Making privilege an axiom, ‘Economist’ says Israel’s Jews won’t do what South Africa’s whites did

Israel/Palestine
on 79 Comments

This week’s edition of The Economist contains a feature article that, remarkably, takes on the much-ballyhooed demise of the two state solution, as well as the one state solution and BDS movement, head-on. It fits squarely in the “liberal Zionist sounding the alarm” genre that has become so popular these days, but at least it doesn’t ignore or simply gloss over challenges to the dominant discourse. Coming from a publication like The Economist, this is quite a bellwether. Still, it is suffused with problems. Here are just a few: 

The whole thing is shot through with the bugaboo of demographic balance that so perturbs “liberal” Zionists, who seem to purposefully ignore that apartheid is a qualitative rather than quantitative concern–as though having a regime that differentiates the rights it affords residents of the same territory on the basis of ethnicity is somehow palatable if the privileged section of the population is 50 percent plus one?

The author trots out interviews obtained from Hamas officials in examining the various factions that are in favor of one state, painting them as noxious constituents to the cause in addition to its more progressive advocates. But here we see the unnamed author making unsubstantiated claims and unsupported judgments about the group’s goals: “They still dream of a land where they hold sway… with Jews and Christians living there, if they are lucky, on sufferance.” Um, what? Says who? And when Mahmoud Zahar of Hamas says “We consider the whole of Palestine our land,” it is framed as an insidious statement–one gets the impression that we readers are supposed to be aghast that Palestinians would dare consider the places from which they were forcibly evicted 65 years (or less) ago to be “their” land. How nefarious, those Palestinians.

But perhaps most telling is the way in which the author, towards the end, so nakedly reflects the true nature of Western “conventional wisdom” on the conflict. In comparing Israel to South Africa, he/she says “In conceding the principle of one-person-one-vote South Africa’s whites knew that they were losing their political primacy for good. Israeli Jews will not do that.” And that’s it. Full stop, end of sentence–“Israeli Jews will not do that.” Shortly thereafter he/she states “It is barely conceivable that Jews, after running their own vibrant polity for half a century and praying for a return to their ancestral homeland for two millennia, would quietly submit to Palestinian majority rule, however idealistic its proponents.”

So there you have it–we can’t expect an egalitarian regime to emerge in Israel/Palestine because, well, “Israeli Jews will not do that.” And Israeli Jews can “hardly be expected” to engage in a fully democratic polity with their would-be compatriots, because, you see, that would be tantamount to “submission.” I can hardly think of a more conspicuous manifestation of privilege so unbridled that it bears the force of axiom. I mean, how racist is that? I guess I didn’t get the memo that told everyone that the political proclivities of Israeli Jews were unassailable when trying to remedy the injustice that those proclivities have wrought.

79 Responses

  1. Woody Tanaka
    March 18, 2013, 11:11 am

    Great article. Perceptive as always.

  2. Taxi
    March 18, 2013, 11:14 am

    ““Israeli Jews will not do that.””

    This leaves war as the only solution.

    But there’s more of ‘them’ regionally than there is israelis. And ‘them’ now have killer weapons too. And ‘them’ ain’t afraid to die neither.

    Do the maths.

    The israelis may destroy many an Arab city in the process, but these cities will be rebuilt by native survivors. Whereas israel will be… devestated by a regional war, leading to mass exodus, collapsed economy = collapsed country – the zionist regime becoming un-reincarnatable… but re-buildable by the natives.

    And NO absolutely NOT: jesus, the messiah and the mehdi ain’t coming back to save Abrahamic zealots from the dreaded liberal universalism permeating and moving humanity steadfast into the future.

    The coming war will be a war over territory, not a fight over god – considering all the parties involved share the same Abrahamic ‘god’. But of course the propaganda will be telling you otherwise.

    Yeah I reckon the coming war will change ‘almost’ everything.

    • sardelapasti
      March 18, 2013, 1:29 pm

      Exactly. By not sanctioning the Zionists, the US Gov is –knowingly?– pushing a probable nuclear world war to be started by the Zionists. Europe will be extremely lucky to escape with less than maximum damage, and the Palestinians without all-out genocide. That is if we cannot manage to turn off the money faucet, stat.

    • American
      March 18, 2013, 2:39 pm

      @ Taxi

      I hate to think of a all out war in the ME ……but/ and….. people do need to understand that if that happens the Arab related forces will win, the US and Israel will lose.
      1) Because the US isn’t going to turn the ME to glass for Israel , not even if we had christian zio in the WH, it would so impact world economics our and others capitalist system would falter and crash, the capitalist push back against that would be too fierce.
      2) And in a all out war in the ME if we don’t turn it to glass —then we’re in a ground ‘war of attrition’ that we can’t win that either….just like we never ‘won’ the attrition war in Iraq and we aren’t and never will win the one in Afghan either.

      • Taxi
        March 18, 2013, 4:12 pm

        Ask yourself this, American: What does America need more of: israel or oil?

        There maybe no ‘daylight’ between us and israel in politic-speak, but there sure as hell is a RED LINE between us.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 18, 2013, 4:41 pm

        That’s the wrong question. The right question is:

        What do American politicians need more: 1) the donation money controlled by zionists or 2) anything that’s actually good for America?

      • Taxi
        March 19, 2013, 6:11 am

        It’s the right question, Woody. If push comes to shove, our capitalism and industries are more important than israel – and none of our donkey fellators in congress can do anything about it – they know it and they work hard to keep our economy and israel as separate issues.

        It’s a PR stunt that the zionists want you to believe: that israel is numero uno above everything – but it really ain’t. Sure they got some dark muscle operating 24/7 on our foreign policies, but they sure as hell ain’t in control of EVERY aspect of American governance and policies.

        I’d even wager that if, hypothetically, we were forced to choose to take sides in a war between israel and saudi arabia, we would side with the House of Saud – not for the love of Arabs over jews but simply because of our addiction to oil and industrious capitalism. Why else do you think that successive islamaphobic israeli governments stay well away from publicly critiquing and condemning saudi human rights failures? Israel is always quick to slam Arab rulers – but NOT the oil shiekhdoms. NEVER! The zionists have been told of the ‘oil’ red line.

