Video: Gurvitz says settlers threaten to detonate a civil war

Israel/Palestine
on 48 Comments

As readers know, I regard the Israeli writer Yossi Gurvitz as a wild genius with tremendous insight. Last month I went out to lunch with him in Jaffa and asked him what the future holds for the Israeli political leadership. His answers were devastating: 1, settlers control Israel’s near-term future because if they are pressured they will threaten a Jewish civil war, and Israelis understand that threat and will sooner turn on Palestinians; 2, the future is one-state but it will only come to pass after great bloodshed.

Gurvitz makes these pronouncements on the video above, beginning at 4:40 or so. A guide to the video:

Gurvitz begins by saying that Netanyahu is moving to annex large portions of the West Bank because he will never buck his political base, the settlers, and because 98 percent of Netanyahu’s big donors are rightwingers in the U.S.

Still, Gurvitz holds out hope that a Labor coalition will be elected.

“A Labor coalition would be much more susceptible to pressure… to end or at least curtail the settlements and the settlement movement…  If pressure arises from the US or the European community, then a Labor government could be pushed away from settlements… It is not invested in the settlements.”

But Obama will not pressure the Israeli government. The Europeans and the Palestinians might.

At 4:40 I cut to the chase and ask Gurvitz, Will there be a handshake on the White House lawn in the next four years? He gives this a 20 percent likelihood. Then I ask, Will such a handshake represent a real solution to the Palestinian conflict?

“I don’t think there would be a settlement without great bloodshedding on both sides. The Israeli government may bend to international pressure, but there is a very strong risk of civil war…”

What’s that mean? Gurvitz explains that the settlers’ first instinct when they are pressured is to harm Palestinians:

The point of these price tag attacks is to do what the Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia did in Iraq in 2004, to hammer the Shi’ite majority time and again, blow up their mosques, until they can’t take it any longer and blow up. They wanted a civil war, and they got it. The settlers will want a civil war or a very credible threat of civil war. Because most Israelis if they’re forced to choose between a civil war and a war with Palestinians, they’re already used to war with Palestinians and they’re not looking forward to civil war.

It all depends on a platoon commander, how he reacts when settlers open fire.

Gurvitz explains that civil war means settler against IDF, with elements of the IDF defecting to the settlers.

And more. Gurvitz anticipates a strong likelihood of violent escalation in the future.

Because the two state solution has died. I think it is no longer viable. This civil war threat is making it non-viable. We need to move to a one-state solution, but I don’t see how we can sell it to either side– to either side. So before people wind down and put down their guns, plenty of people will have to die.

I will not transcribe the moving end of the conversation. Watch the video to see that part.

48 Responses

  1. Erasmus
    December 7, 2012, 12:32 pm

    Thanks for that interview. A sad interview it is.
    However, very much against all my hopes and realization that a coming carnage ought to be stopped – as long as it is still time? – , deep down i must agree with Yossi Gurvitz.
    Why?
    Because to avoid this carnage to pave the way to an 1SS, it would require:
    a) massive political and econonmic pressure on the Government of Israel and the Jewish Israeli citizen as from NOW;
    b) the Israeli electorate coming to senses.
    I cannot see any of these two conditions to be fulfilled in the near future. So?
    Carnage must be.
    Must carnage be?
    All my guts revolt to accept my own reasoning.
    Despite all the crimes committed by the Jewish and Israeli colonization and occupation and wars, Palestinians are still ready to forgive, if only the perpetrators could believe that their crimes were to be forgiven.
    As long as they can not forgive themselves, they can not believe in forgiveness by others – after all they have heaped soooo much guilt already. Have they ever earnestly tried?

  2. pabelmont
    December 7, 2012, 12:34 pm

    Sounds as if the threat (settlers against Palestinians) is used to hold EU in line — Palestinians both as whipping-boys and as hostages.

    so the EU must state clearly, at the outset, that ANY violence against Palestinians by settlers or army is a war-crime attributable up the chain-of-command to the DM and PM and army chief, because the international law makes it a duty of the army of occupation to safeguard the occupied people. Since the settlers are present illegally and with Israeli consent and encouragement, their crimes against the Palestinians are automatically ALSO crimes of the ebtire leadership(s) (past and present).

