What Comes Next: The one state/two state debate is irrelevant as Israel and the US consolidate Greater Israel

Israel/PalestineMiddle EastUS Politics
on 0 Comments

whatcomesnexthorizontal

This post is part of “What Comes Next?: A forum on the end of the two-state paradigm.” This series was initiated by Jewish Voice for Peace as an investigation into the current state of thinking about one state and two state solutions, and the collection has been further expanded by Mondoweiss to mark 20 years since the Oslo process. The entire series can be found here.

On July 13, former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin issued a dire warning to the government of Israel: either it will reach some kind of two-state settlement or there will be a “shift to a nearly inevitable outcome of the one remaining reality — a state `from the sea to the river’.” The near inevitable outcome, “one state for two nations,” will pose “an immediate existential threat of the erasure of the identity of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state,” soon with a Palestinian-Arab majority.

On similar grounds, in the latest issue of Britain’s leading journal of international affairs, two prominent Middle East specialists, Clive Jones and Beverly Milton-Edwards, write that “if Israel wishes to be both Jewish and democratic,” it must embrace “the two-state solution.”

It is easy to cite many other examples, but unnecessary, because it is assumed almost universally that there are two options for cis-Jordan: either two states – Palestinian and Jewish-democratic — or one state “from the sea to the river.” Israeli commentators express concern about the “demographic problem”: too many Palestinians in a Jewish state.  Many Palestinians and their advocates support the “one state solution,” anticipating a civil rights, anti-Apartheid struggle that will lead to secular democracy.  Other analysts also consistently pose the options in similar terms.

The analysis is almost universal, but crucially flawed.  There is a third option, namely, the option that Israel is pursuing with constant US support.  And this third option is the only realistic alternative to the two-state settlement that is backed by an overwhelming international consensus.

It makes sense, in my opinion, to contemplate a future binational secular democracy in the former Palestine, from the sea to the river.  For what it’s worth, that is what I have advocated for 70 years.  But I stress: advocated.  Advocacy, as distinct from mere proposal, requires sketching a path from here to there.  The forms of true advocacy have changed with shifting circumstances.  Since the mid-1970s, when Palestinian national rights became a salient issue, the only form of advocacy has been in stages, the first being the two-state settlement.  No other path has been suggested that has even a remote chance of success.  Proposing a binational (“one state”) settlement without moving on to advocacy in effect provides support for the third option, the realistic one.

The third option, taking shape before our eyes, is not obscure.  Israel is systematically extending plans that were sketched and initiated shortly after the 1967 war, and institutionalized more fully with the access to power of Menahem Begin’s Likud a decade later.

The first step is to create what Yonatan Mendel calls “a disturbing new city” called “Jerusalem” but extending far beyond historic Jerusalem, incorporating dozens of Palestinian villages and surrounding lands, and furthermore, designated as a Jewish City and the capital of Israel.  All of this is in direct violation of explicit Security Council orders.  A corridor to the East of this new Greater Jerusalem incorporates the town of Ma’aleh Adumim, established in the 1970s but built primarily after the 1993 Oslo Accords, with lands reaching virtually to Jericho, thus effectively bisecting the West Bank.  Corridors to the north incorporating the settler towns of Ariel and Kedumim further divide what is to remain under some degree of Palestinian control.

Meanwhile Israel is incorporating the territory on the Israeli side of the illegal “separation wall,” in reality an annexation wall, taking arable land and water resources and many villages, strangling the town of Qalqilya, and separating Palestinian villagers from their fields.  In what Israel calls “the seam” between the wall and the border, close to 10 percent of the West Bank, anyone is permitted to enter, except Palestinians.  Those who live in the region have to go through a highly intricate bureaucratic procedure to gain temporary entry.  Exit, for example for medical care, is hampered in the same way.  The result, predictably, has been severe disruption of Palestinian lives, and according to UN reports, a decrease of more than 80% in number of farmers who routinely cultivate their lands and a decline of 60% in yield of olive trees, among other harmful effects.  The pretext for the wall was security, but that means security for illegal Jewish settlers; about 85 per cent of the wall runs through the occupied West Bank.

Israel is also taking over the Jordan Valley, thus fully imprisoning the cantons that remain. Huge infrastructure projects link settlers to Israel’s urban centers, ensuring that they will see no Palestinians.  Following a traditional neocolonial model, a modern center remains for Palestinian elites, in Ramallah, while the remainder mostly languishes.

To complete the separation of Greater Jerusalem from remaining Palestinian cantons, Israel would have to take over the E1 region.  So far that has been barred by Washington, and Israel has been compelled to resort to subterfuges, like building a police station.  Obama is the first US president to have imposed no limits on Israeli actions.  It remains to be seen whether he will permit Israel to take over E1, perhaps with expressions of discontent and a wink of the eye to make it clear that they are not seriously intended.

There are regular expulsions of Palestinians.  In the Jordan Valley alone the Palestinian population has been reduced from 300,000 in 1967 to 60,000 today, and similar processes are underway elsewhere.  Following the “dunam after dunam” policies that go back a century, each action is limited in scope so as not to arouse too much international attention, but with a cumulative effect and intent that are quite clear.

Furthermore, ever since the Oslo Accord declared that Gaza and the West Bank are an indivisible territorial unity, the US-Israel duo have been committed to separating the two regions.  One significant effect is to ensure that any limited Palestinian entity will have no access to the outside world.

In the areas that Israel is taking over, the Palestinian population is small and scattered, and is being reduced further by regular expulsions.  The result will be a Greater Israel with a substantial Jewish majority.  Under the third option, there will be no “demographic problem” and no civil rights or anti-Apartheid struggle, nothing more than what already exists within Israel’s recognized borders, where the mantra “Jewish and democratic” is regularly intoned for the benefit of those who choose to believe, oblivious to the inherent contradiction, which is far more than merely symbolic.

Except in stages, the one-state option is an illusion.  It has no international support, and there is no reason why Israel and its US sponsor would accept it, since they have a far preferable option, the one they are now implementing; with impunity, thanks to US power.

The US and Israel call for negotiations without preconditions.  Commentary there and elsewhere in the West typically claims that the Palestinians are imposing such preconditions, hampering the “peace process.” In reality, the US-Israel insist upon crucial preconditions.  The first is that negotiations must be mediated by the United States, which is not a neutral party but rather a participant in the conflict.  It is as if one were to propose that Sunni-Shiite conflicts in Iraq be mediated by Iran.  Authentic negotiations would be in the hands of some neutral state with a degree of international respect.  The second precondition is that illegal settlement expansion must be allowed to continue, as it has done without a break during the 20 years of the Oslo Accord; predictably, given the terms of the Accord.

In the early years of the occupation the US joined the world in regarding the settlements as illegal, as confirmed by the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice.  Since Reagan, their status has been downgraded to “a barrier to peace.” Obama weakened the designation further, to “not helpful to peace,” with gentle admonitions that are easily dismissed.  Obama’s extreme rejectionism did arouse some attention in February 2011, when he vetoed a Security Council resolution supporting official US policy, ending of settlement expansion.

As long as these preconditions remain in force, diplomacy is likely to remain at a standstill.  With brief and rare exceptions, that has been true since January 1976, when the US vetoed a Security Council resolution, brought by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, calling for a two-state settlement on the internationally recognized border, the Green Line, with guarantees for the security of all states within secure and recognized borders.  That is essentially the international consensus that is by now universal, with the two usual exceptions – not just on Middle East issues, incidentally.  The consensus has been modified to include “minor and mutual adjustments” on the Green Line, to borrow official US wording before it had broken with the rest of the world.

The same is true of the negotiations that may take place soon in Washington.  Given the preconditions, they are unlikely to achieve anything more than to serve as a framework in which Israel can carry forward its project of taking over whatever it finds valuable in the West Bank and Syrian Golan Heights, annexed in violation of Security Council orders, while maintaining the siege of Gaza.  And doing so throughout with the critical economic, military, diplomatic and ideological support of the state running the negotiations.  One can of course hope for better, but it is hard to be optimistic.

Europe could play a role in advancing the hopes for a peaceful diplomatic settlement, if it were willing to pursue an independent path.  The recent EU decision to exclude West Bank settlements from any future deals with Israel might be a step in this direction.  US policies are also not graven in stone, though they have deep strategic, economic, and cultural roots.  In the absence of such changes, there is every reason to expect that the picture from the river to the sea will conform to the third option.  Palestinian rights and aspirations will be shelved, temporarily at least.

If the Israel-Palestine conflict is not resolved, a regional peace settlement is highly unlikely.  That failure has far broader implications – in particular, for what US media call “the gravest threat to world peace,” echoing the pronouncements of President Obama and most of the political class: namely, Iran’s nuclear programs.  The implications become clear when we consider the most obvious ways to deal with the alleged threat, and their fate.  It is useful, first, to consider a few preliminary questions: Who regards the threat as of such cosmic significance?  And what is the perceived threat?

Answers are straightforward.  The threat is overwhelmingly a western obsession: the US and its allies.  The non-aligned countries, most of the world, have vigorously supported Iran’s right, as a signer of the Non-proliferation Treaty, to enrich Uranium.  In the Arab world, Iran is generally disliked, but not perceived as a threat; rather, it is the US and Israel that the population regards as a threat, by very large margins, as consistently shown by polls.

In western discourse, it is commonly claimed that the Arabs support the US position regarding Iran, but the reference is to the dictators, not the general population, who are considered an irrelevant annoyance under prevailing democratic doctrine.  Also standard is reference to “the standoff between the international community and Iran,” to quote from the current scholarly literature.  Here the phrase “international community” refers to the US and whoever happens to go along with it; in this case, a small minority of the international community, but many more if political stands are weighted by power.

What then is the perceived threat?  An authoritative answer is given by US intelligence and the Pentagon in their regular reviews of global security.  They conclude that Iran is not a military threat.  It has low military expenditures even by the standards of the region, and limited capacity to deploy force.  Its strategic doctrine is defensive, designed to resist attack.  The intelligence community reports no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, but if it is, they conclude, that would be part of Iran’s deterrence strategy.

It is hard to think of a country in the world that needs a deterrent more than Iran.  It has been tormented by the West without respite ever since its parliamentary regime was overthrown by a US-British military coup in 1953, first under the harsh and brutal regime of the Shah, then under murderous attack by Saddam Hussein, with western support.  It was largely US intervention that induced Iran to capitulate; and shortly after, President George Bush I invited Iraqi nuclear engineers to the US for training in advanced weapons production, an extraordinary threat to Iran.  Iraq soon became an enemy, but meanwhile Iran was subjected to harsh sanctions, intensifying under US initiative to the present.  It constantly subjected to the threat of military attack by the US and Israel – in violation of the UN Charter, if anyone cares.

It is, however, understandable that the US-Israel would regard an Iranian deterrent as an intolerable threat.  It would limit their ability to control the region, by violence if they choose, as they often have.  That is the essence of the perceived Iranian threat.

That the clerical regime is a threat to its own people is hardly in doubt, though regrettably it is hardly alone in that regard.  But it goes well beyond naiveté to believe that its internal repression is much of a concern to the great powers.

Whatever one thinks of the threat, are there ways to mitigate it?  Quite a few, in fact.  One of the most reasonable would be to move towards establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the region, as strongly advocated by the Non-aligned movement and particularly by the Arab states, and indeed most of the world.  The US and its allies voice formal support, but have hardly been cooperative.  That is once again clear right now.  Under NPT authority, an international conference was to have been held in Finland last December to advance such plans.  Israel refused to attend, but to the surprise of many, in early November Iran announced that it would take part, without conditions.  The US then announced that the conference was cancelled, repeating Israel’s objections: that a conference is premature before regional security is established.  The Arab states, Russia, and the European Parliament called for immediate renewal of the initiative, but of course little is possible without the US.

Details are murky.  Little documentary evidence is available, and all of this has passed without inquiry. In particular, the US press has not inquired, or in fact even published a single word on the most reasonable and practical efforts to address what it reports as “the gravest threat to world peace.”

It is quite clear, however, that Arab states and others call for moves to eliminate weapons of mass destruction immediately, as a step towards regional security; while the US and Israel, in contrast, reverse the order, and demand regional security – meaning security for Israel — as a prerequisite to eliminating such weapons.  In the not-very-remote background is the understanding that Israel has an advanced nuclear weapons system, alone in the region; and is alone in refusing to join the NPT, along with India and Pakistan, both of whom also benefit from US support for their nuclear arsenals.

The connection of Israel-Palestine conflict to the alleged Iranian threat is therefore clear.  As long as the US and Israel persist in their rejectionist stance, blocking the international consensus on a two-state settlement, there will be no regional security arrangements, hence no moves towards a establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone and mitigating, perhaps ending, what the US and Israel claim to be the gravest threat to peace, at least to do so in the most obvious and far-reaching way.

It should be noted that along with Britain, the US has a special responsibility to devote its efforts to establishing a Middle East NWFZ.  When attempting to provide a thin legal cover for their invasion of Iraq, the two aggressors appealed to UNSCR 687 of 1991, claiming that Saddam violated the demand to end his nuclear weapons programs.  The Resolution also has another paragraph, calling for “steps towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction…”, obligating the US and UK even more than others to undertake this initiative seriously.

These comments naturally only scratch the surface, and leave out many urgent topics, among them the horrifying descent of Syria into suicide and ominous developments in Egypt, which are sure to have a regional impact.  And indeed a lot more.  This is how some of the core issues appear, to me at least.

An Arabic version of this article is to be published in November, 2013 in the Dirasat Yearbook, published in Nazareth.

 

About Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky was born on December 7, 1928 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He received his Phd in linguistics in 1955 from the University of Pennsylvania, joined the staff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1955 and in 1961 was appointed full professor. Chomsky has lectured at many universities here and abroad, and is the recipient of numerous honorary degrees and awards. He has written and lectured widely on linguistics, philosophy, intellectual history, contemporary issues, international affairs and U.S. foreign policy. Among his more recent books are, New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind; On Nature and Language; The Essential Chomsky; Hopes and Prospects; Gaza in Crisis; How the World Works; 9-11: Was There an Alternative; Making the Future: Occupations, Interventions, Empire, and Resistance; The Science of Language; Peace with Justice: Noam Chomsky in Australia; and Power Systems.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

No Responses Yet

  1. seafoid
    October 24, 2013, 10:03 am

    “It is, however, understandable that the US-Israel would regard an Iranian deterrent as an intolerable threat. It would limit their ability to control the region, by violence if they choose, as they often have. That is the essence of the perceived Iranian threat”

    Voila. That is it.
    However, I don’t agree that one state is a beaten docket. How is Judaism going to sell apartheid to the world over the next 100 years?

    As Petraeus used to ask (except, tragically, to Ms Broadwell) “Tell me how this ends”

    • Krauss
      October 24, 2013, 12:17 pm

      Chomsky is a gifted wrtier however Israel/Palestine is one of the few areas where he has often muddied the waters. As usual, his analysis of the situation and mastery of language is brilliant. But his conclusions are a bit strange. Let me explain.

