Muslims.
          Now if you are a progressive libertarian ( I don’t really know where the progressive part of it manifests itself), you should support Israel as Israel is on the front line of the Islamic march to dominate the region and the world. The type of government that Muslims have in mind for America does not bode well for libertarians. Show me one Muslim country where libertarians roam?

        • seanmcbride says:

          giladg,

          I think the Zionist project was a mistake from its conception and hasn’t the slightest chance of succeeding over the long term.

          If Zionists had tried to create a Jewish state by force and terrorism on American or European territory, they would have been met by massive hostility and violent resistance. Arabs and Muslims, understandably so, have viewed Zionism as an unjust and alien invasion of their territory originating largely from Europe and Russia. They wonder why Palestinians have been forced to pay the price for crimes committed by European Nazis and fascists.

          Many of the best minds in the Jewish world and the American national security community warned that creating the state of Israel would be a disastrous political error for everyone concerned (including Jews), and the world is increasingly leaning towards the belief that these dissenters were prophets who had it right all along.

          Because any particular people has had a “connection” to an area of geography for a time doesn’t automatically entitle it to create an ethnically exclusivist state on that territory in a way that violates the rights of the existing inhabitants.

          Jewish civilization is capable of thriving and prospering without Zionism. If Zionism does in fact fail, Jews will have no problem landing on their feet and successfully going about their usual creative business in the United States, Europe and elsewhere.

          Even if Zionism were a righteous and reasonable project, there would be no reason for non-Jews to get involved with it or make sacrifices for it. For instance, I can’t imagine Irish nationalists ever demanding that Jews (or any other non-Irish ethnic group) make large contributions to their cause. Ethnic nationalism is intrinsically self-ghettoizing and tends to alienate ethnic outsiders. Most human beings who have crossed the line into “modernity” (to use Netanyahu’s term in his UN speech yesterday) have abandoned ethnic nationalism.

          Netanyahu, of course, failed to comprehend the irony in his use of the word “modernity”: he himself is thoroughly under the psychological control of ancient and primitive myths, symbols and archetypes. He is, in fact, pre-medieval in his outlook on the world. His harangues about the Bible strike modernists as quaint or ludicrous.

        • Mooser says:

          “seanmcbride, how about the Arab and Muslim world mistreating Israel and the Jewish people by wagging war”

          giladg, it’s your own goddam fault, and I’m willing to bet it all springs from ancient pre-bronze-age Hebraic superstitions. Yup, gildg (how does one pronounce that “dg” on the end?) if you weren’t so afraid of carnivorous animals there, Leviticus, you might get a Chocolate Lab like I did. Now this Jew is ready to win any wagging war. Bring ‘em on, and we’ll out- wag em. And give ‘em a good licking into the bargain.

        • seanmcbride says:

          giladg,

          Re: “progressive libertarian”:

          libertarian: opposed to the collection of too much oppressive power by governments.

          progressive: opposed to the collection of too much oppressive power by private interests.

          On foreign affairs: do not meddle in the affairs of other nations unless absolutely necessary. We shouldn’t be in the messianic business of perfecting and redeeming the world.

          Re: messianic Muslims: I have encountered none on the American scene. On the other hand, I *have* encountered many messianic Zionists and Judeo-Christian fascists.

          Neoconservatives, Christian Zionists and pro-Israel militants in general would appear to represent a much greater threat to Americans, American democracy and American prosperity than Muslims. Zionists have spearheaded the multi-trillion dollar Iraq War and the assault on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Now they are furiously agitating for a war against Iran. They resemble a weird mix of Stalinism and Nazism.

          Re: Islam in general: I don’t feel much sympathy or empathy for it. But I wouldn’t go out of my way to pick a war with more than a billion Muslims worldwide for the sake of clearing a path for building Greater Israel.

        • Citizen says:

          @ giladg
          RE: “You support them and at the same time they, the Palestinians, reject Jewish history.”

          What Jewish history do the Palestinians reject? They don’t reject what the Nazi regime did to the Jews in Europe. Nor do they reject the history of pogroms in Europe or
          Jews getting kicked out of various European lands.

          Yet the Israeli regime rejects The Nakba although the Jewish Zionists themselves did it, very recently in human history, and they continue to steal Palestinian land right up to this moment.

        • seafoid says:

          Wagging war

          Are you a wag ?

          Historic Jewish homeland WTF

          I got this in my inbox today

          link to judaicawebstore.com

          Menorah, Italy, 16th century
          House blessing tiles, north Africa, 19th century
          Menorah, Poland, 20th century
          Silver Kiddush cup, Morocco, 19th century
          Pendant, France, 19th century
          Amulet, Persia, 18th century
          Amulet, Afghanistan, 17th century

        • MHughes976 says:

          On historic homelands, let me commend ‘The Quest for the Historical Israel’ (2007; cost me about 20 GBP), which compares the views of Israel Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar, perhaps the leading archaeologists of contemporary Israel. They are both ‘centrists’, though Finkelstein is centrist-sceptical when it comes to the Biblical texts under discussion, Mazar centrist-supportive. I don’t see how there is much room for doubt, even if one takes Mazar’s line, that the Holy Land is the historic home of many non-Jewish peoples too. The authors reach modern times in pointing out how archaeology/ancient history played an enormous part in constructing the Israel of today, though they end their ancient history with Nebucadnezzar and manage not to reach the epoch of Ezra and Nehemiah where Finkelstein’s known views depart from centrism rather radically.
          We should read books like this and ask ourselves what rational transfer there is of the rights of ancient polities to the countries and territories of our times. How would any ‘transfer of right’ work in respect of the non-Jewish as well as of the Jewish element?

        • giladg says:

          Learn Arabic seanmcbride and you will start to learn with whom you allied yourself with. American Jews criticizing Israel in English make it easy for you. They blindside you as well. Ever wondered where all the Muslims are, those who criticize the Muslim world, and in English?

        • andrew r says:

          how about the Arab and Muslim world mistreating Israel and the Jewish people by wagging war after war on the basis that Jews don’t have a connection to this land?

          You need to get over the idea that the Zionist project was benign and non-violent. Ruppin was very blunt about the basic aims of settlement:

          This aim is: to bring the Jews as a second nation into a country that is already settled by a nation – and to achieve that by peaceful means. History knows such intrusion […] only by way of occupation, but it has not yet happened that a nation agreed of its own good will to let another nation come and demand complete and equal rights as well as national autonomy. The uniqueness of the case precludes, in my opinion, treating it according to the accepted official and legal concepts. It requires a special study and consideration. Brit shalom should be the forum in which this problem will be discussed.”283

          [Bloom 379]

          If Jews do have the connection we know they do, and the non violent sale of land was then banned, what options did this leave the Jewish people, in their historic homeland?

          The sale of land was not as kosher as you make it out to be.

          The 14,200 dunams of this colony were purchased from Anton Bishara Tayan and Salim Kaser, two Christian Orthodox merchants and moneylenders from Jaffa, who acquired the land and retained its owners – the villagers of Umlabess and Yahudiya – as tenant farmers, when their land was sequestered by the authorities for being in arrears in the payment of taxes. Given the crude character of the tapu, the Ottoman land register, parts of the purchase were disputed: the Arab tenant farmers very likely were legally entitled to the possession of 2,600 dunams, though Tayan claimed to have sold the whole area to its new owners.

          [Shafir, Land, Labor, 200]
          link to mondoweiss.net

          Ruppin admitted that buying land alone was not going to achieve Jewish political autonomy in Palestine:

          Ruppin claimed that there were deep and manifest conflicts of interests between Arabs and Jews, conflicts which would worsen as the Zionists gained more control of the land: “Land is the essential condition for putting down economic roots in Palestine […] wherever we purchase land and settle people on it – its current workers [the Arabs] must of necessity be removed, whether they be owners or tenants […] in future it will be much harder to purchase land, because sparsely settled land is no longer available – what is left is land settled with considerable density” (ibid.). 283 Ruppin to Kohn [30 May. 1928] in: (Bein 1968, III, 149-150).

          [Bloom 379]

          Even as early as 1914, he admitted transfer was a means to the ultimate aim of Zionist settlement:

          Although he anticipated some cultural problems, Ruppin remained optimistic during the whole of his “blind spot” phase: “It is highly probable that the two [Jews and Arabs] would live happily and amicably together even if the Jews were to come in great numbers” (Ruppin 1914, 292). Nevertheless, the “happy and amicable” relations he anticipated did not necessarily exclude the implementation of a large scale transfer of the Arab
          population, whether voluntary or forced. In his “blind spot” phase, Ruppin believed that the transfer was a reasonable solution. In May 1914, to note one example, 255 he submitted his plan for the transfer of Arabs from Palestine to Syria. In a letter to Dr. Victor Jacobson256 he wrote:
          “We are considering a parallel Arab colonization. Thus, we are planning to
          buy land in the regions of Homs,257 Aleppo etc. which we will sell under easy terms to those Palestinian fellahin who have been harmed by our land
          purchases.”258
          258 Ruppin to Jacobson, [12 May 1914], pp.1-2, (CZA L2/34ii); extract reprinted in: (Alsberg 1955/6,
          206-07).