        I don’t underestimate the power of the israel lobby, but I don’t overestimate its power either.

    • libra
      March 19, 2013, 9:39 am

      The israelis may destroy many an Arab city…

      My goodness, it’s Taxi’s version of Armageddon. But not to worry, instead of the Rapture we get “liberal universalism permeating and moving humanity steadfast into the future.” So that’s all right then.

      Surely, Taxi must be short for Taxidermist because in her hands we’re all stuffed. Unless you live safely out of the way in California, of course.

      • Taxi
        March 19, 2013, 3:49 pm

        What’s your lofty version of “Armageddon”, buddy? Got yourself any of your own creative ideas ’bout that?

        I’ve been traveling around the mideast, seeing the sh*t for myself for the past 18 months and am still on the road – and you’re blogging “safely” and oh so sagely from which state? Which continent, my dear?

        All the reasonable parts of all religions are in fact universalist and inclusive. The popularity of democracy is so because it is steeped in universal inclusivity. The advent of the internet is another expression of universalism. Humanity is connected through it’s collective understanding of a simple universalism. Universalism is not something new, but has always existed – and no, it is not a religion or a political movement. It is a shared observation. I personally see it as part science and part empathy. So like, which bit of my statement got your goat: the liberal bit or the universalist bit, or was it the explosive combination? Really, I wanna ask you: what is the point of your post? If my ideas are “off” every now and then, so what? You offer no correction, no evolution of idea, no debating pathway, no wit, so pray tell what IS your point? Perhaps… cheap shot much?

        You’re hopelessly naive if you don’t think we’re already “stuffed”. How the eff do you propose to remove the mass of illegal, unbudging, expanding settlements? How are you going to stop the massive and continuing flood of weaponry into the region? How are you going to un-motivate millions of Abrahamic zealots from eventually using them? Let’s hear your genius unarmageddony solution. Libra.

  3. tokyobk
    March 18, 2013, 11:16 am

    Unsubstantiated? Article 31 of the Hamas charter, for starts. Has this been revoked?

    ‘Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. Safety and security can only prevail under the shadow of Islam, and recent and ancient history is the best witness to that effect. The members of other religions must desist from struggling against Islam over sovereignty in this region. “

    • Kris
      March 18, 2013, 12:51 pm

      “Safety and security can only prevail under the shadow of Islam, and recent and ancient history is the best witness to that effect.”

      Can’t argue with that. Try reading Kate’s daily posts on this website: day after day of evidence that there is no security or safety for Christians or Muslims under the shadow of the “Judaism” of Israel.

    • sardelapasti
      March 18, 2013, 1:22 pm

      tokyo – Yes, unsubstantiated. Hamas is an islamic movement and its constitution is so, just exactly as those of the Christian-Democrat or other religious-affiliated movements were. To assume that the particular ideological platform of one particular resistance movement will necessarily result in a state constitution is, to be charitable, stupid. As if there weren’t secularist movements which, we have to agree, have been intentionally murdered by the Zionists to the benefit of Hamas. As if the Resistance weren’t a coalition of many diverse movements.

      Also, don’t you sometimes feel a little silly pointing to this kind of nonsense when the opposing party is one of illegal invasion, military occupation and murder by an *officially theocratical state* of the Zionist entity?

      • tokyobk
        March 18, 2013, 3:09 pm

        The author says the charge that -Hamas- believes Jews and Christians will live under Islam is unsubstantiated. Its in their charter.

      • sardelapasti
        March 18, 2013, 3:12 pm

        tokyo – We’ll charitably call this a thinking deficit even though you can read.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2013, 3:27 pm

        tokyobk, Austin Branion cites the author, ” with Jews and Christians living there, if they are lucky, on sufferance.

        this is unsubstantiated, even in the hamas charter, outside of ones (islamophobic?)interpretation.

      • tokyobk
        March 18, 2013, 3:39 pm

        Cheap shot Annie. I am surprised. The very kind of cheap shot that you and others here are quick to point out when “antisemitic” is used.

        I don’t think Hamas represents Islam or most Muslims or even most Palestinians. It is clear form their own words that they see the People of the Book as dhimmi to live “In the shadow” of Islam.

      • tokyobk
        March 18, 2013, 3:51 pm

        I can read and I also understand that “on sufferance” means to be tolerated under someone else’s authority, not necessarily to make suffer (as Annie seems to think?), the exact position Hamas holds towards other religions and to the secularism of the PLO also discussed in the charter (27).

      • MRW
        March 18, 2013, 4:10 pm

        I can read and I also understand that “on sufferance” means to be tolerated under someone else’s authority, not necessarily to make suffer (as Annie seems to think?),

        Check your dictionary:

        sufferance |ˈsəf(ə)rəns| noun
        1 absence of objection rather than genuine approval; toleration:
        2 the suffering or undergoing of something bad or unpleasant.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2013, 4:15 pm

        first of all, it was not a cheap shot as i was referencing the author of the article, not you. you didn’t reference “on sufferance” you skipped over it and went straight to the hamas charter. the charge of ‘on sufferance’ is not included in the charter.

        i am not saying this ‘in defense’ of the charter. but, in my limited understanding of the three major religions don’t they all claim some eventuality where their religion is the way to god or their religion will end up ruling the masses (albeit benevolently or fairly or something)? when they speak for themselves they do not generally claim others will live in sufferance to them, do they?

        so, isn’t that left up to interpretation? the author interprets this dictum of islam or hamas as meaning “if they are lucky, on sufferance.”