      First, for some background, Chomsky used to insist for a long time that the conflict is not about ethnocracy or ideology, but rather about capitalism. This was always a bizarre statement. Only after it became patently ridicolous to continue to claim that Zionism is driven by corporate profits rather than Jewish messianism, did he retreat, slightly. He attacked the Israel lobby hypothesis, even if it lay before his eyes. He, bizarrely, started to talk about how ‘Jews aren’t sufficiently Aryans’, throwing acid at Mearsheimer’s direction and give subtle fuel to the anti-Semitism attacks even if he refused to officially accept those charges. In brief; on matters Israel Chomsky’s record has been checkered, to put it mildly.

      So as Chomsky’s credibility on this issue, while certainly better than most “liberal” Zionists, has been flawed from the beginning by his deep reluctance to admit the importance of culture and sociology. In part this is because of his own lingering cultural Zionism, a kind of Zionism I see no harm in of itself, but which can cloud someone’s judgement.

      In this insistance, he says that the one state solution is a dream which is impossible to fulfill. First, he has no crystal ball. Was Jim Crow strong in the 1940s? It was difficult to see how it could ever be upended. Ireland was occupied for centuries by the British.

      Chomsky is in his 80s. It’s highly possible that he won’t see a resolution to the conflict in his life time, but that doesn’t mean he can arbitraily exclude the possibility.

      Second, he in his dismissal of the 1SS he then procedes to say that what we have is in effect a one state reality. This is news? Mearsheimer and many others have been saying this for years. A key argument in favour of the 1SS is that it can only become viable once the 2SS is dead and buried. We are not there yet but there has been a tremendous amount of intellectual movement on this issue just these past few years.

      But there’s still some time to go. We could easily see out this entire decade before the 2SS is dead and buried once and for all. But once it is dead and buried – which everyone has a different definition of, but mine is when centrist papers like the Financial Times or the Economist pours scorn on the idea as a flight of fancy – then you will be able to see a real shift.

      Chomsky’s analysis of how the negotiations are being used to solidify “Greater Israel” is well-written, but it is ultimately not new. This particular article is marked by that same old deep, deep reluctance to draw the necessary conclusions, by trying to bury the 1SS just as it is in fact gaining currency, like Lustick’s NYT piece(which he then slightly backtracked as the backlash came, but never abandoned).

      Chomsky, Finkelstein et al, people who say that they are not liberal Zionists, nevertheless have a deep urge to destroy the 1SS. They are both intellectually honest enough to admit that the 2SS is dead, except Finkelstein who at times seems to retreat into wishful thinking by trying to revive the dead, but are then both going fullstop at trying to kill the only viable option for anyone who considers themselves a genuine liberal and democrat; namely equal rights. They should come clean with their reasons why they are so keen to destroy the only democratic outcome at this stage.

      Nobody says it is easy, but this could decades. And what do they suggest we do instead, throw up our hands and complain about the one state reality? Finkelstein and Chomsky are both uncomfortable with the natural outcome, even if they’re smart enough not to delude themselves about the actual analysis.

      • Krauss
        October 24, 2013, 12:35 pm

        An addendum:

        Ireland was occupied for over 750 years.
        African-Americans were slaves and then half-slaves for centuries.

        If they had both listened to people like Chomsky or Finkelstein, who both say that we must be ‘realistic’ and accept tyranny as the status quo, even as we condemn it, then they would both still be enslaved to this very day. In fact, we know people like them existed. Read the history of the civil rights movement, of the abolationist movement or of the English occupation of Ireland.

        The Palestinians haven’t been occupied for 10% of the time the Irish were occupied. Yet Finkelstein and Chomsky now both urge defeatism – all while they are shedding crocodile tears. Whether they want to accept it or not, they are de facto doing the bidding of the Zionist state, by passifying the subjects of the brutality, disguised as concerned friends who neverless try to dissuade the Palestinians from the struggle for freedom all under the guise of ‘realism’ – shorthand for “we know what’s best for you, brown people”.

        Moral midgets.

      • Hostage
        October 24, 2013, 1:47 pm

        If they had both listened to people like Chomsky or Finkelstein, who says that we must be ‘realistic’ and accept tyranny as the status quo, even as we condemn it, then they would both still be enslaved

        You just misstated Chomsky’s proposition (once again). Give yourself 40 lashes with a wet noodle and read the article for comprehension before you go off half-cocked.

      • AlGhorear
        October 24, 2013, 3:31 pm

        @Krauss I don’t think Chomsky is saying anyone has to or even should accept what’s happening, he’s just pointing out that Israel has a whole different solution in mind and is working toward that goal, currently unimpeded. Finkelstein, on the other hand, seems to think the Palestine Solidarity Movement should get behind the 2ss, as if that’s any more achievable than a 1ss.

      • Rusty Pipes
        October 24, 2013, 2:00 pm

        Chomsky is continuing to insist here that the conflict is about Capitalism — that the occupation of Palestine furthers America’s Imperialistic goals in the Middle East. As you say, his “analysis of how the negotiations are being used to solidify “Greater Israel” is well-written, but it is ultimately not new.”

      • W.Jones
        October 24, 2013, 2:46 pm

        R.P.,

        I think Chomsky is saying that the “good” 1SS and 2SS are not realistic and only the “3rd option” (bad 1SS) is reality. This is not such a bad analysis.

        However it was a bit surprising for me that he did not propose a way to get out of the bad reality. I say this because he began by emphasising the need for advocacy as a path of “steps” on how to get out of a bad situation. However, why did he not give us any steps for how to get out of it? Perhaps even one sentence with links to organizations or declarations that “plot the course”?

      • Hostage
        October 24, 2013, 3:01 pm

        Chomsky is continuing to insist here that the conflict is about Capitalism

        No he doesn’t. He lists a number of other genuine grievances that would piss-off a saint, like: the creation of the disturbing city of Jerusalem that swallows up adjacent Palestinian villages in violation of Security Council resolutions; the creation of corridors reaching nearly to Jericho in the east and Ariel and Kedumim in North to disrupt Palestinian territorial contiguity; the US and Israeli policy of politically separating and isolating Gaza from the West Bank; incorporation of the territory on the Israeli side of the illegal “separation wall depriving Palestinians of farm land and restricting freedom of movement, access to health care & etc.; the takeover of the Jordan Valley, regular expulsions of Palestinians, and creation of small isolated Palestinian enclaves; and the use of subterfuges, like building a police station, to circumvent Washington’s policy on annexing E1; preconditions imposed by the United States and Israel that require biased US mediation and continued expansion of the settlements.

        He doesn’t really mention capitalism and explicitly states that there are competing non-economic factors that help shape US policy, i.e. ones with deep strategic, economic, and cultural roots. He notes that US and Israeli policy towards Iran is based upon the threat it poses to their ability to control the region, by violence whenever they choose.

      • Rusty Pipes
        October 24, 2013, 9:10 pm

        I was responding to the statement about Chomsky and Capitalism, by broadening that to “America’s Imperialistic goals in the Middle East” Krauss stated:

        Chomsky used to insist for a long time that the conflict is not about ethnocracy or ideology, but rather about capitalism. This was always a bizarre statement. Only after it became patently ridicolous to continue to claim that Zionism is driven by corporate profits rather than Jewish messianism, did he retreat, slightly. He attacked the Israel lobby hypothesis, even if it lay before his eyes.

        While Chomsky does not explicity depict Israel as America’s dutiful vassal as he has in the past (perhaps this is where Krauss suggests he has backed off), Chomsky continues to contend that America’s and Israel’s interests in the Middle East are interchangeable (even where he chides American leaders for not saving Israel from itself). Since he has dismissed Mearsheimer and Walt’s contention that the power of the Israel Lobby has led US leaders to act against American interests in conducting its foreign policy in the Middle East, Chomsky’s statements about expanding West Bank settlements and curtailing Iranian nuclear development clearly suggest that these are as beneficial to American foreign policy as they are to Israel’s.

        My comment wasn’t in response to Krauss’ remarks about the merits of the 1SS.

      • Hostage
        October 24, 2013, 11:13 pm

        I was responding to the statement about Chomsky and Capitalism, by broadening that to “America’s Imperialistic goals in the Middle East” Krauss stated: . . .

        I think you guys make a habit of misstating Chomsky’s position for him. He clearly states that the Israel Lobby is one of the two main factors that determine US foreign policy: (A) strategic-economic interests of concentrations of domestic power in the tight state-corporate linkage, and (B) the Lobby. link to zcommunications.org

        He is quite correct that the Zionist don’t always get what they want, e.g. US air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, if our state and corporate strategic and economic interests might be harmed.

        Frankly, its not worth arguing that the US needs more than a thousand bases and hundreds of classified operating locations overseas for any other reason, except projecting force, in order to control others whenever our state and corporate strategic and economic interests are challenged or threatened. If that’s not imperialism, then it’s a damn good imitation.

      • Sibiriak
        October 25, 2013, 10:19 am

        W.Jones:

        I think Chomsky is saying that the “good” 1SS and 2SS are not realistic and only the “3rd option” (bad 1SS) is reality.

        But the “3rd option” is NOT a “bad 1SS”– it is specifically designed NOT to be a single state solution at all. On the contrary, it is designed to keep Israel as a unitary state and relegate Palestinians to Gaza and discontiguous bits of territory in the West Bank. Those areas will exist OUTSIDE of the Israeli state as a separate polity or polities. Palestinians can do whatever they want with those territories– call them their “state”, or not, either way, Israel will not “rule over” them or incorporate them, in the same way that in the world’s view, Israel does not “rule over” or incorporate Gaza right now.

      • Rusty Pipes
        October 25, 2013, 11:54 am

        Who is this “you guys?” The guy who has best summarized Chomsky’s position on the Israel Lobby is Jeffrey Blankfort. But he’s not commenting here anymore and Chomsky won’t debate him. Chomsky’s statements in this piece about settlements and Iran indicate that he hasn’t moved from the position about Israel being a US vassal.

      • Hostage
        October 25, 2013, 12:32 pm

        The guy who has best summarized Chomsky’s position on the Israel Lobby is Jeffrey Blankfort.

        I’ve already pointed-out an example from the Chomsky Reader (1987) where Chomsky criticized the US government for blocking sanctions against Israel, despite the fact the Carter Administration had repeatedly declared the settlements illegal.

        How does that jive with Jeffrey Blankfort’s claim that Chomsky is determined to keep Israel and Israelis from being punished? Like “you guys” here, he simply ignores the fact that Chomsky praised Mearsheimer and Walt and said:

        Notice incidentally that what is at stake is a rather subtle matter: weighing the impact of several factors which (all agree) interact in determining state policy: in particular, (A) strategic-economic interests of concentrations of domestic power in the tight state-corporate linkage, and (B) the Lobby.

        link to chomsky.info

        Chomsky never said that the Lobby wasn’t a determining factor. If you have to create a straw man, rather than address what Chomsky actually has to say, people who can read are going to notice and call attention to the facts.

      • Sibiriak
        October 28, 2013, 7:53 am

        W. Jones:

        why did he not give us any steps for how to get out of it?

        Because his argument leads to the conclusion that a Greater Israel is virtually inevitable, therefore, the “steps”, whatever they might be, have to lead on from THERE–and the idea of a Greater Israel being achieved causes such cognitive dissonance amongst most anti-Zionists that a path BEGINNING from that point is basically unacceptable, if not unimaginable.

    • talknic
      October 24, 2013, 9:55 pm

      @seafoid “How is Judaism going to sell apartheid to the world over the next 100 years”

      It isn’t Judaism doing the selling. It’s the Zionist Movement’s state doing the selling

      How? By inundating the media with nonsense link to wp.me

      NEVER EVER MENTIONING:
      The Jewish Agency’s statements to the UNSC enabling the acceptance and recognition of the State of Israel link to pages.citebite.com

      The fact that independent states must have a defined territory link to pages.citebite.com

      The fact that the Mandate expired before Israel’s Declaration came into effect link to pages.citebite.com and; why Israel’s Declaration could not come into effect before the Mandate expired. (one can’t declare independence while under occupation. One is not independent from occupation)

      The fact that Israel was recognized within the frontiers recommended by UNGA Res 181 link to wp.me

      Israeli Government’s statements to the UNSC after Israel became a state link to wp.me or Israel’s proclamation that Jerusalem was occupied

      By promoting the false notion that the UN is based against Israel and;

      NEVER ever admitting that the Laws, UN Charter and conventions reaffirmed and emphasized in Chapt VI resolutions are binding and that all UN Members are bound to adhere to Chapt VI resolutions (the UN Charter is binding in its entirety). UNSC res 252 alone has EIGHT reminders. The UN has not been biased against Israel, it has been INCREDIBLY GENEROUS towards Israel

      NEVER admitting that Israel occupies non-Israeli territories link to wp.me

      IOW by promoting denialist bullsh*t over and over and over ad nauseum

      Although the internet has enabled Israel to create a deluge of misinformation and blatant lies, it has also enabled honest folk to discover for themselves and slowly reveal the depths to which the Zionist Movement lowers itself in pursuit of its ghastly aims

  2. Hostage
    October 24, 2013, 10:56 am

    How is Judaism going to sell apartheid to the world over the next 100 years?

    The same as always, by: 1) making sure that almost no one is informed or allowed to watch what is going on; 2) by attacking and discrediting the messenger when the occasional alarm does get noticed; and 3) by deliberately deploying agents to spread misinformation, adopt legal sanctions against adversaries, and conduct lawfare on that basis.

    I’ve commented here in the past that the US and Israel have quite obviously rejected either the 1ss or 2ss proposed by the BDS movement, in favor of more of the same old status quo: expanding settlement and apartheid.

    I’ve also noted that the constant threat of force against Iranian nuclear facilities from two nuclear powers, the US and Israel, violate the UN Charter and the resolutions of the IAEA. That, coupled with their opposition to implementation of the proposals for conferences among NPT signatories on the subject of a weapons-free Middle East, should more than justify any decision by Iran to withdraw from the NPT and obtain nuclear weapons in accordance with the provisions of Article X of the treaty itself:

    Article X
    1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

    link to un.org

    In the meantime, I’ve always thought that it’s ludicrous to allow Israel to enjoy the rights and privileges of statehood pending a final settlement, while denying them to the Palestinian side. I think the rest of the world obviously feels the same way, regardless of any talk from the Palestinian Solidarity movement about the de facto existence of a single state between the river and the sea. Nothing prevents the formal recognition of a Palestinian Bantustan or victim state in order to facilitate it’s acceptance of the jurisdiction of the ICJ and ICC for the crime of apartheid on the disputed territory of Israel and Palestine.

    • seafoid
      October 24, 2013, 11:13 am

      Israel already has a serious PR and morality problem. Full monty apartheid will exacerbate it.

      מה יהיה

      link to youtube.com

      • Walid
        October 25, 2013, 1:21 am

        “link to youtube.com”

        Great voice and song, seafoid.

      • seafoid
        October 25, 2013, 7:53 am

        Here’s another one that always reminds me of how FUBAR Zionism is :

    • Bing Bong
      October 24, 2013, 12:49 pm

      “The same as always, by: 1) making sure that almost no one is informed or allowed to watch what is going on..”

      There seems to be an endless supply of examples of Israel’s crimes here. And throughout society there is plenty of opposition to Israel. Just look at the protests outside Israeli embassys whenever anything like the Mavvi happens or war breaks out with Hizbolla or operations Cast Lead. There are plenty of protests in these instances and plenty of people willing to devote time and energy when these particular instances aren’t currently in the news.