          [Bloom 363]

          Source for Bloom cites above:
          link to tau.ac.il

          When the Arab and Muslim armies marched on Israel in 1948, it was not because Jews had forced anyone to leave their homes. The leaving of the homes occurred after the outbreak of war, that was started by the Arabs and Muslims.

          Most of those who read Mondoweiss know this to be a flatout lie. Haifa, Jaffa and the former villages making up present-day Tel Aviv (Shiekh Muwannis, Jammasin), as well as many villages in the Jerusalem area (Deir Yassin, Lifta) were already depopulated by the end of the British Mandate. There were terrorist attacks (reprisals, to be euphemistic) by Haganah at Haifa and al-Khisas that killed civilians, and Haganah also took part in the attack on Deir Yassin. The Haganah shelled Haifa and Acre before 15 May and the Irgun shelled Jaffa. And that’s only what I can recite from memory.

        • Blake says:

          Take it in this context: Romans occupied Britain longer than the Israelites occupied Palestine (& left behind far more valuable & useful work as a Lord in the British parliament said circa 1920 – his name escapes me for now)

        • giladg says:

          “Zionists have spearheaded the multi-trillion dollar Iraq War and the assault on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights”, seanmcbride tells us. How about global warming and the salmon fish crisis in the Caspian Sea?

        • ColinWright says:

          giladg says: “Zionists have spearheaded the multi-trillion dollar Iraq War and the assault on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights”, seanmcbride tells us. How about global warming and the salmon fish crisis in the Caspian Sea?”

          So…say…if you’re charged in court with auto theft, your proposed defense is going to be that someone else committed arson?

  18. Kathleen says:

    Realistic forecast. Bleak!

  19. Nevada Ned says:

    Rashid Khalidi, holder of the Edward Said chair at Columbia Univ., has written

    “the now universally applauded two-state solution faces the juggernaut of Israel’s actions in the occupied territories over more than forty years, actions that have been expressly designed to make its realization in any meaningful form impossible.”

  20. RE: “No serious observer doubts that a two-state settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is currently all but dead, thanks to the continuing Israeli occupation, repression, settler expansion, and creeping ethnic cleansing in the West Bank.” ~ Slater

    MY RHETORICAL QUESTION: Does this mean that Elliott “Man of Peace” Abrams is not a “serious observer”?!?!

    FROM ELLIOTT ABRAMS, The Washington (Neocon) Post, 04/08/09:

    [EXCERPT] . . . Is current and recent settlement construction creating insurmountable barriers to peace? A simple test shows that it is not. Ten years ago, in the Camp David talks, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat approximately 94 percent of the West Bank, with a land swap to make up half of the 6 percent Israel would keep. According to news reports, just three months ago, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered 93 percent, with a one-to-one land swap. In the end, under the January 2009 offer, Palestinians would have received an area equal to 98 to 98.5 percent of the West Bank (depending on which press report you read), while 10 years ago they were offered 97 percent. Ten years of settlement activity would have resulted in a larger area for the Palestinian state. . .

    SOURCE – link to washingtonpost.com

    P.S. Elliott Abrams has totally convinced me (by the sheer power of his “logic” and his impressive math skills) to wholeheartedly support the Israeli settlement project in the West Bank.
    As I understand it, the ‘Abrams Principle’ stands for the proposition that more Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank will result in a larger area for the Palestinian state. That’s why I say: “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” with the settlement actvity; so as to result in the largest Palestinian state possible (from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River)! “Let Right Be Done.”

  21. wes says:

    Walt, Munayyer, and Mearsheimer offer one state scenarios, and my response………

    “10. The Arab world is likely to become more democratic and more educated over time and that is likely to make countries in the Middle East more critical of Israel. This is what is now happening in Egypt.”

    CAIRO — As other investors flee Egypt because of worries about the country’s rocky transition to democracy, Chinese companies are pouring money into Egyptian projects in the hopes of accessing a huge domestic market and acquiring a base for exports to the Middle East.
    China’s interest in Egypt is driven by a desire to gain a strong foothold in a key African market positioned at the juncture of three continents. Egypt also has a large labor force that Chinese companies could put to work.

    link to nytimes.com

    chinese putting arabs to work -now thats a good idea

    thats what i call real world politics not some crap written by over indulged theorists
    who do not live in israel or egypt

  22. Patrick says:

    Jerome Slater mentioned that he wasn’t “sure there are any knowledgable observers, or governments, that still have illusions about Israel’s torpedoing of the two-state solution. ”

    Well there is Canada, which is being run by an Alberta-based clique of hardliners with a purely neo-conservative approach to foreign policy. Anything that Israel says or does is always right with these people.

  23. David Samel says:

    Jerry Slater’s “main point” is as follows: “every obstacle to the attainment of a two-state settlement makes a one-state settlement inconceivable.” As he states: “every factor that accounts for Israeli intransigence on a two-state solution makes a democratic one-state solution, with a probable Palestinian majority, doubly hard to imagine.” Jerry acknowledges that ” the continuing Israeli occupation, repression, settler expansion, and creeping ethnic cleansing in the West Bank” has all but killed the possibility of a Palestinian State, but he seems to assume that Israeli will is the primary obstacle to either solution. He thinks that since Israel is not budging toward a 2ss, it is far less likely that Israelis will agree to the far more radical solution of one state.

    However, I think that the settlers are the primary reason many people think that the 2ss is dead. For there to be a viable Palestinian state, even with land swaps that will make some settler-dense areas of the West Bank part of Israel in exchange for some Green Line territory transferred to Palestine, hundreds of thousands of settlers would have to be moved. Norman Finkelstein, a strong proponent of the 2ss, has estimated this number at 200,000. Presumably most of the “economic” settlers could be induced to relocate with the same kind of incentives that encouraged them to move to the WB, but the ideological settlers — fanatics with guns who believe that God wants them to use their weapons — would refuse to budge. Finkelstein thinks that no more than 5000 to 10,000 would be so stubborn, but that strikes me as an absurdly low percentage of the 200,000 he estimates would have to move. It would be impossible to forcibly remove these recalcitrant settlers, who easily number in the tens of thousands and are scattered all over the WB. The settlers are bolstered by their allies in the Knesset who already wield disproportionate political power, and by many sympathetic members of the IDF, including in the higher ranks. Israelis would never risk a civil war over this. It also has been proposed that those settlers who refuse to leave could suffer loss of IDF protection and even Israeli citizenship, having to accept Palestinian citizenship and Palestinian jurisdiction and legal control over their lives. Of course, they would refuse to do this willingly, leading inevitably to clashes with the police and/or army of the new Palestinian State, and overwhelming pressure on Israel to intervene to save their erstwhile citizens from such a clash with “savages.” I don’t think I’m letting my imagination run wild. Essentially, removing these ideological settlers would be impossible; and leaving them in Palestine would quickly lead to disaster.

    So far, Israel has managed to resist pressure to agree to a 2ss with expert PR that the “international community,” led by the US, either believes or pretends to believe. They have convinced those who matter that Israel did make generous and reasonable offers that the Palestinians unreasonably rejected, and blah blah blah. It has worked so far. But with a one state scenario, the Palestinian demand is simply equality regardless of ethnicity or ancestry or religion. It would be much more difficult for Israel to spin a demand for equality as being unreasonable, and to portray their own quasi-racial discrimination as legitimate. Almost all of the settlers could remain where they are. If Israelis are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to some sort of settlement, and they’ve gotten away with torpedoing the 2ss while putting the blame on Palestinians, maybe pressure toward the 1ss would be more successful. In any event, if the 2ss is indeed not attainable physically, there doesn’t seem to be much point in trying to attain it.

    One other advantage of the 1ss is that those Palestinians who are Israeli citizens would benefit as well. If Israel were to agree tomorrow to a viable 2ss, its own Palestinian citizens would continue to live as second-class citizens — non-Jews in a “Jewish State.” Their struggle for equality would continue and would not be “solved” by Israel’s long overdue end to the Occupation. The inherent unfairness of a Jewish State that values me and Phil and Adam and Slater and Finkelstein over people whose families have lived on the land for centuries would not disappear with the creation of a Palestinian State.