    Make it clear. Not ONE leader — ALL of them. Possible exception for any leader NOW calling for removal of ALL settlers.

    I nrecommend that JVP and other peace groups advance this line.

  3. Annie Robbins
    December 7, 2012, 12:40 pm

    i agree with him about the escalation and the probability of carnage before resolution. excellent interview. sent shivers.

    • American
      December 7, 2012, 1:50 pm

      I do too………I am getting the depressing feeling this is going to become more and very bloody.
      Wake the hell up Saudi and UAE…slap a oil embargo on the West…..that’s your ace in the hole, use the global economic melt down bomb….force us to force Israel. ..that’s the only thing the West will respond to.

  4. Shunra
    December 7, 2012, 1:07 pm

    Thanks for putting that up, Phil.
    It’s always good to see Yossi, and I agree (of course) with your assessment of his insight.
    If only he were able to answer differently.

  5. talknic
    December 7, 2012, 1:25 pm

    An Israeli civil, war outside the state of Israel, in territories occupied? The other regional powers would have the right, as they did in 1948, to intervene. Especially if the Occupying Power isn’t adhering to its obligations to Chapt XI of the UN Charter (it isn’t already)

    • Hostage
      December 7, 2012, 2:39 pm

      An Israeli civil, war outside the state of Israel, in territories occupied?

      Of course. Any move by the State to use the IDF or police to evacuate the smallest outpost always results in political theater, complete with outcries for secession and establishment of an independent State in Judea and Samaria.

      Even though it would be an obviously illegal entity, international law would still protect the inhabitants from threats or use of force, just look at the Republic of Northern Cyprus for an example of that tactic in action. They don’t call them facts on the ground for nothing.

  6. marc b.
    December 7, 2012, 1:33 pm

    unfortunately i agree with gurvitz that a civil war or broader regional conflict will occur (absent a good hard slap from the US, my comment). i don’t agree with his statement about labor not being invested in the settlements.

  7. American
    December 7, 2012, 1:42 pm

    This is a switch.

    Israeli soldiers flee Palestinian mob
    December 7, 2012

    (JTA) — Israeli soldiers fled an angry Palestinian mob in Hebron.

    The troops, on a routine patrol in Hebron’s H1 area around Jewish homes in the city on Thursday afternoon, encountered Palestinian officers who would not let them through, Channel 2 reported. A crowd began to gather behind the Palestinian officers and protesters hurled rocks and other objects at the 15 Israeli soldiers present.

    Palestinian officers shoved the Israelis and told them to get back. One of the Palestinian officers hit a soldier in the face, causing minor injuries.

    Hebron is largely controlled by the Palestinian Authority but the IDF also has a presence in the city around settler homes.

    The soldiers holed up in a butcher shop as they called for backup. A video on Channel 2’s website shows four soldiers standing at the entrance to the butcher shop to prevent rioting Palestinians from entering.

    When backup failed to arrive, the commander of the platoon led his men out of the butcher shop and fled the scene. The troops fires tear gas at the rioters and escaped, Channel 2 reported.

    • Hostage
      December 7, 2012, 5:58 pm

      This is a switch.

      Yes this started happening before the UN vote, during Operation Pillar of Defense. The PA Security forces threw-up a cordon around a couple of villages in the West Bank and prevented the IDF from entering to make arrests.

      • Inanna
        December 7, 2012, 8:39 pm

        This was one of the things that US General Dayton warned Israel about while he was there arming and training the Palestinian security forces. Dayton warned the Israelis that these men were expecting to be part of the institutional structure of the Palestinian state and that at some point, they would start pushing back against Israel if they didn’t get their state. Add that as another element in the civil war mix that Gurvitz was talking about.

  8. Dan Crowther
    December 7, 2012, 1:54 pm

    IT’S THE GUY’S HOME PHIL. SECOND PASSPORT?