        I also understand that “on sufferance” which means to be tolerated under someone else’s authority

        right, but how is that any different than zionists constantly claiming palestinian israelis having equal rights in israel? does the israel government say, or does our msm say they live in sufferance? would it be unusual for someone to say it’s anti semitic to suggest a muslim or christian living in a jewish state is living in sufferance? isn’t that a derogatory statement? but i would agree that they do. so this is why i qualified it as possibly an islamophobic interpretation (using parenthesis and a question mark). because at present i don’t think christians in gaza would share this sentiment. there’s lots of evidence non jews living in israel do live in severance, but the reverse claim cannot be made regarding hamas, or islam, because jews and christians did live there in very relative safety for centuries.

        anyway, it’s clear to me the author was using ‘sufferance’ it in a derogatory fashion.

        link to merriam-webster.com

        Definition of SUFFERANCE
        1
        : patient endurance
        2
        : pain, misery
        3
        : consent or sanction implied by a lack of interference or failure to enforce a prohibition
        4

      • tokyobk
        March 18, 2013, 4:26 pm

        I don’t think it is different. I think Israel has made Palestinians into dhimmi; A subdued people who are constantly made aware of their status as conquered people. I don’t believe in two equal narratives but I do believe this type of supremacy should be challenged wherever and Hamas is blatant about it and deserves no pass.

        Annie and MRW I am aware “sufferance” means those things.
        back to “on sufferance” which is the relevant term here.

        by mere toleration; as, to remain in a house on sufferance.
        – Blackstone. (the free dictionary.com)

        This is how the term is being used by the quoted author and clearly it is exactly what Hamas means in the passage of its charter I quoted.

        I am glad you were not calling me Islamophobic.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2013, 4:35 pm

        it is exactly what Hamas means in the passage of its charter I quoted.

        iow, you think the religions (or just islam?), when they claim they will eventually inherit the earth (or whatever phrasing they use) think others will be living in sufferance under their rule? because it’s my understanding they think it’s the path to enlightenment for all. (and like i said i don’t agree with this, but assumed it’s their claim)

        also, i fear i’m getting off topic and don’t want to spam the thread with discussions of religious interpretations i know little about.

      • sardelapasti
        March 18, 2013, 5:22 pm

        tokyo- BS. Israel has not “made Palestinians into dhimmi”, If you want to use precise foreign, technical terms I suggest that you make yourself aware of what they exactly indicate.

        Israel has made the Palestinians into Helots or worse: totally without political being, slaves who can be attacked and murdered at will by any arm of the abusive state, and, for periodic events, quoting the very apt description in, surprisingly, Wikipedia “…ritually mistreated, humiliated and even slaughtered: every autumn, during the Crypteia, they could be killed by a Spartan citizen without fear of repercussion”.

        Dhimmi just designates a person belonging to one of the communities of non-Moslems, organized autonomously under their religious leaders, supervised and protected by the Emperor. They usually were not drafted for miliraty service, in exchange of which a tax was imposed, leaving them with far less of a personal burden than the Moslem citizens. Also, the Empire had no nationality, no “Turkish empire” no privileged race or privileged language. Of course it was an Empire and as such arbitrary acts were legion, but it was never as bad as the continuous exactions of the state of Israel. With the important exceptions of the Greek war of independence and the genocide of the Armenians (continued by the Israel-allied Turkish military dictatorship.)

      • sardelapasti
        March 18, 2013, 5:36 pm

        Now about confusing the charter of one of the Resistance groups and making it into a constitution for a future state. Charitable hypothesis, clueless. Uncharitable hypothesis: malignant propaganda. Of course there will be all kinds of groups. Especially islamic groups, seeing the utter hopelessness of an entire population, under the worst occupation regime since 1945. Who do you think was in the Resistance to the Germans during the war, only choirboys approved by the Zionist Organization?
        This said, I am impressed by the absence of any Jew-hating movements in the Resistance. It shows an almost saintly forbearance and a high degree of maturity (which we in Europe never managed to reach.)

      • Cliff
        March 18, 2013, 8:40 pm

        Tokyobk

        Are you selective in the stories you respond to here at MW?

        Why don’t you stop being so racist and check out the daily stream of Jewish supremacy related stories that are covered on MW.

        You are pretentious.

      • Elisabeth
        March 19, 2013, 9:15 am

        tokyobk, I have no idea where my comment will end up, but I reply to your use of the term dhimmi. This is a historical, outdated term. The Ottoman Empire officially abolished the dhimmi system in 1856. The average Muslim had never heard of the term until it was revived by Islamofobes who have succeeded in making it into a household word in most western countries. Same goes for taqiyya: Most (Sunni) Muslims will have to look up what the term means, but both terms have been so much bandied about over here (Netherlands) that people keep pestering bewildered Muslims about their supposed tradition of lying to non-muslims, and pushing them into servitude.
        Just don’t use these words. They are useless because they are dragged out of context and they have been too much abused.

      • Austin Branion
        March 19, 2013, 1:08 pm

        Thank you; and not only that, but Christians in Gaza CONTINUE to live peacefully in Gaza under Hamas rule. Which, of course, is not to say that they, or other minorities, do not and will not face problems in the future–but claiming that they will inevitably have to live in the land “on sufferance” is a bit rich given the evidence.

      • MHughes976
        March 19, 2013, 1:57 pm

        I don’t read the Hamas manifesto as threatening anything remotely like the bad things that Israel visits on the Palestinians, the dispossessions, the checkpoints and all that. It might threaten the bad things that so distress Beinart – female lawyers forced to cover their heads etc.. I was saying the other day that his examples of ‘thuggishness’ (to use a term of nineteenth century racial thought) are rather comically incongruous with the Israeli inflictions that he fears they might replace. However, it might be far worse than the manifesto suggests: no point denying that. Everyone should do their best to prevent those who come to power after an era of injustice from practising worse injustice or making the cycle of evil turn and turn yet again. But there is no reason for preserving existing injustice in the inevitable fact that no one can guarantee that the effort to replace it will not go very wrong. People’s rights are not conditional on their giving credible guarantees that they will use their rights to good effect: couldn’t be, because in that case no right could ever be invoked.
        Treating people with unrelenting violence and contempt isn’t a good way of making them into nice people, of course.

    • Danaa
      March 19, 2013, 2:41 pm

      tokyobk, may I paraphrase:
      “Under the light of a Judean state] it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. Safety and security can only prevail when lit by the wisdom of a Judean state – both Jewish and democratic – and recent and ancient history is the best witness to that effect. The members of other religions must desist from struggling against Judeanism over sovereignty in this region”

      I know this is not the charter of the Judean state of Israel, but it might as well be?