      To say nobody is informed is incorrect. It’s an excuse because the real reason your skirting around is that there aren’t enough people who agree with singly and fervently demonizing one side of the conflict.

      If nobody is informed then where are all these people coming from? Seems to me that in the information age there are plenty of informed people, unfortunately for you it swings both ways and thankfully there isn’t a mass hatred of the existence of this one country because they have the information to take an informed position.

      • Hostage
        October 24, 2013, 3:45 pm

        There seems to be an endless supply of examples of Israel’s crimes here. Just look at the protests outside Israeli embassys whenever anything like the Mavvi happens . . .

        I notice you forgot to mention that Israeli officials and their Zionist chums make every effort to have boycotters, protesters, and members of aid flotillas arrested, punished by their schools, or harassed by frivolous lawsuits.

        You also forgot to mention the confiscation of evidence, like the computers and cameras seized from passengers and the press on-board the very aid flotilla you are talking about.

        . . . or war breaks out with Hizbolla or operations Cast Lead.

        Apart from the overt military censorship, which is routinely invoked even when there’s no shooting going on (see Richard Silverstein’s articles at Tikun Olam), the IDF simply declares areas closed military zones and goes about its business of demolition and expropriation. The IDF also bombed Gaza media facilities used by the foreign press, including Sky News, Independent Television Network, & etc. Many non-combatants were injured in those attacks. Israel has also deported journalists, like Jared Malsin, who was an editor for the Ma’an wire service.

      • seafoid
        October 24, 2013, 5:01 pm

        How many Zionists are there, hostage? 10 million max.
        And how many are fully indoctrinated and would kill for the ideology? 5 million max.
        And how many do they add every year net?
        None
        And how many will they need to cover up the future crimes of Israel? More than 10 million.
        They are lost on the net
        And they aren’t manufacturing hasbara fast enough either.

        Look at how public US support for gay marriage changed over the years. I just can’t see the bots holding the line indefinitely.

      • ziusudra
        October 25, 2013, 4:38 am

        Greetings seafoid,
        …. I just can’t see the bots holding the line indefinitely….
        When any exclusive entity has influence of foreigness, it is
        only neccessary to have a %tage of 6/7% to change them(in time.)
        My city, n.y. was a total euro. conglomerate ca. 1880 to 1950.
        We were all immigrants, children & grandchildren thereof.
        N.Y. had hundreds of foreign newspapers of the many peoples.
        Thesis-Antithesis- Synthesis it miscegenized with America.
        The US Jews are not the same as their ancesters.
        The Israeli Jews (Sabras) are moving away from their immigrant
        grannies, whether they realize it not. Many small changes will occur
        to find acceptance on both sides. Ideological Zionism will not change,
        the People will eventually change Zionism.
        ziusudra
        PS There were less than a million Indians in north america with 600
        tribes & languages. Today, we have 5.2 mill. They may not share our
        fits of consumerism, but compared to how they survived the last 14K
        yrs, they live better today even though we euros took their way of life
        from them.
        PPS M.Ali once quipped, i’m glad my grandpappy caught that boat!
        We were all slaves of Rome for centuries. The Falesteeni, hook or by crook,
        will gain their freedom in the future, but another Group will lose theirs.
        Under us humans, there is no justice nor humanity just indiviual process.

      • Bing Bong
        October 25, 2013, 9:53 pm

        “I notice you forgot to mention that Israeli officials and their Zionist chums make every effort to …”

        And you know all this how? Because you’re one of the few informed people who have seen behind the censorial curtain of the Zionists? One of the few people with access to a television who saw Sky News’ and ITN’s reports on their own offices being hit? Perhaps the humanitarian aid that wasn’t on the Mavi had been taken away along with all the evidence that ‘almost no one’ knows about regarding what you think the truth behind Israel is.

        link to google.co.uk….0…1c.1.29.serp..3.15.1572.L-O9NCZ3RPo

        and

        link to google.co.uk..0i30l2.144831.146952.0.147271.2.2.0.0.0.0.272.528.2-2.2.0….0…1c.1.29.serp..0.2.527.hCVLfZTU5_w

        Seems to me that Canada must be the real shadowy puppeteers of public opinion because the first link gives an astounding amount of information supporting the hatred of Israel you preach. People should be aware of this, if only there was some worldwide searching mechanism freely available so the uninformed masses could just type in something like ‘Israeli crimes against humanity’ and receive the same information I have stumbled upon against the odds in the face of Zionist multi-media omnipotence.

        Why not tell us something specific that ‘almost no one’ is genuinely informed about and the vast majority of people aren’t because of Zionist spin.

      • Hostage
        October 26, 2013, 11:48 am

        And you know all this how?

        Because you stupid Zionists never stop crowing about how smart you are and blabbing about exactly what you are doing to counter your political adversaries. That happens in the Israeli English language press and on the Hasbara Fellowship mailing lists, and in auto-biographies.

        if only there was some worldwide searching mechanism freely available so the uninformed masses could just type in something

        There’s the flaw in your logic. It’s a given that people have to pull that information in, because it isn’t being pushed into the mainstream news that the majority of them rely upon. How do they search for something they’ve never heard about?

      • Bing Bong
        October 26, 2013, 1:26 pm

        “Because you stupid Zionists never stop crowing about how smart you are and blabbing about exactly what you are doing to counter your political adversaries.”

        And yet still ‘almost no one’ is informed of this freely advertised plot except you and a tiny minority…

        “…because it isn’t being pushed into the mainstream news ”

        I found this esoteric site called the BBC which has somehow bypassed the Zionwall. They even have a kids page with this written on it

        “Human rights groups say the Israeli army has sometimes beaten and abused Palestinians.”

        link to news.bbc.co.uk

        “The USA has become more and more politically isolated every time it has defended Israel from international sanctions.”

        How is that ensuring that ‘almost no one is informed or allowed to watch what is going on’ as you claim?

        Again, why not tell us something specific that ‘almost no one’ is genuinely informed about and the vast majority of people aren’t because of Zionist spin. Go on, it’s the central pillar of your argument, you must have something credible with specific examples of Zionist propaganda that have kept it under wraps from the majority.

      • Hostage
        October 27, 2013, 5:54 am

        I found this esoteric site called the BBC which has somehow bypassed the Zionwall. They even have a kids page with this written on it

        Only a tiny minority of people in the USA get their news from the BBC or the print media in the first place. So any big revelations there are going largely unnoticed. Even the BBC can’t see what’s going on in closed military zones. I’ve already mentioned that, and the use of military censorship of reports filed by correspondents from Israel. The Courts there also routinely use gag orders too. Zionists here in the US try to use Title VI and lawfare, with the backing of Israeli government ministries to gag discussions or have boycotts declared illegal. Your whataboutery isn’t getting anymore persuasive.

      • Hostage
        October 27, 2013, 6:07 am

        “The USA has become more and more politically isolated every time it has defended Israel from international sanctions.”

        How is that ensuring that ‘almost no one is informed or allowed to watch what is going on’ as you claim?

        I already explained that the mainstream media here portrays Israel as the victim and the USA as its savior. The Congress and AIPAC even get in on the act by introducing meaningless resolutions or bills to “reform” the United Nations. The Charter is a multilateral treaty with provisions on the amendment process that prevent that sort of thing from happening without the consent of evey member state. So these stories about the UN picking on poor little Israel are just eyewash. The P5 would have lost the veto a long time ago if countries could reform the UN through national legislation.

      • Bing Bong
        October 27, 2013, 6:48 am

        “How is Judaism going to sell apartheid to the world over the next 100 years?”

        “Only a tiny minority of people in the USA get their news from….”

        “I already explained that the mainstream media here portrays Israel as the victim and the USA as its savior.”

        So you’ve retreated from ‘the world’ to ‘the USA’ and that it’s the Jewish media and political conspiracy keeping almost everyone in the dark, a Jewish conspiracy which for some reason doesn’t extend to the BBC or the world outwith the US.

        And again for the 3rd time, why not tell us something specific that ‘almost no one’ is genuinely informed about and the vast majority of people aren’t because of Zionist spin.

        “Only a tiny minority of people in the USA get their news from the BBC or the print media in the first place. So any big revelations there are going largely unnoticed.”

        Do you have an example of a big revelation that the BBC (in print or otherwise) has exposed that has gone largely unnoticed in the US media because of Judaism’s news manipulation?

      • Bing Bong
        October 27, 2013, 7:57 am

        “I already explained that the mainstream media here portrays Israel as the victim and the USA as its savior.”

        I guess it’s up to niche US commentators like the NYT to put forth stuff that ‘almost no one’ will have seen.

        link to nytimes.com

      • Cliff
        October 27, 2013, 8:28 am

        Bing Bong,

        Prove that the majority of 300+ million total Americans are informed on this issue AND are pro-Israel as a result.

        Simple question so go prove that the majority are ‘informed’. Define how they were informed and whether or not we can list some of their views re: the history of the conflict.

      • Hostage
        October 27, 2013, 10:58 am

        So you’ve retreated from ‘the world’ to ‘the USA’

        No I haven’t. I’ve stated all along that the governments of Israel and the USA are part of a joint criminal enterprise to illegally colonize Palestine. I’ve also observed that they’ve obviously opted to maintain the status quo of endless talks and apartheid.

        Israel is going to continue to employ the USA to engage in power politics, together with more lame-assed hasbara, shreying gevalt about phoney existential threats and it’s own security psychosis, to peddle its regime of segregation and apartheid as the only viable solution to the problem of the Palestinians.

        Do you have an example of a big revelation that the BBC (in print or otherwise) has exposed that has gone largely unnoticed in the US media because of Judaism’s news manipulation?

        LOL! I said that the things published by the BBC went largely unnoticed by the public in the USA, not the media. But if you want to compare the publication of the full text of the Palestine Papers and the accompanying non-stop daily editorials, news broadcasts, and articles by Al Jazeera and The Guardian for more than a week, there simply was no similar in-depth coverage here in the US by the nightly news or newspapers.

        There are news stories about Israel on the BBC and Guardian websites all the time that aren’t adequately covered by the NY Times, Washington Post, or LA Times. There are also Jewish groups, including the Board of Deputies, who work assiduously to bury stories there that are unfavorable to Israel and to make correspondents use Zionist approved terminology in their reports.

        There are dozens of stories here on Mondoweiss about the biased reporting from Jewish US bureau chiefs, like Bronner and Rudoren. 30% of Americans get all their news from social networks, so those reporters can’t even exchange polite messages over Twitter with Palestinian activists, without igniting a firestorm of criticism from Israelis and Jewish subscribers. It’s even fairly common to read about demands after-the-fact from the Government of Israel or its supporters to take down Youtube videos and Facebook pages. There are groups like CAMERA and StandWithUS that harass and attack honest reporting if it fails to portray Israel with a halo. Those groups and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs demand that accurate stories be watered-down, retracted or quashed completely. They launch nuisance lawsuits too. See:
        * Gershom Gorenberg, Uncandid CAMERA, Moment Magazine, October/November 2007 link to web.archive.org
        * Richard Silverstein, Olympia Food Co-Op Wins Anti-SLAPP Motion, Court Dismisses StandWithUs Lawsuit
        * Noah Rothman, 60 Minutes Confronts Israeli Ambassador After He Pressured CBS To Drop Story On Palestinian Christians, link to mediaite.com

        We all know that political pressure and lawsuits like that have a chilling effect on editorial decisions, web site operators and users. They work to curtail our free press, free speech, and keep the public guessing or in the dark.

        As for a typical story that wasn’t covered in the USA, try to find the C-Span video of Congressman Baird with the photos of the dead children of Gaza, demanding that the allegations in the Goldstone report be investigated. It was quickly buried and the copies disappeared from Youtube, e.g.
        http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385×399269
        See also:
        MP makes Israeli troops Nazi link
        link to news.bbc.co.uk
        UK Jewish MP: Israel acting like Nazis in Gaza

      • Hostage
        October 27, 2013, 11:24 am

        I guess it’s up to niche US commentators like the NYT to put forth stuff that ‘almost no one’ will have seen.

        link to nytimes.com

        Lustick’s editorial doesn’t even use the word “illegal”, let alone educate readers about the subject of war crimes or crimes against humanity. This is just more of your failed whataboutery.

        Once again, please explain how the New York Times can fact check reports about crimes committed by the IDF on the ground in closed military zones inside Palestine, when even UN fact finders and delegations of EU and non-aligned diplomats get denied entry? Where are the mainstream revelations about Israeli Court gag orders and items censored by the military? Why do we have to read about that stuff on Richard Silverstein’s blog?

      • Hostage
        October 27, 2013, 1:12 pm

        P.S. You can still find the November 03, 2009 speech delivered on C-SPAN by Congressman Baird with a great deal effort, if you know what you are looking for in the first place:
        .wmv file link to videocafe.crooksandliars.com
        .mov file link to videocafe.crooksandliars.com

      • Bing Bong
        October 27, 2013, 4:34 pm

        The question was

        “How is Judaism going to sell apartheid to the world over the next 100 years?”

        not the USA.

        You also said that “a tiny minority of people in the USA get their news from…print media in the first place.”

        So you mean’t it’s mostly US television news that has been blocked by the Jews? And if it’s the rest of the world’s television that hasn’t had the real situation obscured by the Jews, which countries are you talking about, or are all countries saying pretty much the same things about Israel (namely the true facts that you agree with) that only the US public don’t get to see on the news?

        I assume the internet doesn’t have these same Zionist restrictions in the US? Or perhaps it does?

      • Bing Bong
        October 27, 2013, 4:51 pm

        “Lustick’s editorial doesn’t even use the word “illegal”, let alone educate readers about the subject of war crimes or crimes against humanity. This is just more of your failed whataboutery. ”

        From the editorial

        “American politicians need the two-state slogan to show they are working toward a diplomatic solution, to keep the pro-Israel lobby from turning against them and to disguise their humiliating inability to allow any daylight between Washington and the Israeli government. ”

        How can this have got through the Zionist’s blockade? Or is this, according to you, another example of stupidly bragging about how they control everything? What an odd tactic these Zionists are using!

        And how did this and any number of other articles that reference Israeli war crimes get through?

        Why Palestine Should Take Israel to Court in The Hague

        link to nytimes.com

      • Hostage
        October 27, 2013, 5:33 pm

        From the editorial

        “American politicians need the two-state slogan to show they are working toward a diplomatic solution, to keep the pro-Israel lobby from turning against them and to disguise their humiliating inability to allow any daylight between Washington and the Israeli government. ”

        Once again, that simply talks about political expediency and the strength of the Lobby. It doesn’t even describe the criminal nature of the joint criminal enterprise the two governments have been perpetrating against Palestinians for decades on end.

      • Cliff
        October 27, 2013, 5:39 pm

        Bing Bong,

        NYT is pro-Israel as is most of American media.

        You are referring to exceptions as the ‘rule’.

        Prove that the MSM is not pro-Israel without referring to occasionally alternative views.

      • Hostage
        October 27, 2013, 5:44 pm

        “How is Judaism going to sell apartheid to the world over the next 100 years?”

        not the USA.

        It intends to use power politics, bluster, and bullshit, just like you are unsuccessfully trying to deploy here. You can’t even address the attempts by Ambassador Oren, the Ministry of Interior, StandWithUS, CAMERA, the British Deputies, Shaliachs on campuses from The Jewish Agency, and a host of other agents to bury stories or control the media, and outlaw Anti-Zionism, claims about Israeli apartheid, and BDS.