    Shame on you. I hate to say it, but that’s exactly what “anti-semites” have always said or inferred about Jews – they aren’t attached to their location, their homes, language, culture etc – they can be mobile at a moments notice. Right here in the Video you see it all: Yossi is the culmination of the Zionist idea, he’s NORMAL. Weiss on the other hand……….Not a good look, Phil.

    • W.Jones
      December 7, 2012, 3:21 pm

      Give Phil a break, bro. People in America talked about whether their kids could go to Canada during the Iraq war in case we get sucked into long term ground forces in lots of countries with a draft.

    • Inanna
      December 7, 2012, 8:46 pm

      Oh that’s crap. Lots of white South Africans left both before and after apartheid. Many of them had histories going far further back than the 100 years or less that the vast majority of Israeli Jews. It doesn’t make someone anti-white to ask a white South African if there were going to leave any more than asking a Jew if they are going to leave. In both cases, you have a people who set up a system that privileges them and did not necessarily want to stay when their privileges were gone. While I have a lot of empathy and compassion for Gurvitz, he would still be safe with his loved ones in that country in a state of equality rather than occupation. The fucked up thing here is not Phil’s question, it’s the normalisation of the theft of Palestinian lands and the expectation that thieves get to keep their ill-gotten gains.

      • kalithea
        December 8, 2012, 8:27 pm

        “The fucked up thing here is not Phil’s question, it’s the normalisation of the theft of Palestinian lands and the expectation that thieves get to keep their ill-gotten gains.”

        And notice how Gurvitz got away with putting his needs and self-pity before justice and compassion for Palestinians and looking like the poor victim at the end of the discussion, and stealing an apology from Phil to cap it off with the cherry on top! Phil got finessed with the Zionist victim card and fell right into it.

    • kalithea
      December 8, 2012, 7:16 pm

      That’s a load of crock.

  9. a blah chick
    December 7, 2012, 3:19 pm

    “Israeli soldiers flee Palestinian mob…”

    I recall reading something some years back about how the IDF military readiness was taking a hit due to the occupation.

    And think about it, when the only people you abuse on a daily basis are housewives and college students you are going to be unprepared to deal with people who have little compunction against striking back.

  10. David Samel
    December 7, 2012, 3:37 pm

    This conversation reminds me of one I had in 1980 with a white South African who had emigrated to Australia. This was a year after Rhodesia had peacefully transformed into Zimbabwe, and I asked him if he thought the same thing could happen in SA. He was very pessimistic, and said he was convinced that SA whites would fight to the death to preserve apartheid. Fortunately, he turned out to be wrong. Gurvitz has every reason to make this dire prediction, but I am sure that people like him will make every effort to avoid such bloodshed, and so should we.

    • Philip Weiss
      December 7, 2012, 4:45 pm

      Thanks David. Good point. That’s why I’m for Boycott. Also, thanks for standing up for us on the Open Zion comment thread. That was a funny comment you made to Pearlman. Phil

    • Avi_G.
      December 7, 2012, 5:23 pm

      He was very pessimistic, and said he was convinced that SA whites would fight to the death to preserve apartheid. Fortunately, he turned out to be wrong. Gurvitz has every reason to make this dire prediction, but I am sure that people like him will make every effort to avoid such bloodshed, and so should we.

      The major difference between Afrikaners and Israelis is that the latter is an extremely militarized society. And the colonists have been stocking up on weapons and ammunition.

      P.S. – When the colonies in Gaza were removed, colonists went as far as pouring acid from rooftops on Israeli soldiers. And Gaza sure ain’t “Judea and Samaria”.

    • Mooser
      December 7, 2012, 5:44 pm

      “Fortunately, he turned out to be wrong. “

      “Fighting to the death” makes a great pretence, but when it comes time to do it, there’s usually quite a bit of reluctance, if another course, no matter how impossible it seemed before (like dusting off your second passport) is available.
      I have an awful lot of faith in the ultimate existential cowardice of Zionists, as exhibited by their addiction to brutal pretenses. One must, if he is to have any hope for peace in the area.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        December 7, 2012, 6:06 pm

        But you have to remember that there’s a fanatical religious element to Zionism which simply wasn’t present in the SA situation. So, the more extreme religious Zionists WOULD fight to the death for Zionism. Whether the more ‘moderate’ ‘secular’ Israelis would do the same is another question.