      You can find articles of law taken straight from the founders of the “state” that put the Hamas charter to shame (really, Hamas! that’s just so too universalist of you!). Bolstered by the day in day out pronouncements and actions by the oh so jewish! state on the all-important imperative of “Judaising” its many blessed regions. Be it the Galilei or the Negev or east Jerusalem or Jaffa – just bring in the light so all others can live in the “shadow”.

      Face it, diaspora buddy, you shtetl descendant – Israel is the best shtetl of them all – and it’s a light unto the nations to boot! move there and you too can be burnt by the sun that shineth so bright! what, you don’t like a little suntan?

      Note to Hamas on branding: just change that word in the charter to “light’ from “shadow” and all will be well…..

  4. Krauss
    March 18, 2013, 11:49 am

    Austin, your review of Beinart’s book is still the best I’ve read so far – at any place. I just hope you’ll get to write here more often, as this article is an example of that.

    And speaking towards the topic… I’m curiously wondering why these “liberal Zionist concern trolls” as some of my friends like to call them fail to remember Jim Crow? African-Americans in the South were never in the majority in any of the places and no serious demographer was projecting that they were going to be either(at least in a 50-year timeframe or so).

    Yet just because whites were winning the demographic race there(in the 1930s, the black share of the population of some of the Southern states was far lower than it was during the 1980s, for instance), never meant that they could get away with atrocities, atrocities that actually pale in comparison(pun unintended) when compared to SA whites and even more so when compared against white Jews in Israel.

    Whoever is going to have a majority in 20 years isn’t relevant. But for some reason, it continues to be. Everyone keeps saying “well when Israeli Jews are a minority then it’s over”. But if Israeli Jews don’t become a minority – through a combination of ethnic cleansing, redlining and various ways to count out the Palestininans – what then? Everything’s fine?

    Everyone keeps waiting for these demographic turning points, without saying why we should accept those arguments when the brutal suffering is going on right now, en masse.

    • tokyobk
      March 18, 2013, 1:15 pm

      Krauss,

      I agree with what you say in spirit, but I don;t understand your demography. Blacks were a majority in most of the lower South since the 1700’s until the Great Migration, esp. Mississippi and SC with other states were always at about 50% in this period. Unless for you Jim Crow means the 1960’s perhaps? Even then there were many counties still majority black.

      • MRW
        March 18, 2013, 4:01 pm

        tokyobk,

        “Blacks were a majority in most of the lower South since the 1700′s until the Great Migration, esp. Mississippi and SC with other states were always at about 50% in this period.”

        Actually, blacks were a majority in only South Carolina and New Orleans. In 1776, Blacks were 20% of the total population in all of the colonies.
        link to blackpast.org

      • sardelapasti
        March 18, 2013, 11:11 pm

        tokyo – irrelevant to the essential point here, don’t you think? Krauss was saying:
        “just because whites were winning the demographic race there(in the 1930s, the black share of the population of some of the Southern states was far lower than it was during the 1980s, for instance), never meant that they could get away with atrocities, atrocities that actually pale in comparison(pun unintended) when compared to SA whites and even more so when compared against white Jews in Israel.”

        So, 1) obviously the exact percentages are not significant but the trend
        2) the percentages at any time were irrelevant to getting away with atrocities (personally I don’t agree with this, without a good proportion of decent people in the rest of the country they could have gotten away with it, just like the Zionists are doing today, for several more years, but not because of a majority/minority consideration)
        So let’s not deviate this discussion too.

  5. seafoid
    March 18, 2013, 12:21 pm

    “In conceding the principle of one-person-one-vote South Africa’s whites knew that they were losing their political primacy for good. Israeli Jews will not do that.” And that’s it. Full stop, end of sentence–“Israeli Jews will not do that.”

    If they concentrate real hard they can avoid the fate of apartheid SA.
    Sure.

    • bilal a
      March 18, 2013, 12:57 pm

      The flaw in modern multicultural ‘democracy’ is that it is anti-democratic. Israeli Jews should have the right to self rule and self determination; this is the original meaning interpretation of the American Bill of Rights which forbade the trampling of religious and ethnic self determination under a federal majority rule tyranny. It seems to me that an American pre-Lincoln confederation might be a better solution for Palistinians and Israelis alike, and it would certainly alleviate the personal and external security concerns of the Jewish minority in Greater Israel.

      The One state solution could only bring the oppressive charm and diversity of a Gender studies departmental colloquy, obliterating the beauty of the Haredim and Islamic traditions, while enforcing a pink washed sterile Orwellian newspeak culture. Both sides would lose, Iisrael would be subsumed into the transnational corporate crass carnal liberal materialism of the West.

      The One staters want to kill ‘Fiddler on the Roof’ and replace it with Chuck Schumer-Woody Allen Judaism.

      • lysias
        March 18, 2013, 2:26 pm

        Iisrael would be subsumed into the transnational corporate crass carnal liberal materialism of the West.

        You don’t think Israel is already there now?

        “Fiddler on the Roof” is about Yiddish-speaking Jews in Eastern Europe. Israel made sure that culture did not migrate to their country.

      • chinese box
        March 18, 2013, 4:28 pm

        “You don’t think Israel is already there now?”

        LOL. Obviously bilal a hasn’t read “Start Up Nation”.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 18, 2013, 2:33 pm

        “this is the original meaning interpretation of the American Bill of Rights which forbade the trampling of religious and ethnic self determination under a federal majority rule tyranny.”

        Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is there anything regarding religious and ethnic self-determination.

      • sardelapasti
        March 18, 2013, 7:52 pm

        bilal a – A secular republic with equal rights for all its citizens does not threaten either the Haredim or the Islamic devout (the beauty of whom is strictly in the eye of the beholder.) FYI, both religious observances (and ostentations) are flourishing in those “materialist” nations where freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom from religion are guaranteed. Except, of course, wherever Zionist propaganda is pushing some governments to suborn their own Constitutions. I can’t see why religious freedom, which seems to be your request, couldn’t be assured in Palestine. Except, of course, for Zionist refusal.