      • Cliff
        October 27, 2013, 5:46 pm

        @Bing Bong

        Max Blumenthal on the NYT’s pro-Israel bias:

        link to truth-out.org

        Key players: Judi Roduren, Ethan Bronner, Isabel Kershner, Thomas Friedmann, Myra Noveck, etc.

        Why ALL Jewish? Why ALL Zionist? Why all with a connection to Israel and the military?

        You are so full of crap to even suggest the NYT is not pro-Israel.

        RK: There are plenty of mainstream US journalists stationed in Israel, yet the vicious and open hostility toward equality that’s reflected in your book is rarely covered in the establishment press. How is that possible?

        MB: The New York Times has definite ideological blinders when it comes to this situation. I mention in my book that their Jerusalem bureau is in the former home of the Karmi family, a family of Palestinian aristocracy who were ethnically cleansed in 1948. Thomas Freidman purchased their house in the 1980s, when he was the Jerusalem correspondent. I don’t understand why the Times feels compelled to fill its Jerusalem bureau with exclusively Jewish correspondents. You can’t tell me that these are purely objective people. When you grow up Jewish in the US, you’re called on by Zionism in one way or another. Until recently, the Jerusalem bureau chief was Ethan Bronner, who had a son in the Israeli army. He has since been replaced by Jodi Rudoren, who was an education reporter in New York but whose husband, Gary, is pretty open about being a Zionist and has deeply assimilated himself in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem society. Jodi Rudoren doesn’t seem to feel as connected to Palestinians as she does to the Ashkenazi elite of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. That was reflected in her story about stone throwing in Beit Ommar, a Palestinian village. She discussed Palestinian boys as though they were throwing stones to kill time due to a cycle of violence and poverty, rather than the result of legitimate grievances. This is reminiscent of her reporting on African-American youth in American cities. Their other reporter is Isabel Kershner, whose husband, Hirsh Goodman, is a fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), an Israeli think tank closely linked to the Israeli Ministry of Defense. She’s sharing a bed with this person, and that does matter. It is a conflict of interest. The deputy editor of The New York Times Jerusalem Bureau is Myra Noveck, the wife of Gershom Gorenberg, who is a liberal Zionist Israeli pundit and writer. Their child has been in the Israeli Army, and I’m fairly sure, and this needs to be investigated, that they have a child who is currently in the Israeli Army.

        This is just The New York Times, and they rely on all kinds of Palestinian stringers in the Gaza Strip and West Bank who never get credited. The Washington Post just hired Ruth Eglash as their Jerusalem correspondent, and her husband is a professional Israeli propagandist who is paid to promote the state of Israel abroad through various deceptive means.

        As much as I can blame the mainstream papers for their hiring policies, they’re also dealing with structural Israeli racism and the limitations on Palestinians and Arabs to travel in territories controlled by Israel. Even if they were to hire Palestinians, the policies of the state of Israel are so institutionally racist toward Palestinians, Arabs and even Arab-Americans that there’s no guarantee they could get their reporters through the airport.

        Etc. etc. etc.

        Who cares if the NYT occasional publishes a different POV – the other 99% of the time it is Zionist-centric.

        You are a LIAR bing bong. You take articles that are not indicative of the NYT’s general coverage and imply they are the norm.

        It’s like taking AMIRA HASS’S reporting on Jewish terrorism in Israel/Palestine and implying Haaretz is progressive.

      • seafoid
        October 27, 2013, 6:10 pm

        Oren will prolly be the last bot snake oil salesman amb to get a free pass from the Yank media.

        The parallel reality schtick is undermined by a mountain of real data incl video.

        And the strategic liability angle

        link to csis.org

        “It is time Israel realized that it has obligations to the United States, as well as the United States to Israel, and that it become far more careful about the extent to which it test the limits of U.S. patience and exploits the support of American Jews. This does not mean taking a single action that undercuts Israeli security, but it does mean realizing that Israel should show enough discretion to reflect the fact that it is a tertiary U.S. strategic interest in a complex and demanding world.”

      • Bing Bong
        October 27, 2013, 6:32 pm

        But it doesn’t necessarily follow that ‘almost no one’ (that watches the TV news in the US apparantly) hears about IP issues that accord with what you think are facts or elements that Zionists would rather not be broadcast.

        And I would think that if Zionists are stupidly and openly giving their game away then the TV viewers of the USA would treat with caution the information they get, being as it is, designed to facilitate the Jewish conspiracy you think is happening.

      • Bing Bong
        October 27, 2013, 6:39 pm

        “Once again, that simply talks about political expediency and the strength of the Lobby.”

        Yes I would have thought that the Israel lobby would not have permitted criticism of itself in the same media that according to you it easily controls. Although I apologise for not spelling this point out to you.

        I have furnished you with another link immediately after though, again to the NYT that addresses Israeli war crimes, Why Palestine Should Take Israel to Court in The Hague.

        Perhaps Zionists have control of your computer and have blocked it from you.

      • Hostage
        October 27, 2013, 6:42 pm

        And how did this and any number of other articles that reference Israeli war crimes get through?

        Why Palestine Should Take Israel to Court in The Hague

        link to nytimes.com

        That article is misleading, since Palestine already has taken Israel to the Court and doesn’t need to become a party to the Statute:

        Indeed, the question of whether the PA needs to actively apply to the ICC may be academic, as a statement in September by ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda suggested that the court may gain jurisdiction over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict automatically through the General Assembly’s recognition of Palestine as a state.

        “What we have also done is to leave the door open, and to say that if Palestine is able to pass over that hurdle [of statehood] — of course, under the [UN] General Assembly — then we will revisit what the ICC can do,” Bensouda told a Council on Foreign Relations event in Washington.

        She added that the ICC may be able to begin investigating Israel on the strength of the rejected 2009 PA request to join the Rome Statute that established the court.

        “Palestine made a declaration under the [Rome] Statute acknowledging the jurisdiction of the court. As you know, this is one of the ways in which we can have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute,” Bensouda said.

        link to timesofisrael.com

        Readers of the New York Times were falsely told that the Court had rejected the Palestinian bid. See Court Rejects Palestinians in Their Bid for a Tribunal link to nytimes.com

        I’ve already addressed the fact that the US and Israel will continue to use power politics, and propaganda, just like they did when they buried the Goldstone report.

        In the meantime Abbas is being threatened with military strikes, closures, cut-off of international funding, and annexation if Palestine pursues prosecution of Israelis in the ICC. Many states tried to condition recognition of the State of Palestine in the UN by demanding guarantees that it wouldn’t go to the ICC. Why do you suppose the NY Times editorials, like Bisharat’s don’t mention those salient facts and the lopsided nature of US policy on Palestine and the ICC? See:
        *Britain ready to back Palestinian statehood at UN: Mahmoud Abbas pledge not to pursue Israel for war crimes and resumption of peace talks are UK conditions link to theguardian.com
        * Diskin to Abbas: Defer UN vote on Goldstone or face ‘second Gaza’ link to haaretz.com
        * See Israel demands PA drop war crimes suit at The Hague: Palestinian Authority called on International Court to examine IDF’s January operation in Gaza. link to haaretz.com
        * The cable Wikileaks disclosed about the discussions between the US and Israeli government officials over the lack of a independent investigation of the IDF and the PA complaint @ the Hague, describing the latter as an act of war. There was also a request from Israel for the USA to intervene with the PA and the ICC in an effort to shore-up Israel’s defense that the ICC lacks jurisdiction. link to wikileaks.org

      • Bing Bong
        October 27, 2013, 7:01 pm

        “It intends to use power politics, bluster, and bullshit, just like you are unsuccessfully trying to deploy here. ”

        These are just vague terms to promote your idea of a nebulous Jewish conspiracy though. Which when analysed turns out not to have a reasonable account of selling appartied to the world, but only the US. ‘Making sure almost no one is informed’ becomes merely TV viewers, who for some reason can’t use Google or read the NYT or the numerous other newspapers carrying information or op-ed that the Israel lobby would rather wasn’t available.

        The media can be biased, thankfully it isn’t so biased as to have your Jewish conspiracy protocols on display for all to see. You’ll have to make do with preaching to the converted here at Mondoweiss.

      • Citizen
        October 28, 2013, 2:31 am

        On October 24th last, Fox News was still on top in total viewers from 9 to 11pmET drawing 1.89 million to CNN’s 1.36 million and MSNBC’s 867,000 viewers. FNC also won the night in primetime, averaging 2.21 million total viewers and 369,000 A25-54 viewers from 8 to 11pmET. CNN was second with 1.08 million total viewers and 357,000 viewers in the demo, while MSNBC had 986,000 and 210,000 viewers, respectively.

      • Citizen
        October 28, 2013, 2:56 am

        I couldn’t find any stats on the size of the BBC News audience in USA. In the competitive ratings it’s never mentioned along with the principle cable news channels. I personally don’t know anyone who watches it besides myself. Anybody else got a figure?

      • Sibiriak
        October 28, 2013, 3:46 am

        Bing Bong:

        The question was

        “How is Judaism going to sell apartheid to the world over the next 100 years?”

        I can’t follow your argument. Are you saying that an Israeli-imposed apartheid system in Greater Israel/Palestine can be sold–i.e., made to seem acceptable–to the entire world, indefinitely?

      • Bing Bong
        October 28, 2013, 4:02 am

        Hostage has retreated in his response from; ‘the world’, to ‘the USA’.

      • Hostage
        October 28, 2013, 9:51 am

        Hostage has retreated in his response from; ‘the world’, to ‘the USA’.

        No I haven’t. The question was:

        “How is Judaism going to sell apartheid to the world over the next 100 years?”

        There’s nothing unique about Jews in Israel who complain about Gentile males being in the same work place or dating Jewish women. There are communities of fundamentalists Jews here in the US and elsewhere. There’s nothing unique about the rabbis there, and their wives, applying pressure on members of the Jewish community or shunning them altogether for renting to Gentiles, dating them, or God forbid, marrying them. In short, there are still Jewish groups who sell physical separation and are violently opposed to assimilation of any kind.

        I simply gave you some examples from the US, Great Britain, and Israel. But I could just as easily have cited criminal charges filed by Jewish groups in France against Anti-Zionists using the EU racism framework, even though those same Jewish groups publicly condone, deny, and trivialize crimes listed in the ICC statute, including apartheid and colonization, when they are committed against Palestinians.

        I could have cited the pressure put on Judge Goldstone by the Jewish communities worldwide, including his own South African community. Even Jews in the US, like Alan Dershowitz, wrote propaganda articles which labeled Goldstone a rodef in an attempt to discredit the messenger.

        The fact is that there are rabidly racist rabbis worldwide, just like Israelis Yitzhak Shapira, Yosef Elitzur, and Dov Lior who preach murder, hatred, and discrimination against Arabs and members of other religions. They certainly use Judaism to teach the doctrine of the immiscibility of the Jewish people. See Chabad rabbi Manis Friedman, who said I don’t believe in western morality, i.e. don’t kill civilians or children, don’t destroy holy sites, don’t fight during holiday seasons, don’t bomb cemeteries, don’t shoot until they shoot first because it is immoral. The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children and cattle. link to haaretz.com

        Our own Orthodox Union here in the US distributed propaganda pamphlets to members of the IDF during Cast Lead which claimed that the Vatican and Hezbollah conspire together to kill Jews.

        You still haven’t said one thing that alters the fact that groups which identify themselves as religious and Jewish are the junkyard dogs who serve as the vanguard of the Zionist movement and that they most certainly do try to deny Palestinians or Muslims jobs in the mainstream media or reality TV, and prevent them from using public forums on campuses and in communities to discuss apartheid conditions in Israel and Palestine. They also engage in lawfare to silence critics of Israel. The result very often is that Palestinians just don’t get to tell their own stories in our media, campuses, Jewish community facilities, or synagogues. When you combine that with Israel’s control of the borders, closure of Gaza, closed military zones, military censorship, and gag orders, there is a conscious effort to make sure that others are not informed or allowed to watch what is going on. There is a conscious effort to attack and discredit the messenger when the occasional alarm does get noticed through tactics like lawfare; and these “Jewish” parastatal organizations do deliberately deploy paid agents, called shaliachs, to spread misinformation, and help conduct agit-prop activities.

        You have done a lot of dissembling in this thread, but you can’t produce a shred of evidence that changes the fact that Jewish religious and political entities do all of those things.

      • Bing Bong
        October 29, 2013, 6:28 am

        A successful worldwide Jewish conspiracy that has contrived to make almost no one aware of the facts about Israel/Palestine.

        But only by distorting TV news because print (and I have to assume electronic) media is only read by a tiny minority. Hence things like this are seen by almost no one.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        link to nytimes.com

        link to nytimes.com

        I’m starting to think that there isn’t a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Hang on, you’re Jewish! That’s exactly what you’d want me to think.

      • Sibiriak
        October 29, 2013, 7:39 am

        Bing Bong:

        worldwide Jewish conspiracy

        Strawman much?

      • Hostage
        October 29, 2013, 8:00 am

        These are just vague terms to promote your idea of a nebulous Jewish conspiracy though. Which when analysed turns out not to have a reasonable account of selling appartied to the world, but only the US.

        No, but you’ve made a pitiful attempt to reframe it that way. Rabbi Yossi Goldman, President of the South African Rabbinical Association, at Sydenham Shul in Johannesburg has noting to do with the USA. He worked assiduously to discredit the messenger. He said that Judge Goldstone is “a traitor to the Jewish people” and that he would defend Goldstone’s right as a Jew to come to shul, but that Goldstone may not be counted to a minyan and would be denied the honour of being called to the Torah, explaining that one can forfeit such privileges by “inappropriate behavior”.

        I also cited attempts to intimidate the media and Palestinian activists by Jewish groups in the UK, France, and Israel. I’d be happy to tell you more about Israeli groups engaged in lawfare, like Im Tirtzu and Shurat HaDin, but you haven’t addressed the cases and tactics that I’ve already provided as examples.

      • Hostage
        October 29, 2013, 8:10 am

        A successful worldwide Jewish conspiracy that has contrived to make almost no one aware of the facts about Israel/Palestine.

        Same stupid argument repeated ad naseum. Here is a simple question: How can the press fact check conflicting reports about crimes committed in closed military zones created by the IDF? Answer that question or STFU and stop trolling the thread.

      • Bing Bong
        October 29, 2013, 8:34 am

        Nothing in that rant addresses how Judaism ensures that almost no one is informed or allowed to watch what is going on. And you’re now starting to change Judaism into religious right wing, racist etc Jews/US conspiritors just like you tried to redefine ‘almost no one’ as US televsion viewers.

        “There’s the flaw in your logic. It’s a given that people have to pull that information in, because it isn’t being pushed into the mainstream news that the majority of them rely upon. How do they search for something they’ve never heard about?”

        So if you are again now talking about information worldwide and not just the US TV news then the access to information that you regard as true and the Israel lobby would want covered up such as the

        ‘publication of the full text of the Palestine Papers and the accompanying non-stop daily editorials, news broadcasts, and articles by Al Jazeera and The Guardian for more than a week’

        means that (by your account) it actually is being pushed into the mainstream news and therefore giving the impetus to people to become informed by seaching google for all of 30 seconds. So if this impetus exists there is no real reason for; people who are of the mind to, not be informed of your ‘facts’.