      • Mooser
        December 7, 2012, 6:23 pm

        “So, the more extreme religious Zionists WOULD fight to the death for Zionism.”

        Yes, they will, but an awful lot more people will yell “I am fighting to the death” while they make plane reservations out.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        December 7, 2012, 6:45 pm

        This is true. And, of course, very many Israelis do have second or even third passports, so getting on a plane is definitely an option.

        I still think, however, that there is a hardcore of fanatics who will happily die for Zion. It’s not so much a question of IF they exist, but of how numerous and influential they will turn out to be when and if the proverbial hits the fan.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      December 7, 2012, 5:55 pm

      ”He was very pessimistic, and said he was convinced that SA whites would fight to the death to preserve apartheid.”

      Interesting. I think we sometimes forget how deeply entrenched SA Apartheid was, and how the majority (probably vast majority) of whites believed in it 100%, whatever they might want you to believe now. We should also not forget that apartheid had considerable support in the ‘west’ right until the end.

      I long for the day when it will be as embarrassing to admit that you were once a Zionist as it is now to admit that you once supported Apartheid. No doubt one day, people will be as shocked to hear that Zionism was once widely supported in the same way that young people nowadays find it hard to believe that Apartheid SA was once considered quite a respectable country.

      • Dutch
        December 7, 2012, 6:25 pm

        ‘I long for the day when it will be as embarrassing to admit that you were once a Zionist as it is now to admit that you once supported Apartheid.’ — Maximus DM.

        So do I. But the day is coming. Over here ‘zionism’ already has the same sound as Apartheid and racism in large circles, including Jewish. I think the US is the only place outside Israel where people openly call themselves ‘zionist’ on some scale. In Holland you’ll soon be tomatoed if you try.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        December 7, 2012, 6:44 pm

        Really? I had always thought of Holland as being quite anti-Muslim and pro-Israel, but perhaps that’s a case of the governments not reflecting the view of the people, as is true in much of Europe, including Ireland, where I live.

      • Dutch
        December 7, 2012, 10:50 pm

        True, Holland has been a supporter for Israel all along, except that along the line public support soared from probably 95% fifty years ago to a minority nowadays. Dutch politics certainly do not reflect popular view in this respect — as in other cases where our government blindly followed the US (87% of the Dutch were against support for the Iraq War, that was supported nevertheless).

        As for anti-muslim: Holland suffered from total paranoia and incompetent governing following 9/11 — as a Kingdom of Fear. And let’s not forget that people got killed: the murder of Theo van Gogh was a huge shock for the open society Holland wants to be. Wilders profited, every unhappy person in his wake. Now he lost his governing power, and islam is hardly an issue anymore. The Labor/Liberal coalition is nuanced on islamic immigrants.

  11. eljay
    December 7, 2012, 3:49 pm

    >> Because the two state solution has died. I think it is no longer viable. This civil war threat is making it non-viable. We need to move to a one-state solution, but I don’t see how we can sell it to either side– to either side. So before people wind down and put down their guns, plenty of people will have to die.

    Sadly, he’s right. Palestinians won’t walk away from all that has been stolen from them, and Zio-supremacists and “Jewish State” won’t walk away from all they have – so far – successfully stolen from the Palestinians.

    Good interview. Awkward finale, but kudos:
    – to Mr. Gurvitz for (IMO) understanding the nature (concern for safety) of the comment and for reacting very diplomatically to it; and
    – to Mr. Weiss for realizing and apologizing for his transgression.

  12. Avi_G.
    December 7, 2012, 4:11 pm

    “A Labor coalition would be much more susceptible to pressure… to end or at least curtail the settlements and the settlement movement… If pressure arises from the US or the European community, then a Labor government could be pushed away from settlements… It is not invested in the settlements.”