    Finally, I thought the responses of these three men were very illuminating, especially Mearsheimer’s comprehensive list of points. Jerry answered these points quite well, but essentially argues that many of Mearsheimer’s predictions should have come true already if they were ever going to. That makes sense but maybe it just takes more time. I think my children, now in their 20′s, are surprised that apartheid managed to survive in South Africa until after they were born. US state prohibitions of interracial marriage were OK until 1967. It’s amazing how various forms of racism have such staying power, but eventually they are exposed for what they are: indefensible.

    • Jerry Slater says:

      David:

      I certainly accept everything you say about the difficulty–maybe the impossibility–of getting the settlers back into Israel, which should be defined to mean Israel within the pre-1967 territory. The main difference in our views is that you think that the settler problem would be resolved in the framework of a binational single state, because they could remain in place, but I think you are underestimating the full dimensions of the settler problem. Whether or not they could remain in place would be less important to them than whether they could continue to live in a state dominated by Jews. After all, these are people who are precisely the most racist, most fanatical, most religiously fundamentalist (medieval) and most violent sector within Israeli society–ergo the least likely to be willing to live in a state in which the Palestinians, with equal political rights, would soon become a majority.

      In any case, as we both know, putting all this on the settlers is a great oversimplification–there are many other factors that account for the Israeli attitudes. Those attitudes, I argued, completely preclude the establishment of a genuinely democratic binational state, whereas they might not quite so completely preclude, in the future, the removal of the settlers and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

      I realize that some propose a third alternative: forget about the state issue, and work for the full and equal rights of all inhabitants of the area. But this also strikes me as unrealistic: full and equal rights must include political rights, and in any case it is hard to see how rights can be granted and protected except within a democratic state framework.

      • seanmcbride says:

        Jerry Slater wrote:

        The main difference in our views is that you think that the settler problem would be resolved in the framework of a binational single state, because they could remain in place, but I think you are underestimating the full dimensions of the settler problem. Whether or not they could remain in place would be less important to them than whether they could continue to live in a state dominated by Jews. After all, these are people who are precisely the most racist, most fanatical, most religiously fundamentalist (medieval) and most violent sector within Israeli society–ergo the least likely to be willing to live in a state in which the Palestinians, with equal political rights, would soon become a majority.

        The Zionist establishment as a whole, both the “left” (Labor) and the “right” (Likud), has supported the settlements project, which has been spearheaded by — in your words — zealots who are fanatical and medieval racists and religious fundamentalists.

        The Israeli “left” is completely entangled and enmeshed with these anti-liberal extremists — it owns them.

        How then is it possible for anyone to describe himself or herself as a “liberal Zionist”? That phrase is truly an egregious oxymoron.

        What say you?

        Furthermore, according to your own first-rate political, cultural and demographic analysis, the power of these zealots is going to increase in Israeli society for the foreseeable future. So what is your next move on the board, personally speaking? What options do you have left?

        • seanmcbride says:

          Jerry,

          Let me spell it out: it seems to me that the only remaining viable move on the board for Jewish liberals like yourself is to become anti-Zionists.

          Are there any strong counterarguments?

          The chances of moving Israel into the modern Western democratic camp are between zero and none.

          The response of Israel towards this historical predicament has been to pull out all the stops in attempting to drive America towards racism, fascism and religious fundamentalism (hence its full-throated support for Christian Zionists).

        • seanmcbride says:

          Jerry,

          I think an argument can be made that, looking forward, the most pressing mission of the Jewish community will be to reclaim the Jewish tradition from Zionism and to realign it with the values of the Haskalah (Jewish Enlightenment). Enlightenment values are good for the Jews and good for everyone else.

          Letting go of Zionism will be difficult, but sometimes you need to know when to cut your losses.

          The biggest stumbling block to ditching Zionism: memories of the Holocaust, which are still fresh in the minds of many Jews, and understandably so. The Holocaust was a great deal more than a minor historical road bump — it was profoundly traumatizing for Jewish civilization as a whole.

        • Jerry Slater says:

          Sean:

          Very good questions and difficult issues; as I said in my response to Woody Tanaka’s similar points, I wrestle with them as best as I can in a forthcoming article.

          However, I guess it won’t do any harm if I paraphrase here my conclusion in that article: While in principle the Jews have a right to their own state, in practice it is increasingly difficult to separate the issue of whether Israel should continue as a Jewish state from the kind of Jewish state it has become.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “While in principle the Jews have a right to their own state”

          Oh? And tell me, since it is indisputable that for the Jews to have that state that they had to overrun and expel a population that already existed on that land for thousands of years, are there other people who have this same “right”?? If the Kurds decide that they want a state in Ireland, do they have the right to take over Ireland as the Jews took over Palestine? If the Roma and Sinti decide that they want a state in Guatemala, do they have the right to ethnically cleanse the Guatemalans?

          Is your lists of reasons why the Jews have this right to a state drawn up solely to address their concerns without the intent for it to apply to no other people or do other peoples in the world have this same “right”?

        • Ellen says:

          while in principle Jews have a right to their own state…

          What principle ? Why?

          And while at it, what is a Jew?

      • LeaNder says:

        I am really disappointed by your response, Jerome.

        The main difference in our views is that you think that the settler problem would be resolved in the framework of a binational single state, because they could remain in place, but I think you are underestimating the full dimensions of the settler problem.

        and than justifiably:

        In any case, as we both know, putting all this on the settlers is a great oversimplification–there are many other factors that account for the Israeli attitudes.

        for me David, whom by the way respect a lot, is not so far from the neocons, in his basic solution. Once we brought our type of freedom to the world, everything will work out fine.

        What you didn’t address is the fact that he and his kids could move to Israel anytime, but he is not sure if he wants to leave them with this legacy. Why not, that is a central issue?

        Beyond that I am German enough–that’s probably something you instinctively realized, when you immediately censored my first (ironic, cynical) comment on your blog quite a while ago–to know that “fanatics” melt away really fast, once the power constellations they rely on change.

        I am basically supporting the 2SS solution, since obviously an approach and reconciliation needs time and Palestinians need an “uncontrolled place of one’s own”, one of which they have been bereft of for decades. This feels absolutely necessary, considering the decades of scientific expertise on “the Arab mind”, and what mindset they would encounter in an Israeli state.

      • ColinWright says:

        Jerry Slater says: “I certainly accept everything you say about the difficulty–maybe the impossibility–of getting the settlers back into Israel, which should be defined to mean Israel within the pre-1967 territory. “

        Why? What confers legitimacy on the ‘pre-1967 territory’?

        The only set of legal borders Israel has are those laid out in the 1947 UN Partition Resolution — which Israel accepted.

    • Sin Nombre says:

      @ David Samel:

      Seems to me you’ve perceived a nice theoretical point, David, which however not only doesn’t stand up in the face of further theorizing, but is, as the saying goes, killed by a single nasty stubborn fact.

      Your theoretical point, that is, is that because a One-SS would *not* entail the removal of the settlers of the land they are squatting on it would be far easier to get acceptance for than a Two-SS.

      On its face, sounds smart. But you’re forgetting: Those settlers don’t just covet that land because they live upon it … like, say, the Westward-Ho American settlers did with their cabins out in Kansas Territory. They covet that land because of *where* it is. In Israel. The jewish state. The state that essentially oversees all the land of the jews.

      So asking them to “merely” move is one thing so long as it’s asking them to move to another part of Israel (and so long as Israel doesn’t give up any land—including esp. what was “theirs”—in the deal).

      But telling them they can stay but that hey … they’d then lose the absolute entirety of what “Israel” means to them and what it means to be living where they are … My God one can just imagine the reaction.

      And the nasty stubborn little fact your theory runs into is just simply reality:

      If, after all, a One-SS solution is so much more palatable than a Two-SS, then how come in all these years it’s *never* seem to have attracted even a *molecule* of real support in Israel whatsoever? How come, when we look around at the Israeli discourse even today when the Two-SS solution seems doomed, there’s *still* no such molecules of support for a One-SS?

      Indeed, contrast that stunning lack with what support there is to the logical option to a One-SS: I.e., apartheid or ethnic cleansing.

      I mean … even despite everyone knowing the nastiness with which the world regards same—certainly tamping down lots of Israelis openly endorsing it—well my God there you have the Foreign Minister of Israel *himself* openly talking about his belief in ethnic cleansing. And entire political parties that this is clearly attractive too, and etc., etc.

      Like I say, you’ve made a keen theoretical observation, but haven’t considered it in context, I don’t think, nor in the light of what lots and lots of history and modern reality shows either.