        Output from Al Jazeera is no more difficult to come by in the US than it is anywhere else other than the countries in which it is more prevalent such as in the ME. The Guardian which I assume you regard as accessed in the main by British people may have promoted this issue more than US organs with a full text publication but it was still addressed in the US media and of course the Guardian and Al Jazeera are available online.

        link to nytimes.com

        link to washingtonpost.com

        link to online.wsj.com

        link to articles.latimes.com

        Alex Kane says this

        The truth that the ‘Palestine Papers’ has broken into the mainstream: Israel is the obstacle to peace

        link to alexbkane.wordpress.com

        “Do you have an example of a big revelation that has gone largely unnoticed in the US media because of Judaism’s news manipulation?”

        Why, after repeatedly being asked to do so don’t you give an example of a big revelation that has gone largely unnoticed in the US because of Judaism’s conspiracy of media control?

        It’s not the majority’s ignorance of Israel/Palestine because of a Jewish media conspiracy that’s the problem. It’s your dogmatic blinkered hatred of an entire country that makes you and your like the minority.

      • Bing Bong
        October 29, 2013, 8:40 am

        “Strawman much?”

        No

        “How is Judaism going to sell apartheid to the world over the next 100 years?

        The same as always, by: 1) making sure that almost no one is informed or allowed to watch what is going on;”

      • Hostage
        October 29, 2013, 8:57 am

        “Once again, that simply talks about political expediency and the strength of the Lobby.”

        Yes I would have thought that the Israel lobby would not have permitted criticism of itself in the same media that according to you it easily controls. Although I apologise for not spelling this point out to you.

        Deflect, divert, or troll the thread much?

        I never said Jews or Zionists control the media. I said their sales tactics include things like confiscating computers and cameras or creating closed military zones to exclude witnesses and evidence gathering. In that way they can make certain that almost no one is informed or allowed to watch what is going on. I said that intimidating the media and activists is another sales tactic employed when the occasional alarm does get noticed, i.e. I explicitly noted that alarming reports do get published you dimwit.

        In those cases agents are employed to spread misinformation, adopt legal sanctions against adversaries, and conduct lawfare on that basis.

        All of that continues to be true.

        I have furnished you with another link immediately after though, again to the NYT that addresses Israeli war crimes, Why Palestine Should Take Israel to Court in The Hague.

        That particular Op-Ed contains misinformation. I supplied you with an article from the foreign press about an event held right here in the USA, where the ICC Prosecutor admitted that she could exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed in Palestine right now, using the existing Palestinian declaration supplied back in 2009. That news sure as hell didn’t find its way onto any computer at the NYT, WAPO, or LAT.

        The press in the USA still continues to print fluff pieces which falsely claim that Palestine needs to initiate further actions before the ICC can act. They do that without bothering to mention the inconvenient fact that Israel and the USA have threatened to use force, closures, blockades, funding sanctions, and annexation if the Palestinians pursue prosecution of Israelis in the ICC.

      • Cliff
        October 25, 2013, 5:39 am

        bing bong said:

        It’s an excuse because the real reason your skirting around is that there aren’t enough people who agree with singly and fervently demonizing one side of the conflict.

        Nonsense. Americans cannot stop their own wars. You expect millions to march in the streets against the Jewish Establishment and Jewish colonialism?

        Opposition to Jewish nationalism is policed by pro-Israel advocacy groups because said groups have tons of money to buy off politicians and administrators.

        When you factor in religious fundamentalism (Christian Zionists are your biggest supporters NOT everyday ‘informed’ Americans) and the contrived conflation of interests vis a vis the ‘War on Terror’ and Islamophobia – it’s no wonder people aren’t as anti-Zionist as they are completely disinterested.

        No one wants to contend with you psychotic ethno-religious nationalists.

        Just hearing some Jewish nationalist talk about 3000 years of Jewish blah blah and their deep holy connection to land other people were living on for hundreds if not thousands of years is nauseating.

        NORMAL people – ie not racist, not bigoted, not war-mongering – do not want to expend the mental energy it takes to withstand your bullshit parade.

        What is more reasonable? That a country of 300+ million people are all ‘informed’ about the Israel/Palestine conflict and have unanimously decided to support Israel? Or a fraction of the population is politically active and supports Israel – while another fraction within that fraction functions as the Zionist intelligentsia of our society and serves to stonewall the tide of opposition to Zionism and Jewish colonialism from another fraction of the population?

        You live in a narrow utopia where the Jewish apartheid State is the center of the universe.

        Americans are not a singular entity as much as Jewish Israelis are.

        We are not taught in school to hate non-Americans as fascists are taught to hate non-Jews.

      • Bing Bong
        October 25, 2013, 9:27 pm

        “Nonsense. Americans cannot stop their own wars. You expect millions to march in the streets against the Jewish Establishment and Jewish clonialism?”

        There are hundreds of thousands who apply themselves to the cause of hating Israel because they believe the same things as you do. If these ‘almost no one(s)’ are ‘informed’ where is the rest of the support? It isn’t some underground society of those in on the secret about the ‘real’ issues that Israel keeps under wraps, or a Matrix type universe made of undetectable PR spin, it’s literally front page news and it’s been a major issue in world affairs for decades. Just look in this thread and you will find people saying the common cry on Mondoweiss that Israel ‘cannot last much longer’. Why? Because ‘almost no one’ knows what’s happening? Because the majority are successfully kept in the dark by Zionist machinations?

        If you don’t have the numbers by this point you never will, blame the spin if you want, it’s sour grapes though because there are many people who don’t regard Israel as colonial fascists because they can read about things and think about things without your help towards enlightenment.

        “No one wants to contend with you psychotic ethno-religious nationalists.
        NORMAL people – ie not racist, not bigoted, not war-mongering – do not want to expend the mental energy it takes to withstand your bullshit parade.”

        If this is the case then they are aware of the issues as to why Israel should be hated, but in your opinion are scared of the PR backlash, of which they are also aware of. This means that a huge number of people are aware to quite a complex conceptual degree of the attendant layers around this issue and is not the case of only a tiny minority being informed.

        And does that make you an abnormal, racist, bigoted, war supporter (against Israel), who does want to stand up to (what you call) a bullshit parade?

        “We are not taught in school to hate non-Americans as fascists are taught to hate non-Jews.”

        I see, you regard this as a failure of American education because as Hostage says, ‘almost no one’ knows the truth about Israel and why it should be hated.

      • Cliff
        October 26, 2013, 10:54 am

        You have not proven anything, troll.

        America has a population of 300+ million.

        Prove that all Americans or a majority have made the decision to first become ‘informed’ about the Israel/Palestinian conflict and that their preparation was measured and thoughtful. You can’t.

        Then prove that after weighing the evidence, this American majority decided to be pro-Israel. You can’t.

        Then prove that this type of ‘pro-Israel’ sentiment is in line with the Israeli government. You can’t.

        Americans do not care. We care about our domestic problems first and foremost.

        Not about Israel. Only Christian zombies and Jewish racists care. You are the minority.

        The reason this country supports your racist apartheid Jewish colony is because of political corruption and apathy.

        You didn’t earn your support through an on-going debate. There is no consensus nor has there ever been one. It is always a minority leading the charge through underhanded tactics.

        bing bong says:

        There are hundreds of thousands who apply themselves to the cause of hating Israel because they believe the same things as you do. If these ‘almost no one(s)’ are ‘informed’ where is the rest of the support? It isn’t some underground society of those in on the secret about the ‘real’ issues that Israel keeps under wraps, or a Matrix type universe made of undetectable PR spin, it’s literally front page news and it’s been a major issue in world affairs for decades. Just look in this thread and you will find people saying the common cry on Mondoweiss that Israel ‘cannot last much longer’. Why? Because ‘almost no one’ knows what’s happening? Because the majority are successfully kept in the dark by Zionist machinations?

        Israel is hated because it is a racist, apartheid State and colony, stealing the land from the rightful indigenous Palestinian Arabs.

        I can’t think of a better reason to hate a political ideology. Zionism is lie.

        And there is no need for conspiracy here – the real world works more nefariously anyway.

        America is not a pure meritocracy and the mainstream media does not report the unadulterated truth.

        If you don’t have the numbers by this point you never will, blame the spin if you want, it’s sour grapes though because there are many people who don’t regard Israel as colonial fascists because they can read about things and think about things without your help towards enlightenment.

        Rome wasn’t built in a day. The BDS movement such as it is, is still new. And social media and independent reporting are also still new.

        But that being said – Americans couldn’t stop the Iraq War. Americans have a very short attention span and without the intellectual integrity in place to reiterate the falseness of the standard war-mongering/fear-mongering tactics of the government and war lobbyists (AIPAC and the organized Zionist community) – we will repeat history over and over.

        Just because the American public cannot stop certain policies from passing does not mean they support the outcomes of the policies.

        If this is the case then they are aware of the issues as to why Israel should be hated, but in your opinion are scared of the PR backlash, of which they are also aware of. This means that a huge number of people are aware to quite a complex conceptual degree of the attendant layers around this issue and is not the case of only a tiny minority being informed.

        Nah, it has nothing to do with being specifically aware of Zionist propaganda and hate-mongering.

        It’s a natural fear of being called a racist and the awareness of ‘identity politics’.

        That is unique to America.

        I see, you regard this as a failure of American education because as Hostage says, ‘almost no one’ knows the truth about Israel and why it should be hated.

        Huh? I regard it as a good thing that we, Americans, are not taught from childhood to hate The Other. It is through the MSM and movies that we begin to see the ‘The Other’ (Arabs and Muslims currently) portrayed negatively.

        And does that make you an abnormal, racist, bigoted, war supporter (against Israel), who does want to stand up to (what you call) a bullshit parade?

        No, it makes me one of the few who ‘pay attention’ to this conflict and seeing as how I am not a Jewish colonist/nationalist/supremacist nor a Christian fundie or Islamophobe – I naturally oppose Zionism.

        If more Americans were both interested in this conflict – and did not fall into the categories of being a Jewish supremacist/Christian fundie/Islamophobe – then they’d feel as I do.

      • Hostage
        October 26, 2013, 11:57 am

        If these ‘almost no one(s)’ are ‘informed’ where is the rest of the support?

        Hasbara fail. The USA has become more and more politically isolated every time it has defended Israel from international sanctions. There are only a few rent-a-states in the Pacific Ocean that are still in our corner on that score. The majority of people in the USA are treated to news reports that portray Israel as the victim and the USA as its savior.

      • Shingo
        October 27, 2013, 6:40 am

        There are hundreds of thousands who apply themselves to the cause of hating Israel because they believe the same things as you do.

        You don’t have to apply yourself to hating apartheid, criminality, human rights violations,. ethnic cleansng, land theft and ethnocentric supremacy.

        If you don’t have the numbers by this point you never will, blame the spin if you want, it’s sour grapes though because there are many people who don’t regard Israel as colonial fascists because they can read about things and think about things without your help towards enlightenment.

        Wishful thinking. The numbers are turning against Israel massively and the shift is irreversible. There was a time when Israel enjoyed support throughout the world. Now, the only country is enjoys popular support is the US, and even those numbers are dwindling.

        That is why the lobby is going into overdrive and trying to outlaw criticism of Israel altogether.

        If this is the case then they are aware of the issues as to why Israel should be hated, but in your opinion are scared of the PR backlash, of which they are also aware of. This means that a huge number of people are aware to quite a complex conceptual degree of the attendant layers around this issue and is not the case of only a tiny minority being informed.

        Please try to rephrase that is English.

      • Hostage
        October 27, 2013, 7:35 pm

        bing bong said:

        It’s an excuse because the real reason your skirting around is that there aren’t enough people who agree with singly and fervently demonizing one side of the conflict.

        apartheid (n.) 1947 (policy begun 1948), from Afrikaans apartheid (1929 in a South African socio-political context), literally “separateness,” from Dutch apart “separate” (from French àpart; see apart) + suffix -heid, cognate of English -hood. The official English synonym was separate development (1955).

        Of course you still haven’t addressed the fact that Judaism will still be complaining about intermarriage with Gentiles, eating Gentile food, and the “disease of assimilation” 100 years from now. Judaism tends to demonize those who live with Gentiles.

        I’ve seen cases where Jews, with two Jewish birth parents were told they would have to undergo an Orthodox conversion, regardless of their existing personal religious beliefs and practices, simply because they were raised in a home with a Gentile stepmother. There are rabbis who have been practicing something just like apartheid for 2,000 years now, and they aren’t likely to stop any time soon. We’ve had articles here at MW recently which demonstrate that it is especially true of children of mixed Jewish and Arab descent.

      • Citizen
        October 28, 2013, 3:09 am

        Further, news about foreign affairs, foreign countries, etc is way down at the bottom of news most Americans have an interest in; the US & Britain are similar in this respect, as compared to other Western countries. Further, in both US & Britain males have a 10% higher interest in foreign news than females, and this is true in most European countries also–except Germany, where female interest in foreign news is higher than male interest.

      • RoHa
        October 28, 2013, 11:37 pm

        “Judaism will still be complaining about intermarriage with Gentiles, eating Gentile food, and the “disease of assimilation” 100 years from now. ”

        Who will there be to complain? All the Jews will have been assimilated by then, won’t they? ;)

    • HemiFaulk
      October 24, 2013, 1:08 pm

      “How is Judaism going to sell apartheid to the world over the next 100 years?”

      Sorry but that is not right. How are\is Zionism going to sell apartheid to the world over the next 100 years? that is more to the question as Judaism is not a homogeneous religion, and embraces a number of streams and views.

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      • Hostage
        October 24, 2013, 5:18 pm

        Sorry but that is not right. How are\is Zionism going to sell apartheid to the world over the next 100 years?

        Sorry, but when I hear a Reform Rabbi and lawyer, like Ammiel Hirsch of the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue, openly preaching against “the disease of assimilation” right here in the USA, and he is openly sharing that idea on Youtube or Vimeo, then we’re talking about segregationist attitudes along ethnic lines that isn’t an attitude limited only to Zionism or Israel. It’s also one that cuts across the sectarian lines.

      • Elliot
        October 29, 2013, 9:00 am

        Ammuel Hirsch is an influential rabbi. He is the champion of Israel in the Reform movement and has debated Peter Beinart. Most definitely anti-Palestinian. If there is a new Reform Jewish identity forming that embraces settler Israel, it’s because of people like him.

  3. Shmuel
    October 24, 2013, 10:58 am

    Except in stages, the one-state option is an illusion. It has no international support, and there is no reason why Israel and its US sponsor would accept it, since they have a far preferable option, the one they are now implementing; with impunity, thanks to US power….

    US policies are also not graven in stone, though they have deep strategic, economic, and cultural roots. In the absence of such changes, there is every reason to expect that the picture from the river to the sea will conform to the third option. Palestinian rights and aspirations will be shelved, temporarily at least.

    The crucial element is thus, not international support per se (the 2ss currently enjoys that but is still going nowhere), but the changing of US policies, which leads to the question of how such change might be brought about. Norman Finkelstein suggests getting US Jews behind such a 2ss or at least out of the way. Would this be sufficient to change US policies? Even Finkelstein is uncertain, arguing that such a course of action would at least remove a significant obstacle.