      • sardelapasti
        March 18, 2013, 7:55 pm

        P.S. The murderers of the guy fiddling on the roof are called Chaim Weizmann, Wladimir Jabotinsky and David Ben Gurion.

      • Sumud
        March 18, 2013, 11:24 pm

        Witness the vastly corrosive effect of Ziocaine on the human brain:

        The flaw in modern multicultural ‘democracy’ is that it is anti-democratic. Israeli Jews should have the right to self rule and self determination; this is the original meaning interpretation of the American Bill of Rights which forbade the trampling of religious and ethnic self determination under a federal majority rule tyranny.

        The great equalising force of one-person/one vote is “anti-democratic”, and the have this vote means you are denied “self rule and self determination”.

        What this unfortunate victim really means to say is that modern multicultural democracy is anti-jewish-supremacist – since people other than jews get to vote.

        You can’t be a nazi. You can’t be a white supremacist. But if you’re a jewish supremacist Obama will go to Israel and kiss your ass.

      • Hostage
        March 19, 2013, 6:12 pm

        The flaw in modern multicultural ‘democracy’ is that it is anti-democratic. Israeli Jews should have the right to self rule and self determination; this is the original meaning interpretation of the American Bill of Rights which forbade the trampling of religious and ethnic self determination under a federal majority rule tyranny.

        That’s an unhistorical reading of the original meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Nothing in that document would have prohibited the practice of enslaving Jews on the basis of their ethnicity and the will of the American majority.

        Needless to say, the Bill of Rights was completely silent about the subject of an ethnic minority right to self-determination. For example, in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 5 Pet. 1 1 (1831) the petitioners attempted to proceed as a self-determined and self-declared “foreign state” against the government of Georgia in the Supreme Court under the terms of the US Constitution. But the Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was not a foreign state in the sense in which the term is used in the Constitution. So much for your interpretation of ethnic self-determination under the American Bill of Rights. link to supreme.justia.com

        You also seem oblivious to the fact that the 1st amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the creation of anything like a Jewish theocratic State. Likewise, the 14th amendment prohibits the creation of an ethnic Jewish State.

        In any event, both the League of Nations mandate and the United Nations partition plan called for the establishment of multicultural democracies composed of Jewish and non-Jewish communities in the territory of Palestine.

        I’ve commented in the past that the Chairman of the UN Committee that drafted the Declaration on Universal Human Rights was an Arab, Charles Malik, the representative of Lebanon. link to untreaty.un.org

        During the 2nd Special Session of the General Assembly on the Question of Palestine, Mr. Malik introduced a proposal that the form of government in Palestine be based upon the model of the US Constitution:

        “Principle number five: The Constituent Assembly, in defining the powers of the federal state of Palestine, as well as the powers of the judicial and legislative organs, in defining the functions of the cantonal governments, and in defining the relationships between the cantonal governments and the federal state, will be guided by the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as the constitutions of the individual states of the United States of America. — Yearbook of the United Nations for 1947-48

        The US representative confirmed the fact that similar proposals had previously been made in both the UNSCOP and Ad Hoc Committees and that they had not been deemed acceptable.

        Ironically enough, it was the representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, US citizen Rabbi Abba Silver, who claimed that the US Constitutional model was unacceptable to the Jewish people.

        FYI, during the UN Ad Hoc Committee hearings in 1947, the Arab Higher Committee proposed a democratic government that would observe human rights, fundamental freedoms; equality of all persons before the law; and protection of the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities. That proposal was also deemed unacceptable by the representatives of the Jewish people. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

      • Light
        March 19, 2013, 7:34 pm

        Hostage,
        How do you find these gems? Thank you for all the historical and legal research you do!

      • Hostage
        March 19, 2013, 11:27 pm

        Hostage, How do you find these gems? Thank you for all the historical and legal research you do!

        To a large degree Jewish and Zionist culture are based upon a set of finely honed legal arguments about human history. I’ve commented here in the past that Zionists usually resort to hasbara and chutzpah in order to conceal some political setback or defeat and avoid letting reality or the documentary record speak for itself.

  6. Mndwss
    March 18, 2013, 12:31 pm

    “In conceding the principle of one-person-one-vote South Africa’s whites knew that they were losing their political primacy for good. Israeli Jews will not do that.”

    Yesterday i read the article by Phan Nguyen about Rachel Corrie. The quote from Roy Bryant about Emmett Till made me want to learn more about Till and the people that killed him: “Emmett Till is dead. I don’t know why he can’t just stay dead.” —Roy Bryant, nearly 40 years after murdering Emmett Till

    At Wikipedia there was this quote from the other killer:

    “Well, what else could we do? He was hopeless. I’m no bully; I never hurt a nigger in my life. I like niggers—in their place—I know how to work ‘em. But I just decided it was time a few people got put on notice. As long as I live and can do anything about it, niggers are gonna stay in their place. Niggers ain’t gonna vote where I live. If they did, they’d control the government. They ain’t gonna go to school with my kids. And when a nigger gets close to mentioning sex with a white woman, he’s tired o’ livin’. I’m likely to kill him. Me and my folks fought for this country, and we got some rights. I stood there in that shed and listened to that nigger throw that poison at me, and I just made up my mind. ‘Chicago boy,’ I said, ‘I’m tired of ‘em sending your kind down here to stir up trouble. Goddam you, I’m going to make an example of you—just so everybody can know how me and my folks stand.’ J. W. Milam, Look magazine, 1956[12]”

    “Israeli Jews will not do that”

    Israeli Jews are not bullys. They like niggers—in their place—They know how to work ‘em.

    When i read today about Avigdor Lieberman who wants to kill Stone-Throwers:

    link to news.antiwar.com

    The picture of him with his bulging eyes made me think about the song Strange Fruit.

    Strange Fruitcake:

    Israeli sosciety bear strange fruitcakes,
    Blood on their hands and blood at their feet,
    Palestinian bodies shot to death,
    Strange fruitcakes hanging on to power.