    • Hostage says:

      It would be much more difficult for Israel to spin a demand for equality as being unreasonable, and to portray their own quasi-racial discrimination as legitimate.

      Not really. The Zionists have been very successful in getting the mainstream media to parrot the PR line that the situation in Israel is completely different from the one in the occupied territories. Many, if not most Americans accept the proposition that boycotts and sanctions are inappropriate on the Israeli side of the Green Line, because all citizens there supposedly enjoy equal democratic rights in line with Israel’s Declaration of Independence, that Arabs are fairly represented in government organs and in the budgets, blah, blah, blah.

      In fact, the problem in the occupied territory stems from the extraterritorial application of Israel’s two-tiered system of municipal laws that give people of Jewish descent superior rights and systematically discriminate against non-Jewish citizens on the basis of their nationalities. Nobody talks about segregation and discrimination, like the de facto Jewish-only communal settlements, on the Israeli side of the Green Line. If you simply begin to treat the region as a single state, where the laws of occupation no longer apply, that two-tiered system of municipal law (and concomitant PR campaign) would undoubtedly gain the same sort of mainstream acceptance under the guise of equal rights of citizenship.

      No one is seriously discussing any plan to incorporate or annex the belligerent communities in Gaza either. They are still considered an “enemy entity”. So it appears that Israel could safely postpone granting equal rights or citizenship there almost indefinitely. Israel only needs to maintain its existing policy of backing or subverting insurgent factions, while refusing to negotiate with them or their opponents.

      One of the benefits of the UN statehood bid is that the Palestinians would be able to become state parties to the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property. As Michael Sfard has noted, Palestinian Courts would determine what laws apply to their state lands, not the Israeli Courts. So outposts and settlements built illegally on “state land” would not be a matter reserved for final status negotiations under the lapsed terms of the Oslo Accords signed by the PLO. Of course they could pursue charges against the responsible Israeli officials that would help bring the illegal closure of Gaza to an end & stop the expansion of settlements in the West Bank.

  24. kalki says:

    I certainly do not see Israeli attitudes changing for the better. They now even carry their hubris to foreign lands. I was recently on holiday in Chiang Mai, Thailand, where I was told this tale by an Englishman who lived there. He used to work at a Guest House owned by an Israeli. When a prospective guest came the owner greeted him thus: ‘Shalom’. If the response he received was not ‘Shalom’ the person was told there were no vacancies.

    • mikeo says:

      Ha ha, well with the way Israel and Israelis are increasingly viewed that sounds like a good approach to ensure an empty guest house and a swift return home. Anyone who has travelled extensively knows that Israelis have a pretty terrible reputation as arrogant and boorish (although I can’t really talk because I’m from the UK – hah!).

      When I lived in Brighton we encountered a group on the beach who were smashing up the fishermans store sheds to make a fire. Me and a mate (who coincidentally had been on a kibbutz) went over to politely tell them that the sheds belonged to someone and they shouldn’t do that. They were Israelis and got right up in our faces, basically offering us out for a fight. What they hadn’t realised was that we were with a group of 15, when our (more aggressive) mates came and backed us up they soon came over all contrite and left. That was one of the 1st experiences that caused me to question my previous impression of Israel and Israelis. They were so fucking obnoxious, especially to my friend who had tried to use his kibbutz experience as a peace gesture to them, and then such cowards once it was them who were outnumbered…

    • Mayhem says:

      @kalki, this is extremely poorly disguised contemptuous anti-Semitic rubbish that does nothing but reinforce bigoted, unconstructive attitudes and opinions.

  25. sardelapasti says:

    Nice to see kind of a consensus to start seeing what has been occupying all our visual field for years, namely that the one-state has been there since 1967 anyway, and that the chance of having any agreement to change on the part of the Zionists (including their US satellite) is that of the legendary snowball in hell. Also, most of us seem pretty much in agreement that major war will be unleashed soon by the Isromericans or as a result of the building pressure. An extremely violent solution seems inevitable, no matter the nature of the oficial requests and proposals and no matter the US guarantee, which goes as far as the roof of its embassy in Saigon.
    So there is no sense in trying to “propose solutions”. They will emerge by themselves, depending on the total, or American Indian-like eradication of the local populations, or the (probably very bloody) local defeat of the Zionists, or some semi-awakening of a totally bankrupted US obliged to force the Zionists to sign on the dotted line five minutes before the worst, or any amount of other “solutions”.

    • Hostage says:

      Nice to see kind of a consensus to start seeing what has been occupying all our visual field for years, namely that the one-state has been there since 1967 anyway, and that the chance of having any agreement to change on the part of the Zionists (including their US satellite) is that of the legendary snowball in hell.

      That’s just a talking point. The situation remains one of an occupied state being governed by another state which is the occupying power. If you get arrested and charged as a collaborator by the de facto government or the PA, you would not be arguing that there is only one state in the region.
      *Maan 12/09/2012 “Gaza court sentences man to death for collaboration” link to maannews.net
      * Shurat HaDin “Palestinian Operatives” and “Condeming Abbas’ Ratification of Death Sentences for Suspected Israeli Agent” — link to israellawcenter.orglink to israellawcenter.org

      The US opposition to the Palestinian statehood bid at the UN could be quickly ended by simply 1) pressing the Palestinian authorities to ratify all of the UN treaties that are explicitly open for accession to member states of the UN specialized agencies, like UNESCO; and 2) ratifying, in-turn, all of the treaties that are explicitly open for accession to “all states”. Neither of those measures require any vote or upgrade in Palestine’s observer status. At that point there would no longer be any legal consequences to admitting Palestine as a full UN member state – other than the ability to vote in the General Assembly – where Palestine already enjoys an automatic rubber stamp of any draft resolution that it introduces. All of the treaty obligations the US and Israel are trying to avoid would already be in full force and effect, by simply going around the Security Council and General Assembly, and working directly through the UN Treaty Organization and the Secretary General – acting as the depositary.

      • sardelapasti says:

        Well, no. There is no “occupied state” because there never was a state on that side. The PA is nothing but Israel’s cheap police, and its occasional sentences against unimportant collaborators, trying to hoodwink people into believing that the PA itself could be anything else than collaborators, a miserable Vichy government, are better than any Marx Brothers movie.

        • Hostage says:

          Well, no. There is no “occupied state” because there never was a state on that side.

          Oh, you’re resorting to the very same rationale employed by Yehuda Blum, Meir Shamgar, Alan Baker, and Danny Ayalon, while claiming that the PA are collaborators. That’s pretty rich. With friends like you, why do the Palestinians need enemies?

          FYI, the only legally binding obligation which prohibits Israel’s colonization of the territories of the West Bank and Gaza is Article 49(6) of the 4th Geneva Convention. It does not apply to cases of non-international armed conflict between the inhabitants of a single state engaged in a prolonged civil war. If there was never any other state with jurisdiction over the territory, then please explain why it is illegal to establish Jewish neighborhoods there or to deploy the IDF to end the armed Palestinian insurgency and restore law and order?

          You can’t have it both ways and use arguments that are based on the proposition of the existence of an international armed conflict between two states and a subsequent regime of occupation, while at one and the same time arguing that there has only really been one state in existence there all along.