    I disagree with Gurvitz. Though he makes many good points, he is still stuck in the Israeli illusion that the Israeli establishment is politically diverse on the Palestinian issue (e.g. Labor vs. Likud vs. Meretz).

    Look, the point is that whether Likud or Labor is in power, the state apparatus is still run by radical right wing fascists.

    Please read Uri Avnery’s The Settler State.

    Here’s an excerpt:

    The other day, the almighty General Security Service (Shabak, formerly Shin Bet) needed a new boss. It is a hugely important job, because no minister ever dares to contradict the advice of the Shabak chief in cabinet meetings.

    There was an obvious candidate, known only as J. But at the last moment, the settlers’ lobby was mobilized. As director of the “Jewish department” J. had put some Jewish terrorists in prison. So his candidature was rejected and Yoram Cohen, a kippah-wearing darling of the settlers was appointed instead.

    That happened last month. Just before that, The National Security Council also needed a new chief. Under pressure from the settlers, General Yaakov Amidror, formerly the highest kippah-wearing officer in the army, a man of openly ultra-ultra nationalist views, got the job.

    The Deputy Chief of Staff of the army is a kippah-wearing officer dear to the settlers, a former head of Central Command, which includes the West Bank.

    But even Avnery is under the illusion that the so-called settler darling in power is a new phenomenon that is driving Israel rightward.

    To truly understand the direction the country is headed, I believe one need only examine the policies in place, policies that no Israeli court and no minister has EVER changed.

    Consider, for example, the treatment that Israel’s Palestinian minority has received over the last 65 years. The patterns of discrimination, the patterns of isolation and alienation are key to understanding Israeli politics.

    Phil needs to speak with Palestinians like Hasan Jabareen and Haneen Zoabi before he goes calling any Israeli Jew a political genius.

    • Dutch
      December 7, 2012, 6:07 pm

      Avi, I agree with you. Labor has been supporting the settlement business all along, as it has been massively involved in the dehumanization of the Palestinians. Say — is Labor willing to retreat behind the Green Line? The fact that Labor, some day, will change the course of the state is another myth — or better wishful thinking. Besides, anyone in power will face the purposely crafted dilemma of how to remove 700,000+ facts on the ground.

      I believe that the civil war that will follow will not so much be over the land, but ultimately about the question that has been hidden so carefully all the time: who are we? Only when that question is answered, after 65+ years, Israel will be able to live in peace, with itself and with the rest of the world.

    • kalithea
      December 8, 2012, 8:01 pm

      Bingo!

    • seafoid
      December 10, 2012, 10:05 am

      “A Labor coalition would be much more susceptible to pressure” is as relevant as ” only Likud can bring peace”.
      Both are BS.
      no Zionist political party can tell the voters the truth- YESHA has bankrupted the country and you all have to take a 30% cut in living standards

  13. Hostage
    December 7, 2012, 5:49 pm

    “A Labor coalition would be much more susceptible to pressure… If pressure arises from the US or the European community, … It is not invested in the settlements.

    ”I disagree with Gurvitz. Though he makes many good points, he is still stuck in the Israeli illusion that the Israeli establishment is politically diverse on the Palestinian issue (e.g. Labor vs. Likud vs. Meretz).

    No he’s written columns which deny that there’s any real difference. He’s just saying that Labor or its coalition partners would be more susceptible to pressure than right wingers. Lets face it, Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu aren’t gonna become affiliates of the Socialist International any time soon (not even at gun point).

    • Avi_G.
      December 8, 2012, 1:50 am

      Lets face it, Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu aren’t gonna become affiliates of the Socialist International any time soon (not even at gun point).

      Hostage,

      I see what you’re saying. But, ultimately, the point is too fine to be of consequence. In other words, saying that Labor is “susceptible” has no meat. It’s wishy-washy. I think you’ll agree.

      • Hostage
        December 8, 2012, 6:50 pm

        In other words, saying that Labor is “susceptible” has no meat. It’s wishy-washy. I think you’ll agree.