    Pastoral scene of the gallant Israel,
    With bulging eyes and a twisted mind.
    Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh,
    Then the sudden smell of burning flesh.

    Here is a fruitcake for the world to hate,
    For the ICC to put on trial, for the ………………..

    • Annie Robbins
      March 18, 2013, 1:28 pm

      Mndwss, lieberman made a similar statement that got a lot of press in december. slap a soldier and you die.

      link to 972mag.com

      the antiwar link, and the recent news about the car accident, give the impression using the live ammo is recent (this month) but you can watch the trajectory of when it began, and the israeli provocations leading up to it, here: link to mondoweiss.net

      it began the week after palestine’s UN bid on nov 29.

      The official Israeli media reflect Israeli fears about unification. On December 9, Israel’s Channel 10 TV showed video under the headline, “Third Intifada?” and the next day Times of Israel reports In Israel, fears of a new Palestinian uprising. And as for the Prime Minister, Netanyahu said “To my regret, he [Abbas] strives for unity with .. Hamas ”.”…..
      ….

      December 10: Rightwing Israelis backlash against supposed curbs on soldiers.

      The Times of Israel reports that Israeli political officials, responding to another video gone viral, state soldiers “should not be subject to restrictions in their response to demonstrators”, ”soldiers should make maximal use of all weapons at their disposal”and “troops…hands were tied by superiors.”

      December 11: The next day on its Facebook page, the rightwing group Im Tirzu posts an alarmist cartoon about soldiers facing “emasculation” from human rights groups and the European Union.

      …..

      December 12: In our Roots of Resistance series, Dr. Mustafa Barghouti warns that Israeli repression reminiscent of the first intifada may provoke a new uprising.

      Yesterday, two Israeli ministers initiated a request within the Knesset that, if approved, would permit the Israeli army the right to use live ammunition against Palestinian civilian demonstrators.

      more at the timeline beginning dec 5th. it all went very fast.

      • alan
        March 18, 2013, 3:59 pm

        On November 1st 2004, in the village of Budrus a platoon commander of the Israeli Border Police patiently explained to us that it was only fair that they should carry on shooting live ammunition at the young boys because “they throw stones at us”. What’s new?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2013, 4:23 pm

        you’re right. my phrasing was off. i meant recent statements by state officials/legislators referring to rules of engagement.

      • Ellen
        March 18, 2013, 7:25 pm

        The Economist article calls for the two state solution based on the 67 borders and a shared Jerusalem, while ridiculing ideas of a unified country with equal rights for all. Israel has repeatedly announced to the world that is not going to happen and accelerated squatting of annexed territories. This has been without consequence for Israel and the US has increased its financial support of Israel, including allowing tax exempt US foundations to send more money to the settlement enterprise.

        The Economist article does not even mention this. Instead we are fed platitudes such as: “The Palestinians are as inept as the Israelis are unyielding…The Palestinians are outbreeding (note the word BREEDING!) Jewish Israelis….Israel cannot continue to suppress SURLY Palestinians.”

        Britain was built and grew rich on occupation of others. The British Economist’ argument for a now impossible two state solution only supports the Zionist charter and mirrors the Emit Till murder’s words: “Niggers ain’t gonna vote where I live. If they did, they’d control the government. “

  7. MHughes976
    March 18, 2013, 1:31 pm

    The Economist does make it clear that we have a system of minority rule which the relevant minority is not going to give up. There’s truth for you. It’s also true that over enough time they will have to give it up and in their hearts they know it. No one conquers indefinitely.

    • Ellen
      March 18, 2013, 7:31 pm

      ” in their hearts they know it.” Few know and accept this. Those that do are leaving Israel if possible.

      Most Zionist believe in their hearts that they can force a people to leave or kill them all if they do not. (After all, the US is helping in this enterprise.) That is the rhetoric of many Zionist Israelis. Just as it was the rhetoric of colonialists in the Americas. Zionist also believe they can repeat manifest destiny.

      • MHughes976
        March 19, 2013, 1:38 pm

        Well, that’s a very important point, Ellen. Manifest Destiny succeeded, I admit, in reducing the former population to a museum-piece remnant, the idea of resistance becoming absurd and conquest giving way to a kind of harsh paternalism. When I said that no one conquers for ever I was thinking of continuing resistance. The Palestinians are not disappearing – indeed the demographic battle seems to be the one that Israel loses a bit more every day – and despite everything the Palestinians are not cowed.
        I must be descended from both sides in what may have been a rather horrific English-Welsh conflict in the fifth century. The merger of the conflicting populations is another possible outcome in the very long run, I suppose.

  8. HarryLaw
    March 18, 2013, 1:34 pm

    Bantustans or prisons for the Palestinians seems to be the preferred option for Zionists, who aim to keep area C, which happens to contain all the best agricultural land and water whilst offering citizenship to the few Palestinians who they could not ethnically cleanse, fencing millions of them off from any political affairs of the “Jewish state”. Jabotinsky’s iron wall envisaged only Jewish bayonets enforcing the Zionists will, now iron dome and the combined might of the US political and military establishment is required, they think they can pull it off, so did the whites in South Africa.

    • Danaa
      March 19, 2013, 3:04 pm

      HarryLaw, right you are about the Preferred plan for Israel. They laugh as the chest beating two-staters keep wailing. They laugh as they gobble up a little more here and a little more there. The Israelis all share in this one knowledge (apparently well hidden from “well-meaning liberal’ zionists” )- they know there is a final solution to the “Palestinian problem” just simmering under the table. It is not a question of “if”, just of “when” and “how”. All israelis share in that secret knowledge, as do their not so liberal zionist friends. That’s why they blink so fast when discussing one-state/two-state conundrums. They all know it’s for the birds, a little game to pass the time.

      In israel they – as in pretty much everyone (bar the few +972 like sprinklings) counts on five things: that power of big money and big guilt to keep the “Jewish state” brand alive (if not unscathed), the power of intent – keeping the eyes on the ball (the big price), the power of shared secrecy – to keep that intent from being too visible to the world out there (including liberal bretherns), the power of high technology – to eventually come up with a “good” final solution, and the eventual fatigue that will set in upon the world that will dent the vigilance and allow the solution to proceed to the next stage.