    The distinction that Chomsky makes between “advocacy” and “mere proposal” is a good one but, at an impasse (where advocacy is effectively blocked), “mere proposal” may be sufficient to bring about a shift in perception that may, in turn, result in a change in policy. I believe that this is the underlying strategy of Palestinian BDS — to place the “conflict” on different footing in the popular imagination in the countries that both wield power and (sometimes) concern themselves with popular opinion (direct lobbying would be a waste of time in this case). That is why the movement insists on calling itself a “rights-based” (rather than “solution-based”) movement, and why it constantly seeks to evoke images of Apartheid South Africa and the Jim Crow US South. As long as the situation in I/P continues to be popularly viewed as a “conflict” between warring sides or, worse, a “clash of civilisations”, there will be no change in policy.

    Finkelstein is right that the one-state view dominates BDS discourse, although the movement may declare itself “agnostic”. It is indeed significant that its most prominent Palestinian spokesmen advocate a 1ss. Chomsky is also probably right that a single state (which he has “advocated for 70 years”) cannot be achieved directly, without passing through two states first. In this case however, I believe that “mere proposal” has an advantage over “advocacy”. The proponents of one state offer a vision of equality that highlights the current state of inequality and oppression (Barghouti says this explicitly in his book). The goal is thus equality, or rather the abrogation of inequality — which is precisely the focus of the rights-based approach. The first step in reaching a state of equality (best illustrated, perhaps, by the idea of a single, democratic polity) is to change perceptions of the very unequal reality in I/P. Merely advocating a two-state solution, based on “overwhelming international consensus” at this point would continue to achieve nothing, and merely contribute to the “shelving” (or “warehousing”, as Jeff Halper has called it) of Palestinian rights and aspirations. What is really needed is a new paradigm, capable of shifting public opinion (including but not limited to Jewish public opinion) particularly in the US.

    I think the Palestinians leading the BDS movement have come up with the best operative plan out there, and that they deserve to be supported in their struggle.

    • Hostage
      October 24, 2013, 12:48 pm

      I think the Palestinians leading the BDS movement have come up with the best operative plan out there, and that they deserve to be supported in their struggle.

      No they really haven’t yet. The Palestinian public started throwing shoes at pictures of Abbas when he succumbed to pressure to request a six month delay on the vote regarding the Goldstone report. That ultimatum caused Israel and the US to back off and allow the vote to proceed. They need something similar to end the nine month delay on taking the situation in the Palestine to the ICC, not just individual rights, but equality of state rights are involved.

      They also need to educate the public about the protection plan for religious groups, minorities, and women that the UN adopted in 1948. The rights of Palestinians and Jews in both of the proposed states were placed under UN guarantee and cannot be altered without the consent of the General Assembly. That means the PA and Israel can’t conclude any agreement that alters those rights or ends the related claims.

      The compromissory clause in resolution 181(II) is the key to getting the General Assembly and Israel in front of the International Court of Justice, or some other Court of arbitration for dispute resolution regarding the personal and property rights of the Palestinian refugees, Palestinians living in Israel, and the Jews that were living in Palestine. There is a guaranteed majority in the General Assembly for any resolution introduced on behalf of the Palestinians requesting an advisory opinion on the subject of colonialism, occupation, and apartheid. That includes the situation in Israel with segregated rural communities and the Prawer Plan.

      Advisory opinions are not legally binding, except in rare cases, like this one, where it was stipulated beforehand that the ICJ would have the jurisdiction to settle disputes, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.
      See the 5th paragraph under the heading Advisory Jurisdiction link to icj-cij.org ; and
      Part C. Declaration Chapters 1, 2, and 4 of resolution 181(II) link to yale.edu

      • irishmoses
        October 24, 2013, 9:54 pm

        So Hostage, are you saying 181 still has legal effect? I thought it was a dead letter when not accepted by the Palestinians. If it does still apply, does it apply to borders as well?

        Even if its only remaining effect is to make an ICJ ruling binding, that is stunning news to me.

      • Hostage
        October 25, 2013, 4:12 am

        So Hostage, are you saying 181 still has legal effect?

        Yes of course. The General Assembly and the ICJ have each said that it still has legal effects. The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP), have always cited Israel’s acceptance of the minority protection plan contained in resolution 181(II) as the source of Israel’s continuing legal obligations regarding the refugees:

        19. In this respect, it was pointed out that Israel was under binding obligation to permit the return of all the Palestinian refugees displaced as a result of the hostilities of 1948 and 1967. This obligation flowed from the unreserved agreement by Israel to honour its commitments under the Charter of the United Nations, and from its specific undertaking, when applying for membership of the United Nations, to implement General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, safeguarding the rights of the Palestinian Arabs inside Israel, and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, concerning the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or to choose compensation for their property. This undertaking was also clearly reflected in General Assembly resolution 273 (III).

        link to un.org

        The Permanent Court of International Justice was asked to rule on the legal nature of minority rights declarations in the Albanian Schools case. The Court considered these declarations to be tantamount to a treaty. The opinions made no distinction between the two and frequently cited the Treaty on Albanian Minorities in order to interpret the Declaration supplied by the government of Albania. See Henry J. Steiner, Philip Alston, Ryan Goodman, International Human Rights in Context, Oxford University Press, 2008, page 100 link to books.google.com

        The minority protection plan contained in resolution 181(II) was included in a catalog of minority treaties and instruments published by the Secretary General in 1950. The plan for Palestine was the only instrument that wasn’t deemed to be affected by the dissolution of the League of Nations. — E/CN.4/367, Date: 7 April 1950 (see Chapter III The United Nations Charter And The Treaties Concluded After The War, resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947, “The Future Government of Palestine”, pages 22-23)

        Resolution 181(II) is also cited in the “Table of Treaties” in Thomas D. Musgrave, Self-determination and National Minorities, Oxford Monographs in International Law, Oxford University Press, 1997, ISBN 0198298986, Page xxxviii

        The UN General Assembly adopted resolution 273 (III) which acknowledged the declarations and undertakings supplied by the representative of Israel to implement resolution 181(II) and 194(III). Abba Eban was specifically required to explain for the record whether or not the government of Israel had provided the necessary Declaration required by Part I- The Future Government of Palestine, Sections B and C. Eban cited a cable from Foreign Minister Shertok to the Secretary General which described the contents of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (which had been signed by the members of the Provisional Council of the State of Israel). Eban declared that it had been published in Israel’s national gazette and promulgated as fundamental law in accordance with the terms of the UN resolution. He also declared that the requirement to adopt a fundamental law protecting all of the rights in question was capable of fulfillment by Israel acting alone, and did not rely upon the acceptance of the Arab state or states. See pages 2-3 of the .pdf containing the transcript of the 48th session A/AC.24/SR.48 and the verbatim UN record of the 51st session starting on pdf page 6, A/AC.24/SR.51

        The international courts have repeatedly ruled that resolutions of international organizations are merely recommendations, unless they are accepted by a state party. Once that happens, the state remains bound by the terms of its own acceptance.

        I thought it was a dead letter when not accepted by the Palestinians. If it does still apply, does it apply to borders as well?

        The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Palestine also cited resolution 181(II) as the source of its international legitimacy and provided assurances of fundamental human rights. The General Assembly acknowledged the declaration was made in line with resolution 181(II). See: resolution 43/177 link to unispal.un.org

        Here is some additional information. The General Assembly had suspended the implementation of the resolution, including Part II – Boundaries. It appointed the Mediator to negotiate a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine.
        link to yale.edu

        The Security Council adopted two Chapter 7 resolutions (62 and 73) which directed the the Mediator to establish permanent armistice lines of demarcation in accordance with Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter as “provisional measures” to restore peace and security. link to yale.edu

        The General Assembly continued to call for the implementation of Part III of resolution 181(II) and had the Trusteeship Council draft a Statute for the City of Jerusalem. It also continued to request the necessary Declarations regarding the constitutional guarantees of equal rights and protection for religious groups, minorities, and women as outlined above.

        UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/48/158D, 20 December 1993 stipulated that the final settlement had to guarantee arrangements for peace and security of all States in the region, including those named in resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, within secure and internationally recognized boundaries.

        An Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly subsequently cited 181(II) as a “relevant resolution” and asked the ICJ about its legal consequences:

        Recalling relevant General Assembly resolutions, including resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, which partitioned mandated Palestine into two States, one Arab and one Jewish,

        Decides, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, to request the International Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 65 of the Statute of the Court, to urgently render an advisory opinion on the following question:
        What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?

        – General Assembly resolution A/Res/ES-10/14

        The various opinions of the Court were limited in scope to a brief legal analysis of the status of the territory on which the Wall was being constructed. They noted that the resolution was still the basis for the permanent responsibility of the United Nations for the Question of Palestine until it is resolved in a satisfactory manner in all of its aspects in accordance with international legitimacy. Most scholars and jurists agree that a just settlement can’t include serious violations of the UN Charter or acquiesce to serious international crimes, like the deportation of hundreds of thousands of inhabitants.

      • irishmoses
        October 25, 2013, 10:55 am

        Hostage said:

        ****”Yes of course. The General Assembly and the ICJ have each said that it still has legal effects.”****

        Thanks for such a detailed response. How do you keep track of this stuff? You’re amazing.

        As to borders, your reply indicates the armistice lines negotiated by Bunche are “provisional”. So, what is the UN standard and jurisdiction for resolving the conflict? i.e. If 181 still applies (you indicate it was only “suspended”) is resolution a legal issue (“rights”/law-based) or a mediation issue (dispute-based)? In other words, could the UN conceivable use its continuing jurisdiction to impose a resolution based on UNR 181 and relevant laws on the grounds that all attempts at mediation and negotiation have proved futile?

        I’ve felt for a long time that the dispute resolution model is the main obstacle to resolving the I-P conflict as it gets in the way of a legal, law-based imposed resolution. Getting the focus changed to the dispute resolution model may have been the most brilliant stroke of the revisionist Zionists.

      • Hostage
        October 25, 2013, 4:40 pm

        In other words, could the UN conceivable use its continuing jurisdiction to impose a resolution based on UNR 181 and relevant laws on the grounds that all attempts at mediation and negotiation have proved futile? . . . I’ve felt for a long time that the dispute resolution model is the main obstacle to resolving the I-P conflict as it gets in the way of a legal, law-based imposed resolution

        I feel the same way. A full answer on borders would require an answer that scrolls off the page.

        But the applicable UN law on the subject rejects the use of force and was spelled out in the Boundary Dispute Case (Burkina-Faso v Mali). The doctrine of uti possidetis would apply to any administrative boundaries established for the new states by the UN during the transition period. That period started on the day the recommendations in the Ad Hoc Committee’s draft resolution were adopted by a two-thirds decision of the members of the General Assembly. Here is the relevant part of that ICJ opinion:

        In this connection it should be noted that the principle of uti possidetis seems to have been first invoked and applied in Spanish America, inasmuch as this was the continent which first witnessed the phenomenon of decolonization involving the formation of a number of sovereign States on territory formerly belonging to a single metropolitan State. Nevertheless the principle is not a special rule which pertains solely to one specific system of international law. It is a general principle, which is logically connected with the phenomenon of the obtaining of independence, wherever it occurs. Its obvious purpose is to prevent the independence and stability of new States being endangered by fratricidal struggles provoked by the challenging of frontiers following the withdrawal of the administering power.

        The essence of the principle lies in its primary aim of securing respect for the territorial boundaries at the moment when independence is achieved. Such territorial boundaries might be no more than delimitations between different administrative divisions or colonies all subject to the same sovereign. In that case, the application of the principle of uti possidetis resulted in administrative boundaries being transformed into international frontiers in the full sense of the term. This is true both of the States which took shape in the regions of South America which were dependent on the Spanish Crown, and of the States Parties to the present case, which took shape within the vast territories of French West Africa. Uti possidetis, as a principle which upgraded former administrative delimitations, established during the colonial period, to international frontiers, is therefore a principle of a general kind which is logically connected with this form of decolonization wherever it occurs.

        link to icj-cij.org

        The final border of Turkey was not determined by its peace treaties. Article 2 of the Treaty of Lausanne simply stipulated that, if Turkey and Great Britain could not negotiate the matter within nine months, the matter would be referred to the Council of the League of Nations. Even the interpretation of that clause was disputed. So, the matter was submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice for an Advisory Opinion (Series B, No 12, “Article 3, Paragraph 2, Treaty of Lausanne (frontier between Turkey and Iraq). The Court ruled that resolutions of the Council of the League of Nations were merely recommendations, but that they became binding when the parties agreed to accept them.

        So the frontiers laid down in accordance with the mandates (which were also contained in resolutions of the Council of the LoN) had the same legal character as the ones accepted by the Provisional Government of Israel in its declarations and undertakings supplied during the hearings on its UN membership application.

        It’s ironic, but among other things, the UN General Assembly had been acting as an arbitral tribunal of adjudicators when it adopted the Plan for the Future Government of Palestine in the first place. Most boundary disputes are resolved by the International Court of Justice, the International Court of Arbitration, or an agreed upon arbitrator. I’ve cited a long list of cases and precedents here: link to mondoweiss.net

        The decision of any arbitration panel is customarily considered final and not generally subject to any sort of appeal. The government of Israel was always quick to point-out that the UN resolution was a valid international adjudication:

        The Provisional Government of Israel noted with surprise that your suggestions appear to ignore the resolution of the General Assembly of 29 November 1947, which remains the only internationally valid adjudication on the question of the future government of Palestine.

        – S/870, 8 July 1948 link to unispal.un.org

        When the Zionist Executive adopted the Biltmore Program, Ben Gurion publicly advised that it should not be mistaken for the definition of ultimate Zionist aims. Like Jabotinsky he too claimed Transjordan on behalf of the Jewish people. The platform itself suggested that the army of the Jewish state would fight under the high command of the United Nations. He also noted that a new world order was emerging and that the Jewish question would once again be addressed by an international forum. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        After the London Conference, the British government simply gave the Zionists and Palestinians an ultimatum. It informed them that if they failed to come to a peaceful agreement on their own, their dispute would be submitted to binding international arbitration by the UN. So the General Assembly was viewed as the ultimate forum for resolution of this dispute from the very outset. That role is one of the reasons that Article 18 of the Charter gave the Assembly the power to adopt a decision on any important question.
        See the FRUS, The Near East and Africa, 1947, page 1037 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu and
        * Article 18 of the Charter link to yale.edu

        The US and Israel both downplay that fact and reject any proposals for deadlines or another international peace conference empowered to rule on the applicable law or conduct further arbitration.

        Another possibility would be for the Security Council to simply adopt another “provisional measure” on the boundaries. The European Union’s chief foreign and security policy official, Javier Solana, even suggested that, if Israeli-Palestinian negotiations continue to fail, with the benefit of “real mediation” and a “fixed deadline”, the United Nations Security Council should “proclaim the adoption of the two-state solution” with parameters on borders, accept the Palestinian state as a full member of the UN, and “set a calendar for implementation”. There would follow international monitoring and guarantees, with the Arab states immediately establishing full diplomatic relations with Israel. link to bitterlemons.org

    • David Samel
      October 24, 2013, 1:52 pm

      Shmuel, I completely agree. If the goal is to shift American public opinion, a focus on equality can be very powerful. The Civil Rights struggle is still a big part of our recent history, and equality of citizenship regardless of ancestry is now well entrenched in our national psyche. There really is no good explanation for the fact that Israel does not the treat the people it rules over equally. Even its citizens aren’t equal, and that’s inherent in the very nature of the Jewish State. This is something every American can relate to. And the more people whine that “equality” means the “destruction” of the Jewish State, the better. What kind of system would be “destroyed” by equality?