          Here are the legal documents and instruments that the ICJ considered and cited when it reject the government of Israel’s argument against Jordanian jurisdiction over the “disputed territory” in question:
          International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
          Article 1
          1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
          link to www2.ohchr.org
          Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations:
          The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.
          link to unhcr.org
          From the Written Statement of Jordan to the ICJ:
          2.18 In 1948, during the Arab-Israeli hostilities, the only effective authority in relation to the West Bank was that of Jordan: in December 1949 the West Bank was placed under Jordanian rule, and it was formally incorporated into Jordan on 24 April 1950 . This was the result of the signing by King Abdallah of a resolution passed to him for signature by Jordan’s National Assembly (including representatives of both East and West Banks), which supported the unity of the two Banks as one nation State called the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, “without prejudicing the final settlement of Palestine’s just case within the sphere of national aspiration, inter-Arab cooperation and international justice”.
          2.19 The signing of this resolution was the culmination of a series of earlier requests made by the Palestinian Arabs through conferences attended by the elected Mayors of major West Bank towns and villages (Hebron, Ramallah, Al-Beereh, Jenin, Nablus, Tulkarm, Qalqilya and Anabta), as well as leading religious clerics (Muslims and Christians alike), and a multiplicity of notables, tribal leaders, activists, college presidents, the Chief Shariaa Judge, and the Mufti of Jerusalem Saed-Ideen Al-Alami. Following these conferences, King Abdallah consented to a proposed constitutional amendment to expand the membership of the Jordanian Parliament to include elected representatives from all the West Bank constituencies. Elections for the expanded Parliament were held on 11 April 1950 and a new Parliament was elected with half of its members elected from the West Bank.
          2.20 This provoked something of a crisis in relations between Jordan and other Arab States, but any risk of serious problems was averted when the
          Government of Jordan formally declared in 1950 that unity with the Palestinian territory was “without prejudice to the final settlement” of the
          Palestinian problem: this declaration was accepted by the Arab League.
          2.21 The boundaries of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan as it resulted from these events are illustrated in Sketch Map No. 4 following page 7. It was with those publicly known boundaries that Jordan became a Member of the United Nations in 1955, without any objection about Jordan’s territorial extent being made by any State (including Israel, which was already at that time a Member State). Furthermore, after the unification of the West Bank within Jordan’s territory, Jordan concluded with a considerable number of States bilateral and multilateral treaties whose application extended to the entirety of Jordan including all of the West Bank: none of the other parties to those treaties made any reservation to the effect that their applicability to the West Bank was excluded. The Security Council evidently shared that view when it adopted Resolution 228 (1966): the Council observed that, “the grave Israeli Military action which took place in the southern Hebron area [of the West Bank] on 13 November 1966… constituted a large scale and carefully planned military action on the territory of Jordan by the armed forces of Israel” (emphasis added).
          In the course of hearings held from 23 to 25 February 2004, the Court
          heard oral statements from Mr. James Crawford, S.C., Whewell Professor of
          International Law, University of Cambridge, Member of the Institute of International Law, Counsel and Advocate for Palestine. Here is an extract from his “Conclusions” chapter in “The Creation of States in International Law”:
          “In the first place, the concept of “sovereignty” as a criterion for plenary competence has been rejected. Although that view gained a certain degree of acceptance among nineteenth-century writers and was accepted in the twentieth century in Soviet and in some western doctrine, the notion of “sovereignty” has been seen to be both unhelpful and misleading as a criterion. It is unhelpful since both the legal and the effective capacities, rights, immunities and so on of States may vary widely, within the limits established by the criteria for separate independence. It is misleading since it implies a necessary and overriding omnipotence which States do not possess in law or in fact. Rejection of “sovereignty” as a criterion involves rejection of the old notion of the “semi-sovereign” State. Those dependent, devolving or sui generis entities that qualify as States under the general criteria do so despite specific limitations as to capacity and the like;
          Here is an extract from Israel’s losing position from the Secretary General’s report to the International Court of Justice:
          Annex I
          Summary legal position of the Government of Israel . . .
          3. Despite having ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel has not incorporated it into its domestic legislation. Nor does it agree that the Convention is applicable to the occupied Palestinian territory, citing the lack of recognition of the territory as sovereign prior to its annexation by Jordan and Egypt and, therefore, not a territory of a High Contracting Party as required by the Convention. link to unispal.un.org

        • sardelapasti says:

          Sorry to say, your dates don’t check. The state of war is continuing since 1948 with the unilateral attack prior to any discussion of a non-binding partition proposal. And b) there are no defined borders except for an armistice line. As for the armistice line (“green line”), it’s not an armistice between the Zionist entity and any Palestinian government, but Egypt, Jordan etc. The so-called PA government constituted after the PLO was talked into playing the collaborator role very late in the game. Any of these ridiculous parlor games you mention are based on an acceptance of “Israel” as a legitimate entity. It is nothing of the kind. If you want to talk about facts and compromises of course you can mention the green line, etc. In right, though, there is no defined “State of Israel” and the Zionists are responsible for the rape of all of Palestine, including both the the invasion of 1948 and the following acts of war. And that is why I cannot see any peaceful solution.

        • Hostage says:

          The state of war is continuing since 1948 with the unilateral attack prior to any discussion of a non-binding partition proposal.

          In point of fact the UN Security Council adopted resolutions demanding that Egypt open the Suez Canal and Straits of Tiran because Chapter VII resolutions 62 and 73 had established mutually agreed upon permanent armistice lines of demarcation and had legally ended the state belligerency between all of the parties.

          In 1951 and 1956 this same legal challenge was addressed to the Security Council. The Reportery of Practice of UN Organs, Extracts on Article 25 explains:

          The resolution of 1 September 1951 had been legally and properly adopted. Its validity could not be denied by reason of certain reservations entered by one party at the time of its adoption. Moreover, that resolution had specifically referred to those reservations and had stated that “neither party can reasonably assert that it is actively a “belligerent or requires to exercise the right of visit, search and seizure for any legitimate purpose of self-defence”;
          (b) The resolution of 1 September 1951 had “been adopted in connexion with the application of the General Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel. Violation of the armistice agreement involved a danger to peace which was the legitimate concern of the Security Council; and
          (c) Under Article 25, Member States were obligated to respect and implement decisions of the Security Council since it was assigned the function of maintaining international peace and security.

          link to untreaty.un.org

          there are no defined borders except for an armistice line. As for the armistice line (“green line”), it’s not an armistice between the Zionist entity and any Palestinian government, but Egypt, Jordan etc.

          It is a legally binding agreement between United Nations Organization, Israel, and Jordan too. Jordan was generally recognized as the Palestinian government at the time the armistice agreement was adopted. See for example the extract from the Security Council resolution above which stated that the Hebron area was in fact Jordanian territory in November 1966.

          Abdullah negotiated the armistice agreement at his palace at Shuna after the Jericho Congress had declared him King of Arab Palestine. West Bank Palestinians served as Jordanian Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers, Ambassadors to the UN, comprised half the members of the House of Deputies, and many served in the Senate too. When the political union was dissolved, Palestine assumed the rights and obligations of as the successor state. It cited the construction of the Wall in departure of the Armistice Line of 1949 as being in contradiction to the relevant provisions of international law (pdf file page number 12) in its written complaint to the ICJ. It also noted that:

          The war ended with the Armistice Agreements concluded between Israel and Egypt in February 1949, Lebanon in March 1949, Jordan in April 1949, and Syria in July 1949.

          See para 86 on pdf file page number 48 of 848. — link to icj-cij.org

          *The notion that UN mandated permanent armistice lines of demarcation are not legal borders or that states have to have defined borders has no basis in international law. In fact the Security Council and General Assembly have repeatedly emphasized that Israel cannot legally obtain territory beyond the armistice lines by war.
          *The General Assembly and the ICJ cited UN Security Resolution 62 to establish that the route of the Wall was illegal wherever it deviated from the armistice line into the Occupied Palestinian territory.
          *The ICJ has repeatedly cited the customary and binding status of the “Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”. It stipulated that: Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.
          * Borders are irrelevant to a determination as to whether or not territory is part of a state. The International Court of Justice noted in their “North Sea Continental Shelf case (1968) judgment that:

          “There is no rule that the land frontiers of a State must be fully delimited and defined, and often in various places and for long periods they are not, as is shown by the case of the entry of Albania into the League of Nations (Monastery of Saint Naoum, Advisor): Opinion, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 9, at p. 10).” See pdf file page 60 of 109) link to icj-cij.org

          *Whenever it suits the government of Israel, it claims that the Occupied Palestinian Territory is not part of its sovereign territory or jurisdiction. See CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, para 8 or E/1990/6/Add.32, para 6-7

          The rest of your comment is wishful thinking. Israel is a UN member state with all of the rights and duties of any other state. Until the Security Council repeals resolution 242, 338, and 1515 all of the members are required to recognize its right to exist, its sovereignty, and its territorial integrity.

        • sardelapasti says:

          Nice and serious analysis.
          Absolutely agreed: There are arrangements (in the classical sense, i.e. not just armistice) between Israel, Jordan and Egypt (but not Syria and Lebanon) –and the UN. But considering that any of this is binding on the Palestinians (or at least those without a Jordanian citizenship or loyalty) is nothing but a figment of someone’s imagination.

        • Hostage says:

          But considering that any of this is binding on the Palestinians (or at least those without a Jordanian citizenship or loyalty) is nothing but a figment of someone’s imagination.

          That’s incorrect. Both the PCIJ and the ICJ have repeatedly adopted judgments which have held that countries remain bound by the terms of their own acceptance, whenever their representatives participate in drafting a resolution or acknowledge their acceptance of the terms of a resolution adopted by an international organization.

          The representatives of the Palestinian people , i.e. the PLO or the provisional government of “Palestine” which was named in the 1988 Declaration of Independence, has participated in the business of the UN and co-sponsored a multitude of resolutions which have cited and accepted the terms of UNSC resolutions 242, 338, and 1515. They have publicly solicited recognition of the State of Palestine within the 1967 borders and have demanded that they be used as the basis for any negotiations with Israel.