        No, I don’t read so much into the statement. He’s just saying that the liberals would be the only parties where any possibility of something like that happening even exists.

        Gurvitz has always debunked the idea that the liberals long term aims or values are very much different than those of the right wingers, e.g. The NYTimes has it wrong: Israel’s roots are not liberal link to 972mag.com

        I think he’s right that leaders like Ben Gurion and Moshe Sharret were much more susceptible to international pressure and compromise on their long term goals than people like Begin or Shamir. You can see that in the Knesset debates between Ben Gurion and Begin in the first and second Knesset over the fate of the West Bank. Ben Gurion was always willing to let future generations finish the job of redeeming the entire Land of Israel, in exchange for establishing unchallenged control and a demographic majority in part of it today.

        I don’t think many people carry the idea of a civil rebellion to its natural conclusions. If we’re talking about a situation so dire that the settlers would be willing to instigate a civil war, then the clever politicians on the opposing side would surely exploit the 9 to 1 division to end the settlers extraterritorial right to participate or vote in the Israeli elections. Abraham Lincoln had to worry about a lot of things in 1864, but winning the electoral college votes of the 11 rebel states wasn’t one of them. What would the composition of the Zionist Knesset look like after the settlers declared this war?

      • seafoid
        December 10, 2012, 10:01 am

        The settlers could start a civil war but who will fund it after the first week?
        Where will they get their fuel from? And food?
        Sanctions would destroy them. They are paper tigers.

  14. Kevin R. Vixie
    December 7, 2012, 10:12 pm

    Nice interview. Don’t know much about Israeli politics, but I think I would enjoy sitting in a Cafe, talking to Yossi!

  15. Patrick
    December 7, 2012, 11:53 pm

    It’s surprising that the risk of a civil war in Israel is not more widely recognized. After all, no less than Shimon Peres warned of this before the British Parliament some time ago: link to haaretz.com. His message seemed to me like a tacit plea to the British not to push Israel too hard to remove its settlements.

    There is no doubt that any government of the day in Israel, regardless of its political leanings, will be well aware that it risks provoking a civil war should it decide on removing the settlements. Obviously, they’ll do anything to avoid this outcome. So, in all likelihood, it won’t happen, simply because the settlements won’t ever be removed. Meanwhile, the Gov’t of Israel will try to continue with the ‘peace process’ charade in order to perpetuate the status quo for as long as possible.

    • Hostage
      December 8, 2012, 4:19 pm

      It’s surprising that the risk of a civil war in Israel is not more widely recognized. . . . There is no doubt that any government of the day in Israel, regardless of its political leanings, will be well aware that it risks provoking a civil war should it decide on removing the settlements. . . .

      The removal of the settlements isn’t the problem, it’s retaining them. How can the settlers get the non-settler population to go on volunteering to run deficits and providing the logistical and military support for them? If Israel withdraws the IDF or they are replaced by an international force, the settlements won’t be a viable proposition from the standpoint of territorial contiguity and integrity or economics.

      That’s why the so-called negotiations have always contained the preconditions that the Palestinians can’t invite peacekeepers to locations in their own territory, like the Jordan Valley, and that Israel will retain the three largest settlement “blocks” (settlements + spaces in-between) as it’s own acquisitions, not just the settlements themselves.

      • Patrick
        December 10, 2012, 3:36 am

        “The removal of the settlements isn’t the problem, it’s retaining them. How can the settlers get the non-settler population to go on volunteering to run deficits and providing the logistical and military support for them? ”

        Is this really such a big problem? A number of writers have made the point that Israelis are relatively content with the status quo and have little incentive to want to change things. For example, Noam Sheizaf writes: link to 972mag.com

        “What Israelis understand and Wieseltier doesn’t, is that they already have their peace now. Putting aside the future implications, the current status quo represents the best alternative for Israelis. This is why they vote for a leader who basically promises them more of the same. … Wieseltier regrets that ‘nobody is desperate to solve the problem,’ but fails to understand that it is nobody in Israel that is desperate.”