      That “solution” is not something to be accomplished in a year, or even 10. Speed is not of the essence, only the end result.

      My only question is why isn’t it obvious to everyone? the power of illusion?

      • American
        March 19, 2013, 3:51 pm

        My only question is why isn’t it obvious to everyone? the power of illusion?”…..Danaa

        Perfectly obvious to me. I recognized the nature of the beast a long time ago.

      • Bumblebye
        March 19, 2013, 9:41 pm

        Thing is Danaa, we all know the goal, just as we all know about Israel’s nukes. Why do our pols in the west have to keep shtum about either, just because Israelis rarely (not never, but only by accident) speak openly on either matter?

  9. RJL
    March 18, 2013, 1:51 pm

    Tokyo guy-what a laugh quoting from the Holy Hamas charter, which elsewhere clearly calls for killing all the Jews, not just those (but them first) in zionist Israel. And the charitable living under Islamic rule is well demonstrated by the many arab countries devoid of any Jews, and the exemplary treatment given to Christians and Bahais in Iran, and for the former, in Egypt, Iraq, even in Gaza, where many Christians have left. How Christian is Bethlehem today? They’ve become a minority, and it isn’t because of the walls and checkpoints, because that hasn’t caused mass exodus of Moslems from the W.Bank. There were definitely periods in history, and some rulers, who were benevolent to Jews and Christians, but many others who were cruel and lived by overtaxing, pillaging, and murdering the minority religions under their sufferance. Don’t write BS when the papers are filled with obvious facts to the contrary.

    • K Renner
      March 19, 2013, 9:34 am

      Hamas does not interfere with Christians living in Gaza, and the Palestinian Christians who left the West Bank did so in the earlier days of the occupation.

      As far as I can see, the only ones desecrating churches in Palestine are Israeli jews, particularly your precious “settlers”.

      Also, Hamas have stated that the majority of the rhetoric in the charter is dated, and that the charter itself is used by Israelis in order to put off negotiation with Hamas directly.

  10. Ellen
    March 18, 2013, 2:04 pm

    Interesting to see the commentary here. More on that later when time allows. I was going to write directly to the Economist and cancel my 25-year-long subscription at the time. Instead, I will just cancel. Have been thinking about it for some time, but that was the last straw on what has become a useless magazine.

    Speaking of economics and the IP conflict there is an interesting commentary on the Zionist cheerleaders and war mongers, but concluding with the laws of economics on Economic Policy Journal:

    Americans Are War Weary … And The Neocons Don’t Like It

    The U.S. is following the march of every Empire that came before it.

    Economic Law never loses.

    A cheerleading President can’t help…It would only escalate the rate of decay.

    link to economicpolicyjournal.com

  11. Dan Crowther
    March 18, 2013, 2:10 pm

    Most Israeli’s are happy to have the world hate them, in fact it’s a large part of the national story; so yeah, I agree with the author Branion cites, they don’t care about being hated, they’ve been told since birth they’re hated, and that they more they’re hated the better they’re doing. It’s a big reason why I don’t comment as often anymore here, or go to a lot of solidarity events etc anymore – its pointless, the only way this ends is in violence and all the “yes we can” feel good nonsense isn’t going to make a bit of difference.

    • OlegR
      March 18, 2013, 6:14 pm

      Just one correction it won’t end with violence it will continue with it
      same as in the last hundred years.
      Well at least until everybody get’s really tired with it.

      • Danaa
        March 19, 2013, 3:19 pm

        OlegR, check my comment above. I know “they’ (you too) count on the fatigue factor. Whether that happens I don’t know, but I do know the “grand plan” is for a little less than 100 years. I think that’s where you might need to start worrying a bit – Israelis are getting impatient and perhaps a bit over-confident thinking they can go on heating the water with the palestinian proverbial frog in it a little bit faster.

        Mark my word – impatience will get them in the end. That frog is gonna jump before it’s fried. And we, out there – may get a tad even more concerned before we get tired. I know you don’t worry much about no darn frog, but do worry about the rest of us. You know – all that extra steam is getting kind of hard to hide, and out there, in the world, many more may become rather more attentive well before others gets too tired.

        BTW, I am not tired, BTW. Are you?

    • sardelapasti
      March 18, 2013, 11:32 pm

      Dan Crowther – Of course it will only get somewhere by violence on a huge scale. That’s why solidarity events (with some significant exceptions) need more, not less, of your support.

      • Dan Crowther
        March 19, 2013, 10:14 am

        Sardelapasti – my question is, what will happen to these solidarity activists and so on if there is violence? Will there be wide support for students for justice in palestine if they take the position that this potential violence is warranted and morally justified? what happens to all the people who put qualifiers and brackets on what the palestinian response to israeli aggression can be? what happens if israel attacks lebanon and hezbollah responds? are they “going to be there?” I think these questions answer themselves.

      • sardelapasti
        March 21, 2013, 3:37 am

        Dan Crowther – The question is not only how many are, as you say, “going to be there?”. There is also that of the nature of the repression of Antizionists in the States. I think it will be extreme, nothing like the pacifists in WWI+II.

  12. chinese box
    March 18, 2013, 4:14 pm

    All of the ideas in this Economist article are stale. It reads like something that was written 15 years ago and was subsequently updated to include a few current events. By the time I reached the obligatory glib references to “land swaps” my eyes had started to glaze over.

    Austin I’m not sure if his thesis is that Israeli Jews won’t accept 1ss, or that neither side will. If it’s the former, I would say that’s because the Israelis have very rarely had to make any concessions or exhibit flexibility, not because they’re unable to when push comes to shove. And if it’s the latter, and both sides are somehow congenitally unable to get along with one another, how does one reconcile that with the fact that 20% of Israel is of Palestinian descent? Or the fact that, as Zionist love to remind us, Jews have always had a presence in Palestine.