      • Shmuel
        October 24, 2013, 2:09 pm

        The Civil Rights struggle is still a big part of our recent history, and equality of citizenship regardless of ancestry is now well entrenched in our national psyche.

        Absolutely, and even following Finkelstein’s logic, it puts liberal American Jews on the spot: You supported Civil Rights and you supported the struggle against Apartheid, but when it comes to Israel you oppose equality?!

        Come to think of it, this is probably what won me over to anti-Zionism. It was the only position consistent with my values.

      • Citizen
        October 24, 2013, 5:04 pm

        @ Shmuel
        Actually, I bet if Obama and/or a Congress person got on national mainstream media, and, speaking directly to the public, made the civil rights case for the Palestinians, the public would mostly be on board, and either could do so by also pointing out that tiny Israel gets, by far, the biggest chunk of US foreign aid. But, it seems clear, neither POTUS nor Congress cares about the American psyche, nor are they moved by it on this issue. Truman set the stage.

      • ritzl
        October 24, 2013, 6:30 pm

        Great comment and thread again, Shmuel/all. Agree, there’s amazing latent power and/or leverage yet to be mined to enhance and activate support for a just outcome, in the US anyway, on the rights/equality front.

        Hostage makes a pivotal point though. The Palestinian BDS leadership hasn’t quite gotten there yet, broadly (audience) anyway. It’s hard to say why. Maybe timing (maturity?). Maybe media “inertia.” Maybe “they” are just fundamentally too parochial in explaining the “why” of it all. Or some combo of all and more. Maybe it’s simply and necessarily evolutionary, this process.

        It’s all correctable and/or buildable though. Right is on their side, internationally as Hostage pointed out, and domestically, given our history and maturation in the last 50 years ± as you and DS pointed out. It’s coming (the broader awareness).

        Thanks.

      • Hostage
        October 24, 2013, 7:42 pm

        The Palestinian BDS leadership hasn’t quite gotten there yet, broadly (audience) anyway. It’s hard to say why.

        Because its an individual “rights based” movement that relies upon very State-centric international laws. In many cases, only a State can intervene or have the necessary legal standing to participate in international court cases, become parties to the human rights conventions, or request treaty enforcement, and etc. The PLO/PA could never effectively do that. See Jordan J. Paust , “Non-State Actor Participation in International Law and the Pretense of Exclusion” to get an idea of the hurdles the US and Israel have been employing for decades to obstruct the PLO/PA from taking legal actions, like becoming a contracting party and enforcing the Geneva Conventions: link to ssrn.com

        But Statehood is a double-edged sword. A Palestinian State isn’t an NGO that can operate across borders or international frontiers. It doesn’t have the territorial or personal jurisdiction to intervene on behalf of Palestinian citizens or refugees from Israel, like the UN General Assembly can under the auspices of the minority protection plan in resolution 181(II).

      • ritzl
        October 24, 2013, 8:44 pm

        @Hostage Agree. fwiw. But you all have shown that there are two tracks here.

        As I understand your (and Walid’s, and talknic’s) patient explanations, Palestine/Palestinians don’t sacrifice its/their state-based (state-centric?) rights under IHL even if and when one state becomes the accepted/operative IHL (again, maybe too much of my shorthand in terms of legal applicability) condition. So my understanding from you all is that they have and will have that leverage no matter what may come.

        But I believe that Shmuel and DS are also absolutely correct in pointing out what drives any adherence v. ignore-ability to that legal leverage. Namely personal sentiment/conflict/shame with what’s right. I think that weighs heavily into the ability to leverage the leverage. Two tracks, both crucial and pursue-able.

      • Hostage
        October 24, 2013, 10:48 pm

        As I understand your (and Walid’s, and talknic’s) patient explanations, Palestine/Palestinians don’t sacrifice its/their state-based (state-centric?) rights under IHL even if and when one state becomes the accepted/operative IHL (again, maybe too much of my shorthand in terms of legal applicability) condition.

        First of all, only states can become parties to either the human rights of international human rights (IHL) conventions. Only state parties can seek enforcement of those treaties or complain about violations in the ICC or in contentious cases before the ICJ. Only UN member states can introduce resolutions on their own initiative in the General Assembly, Security Council, or other UN bodies. Individual Palestinians, NGOs and the PA/PLO couldn’t do any of those things. Israel argued unsuccessfully in its written reports and statements to the UN and ICJ that human rights laws are inapplicable during armed conflicts.

        Many human rights are considered either absolute or non-derogable. They aren’t impaired or there are no exceptions allowed during armed conflicts. Most are protected by treaties authored by the UN and monitored by independent treaty bodies staffed by signatories and hosted by the UN.

        IHL is a different bucket of worms altogether. It’s contained in customary rules and in the Hague and Geneva Conventions. They are mainly monitored by the ICRC and contracting parties. Under both the conventions and the underlying customary law, there are a number of rights that are only applicable during international armed conflicts (IAC). Only common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and some of the customary rules apply to non-international armed conflicts (NIAC). The rules against colonizing occupied territory are not applicable to a NIAC, only the prohibition against forced displacement. That’s why the governments of Israel spent decades pretending that the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem aren’t part of the territory of another high contracting party or state. The Israeli Supreme Court has adopted obscure and conflicting rulings that say an international armed conflict exists between Israel and the “Palestinian terror groups” and that the government voluntarily applies some of the rules contained in IHL, but that certain rules remain inapplicable on a de jure basis. So, a final settlement based on the 1ss could end up casting doubt on many rights and protections under IHL. Compare IAC to NIAC rules in the List of Customary Rules of International Humanitarian Law link to icrc.org

      • Shmuel
        October 25, 2013, 1:41 am

        ritzl,

        I don’t think there is anything in the position of BDS or any of its leaders that contradicts what Hostage has said about international law. In the end, the tracks that Hostage proposes cannot be pursued without political will, which, in some way, shape or form, necessarily comes back to Chomsky’s assertion regarding US policy. That is the basis of the BDS strategy, whether or not its leaders present a vision of equality in the form of a single state (using the advantage of “mere proposal”).

        The Palestinian BDS leadership hasn’t quite gotten there yet, broadly (audience) anyway.

        I think it’s still early, and the task immense.

      • HarryLaw
        October 24, 2013, 2:39 pm

        David Samel @ “There really is no good explanation for the fact that Israel does not the treat the people it rules over equally”. The explanation is easy, the Palestinians are under Military occupation and are governed under the rules of war [Geneva 1949 and Hague 1907] to that extent they are treated the same and equally badly, whereas the Israel settlers and settlements should not be in Palestine at all, their presence is a grave war crime in breach of article 49.6 Geneva Conventions when will Abbas pressure the ICC over this egregious war crime, I think even a brilliant criminal lawyer like Professor Alan Dersowitz could win such a case, or even you David.

      • Sibiriak
        October 25, 2013, 9:34 am

        David Samel:

        If the goal is to shift American public opinion, a focus on equality can be very powerful. The Civil Rights struggle is still a big part of our recent history, and equality of citizenship regardless of ancestry is now well entrenched in our national psyche. There really is no good explanation for the fact that Israel does not the treat the people it rules over equally. Even its citizens aren’t equal, and that’s inherent in the very nature of the Jewish State. This is something every American can relate to.

        I disagree, reluctantly. There is a crucial flaw in the argument, embodied in this sentence:

        There really is no good explanation for the fact that Israel does not the treat the people it rules over equally

        The vast majority of Americans don’t think of Gaza and the West Bank as areas being “ruled over” by Israel, let alone part of a de facto single Israeli state.

        To the contrary, the prevailing opinion is that the West Bank and Gaza in particular are manifestations of Palestinian SELF-rule. Israeli actions in those areas are seen as primarily defensive and security-related, or even to some as aggressive. But whether defensive (majority view) or aggressive (distinctly minority view), the actions are seen as being take against Palestinian territory and polities OUTSIDE of Israel.

        In order make an”equality” argument one must FIRST sell the notion that Israel “rules over” Gaza and the West Bank and that there is really a single de facto Israel state–and that’s not happening.

        Another point. It’s almost an axiom among enlightened MW follks et al. that a truncated, non-contiguous, limited sovereignty, Palestinian “state” could not ever be a true, viable state. Many 1SS advocates believe that as this “bantustan” reality becomes more and more irreversible and obvious, the “equality” argument will kick in with increasing force.

        Yet the vast majority of Americans have no idea about this “facts on the ground” reality. They think a real Palestinian “state” is still possible, but is simply not happening (w/various explanations as to why not.) Moreover, it’s not at all clear–or clear how it could be made clear–that a truncated, discontiguous, Palestinian territory could not constitute a Palestinian “state” in a 2SS. Most Americans view Gaza right now as a kind of Palestinian “state” ruled by Hamas.

        They basically see two different peoples in two different territories, fighting over settlements and boundaries, yes–but not two peoples in one state with one of them fighting for equal rights.

        (The issue of Arab-Israeli rights within Israel is really not a salient one in American public opinion, and in any case, unlikely to provoke comparisons with the U.S. civil rights movement or South African anti-apartheid movement– not the least because however deeply discriminated against and oppressed by Jewish-supremacist ideology and practice, Israeli Arabs nevertheless DO have some substantial civil rights.)

      • Citizen
        October 28, 2013, 3:39 am

        @ Sibiriak
        I think if Dick and Jane actually got an education in how the matrix of Israeli laws operate to make Arab Israelis second class citizens, they’d protest. And if they actually got a good dose of the daily lives of Palestinians under seige in Gaza and occupation in the WB, again, they’d protest–in both cases, the dose would have to be given in the context of the cost of Israel to the USA, beginning with the fact Israel, though tiny, gets by far the biggest chunk of total US foreign aid at $8.5 M per day plus interest. That itself would have to be given to them with a calculation of what it could buy in their local community to help the hapless, needy, etc. All of this information is available on the internet, but most Americans have little interest in foreign news unless the mainstream media perks their interest in this matter, and of course, it intentionally does not. If anything the media obfuscates it.

  4. amigo
    October 24, 2013, 11:04 am

    “Europe could play a role in advancing the hopes for a peaceful diplomatic settlement, if it were willing to pursue an independent path. The recent EU decision to exclude West Bank settlements from any future deals with Israel might be a step in this direction. US policies are also not graven in stone, though they have deep strategic, economic, and cultural roots. In the absence of such changes, there is every reason to expect that the picture from the river to the sea will conform to the third option. Palestinian rights and aspirations will be shelved, temporarily at least.”

    Then, it is up to the EU Politicians and BDS and ordinary people/activists to put the zionist entity in it,s place.

    The bin of History.

    That may take 50 years or more but just like South Africa,s Apartheid regime, Israel will fold and will be happy to go back to the 48 lines, in a desperate attempt to avoid losing it all.

    • seafoid
      October 24, 2013, 2:08 pm

      The longer Israel holds off for, the more comprehensive will be the Zionist collapse. The people waiting in the wings to take over from Netanyahu have the potential to destroy TJS.

      • amigo
        October 24, 2013, 3:39 pm

        “The longer Israel holds off for, the more comprehensive will be the Zionist collapse.”seafoid.

        I think the zio psyche is inherently self destructive so you are right and they eventually will go down with the ship.

        Good riddance.

        Hopefully others can learn from their folly.At least they will have served some purpose.

  5. Elliot
    October 24, 2013, 11:12 am

    I want to comment on one observation in this remarkable, packed analysis.

    “It is, however, understandable that the US-Israel would regard an Iranian deterrent as an intolerable threat. It would limit their ability to control the region, by violence if they choose, as they often have. That is the essence of the perceived Iranian threat.”

    I was raised to believe that they 1973 Yom Kippur/October war was an existential threat to the State of Israel. For instance, Moshe Dayan’s famous pronouncement that “the third commonwealth is in jeopardy”. And then I learn just this year, in the 40th anniversary publications, that the Egyptian war plan was to seize a strip east of the Suez Canal in Israeli-held Sinai, just enough to put a dent in Israel’s invincible stature. Their military plan was successful, as was their strategy. Most likely, this opened the Israelis up to the the peace process with Egypt only four years later. But Israel still tells the story of “existential threat.” It’s Jewish melodrama. If we are anything less than invincible, then we are all doomed to annihilation. The Israeli obsession with Iran is about demanding a 100% gurantee for the existing order. Which is not fair and not right.

    • OlegR
      October 24, 2013, 11:29 am

      / that the Egyptian war plan was to seize a strip east of the Suez Canal in Israeli-held Sinai, just enough to put a dent in Israel’s invincible stature/

      It’s a pity they didn’t deliver their war plans to our general staff in advance otherwise we wouldn’t have to worry so much.

      • Elliot
        October 24, 2013, 8:31 pm

        @Oleg – you are either playing the fool or you didn’t read my post to the end.

      • MahaneYehude1
        October 25, 2013, 3:05 pm

        @Elliot: I agree with you that Egypt’s war plan was to seize a strip east of the Suez Canal, but in the first week of the war, Israeli leaders and the Israelis didn’t know about this plan hence the famous Dayan’s declaration. I was a young man in 1973, but I remember the panic among the people.

        I don’t agree that “Israel still tells the story of “existential threat.” I saw many TV programs last month commemorate the 40th anniversary of the war and I don’t think people think today that it was an existential threats. The programs mentioned this phrase only when they want to describe the first week of the war and the feelings among the Israelis.

    • yonah fredman
      October 24, 2013, 11:08 pm

      Elliot- It was my understanding that it was the Syrian army that was the more immediate threat to Israel, as in, they did not have any territory to transverse in order to start conquering Israel, after they had (re)taken the Golan in the first days of the war. The reaction of Dayan to the situation was not “Jewish melodrama”, it was “human melodrama” and maybe not even that, maybe just a human reaction to heavy losses and lack of equipment in the first few days.

      • irishmoses
        October 25, 2013, 11:02 am

        What is interesting to me is why the Syrians stopped when they had a wide open door after their initial success. Was it because they, like the Egyptians, had limited goals: retake control over the Suez Canal, and retake the Golan, or was it just inept leadership on the part of the Syrians?

      • Taxi
        October 25, 2013, 12:26 pm

        irishmoses,
        The Syrians stopped because Sadat pulled the rug from under them by declaring a unilateral ceasefire with israel, suddenly and without consultation or coordination with the Syrians.

        We now know that the real reason Sadat did this was because Golda Meir, upon assessing that israel would lose the ’73 war, threatened the west with the Sampson option: threatened to nuke both Egypt and Russia, dragging thereby the USA into a nuclear confrontation with the USSR. The Americans relayed the message to Sadat and convinced him to immediately declare a unilateral ceasefire so as to avoid Northern Egypt being nuked as well as avoid igniting what would amount to a nuclear warfare between the two superpowers.