      • Hostage
        December 10, 2012, 10:39 pm

        Is this really such a big problem?

        Yes the deficits and the military budget are an enormous problem. Israel is second behind Mexico in the number of poor families in the OECD. *http://www.centralbanking.com/central-banking/news/2196449/fisher-calls-for-israeli-government-action-on-deficit
        *http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4220785,00.html

        So is disproportionate spending on housing in the occupied territories, since 9 in 10 Israelis don’t live or work there.

  16. Avi_G.
    December 8, 2012, 1:59 am

    As an aside,

    Phil, I hope you’re not taking the aforementioned criticism personally. You’re a great human being and I have a lot of respect for you. And that goes for Mondoweiss’ other editors and contributors. I hope they all realize that.

    I just like holding your feet to the proverbial fire, seeing as you have an innate intellectual curiosity — something that is absent in today’s mainstream journalism.

  17. NickJOCW
    December 8, 2012, 9:05 am

    Yossi Gurvitz’ perceptions remind me of Ayatollah Khomeini when he pronounced his mischievously misquoted prediction that the Zionist regime would one day vanish. Trends that can’t continue, won’t (Stein’s Law). Nations as much as individuals not infrequently steer themselves into situations that can only end in tears. Gurvitz’ view is I imagine further informed by history. The die is cast, the Rubicon is crossed, the future is no longer in the hands of AIPAC or Congress; Israel is like a plane about to lose engine power and all we can do is hope it crash lands with the least further loss of life although some more there will surely be.

    Sanctions would cushion the descent. So could the further awakening of the European public if it obliges European leaders increasingly to narrow the gap between what they do and what they say and so appear, as with the recent UN vote, to distant themselves from the US position. Globally extended as the US is and at loggerheads with Russia and China, the last thing Obama needs is to see Europe drifting away.

  18. kalithea
    December 8, 2012, 5:56 pm

    I stated basically the same thing he did about how this will devolve in an earlier comment I posted on another thread here. So I agree as far as that’s concerned.

    Regarding the sob at the end. Look I don’t know if he went to Israel on his own initiative or his parents did and he was born there, but I’m really sorry, I cannot pity him. He’s alive and doing well and according to him has a life and professional career there while Palestinians have been robbed of their homes, their livelihoods, many of their entire families and loved ones and their LIVES. So excuse me, but I can’t sympathize. Zionists either have to accept the one state with an eventual Palestinian majority or YES, GET ANOTHER PASSPORT OR GO BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM.

    Zionists made their bed on the backs of Palestinians and grave injustices. Wake up and smell the coffee; you can’t pin your hopes to something like that! This guy has a whole career built on the Occupation; the Occupation IS his occupation. That’s the irony. Well I’m sorry, but he’ll have to find himself another “occupation” to live on because the OCCUPATION is going down!

    And I should feel sorry for him? Let him suffer what Palestinians have suffered and then I’ll feel sorry. I’m sure every settler on the West Bank has their own sob story that keeps them clinging to their life on PALESTINIAN LAND. That’s the whole problem now isn’t it??? Zionism is worst than a cult!

    • seafoid
      December 10, 2012, 10:27 am

      I fell sorry for him and all of the other Jews who will lose out when the YESHA/IDF empire collapses. The poor will be shafted as per usual.

      It will be tough. National idiocy is expensive.

  19. kalithea
    December 8, 2012, 7:48 pm

    The question was not vicious! Quit apologizing; it gives them false hope and plays right into the Zionist agenda! Hey, their so-called home is STOLEN property and that should be the front-and-centre fact that overrules any kind of self-pity. Everyone needs to remember that this guy who built a career that benefits from the OCCUPATION (whether he’s sympathetic to Palestinian suffering or not) was weaned on the victim gruel like every other Zionist. He played the victim card like a pro and instead of graciously allowing the real victims, the Palestinians, to get deserved compassion in closing, he hogged it for himself! It’s what Zionists do better than anything whether it’s conscious or second-nature. Oh bruuuther, you got played. Ufff!

Leave a Reply