    The author concludes by implying that Obama is going to insist on a 2ss. He may give some lip service to that this week, but the clock is ticking on his second term and I see no indication so far that he’s going expend a lot of political capital on such a tenuous project. Remember, the “historic handshake” occurred in 1993 so Clinton devoted at least six years of on and off work to the peace process only to have nothing to show for his efforts in terms of “legacy building” in the end. I don’t see Obama doing the same thing.

    • RoHa
      March 18, 2013, 9:18 pm

      “Austin I’m not sure if his thesis is that Israeli Jews won’t accept 1ss, or that neither side will.”

      To me it looks as though he is saying that Israeli Jews won’t accept 1ss or 2ss, and explaining why they won’t. As I say in my other post, I don’t see him as saying that their attitude is justified.

  13. RoHa
    March 18, 2013, 8:43 pm

    I’ve read the article, and I take away quite a different impression. The overall impression I get is that the writer is saying that Israeli intransigence is a reality, but not suggesting that it is justified.

    • Ellen
      March 19, 2013, 2:42 pm

      Yet at the same time the writer pushes for the 2ss, ridiculing “dreamers” who support a 1ss, and tells Palestinians to give up their rights. Right being the right of return. In reality many, or most Palestinians will not return, but there is no reason for them to give up an inherent right.

      The Israeli intransigence refuses to allow any possibility of a viable 2ss or a 1ss with full and equal rights for all. The logic of The Economist proposal supports the policy of doing really nothing with pretend talks as the creeping colonial enterprise progresses and a people are wiped out.

      Nowhere does it call for consequences for Israel’s intransigence.

      • RoHa
        March 19, 2013, 7:20 pm

        “Yet at the same time the writer pushes for the 2ss”

        He argues that it is the only practical alternative to the status quo largely because of Israeli intransigence.

        “and tells Palestinians to give up their rights”

        Where? He only mentions the Right of Return as an issue to be discussed.

        “Would, as Mr Gavron’s book suggests, the Jews have to drop their Law of Return (allowing any diaspora Jew to become a citizen) and the Palestinians likewise have to drop their Right of Return (letting all refugees and their descendants back)?”

        “The Israeli intransigence refuses to allow any possibility of a viable 2ss or a 1ss with full and equal rights for all.”

        Precisely the point the article makes. Look how many Israeli arseholes are quoted!

        “The logic of The Economist proposal supports the policy of doing really nothing with pretend talks as the creeping colonial enterprise progresses and a people are wiped out.

        The article sets out the situation, and suggests that the 1ss is a non-starter, and that a 2ss is the way to go. It supports the policy of actually establishing a Palestinian state.

        “Nowhere does it call for consequences for Israel’s intransigence.”

        Does it have to?

  14. chinese box
    March 18, 2013, 9:44 pm

    If Obama really wants to do something real, rather than beating this dead horse of a peace process for another three years, he should just abstain from doing certain things, i.e. not using the veto the next time Israel comes up for a vote at the UN Sec. Council. I still don’t think he’ll do it–it would be the least travel/time intensive option, but perhaps the most politically risky one, and so far he’s proven to be rather passionless and loathe to stick his neck out on any issue, let alone one as divisive as I/P–but he did “evolve” on gay marriage, so one can hope. Maybe another loose cannon (probably not Joe Biden the Zionist this time) will inadvertently(?) push him into evolving on this issue too.

  15. Yani
    March 18, 2013, 9:51 pm

    Given the number of Zionists that troll Mondoweiss and the way they are encouraged to participate… I wonder if you haven’t done more damage than good by given publicity to this article. Sunday it was well commented with objective reasoning. What’s it look like today? Absolutely full of Zionist crap.

    I guess that is bound to happen no matter what but perhaps until an article have been attacked by the Zionist know nothing of the hasbara team it might be better to not help them out by giving publicity on site like Mondoweiss which promote allowing these creeps to make their lying worthless comments.

    • Yani
      March 18, 2013, 10:05 pm

      Actually I’m reading the wrong article’s comments. The one we commented on is still intact and only the one mention in this link about is fully Zionised… but the point is the same.

  16. mcohen
    March 19, 2013, 5:21 am

    7 years has passed-

    Apr 17, 2006 – Eleven people were killed and over 60 wounded in a suicide bombing during the Passover holiday near the old central bus station in Tel Aviv, at the Rosh Ha’ir shawarma restaurant, site of the Jan 19 bombing. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

    • K Renner
      March 19, 2013, 2:27 pm

      Hum. Apologies for the King David Hotel bombing or for Deir Yassin yet?

      Reigned in those “settlers” yet?

      Apologized for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the inequality of Palestinians in Israel yet?

      • Yani
        March 20, 2013, 1:54 am

        There is no word for ‘apology’ in Hebrew. In Yiddish for an apology they say, “Kacken zee ahf deh levanah”.

    • Danaa
      March 19, 2013, 3:30 pm

      mcohen, don’t forget to count the number of palestinians killed, wounded and tortured since that water shed date. Was it really only 11?

      What about operation “massacre” in Gaza in late 2008? was that like 1200 murdered by a little carpet bombing exercise? So 11 is about 1% of that. I think you should celebrate – you’re winning the numbers game.

      Can you please wail a bit for the “other side’ too?

      As an aside, at least the suicide bomber had the good sense of dying in the attack. No such courtesy from the israeli pilots who felt perhaps, what was it now? a “slight bump on the wing”?

  17. kma
    March 19, 2013, 3:47 pm

    I had the same reaction as Austin Branion when I read the Economist article.
    “Israeli Jews will not do that” (that is concede one-man-one-vote as South African whites did) is immediately followed by “Even if the Palestinians were remarkably tolerant—and that is questionable…”.
    CLEARLY white people own the concession of voting rights over others! Palestinians who object to their apartheid are “intolerant”? there is NOTHING “remarkably tolerant” about Israeli Jews preventing Palestinians from voting (among other things), and yet, the Economist ASSUMES the reader understands that it is a DIFFERENT subject to talk about Palestinians giving Jews the vote. and the Economist never wondered why the South African Blacks should bother giving those remarkably INTOLERANT whites the vote!
    that’s hilarious!

Leave a Reply