          The application of Palestine for membership in the United Nations cites the two state solution; bilateral recognition of its 4 June 1967 borders and its capital the East Jerusalem; and UN Security Council resolutions 242, 338, and 1397.
          See A/66/371–S/2011/592 page 4 of 5 link to un.org

        • Citizen says:

          Given the half-baked logic, sense of history, and churned emotions here, maybe we need a Jerry Springer Show on prime time US TV to resolve the I-P tinderbox? Problem is, who would be Jerry Springer? Phil? How do you think he’d do on Baggage?

    • MHughes976 says:

      I’m not sure about the major war. I think that the preference would be to set up Palestinian enclaves that can be cleared gradually and ‘humanely’ with the aid of a ‘generous’ relocation scheme. What goes under the name of 2ss would in fact be quite useful in this respect.
      Zionism, the belief that only Jewish people have sovereign rights in the Holy Land, cannot recognise that any non-Jewish people are there by right, only by grace. Grace can be withdrawn when necessary for the giver, provided that humane provision is made for those temporarily disadvantaged. 2ss would, if acceptable to Zionists, have to incorporate the principle that the Jewish presence is eternal, other presences temporary.

  26. Sumud says:

    Jerry Slater ~ I’m a little shocked you’d have a conversation about one state in Israel/Palestine without reference to Ali Abunimah. Have you read his book from 2007?

    One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse

    It might have been a bold proposal in 2007 but not so any more.

  27. What makes a “state” a “state?” I don’t think there has ever been seriously considered any plan in with a Palestinian state with all the rights and freedoms of a normal state.

    From this it follows that there is not now, nor has there ever been, any seriously considered plan for a “two state solution.”

    One could make an analogy with a mortgage when buying a house. Even if the lender offered you very good terms, but restricted how you could provide security in your own home, and who could live in your home, restricting when you could enter and leave your home, is that really a “mortgage?” Only in the technical sense, but it wouldn’t be a mortgage than any reasonable person would accept.

    Palestinians have likewise only ever been offered a truncated, feeble and neutered version of a state. No real “state” has ever been on the table, and now its unlikely there ever will be.

    • Hostage says:

      What makes a “state” a “state?”

      Article 6 of the Montevideo Convention explains that:

      The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law.

      link to jus.uio.no

      It is simply a legal status conferred by other existing states on a territorial entity that has declared its independence.

      The situation is analogous to the legal status conferred on a couple by others in common law states after they have declared themselves to be husband and wife. It is absurd for Israel and the US to go on “disputing” the status of Palestine, since the overwhelming majority of other existing states have long since recognized its 1988 Declaration of Independence and its legal statehood. That automatically entails the exercise of all the rights with no other limitation in line with the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.

  28. Citizen says:

    Morsi lays out his vision of US-Egyptian relationship–when is Uncle Sam going to start living up to its treaty regarding the Palestinians?
    link to nytimes.com

  29. Kathleen says:

    Great interview with Egyptian President Morsi over at the New York Bloody Times
    “Egypt’s New Leader Spells out Terms for U.S. Arab Ties”

  30. giladg says:

    Philip, you may want to discuss with your propaganda people on when to use the image above, the image with the swimming pool. One just has to go to Google Maps to see just how scarce swimming pools are in Jewish settlements with many not having any, and most having maximum of one.
    No integrity in using this image so many times and with so many different references.
    You begrudge Jews any joy. Good thing that most do not follow this site or listen to your army.

    • it’s not the pool i see, it’s the apartheid fence around it and the theft of palestine’s water inside of it..jewish settlements inside the occupied territories are illegal. this is not propaganda, it’s reality.

      • American says:

        @ annie

        Me too see it that way.
        Israel is a Jewish Disney Land built on confiscated land and resources and financed by the world to give Jews free passes to the Jews only theme park.

    • American says:

      “”You begrudge Jews any joy”..gilad

      You begrudge others any joy. That is one of the most outstanding things about the zionist state …the way you humiliate people unnecessarily, deny Palestines even simple pleasures like some children taking part in musical or other events…barring some of them from traveling to take part in academic events…the thousand and one petty and vengeful ways you suck the life out of any small pleasure of others.
      Zionist Israelis are a group who cannot be ”anything”, who can’t rise and be anything on their own without stepping on others and destroying others to try and ‘be something’ above them.
      It is so sick and beyond repulsive it can only be described as pathological.
      You are nothing.

      • giladg says:

        How does one define and describe an anti-Semite? There is no one way to do so. We have “American” above telling us how Israel has prevented Palestinians from taking part in musical or other events. Some anti-Semites lack any sense of logic and let their emotions do the talking. Palestinians can do no wrong not because they are angelic but because the other party in the conflict just happens to be Jewish.

        • Hostage says:

          How does one define and describe an anti-Semite? . . . We have “American” above telling us how Israel has prevented Palestinians from taking part in musical or other events. . . . Palestinians can do no wrong not because they are angelic but because the other party in the conflict just happens to be Jewish.

          He was describing one of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, i.e. “Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups. No one here claims that Palestinians have not been responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The difference is that their officials have accepted the jurisdiction of an international criminal court for all crimes committed on their territory since July of 2002.

        • ColinWright says:

          gildadg says: “…Palestinians can do no wrong not because they are angelic but because the other party in the conflict just happens to be Jewish.”

          Oh no. Just by the odds I’m confident Palestinians do their fair share of wrong — and I’m just as sure they’re not angelic. What’s more, I really am indifferent as to the ethnicity of their oppressors — although I most definitely do object to the fact that we bankroll and enable these oppressors.

          I just look forward to the day when those oppressors have gone and the Palestinians are as free to mismanage their own affairs as the rest of us are.

          However, if you like, you may label me an ‘anti-semite.’ On the lips of people like you, the word really has no offensive connotations whatsoever.

    • Ellen says:

      Gilad, you may want to contact National Geographic, which I believed first published the photo above on a report on water management and use in Israel.

      Since occupying the West Bank in 1967, Israel has built a few dozen settlements in the Jordan Valley, in addition to the 120 or so elsewhere in the West Bank. The settlers’ water is provided by Mekorot, Israel’s national water authority, which has drilled 42 deep wells in the West Bank, mainly to supply Israeli cities. (According to a 2009 World Bank report, Israelis use four times as much water per capita as Palestinians, much of it for agriculture. Israel disputes this, arguing that its citizens use only twice as much water and are better at conserving it.) In any case, Israel’s West Bank settlements get enough water to fill their swimming pools.

      In contrast, West Bank Palestinians, under Israeli military rule, have been largely prevented from digging deep wells of their own, limiting their water access to shallow wells, natural springs, and rainfall that evaporates quickly in the dry desert air. When these sources run dry in the summer, Bromberg said, Auja’s Palestinians have no choice but to purchase water from Israel for about a dollar a cubic yard—in effect buying back the water that’s been taken out from under them by Mekorot’s pumps, which also lower the water table and affect Palestinian springs and wells.
      link to ngm.nationalgeographic.com

      There are indeed a number of public and private pools build by occupiers in the West Bank.

      Hope they all work it out, but be honest about it.

      • giladg says:

        With Israel managing the water, supply to Arabs who you refer to as Palestinians, has never been higher. Israel has insured that all have enjoyed more water. So get your facts straight Ellen. Israel has taken the Palestinians out of the dark ages and is prepared to take them further, only they insist on returning to mud houses.

        • eljay says:

          >> Israel has taken the Palestinians out of the dark ages …

          Yeah, nothing says “taking people out of the dark ages” like using terrorism and ethnic cleansing to create an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state, and then engaging in a 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder.

          >> … and is prepared to take them further …

          Based on how far Israel has taken the Palestinians so far, annihilation can’t be too far off.

        • Sumud says:

          With Israel managing the water, supply to Arabs who you refer to as Palestinians, has never been higher.

          BS. More than half of Israel’s fresh water supply is STOLEN from West Bank aquifers, this is a war crime under the Geneva Convention to which Israel is a signatory.

          About 200,000 Palestinians in Area C – which Israeli is trying ethnically cleanse – have no access to a piped potable water supply.

          Amnesty International: Israel rations Palestinians to trickle of water

          Amnesty International: Israel must allow Palestinians access to adequate water supplies

          B’Tselem: 24 March 2010: International Water Day: chronic water shortage in the West Bank due to discriminatory division of shared resources

        • Hostage says:

          Israel has taken the Palestinians out of the dark ages and is prepared to take them further, only they insist on returning to mud houses.

          Every racist colonial enterprise in history has pretended that the indigenous people have held back the march of civilization and that they couldn’t possibly have exploited their own natural resources without being controlled by foreign interlopers. That’s why the doctrine regarding the permanent sovereignty of indigenous peoples over their natural resources and territory was adopted as part of the UN program of Decolonization.

          That same sort of racism was once reflected in the beliefs that were promulgated by the owners of the New York Times about the “Children of Abraham” who had immigrated to this country from Poland and Russia. They were barely given credit for having enough sense to get out of the way of traffic in the streets:

          Yet the long-whiskered descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah on the east side gets out of the street without being hit with a stone or having a putrid fish or piece of meat thrown in his face.

          This neighborhood, peopled almost entirely by the people who claim to have been driven from Poland and Russia, is the eyesore of New York, and perhaps the filthiest place on the Western Continent. It is impossible for a Christian to live there, because he will be driven out, either by blows or the dirt and stench.

          Cleanliness is an unknown quantity to these people. They cannot be lifted up to a higher plane because they do not want to be. If the cholera should ever get among these people they would scatter its germs as a sower does grain.

          — Published: July 30, 1893 The New York Times link to query.nytimes.com

        • ColinWright says:

          giladg says: “… Israel has taken the Palestinians out of the dark ages and is prepared to take them further, only they insist on returning to mud houses.”

          I’ll offer to take you somewhere as well — but you also might be well-advised to stick to your mud house.

          I’ve rarely seen anyone pack so much deceit and bigotry into one sentence. It’s almost an achievement.

        • Ellen says:

          Keep talking Giladg. And check your zipper covering the vile zio-racism. You are exposing yourself for the world to see.

          Israel has insured settler squatters enjoy more water, screeching they are bringing those Palistinians out of their mud houses and the dark ages.

          Not only is that rant false and insane, it is the excact same evil logic used to justify Slavery in the American south back in the day.

        • “… Israel has taken the Palestinians out of the dark ages and is prepared to take them further, only they insist on returning to mud houses.”

          If this abject racism and defilement do not warrant a ban I wonder what does!! The stench is suffocating!

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “You begrudge Jews any joy.”

      Yes, Philip. After all, when the Chosen People settle down at their swimming pool, and lord over some inferior people’s land, one of the many joys to those Chosen People is to hear the lamentations of those who are thirsty, without being made to feel bad about it. And here you go and make the masters of the land feel bad about their crimes. HOW DARE YOU!??!!?!

    • Kathleen says:

      Phil “you begrudge Jews any joy” on stolen land…swimming pools on stolen land as Palestinians struggle for water. Geez Phil you are so nit picky

      • giladg says:

        Israeli settlements on the West Bank sit on 4% of the land. Get a life Kathleen.

        • Shmuel says:

          Israeli settlements on the West Bank sit on 4% of the land. Get a life Kathleen.

          Not the “4%” talking point again. Get an education, giladg (a conscience wouldn’t hurt either).

          Forget the roads and other infrastructure, resource exploitation, expropriations for “security” purposes, and severe restrictions against Palestinian construction, development (especially but not only in Area C) and movement. Just look at the settlement “areas of jurisdiction” (not to be confused with the much larger settlement regional councils), which are a far more realistic (albeit incopmplete) measure of settlement control over land. In the entire West Bank, such “areas of jurisdiction” amount to 9% of the total and close to 16% of Area C (ignoring for a moment that the settlers regularly build beyond these “areas of jurisdiction”).

          When convenient, Israeli apologists and propagandists cite “4%” constructed areas, but when more convenient (e.g. in support of claims that there have been no “new settlements” or settlement “expansion”), rely on the “areas of jurisdiction” or other dirty tricks. The entire settlement project is built on lies (see e.g. what Plia Albeck – one of its main architects – had to say on the subject) and can only be defended with lies.

          See: link to peacenow.org.il

          On the subject of water, you might want to have a look at the latest article on the subject by Amira Hass (which also pertains to real control over territory and lives):
          English: link to haaretz.com
          Hebrew: link to haaretz.co.il

        • giladg says:

          Yes Shmuel, its because of those “roads”, those nasty black things. Yes, it was those roads that have held the Palestinians back from the great economic success we know they would have achieved had those “roads” not been there. Never mind the resources allocated to terror with the single focus of attacking Jews, and building security forces far greater than what is needed. I almost forgot about the corruption and the in-fighting. But forget about that, it’s all Israel’s fault.

        • Kathleen says:

          Get off of internationally recognized Palestinian land.

        • Kathleen says:

          giladg is an apartheid enforcer

        • giladg says:

          That’s very interesting Kathleen. When was the announcement of the independence of Palestine with recognized borders? A country must have recognized borders in order to be called a country. I must have missed that. All I can remember is the United Nations calling for a deal to be worked out between Israel and the representatives of the Palestinian people and that Israel withdraw from “territories”. And who represents the Palestinians? Is it Hamas? Is it Fatah? And its is also the historic homeland of the Jewish people you know, or are you one of those who does not like to go back “too” far in history?

        • seanmcbride says:

          giladg,

          Have you figured out yet that it is impossible for an ethnic nationalist to win an argument with an ethnic outsider?

          Think about it. This insight is based on a simple understanding of basic human nature.

          In fact, the more they argue, the more ethnic nationalists automatically lose the argument and undermine themselves politically.

          Arguments between ethnic nationalists and the rest of the world are exactly like arguments between religionists and the rest of the world — the arguments simply piss people off and turn them into enemies.

          Whenever I see overexcited ethnic nationalists, I know that I am looking at people who are getting themselves into deep trouble — especially in the modern Western democratic world.

          Do you have any thoughts on this subject?

          What ethnic nationalist movements around the world do you care about other than your own?

          Why should ethnic outsiders care about your ethnic nationalist movement when most of them are not even ethnic nationalists for themselves?

        • eljay says:

          >> giladg is an apartheid enforcer

          giladgeee is a Zio-supremacist: Hateful and immoral and, in his case at least, not particularly bright.

          >> But forget about that, it’s all Israel’s fault.

          Not everything is Israel’s fault, but it certainly is responsible for:
          - the terrorism and ethnic cleansing used to create an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state;
          - the 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder; and
          - the unwillingness to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.

        • Hostage says:

          When was the announcement of the independence of Palestine with recognized borders?

          FYI, the overwhelming majority of UN member states, 169+, have long-since recognized the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people over the natural resources of the territory in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem that came under Israeli military control in 1967. Those boundaries are very well known. They were established as permanent international armistice lines of demarcation in accordance with Chapter VII UN Security Council resolutions that Israel is still bound to respect. Those same UN member states have also acknowledged Palestine’s right to compensation for the minerals, water, and other resources that Israelis have extracted for their own benefit. UNESCO relied upon those boundaries when it designated the Church of the Nativity in Palestine as a World Heritage site.

          About 130 of those same UN member states have also formally recognized the statehood of Palestine, within the 67 borders, on the basis of the 1988 Algiers Declaration of Independence. A sufficient number of them voted in favor of admitting Palestine to an internationally recognized category of States, i.e. members of UN special agencies. All UN member states have either a customary or conventional legal obligation to treat members of UN special agencies as states according to the terms of the UN “Vienna” Conventions.

        • Citizen says:

          @ seanmcbride

          “Why should ethnic outsiders care about your ethnic nationalist movement when most of them are not even ethnic nationalists for themselves?”

          This especially applies to America, the original “proposition nation.” And it’s also especially applicable to Americans because their tax money and their reps holding veto power UN SC enables Israel to do whatever it wants at the expense of the native Palestinians, which has resulted in America losing its good reputation in the world as a just country, a hard earned one by American blood, sweat, tears and cash in WW1, and especially in WW2, and by its leadership at the Nuremberg Trials in trying to make a better world devoid of state aggression, most especially when enhanced by race/ethnic overtones.

          gildag, response?

        • pipistro says:

          1st – “The resources allocated to terror with the single focus of attacking Jews.”
          Talking of Qassam rockets? It’s apparent, some people pretend not to know what terror is (more, with the single focus of attacking jews), or what it could be, and luckily isn’t. Not the one we’re dealing with.
          2nd – As it happens, I like to “go back in history”. If I’m not wrong, Palestine has been part of the Roman Empire for some 650 years. As representative of the ex-Empire, I’d like to have that land back.
          3rd – “Arabs who you refer to as Palestinians,” As far as I’m concerned (see above), Israel might be considered still the uneducated warmongering guest of a Roman colony.
          4th – It’s 60 years Zionists (since Ben Gurion onward) are fighting against any type of recognised borders, in order to set those borders according with their neverending greed. Pretty annoying hear that are the Palestinians who don’t want them.

        • giladg says:

          eljay, you should know that there is not always a connection between bright and wise. Many “bright” people have done ugly and despicable things. I would prefer to listen to a wise man. A wise man would not judge others in the manner you do.

        • Handala says:

          giladg, you say “A country must have recognized borders in order to be called a country” Why don’t you apply that to Israel?

        • mig says:

          giladg :

          And who represents the Palestinians? Is it Hamas? Is it Fatah?

          PLO.

          link to mfa.gov.il

          And its is also the historic homeland of the Jewish people

          Can’t find any meaningful international law backing this up.

        • eljay says:

          >> eljay, you should know that there is not always a connection between bright and wise.

          I do know that, and IMO you are neither.

        • giladg says:

          mig, go read the Torah. Go read the Dead Sea Scrolls written over 2,000 years ago. You will find all the law you need, and much more.

        • eljay says:

          >> giladgeee: And its is also the historic homeland of the Jewish people
          >> mig: Can’t find any meaningful international law backing this up.
          >> giladgeee: mig, go read the Torah. Go read the Dead Sea Scrolls written over 2,000 years ago. You will find all the law you need, and much more.

          Thank you for perfectly validating my point.

        • “A country must have recognized borders in order to be called a country.’
          giladg

          Interesting to know Israel is not a country since it has no borders..Unless you can tell me where they are..

        • mig says:

          giladg :

          mig, go read the Torah. Go read the Dead Sea Scrolls written over 2,000 years ago. You will find all the law you need, and much more.

          So you have nothing to show.

        • “giladg is an apartheid enforcer”

          So disgusting that, paradoxically, he has become an attraction. Kind of a freak show.

        • “Israeli settlements on the West Bank sit on 4% of the land.”
          Don’t lie! The settlements and their jurisdiction in addition to their regional councils extends to about 60% of the West Bank and growing by the minute.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “mig, go read the Torah. Go read the Dead Sea Scrolls written over 2,000 years ago. You will find all the law you need, and much more.”

          LMAO!!! What an idiot. Lord of the Rings was better and had better characters that those fairy stories you’re talking about.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Woody Tanaka
          Lord of the Rings is just cheap childish fantasy–and at that, not nearly as good as Disney produced. OTOH, the Dead Sea Scrolls
          reveal no answers at all, despite gildag saying they are “all the law you need, and much more.”
          link to spu.edu

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “OTOH, the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal no answers at all”

          I disagree. They can tell us a lot about history. But that knowledge has no application to the present day. (Except as yet another example of Arab property stolen by the israelis, as so many of these scrolls were stolen from Jordan and Palestine by the israeli hordes in 1967.)

        • Hostage says:

          mig, go read the Torah. Go read the Dead Sea Scrolls written over 2,000 years ago. You will find all the law you need, and much more.

          Which modern society employs just those particular archaic laws to govern itself? Certainly not Israel. The members of the first Knesset rejected the idea that the country could be run on the basis of the Shulchan Aruch. That primitive code is thousands of years more up to date.

          Israel’s statutes bear little resemblance to the sources that you recommend.

        • Hostage says:

          “A country must have recognized borders in order to be called a country.’

          Even the authors of the Jewish scriptures and the Jewish sages couldn’t agree about the locations of the borders of Eretz Israel. In any event, the Irgun Logo indicated that the Prophet Moses died inside the boundaries of their Promised Land and that the Torah was simply mistaken about that minor detail.

          If we suppose that the Euphrates river was the eastern and not the northern boundary, then the remorse of the so-called “exiles” in Babylon was inexplicable. The Euphrates river flowed through the city. So at least part of it was always inside the boundaries of the imaginary Promised Land. Contradictory accounts claim that the children of Israel had to cross the Jordan river to enter their Promised Land.

          I suppose that confusion is one of the reasons why, that after months of trying, Netanyahu couldn’t provide the Quartet with a map showing where Eretz Yisroel’s borders were located.

        • LeaNder says:

          Go read the Dead Sea Scrolls written over 2,000 years ago. You will find all the law you need, and much more.

          giladg, that’s not really a debate you can win as easily as you think, it feels. Am I mistaken it’s not simply an early Hebrew source, it contains other languages used in the region at the time, it also don’t seem to be only religious texts as far as I remember. Just as I am not sure you will find all the “laws you need”, if you mean it could supplant the Jewish scriptures.

          When the Arab and Muslim armies marched on Israel in 1948, it was not because Jews had forced anyone to leave their homes.

          Why do you feel it is enough to simply repeat this over and over again? That’s a contested historical space too.

          But if I may: What significance or connection has the Holocaust to the miracle of the foundation of the Jewish state? What do you feel it means religiously, beyond the fact that G-d promised the land to the Jews?

        • MHughes976 says:

          About 3% of the DSS are in Greek and they date mainly from the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE and the 1st century CE. They have also tended to raise the respect accorded to the Greek version of the scriptures, whose readings they often endorse. The Eerdmans Bible Commentary has an article on the DSS by Daniel C. Harlow of Calvin College, who remarks that ‘the first thing that the scrolls have helped clarify is that there was no ‘Bible’ before the end of the first century AD. There were of course collections of sacred writings but no official canon, that is no closed list of books accepted as authoritative and normative for all Jews and no fixed textual form for each book.’ So study of the DSS is something of a cure for uncritical fundamentalism, uncritical Zionist fundamentalism included.
          I’m sure that the authors of the DSS considered that the land of Israel was in Jewish hands by divine donation. But who were the appropriate recipients of the gift? For most of that time the Hasmonean and Herodian monarchies with their supporting array of Temple priests and of Pharisees, who were brought to the fore by Queen Salome in the 70s BCE, were in power: none of these groups and institutions were considered at Qumran to have been divinely appointed, to say the least. Theories of divine donation are very difficult even to define. And surely it is not expected that people of all religions and none should now accept the claim to divine donation and build their ideas of right and wrong upon it? Well, I know that some do expect and demand this. But not with reason, surely?

  31. NickJOCW says:

    One can go round and round in circles on this. The present Zionist course of expansion and ethnic cleansing cannot proceed indefinitely, there are simply too many extraneous forces rising up against it. When the Ayatollah Khomeini was mistranslated talking about ‘wiping Israel off the map’ and everyone departed westwards insisting on the truth or enumerating the falsehood of the quote, few stopped to consider what he actually did say which was that the Zionist regime would pass away. History suggests it will destruct from within through divisions between orthodox and liberal Jews as earlier efforts more or mess always have. Some might say the signs of this are already visible. If that is so, the ultra orthodox will become isolated (think Amish) and may well end up in an autonomous region within one state of mixed Jewish and Arab peoples. The real question is How much blood and tears will be expended on the way, and that largely depends on younger Jews being able to take a broader view of events in the mid-twentieth century.

  32. Handala says:

    Steve, i agree with your logic but you seem too preoccupied with what Israel will accept or is willing to offer based on what’s feasible with complete disregard to what is JUST! Since when does a convicted criminal have a say in his punishment? Nothing is irreversible, there will be no Peace if there’s no Justice.

  33. robin says:

    The question is, if they were ever forced to choose, which would Israeli Jews give up first: supremacy (apartheid), or land?

    Land has importance to Israeli Jews as a concept (symbol of Jewish history, redemption), as a resource (economic, military), and as a place of residence. With 600,000 settlers in the West Bank and E Jerusalem (10% of Israel’s Jewish population), Israelis are entrenching themselves on the land they would need to surrender for a two-state peace. The idea of supremacy, meanwhile, remains as fragile as it always has been.

    Overturning the idea of supremacy would be hard, but in this world we have seen it done. Relinquishing that land would take changing minds too (giving up the idea of a Jewish right to the land – to control it and even to be able to live there), but also uprooting huge numbers of people. It would involve enormous tangible pain and expense. I think they avoid that prospect above all else. In my view, the attachment to land and home are far more real, and certainly more honorable, than the drive to dominate or cage other human beings. (Even if, in this case, the two require some disentangling.)

    But that view could reflect my own idealism more than reality.

  34. Stogumber says:

    I wouldn’t like to live in a state where my people can be outcompeted be it by number (as Jews) or by money (as Arabs). The logical solution would be the “Switzerland model” – one federation of four federal states: a protected-jewish state (Northern and Western Israel), a protected-arab state I (Northern and Western Westbank), a protected-arab state II (Gaza) and an unprotected common state (comprehending puffer zones between the jewish and arab states as well as the area around Jerusalem, the big settlements, the Negev to Eilat). In the unprotected state the peoples are equal and can compete with each other, in the other states they are protected as dominant culture.
    Seems simple, and I wonder if anyone has proposed that before me.