      • MahaneYehude1
        October 25, 2013, 3:31 pm

        @taxi: “The Syrians stopped because Sadat pulled the rug from under them…”

        No, Taxi, they stopped only because the Israeli army stopped them in battle field. Israel succeeded only because the Israelis knew they are fighting to defend their home. The Syrians succeeded to control part of the Golan Heights, but were forced to withdraw after Israel sent 3 brigades on October 8th, the third day of the war. Until October 10th, the Syrian army withdrew from the territories they control and from this day, the Israeli army moved east and captured territory inside Syria.

      • Citizen
        October 28, 2013, 3:49 am

        The Syrians felt the ’73 war was lost mainly only because Egypt stabbed them in the back (with the aid of US):
        link to books.google.com

      • yonah fredman
        October 28, 2013, 4:28 am

        I’m totally lost on this one. How did Syria get stabbed in the back? Israel defeated Syria first and then turned its attention to Egypt. Syria was not on the verge of some victory when Egypt sued for peace.

        The cease fire lines after the war show Israel controlling more territory than before in Syria, past the border of the Golan Heights. Though on the Egyptian front Israel reached Km. 101, 101 kilometers away from Cairo, the Egyptians were still on the east side of the Canal at the time of the cease fire.

    • Walid
      October 25, 2013, 2:46 pm

      “And then I learn just this year, in the 40th anniversary publications, that the Egyptian war plan was to seize a strip east of the Suez Canal in Israeli-held Sinai, just enough to put a dent in Israel’s invincible stature.” (Elliot)

      Lots of stuff coming out in this 40th year, Elliot, but lots more is still kept secret; it seems that Israel didn’t really feel it was under an existential threat since it didn’t take the snitch on the coming war seriously. Is it any wonder the Palestinians have been going around in circles for over 65 years; even the Jews did it for only 40 years. From an article last month with more like it in the Independent:

      “Account of King Hussein’s 1973 war warning still deemed too harmful to release

      PM Golda Meir’s testimony on the Yom Kippur War, as declassified Thursday after 40 years, omits all mention of her pivotal meeting in Tel Aviv with Jordan’s monarch

      By Mitch Ginsburg September 12, 2013

      Forty years have passed. Dozens of books have been written. Testimony has been released in large bundles, particularly over the past few years. And yet prime minister Golda Meir’s testimony before the commission of inquiry that investigated the lead-up to and the early days of the Yom Kippur War, released on Thursday, contained at least one glaring omission: There is no mention of the crucial September 25, 1973 meeting between Meir and King Hussein of Jordan, in which the king, fresh from meetings with Arab leaders, warned of war on two fronts.

      Asked whether the Agranat Commission of inquiry had skipped over this meeting back in 1973 or whether it had been deleted from Meir’s testimony as a security precaution in 2013, a Defense Ministry spokesperson said that, “In 2005, Ariel Sharon created a commission responsible for the publication of the Agranat testimonies. The Committee is made up of representatives of the Shin Bet, the Mossad, the IDF and the Censorship unit, and is headed by Justice Yitshak Englehard. On the basis of the harm that may be caused to the security of the State of Israel, the committee decides what to publish.”

      The meeting on the eve of Rosh Hashanah 1973, then, despite the books and the fact that it is detailed on the Golda Meir Memorial Site, is apparently still too dangerous to be spoken of, as far as Israel’s censors are concerned. This is likely related to the current upheaval in the region and the Hashemite dynasty’s ever imperiled hold over Jordan, a country they are not native to.”

      Full article:
      link to timesofisrael.com

  6. Citizen
    October 24, 2013, 11:18 am

    So, in sum, the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East is–the US-Israel “special relationship.” And who secures this obstacle? AIPAC & friends. And nothing will change because congress won’t substantially change the USA’s campaign finance laws.
    Follow the money. The US mainstream media could bring this terrible problem to the attention of John Q Public and/or so could a real American leader, a POTUS willing to go to the bully pulpit over the head of both AIPAC and its whore Congress. But there’s no sign this will ever be done until it’s far too late.

    • yonah fredman
      October 24, 2013, 11:18 pm

      Citizen- Do you propose two different sets of laws, one regarding those who do not favor Israel, who may contribute any amount they want to any campaign, whether they are persons or corporations, and one set of laws for those who favor Israel? (who will be limited as to how and how much they can contribute?) Of course not. There will be one set of laws and the trend is towards more money in politics, due to the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United.

      The role of money in politics is antidemocratic, but it will not change soon, as you yourself note. So it is not only Israel that presents a problem in this regard, but the totality of money in politics. (Maybe you feel that Israel is the most important issue that is effected by money in politics.)

      (And please realize that even if Aipac is turned (back) into a foreign country’s interest group rather than the American group it contends to be, that contributions to congressmen and white house aspirants by individuals will be able to circumvent any change that is demanded of Aipac.)

  7. Taxi
    October 24, 2013, 11:19 am

    One state, two states, what difference does it make when the next regional war will result in israel losing everything it ever stole from the Palestinians, Lebanese, Egyptians, Syrian and Jordanians.

    I am suggesting that it’s an exercise in futility to include israel in the future of the middle east.

    We all know damn well that nothing short of war will change the criminal and unjust status quo that zionists are living off.

    • HarryLaw
      October 24, 2013, 3:56 pm

      I fear you are right Taxi, the sanctions on Iran are supposed to be because of it’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, but since sanctions have been in place since the Iranian revolution in 1979, that is hard to believe. More likely Regime change is the goal, because every day that goes by both Iran and Hezbollah are building stockpiles of rockets capable of reaching every city in Israel, Said Nasrallah has said [he does not brag] that the next war will see his operatives in action in Israel, this is also the reason Regime change in Syria is so important to Israel/US, UK and France, to split the “ark of extremism” as they put it, but that little scheme came unstuck with the help of the UK house of commons, Kerry putting his foot in his mouth again and most important of all the US electorate who according to some members of Congress were 100 to 1 against a war on Syria. So that even without nuclear weapons Iran is an existential threat to Israel’s hegemony, the perverts governing Saudi Arabia also fear this scenario, that is why they are now so apoplectic.

    • JustJessetr
      October 24, 2013, 6:11 pm

      “One state, two states, what difference does it make when the next regional war will result in israel losing everything it ever stole from the Palestinians, Lebanese, Egyptians, Syrian and Jordanians.”

      Yeah. Sure. That’ll happen.

      Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for the gates of Hell to open. link to rt.com

      • talknic
        October 25, 2013, 4:37 am

        @ JustJessetr “Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for the gates of Hell to open”

        Hamas didn’t say they’d open them

      • JustJessetr
        October 25, 2013, 10:01 am

        From the article itself:

        “Hamas vowed to avenge the Israeli strike and the assassination of its military leader Ahmed Jabari….Hamas stated it will carry out a revenge plan on Israel by sending in suicide bombers and declaring a state of open war…The commander’s assassination has “opened the gates of hell,” the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, were quoted by AFP as saying.”

        Please, enlighten me to the difference. And I’m still waiting for the gates to open.

      • Taxi
        October 26, 2013, 5:29 am

        JustJesetr:
        You’re fast asleep at the wheel, buddy. Sweet dreams.

        Warfare rule # 1:
        Never underestimate your enemy.

      • talknic
        October 27, 2013, 1:26 pm

        @ JustJessetr //The commander’s assassination has “opened the gates of hell,” //

        “Please, enlighten me to the difference. And I’m still waiting for the gates to open.”

        “opened” and “waiting for the gates to open” are fundamentally different.

        You’re waiting for what might or might not pass thru the open gates from the Hamas side. Do you think it’s heaven for the Palestinians when Israel’s US aided jackboots pound thru the gates whenever Israel feels like it?

      • JustJessetr
        October 28, 2013, 8:55 am

        I guess that’s why Hamas is on the losing end.

      • talknic
        October 28, 2013, 9:24 am

        @ JustJessetr The war isn’t over smart rrrrrs. The US veto vote in the UNSC will eventually be defeated.

    • yonah fredman
      October 24, 2013, 11:25 pm

      taxi- Once again, is it not fair to ask for a time frame for when you think this regional war that Israel will lose, will take place? You predict it with regularity, would it not be fair to enlighten us when it will take place? 15-30 years? And who will be the major force to defeat Israel? Egypt? Syria? Hezbollah? Iran? Give us a clue. The last regional war took place in 73 and to me it looks like Egypt and Syria, the Arab combatants in that war, are rather busy right now (I would say occupied, but that would be a confusing word.)

      If I or the other readers here are to take your predictions seriously, should you not lend these predictions some strategic or intellectual heft?

      • Taxi
        October 25, 2013, 4:55 am

        Yonah,

        A regional war in the mideast is not a prediction, it’s an inevitability – clear as daylight. When will it happen? When the conditions are ripe, which is to say: it’s a single golden bullet away. Yeah sure the countries surrounding israel are “busy” right now – but these countries all have special units focused singularly on israel and not on their internal crisis/struggles – always have been, and always will be focused on just israel.

        The next regional war will be a war of missiles, multi-directional, coming at israel. This is something that israel already knows it cannot stop or win. There is no need even for Iran to directly get involved, unless israel attacks Iran first. And there are sure signs that the Egyptians will be tearing up the Camp David agreement too. Israel has made sure it has no friends or reliable allies in the region – to its own detriment, evidently. One of the main reasons why America agreed not to attack Syria a couple of months ago, is because of israeli fears over the severe/fatal damage to tel aviv by thousands of missiles that would rain on it from both Syria and hizbollah stations. Not to mention here that Syria’s newly acquired S300′s will kneecap the israeli airforce soon after take-off and before they arrive at the Syrian border.

        Militarily speaking, israel gets weaker by the day, because its neighbors are getting better armed every day.

        Israel’s neighbors are used to living in a war zone, used to rebuilding out of the rubble. Israelis simply are not. How long will most israelis stick around their shelters with no water and no electricity, no work or school and scarce food supplies? Can israel’s (fake) economy survive a thrashing on the state’s infrastructure? A liberation of the Galilee? A liberation of Jerusalem? The utter destruction of tel aviv and every single illegal settlement?

        Yes israel can do serious damage to its neighbors, but it cannot survive the damage that the neighbors are more than capable of inflicting back in return.

        That’s why to me all this banter about 1 state and 2 states is a waste of time. Israel’s neighbors consider this a waste of time too as they know full well that israel is NOT prepared to change ANY of its criminal behaviors; nor is it prepared to pay ANY reparations for their Arab-killing spree that has been going on since 1918. Israel’s neighbors are more than capable of slaying the dragon – they just don’t make a big ding about it. They were ready to do it yesterday, and they’ll be ready to do it every day till the 12th hour arrives.

        And as far as israel’s illegal nukes are concerned, well, they’re obsolete against neighbors like Syria and Lebanon due to their close geographical proximity. And using illegal nukes against Iran or even northern Egypt will NOT guarantee israel’s victory OR its survival. On the contrary, it will only hasten its demise, a demise that will be supported by most of the international community, should israel’s ILLEGAL nukes be used preemptively.

        Since 2006, israel’s military hegemony has been exposed as an hoax. Simply. And the idea of its immortality is profoundly absurd and laughable. Everything eventually changes – this is the realist’s view of the world.

      • Walid
        October 25, 2013, 2:59 pm

        The biggest hoax, Taxi, is what’s called “the Samson Option”. Given that the military that’s threatening to use it is famed for its cowardice and overall fear of dying, it’s hard to conceive how they’d even consider it. Its only merit is in the spooking effect it has on Israel’s allies. As to the axis of something or other on the other side of the equation, they are perplexed at which of the two they should be laughing the most about because of this bogus scare, the Israelis or the Americans.

      • Eurosabra
        October 28, 2013, 6:44 pm

        What you are proposing–unleashing destruction sufficient to involve regional-level weapons–will impose a massive, immediate disaster on the Galilee, the Golan, southern Lebanon, and the northern West Bank, and their Palestinian populations, merely because of the effects of the weaponry employed and its relative inaccuracy. This will be compounded by the disruption of emergency services. I say this as someone with an intimate knowledge of how emergency services operate in the area. It is quite a high price to pay. Interested to see if this gets through.

      • Taxi
        October 28, 2013, 11:32 pm

        Eurosabra,

        I’m not “proposing”, my dear. I’m putting the facts on the table. And your map of “immediate disaster” doesn’t include everywhere between tel aviv and eliat – and it should. And just so you know, hizbollah weapons are not ‘inaccurate’:

      • Taxi
        October 29, 2013, 12:48 am

        The condensed version:

      • Taxi
        October 29, 2013, 1:10 am

        Run that by me again: who won the 2006 war?

      • talknic
        October 25, 2013, 4:57 am

        @ yonah fredman You seem to think that war is only violence.

        ” And who will be the major force to defeat Israel? “

        Who? Maybe the truth. That’s why Israel tries so hard to deny it.

        The internet allows people to check and the Hasbara is full of gaping holes.

        Drip drip…. A few years ago there was no BDS buddy

      • yrn
        October 25, 2013, 6:41 am

        talknic
        “You seem to think that war is only violence.”
        Read Taxi
        That’s the reality in the ME.

        Yes…… you know better war is flower power……

      • Walid
        October 25, 2013, 3:06 pm

        “” And who will be the major force to defeat Israel? “

        That’s an easy one to answer, talknic, it will be a force from within Israel. This country is decaying from the inside out and it’s just a matter of time before it self-destructs. The cheers you are hearing is coming from the Israeli Palestinians in the bleachers.

      • OlegR
        October 25, 2013, 4:45 pm

        /This country is decaying from the inside out and it’s just a matter of time before it self-destructs. /

        A bit of wish full thinking , but that’s fine i don’t mind.

      • talknic
        October 27, 2013, 1:32 pm

        @ yrn The reality is Israel can only do what it does with impunity while it has the US veto vote in the UNSC. The truth has the capacity to strip that away over time. Why do you think the lobby squeaks so loudly in the US?

    • Inanna
      October 25, 2013, 1:54 am

      You’re right Taxi. Destiny is going to fulfil all of Israel’s fears – demographic fears, regional fears, existential fears. All that guilt from Israel’s wrong-doing comes out as fear. In the course of time, all those Israel has wronged will make Israelis’ fears come true. And all the words written and spoken about which state solution is better will be 7aki fadi.

      • MahaneYehude1
        October 25, 2013, 2:52 pm

        @Taxi and Inanna: For the first time, I want to thank you both for your sincere comments. No, I am not sarcastic or cynic, I really thank you for telling your thoughts.

      • Taxi
        October 25, 2013, 3:29 pm

        You can thank me by denouncing the idf as an immoral, terrorist army; and zionism as racist jewish colonialism. And you’d make me and millions of people super happy if you got out of Palestine, in a peaceful, honorable and enlightened manner.

      • MahaneYehude1
        October 26, 2013, 9:06 am

        @Taxi: No, please, don’t mistake. I have no intention to leave my homeland, the Jewish state of Israel. I thanked you in my former comment for telling us the truth and your sincere wishes for the state of Israel.

        BTW, before you are spreading your predictions about the future of Israel, I strongly recommend you to read “The Territorial Imperative” by Robert Ardrey (1966) and learn that we can stand the wars not because our army is better or because the world politics – all of this is 7aki fadi, if Inanna allows me to use his phrase. We stand the wars only because we defend our homes and our families.

      • Taxi
        October 26, 2013, 11:02 am

        The downfall of Apartheid israel is not a prediction, it’s an inevitability, my dear.

        Occupied Palestine is not your country, never was and never will be. We’ll just have to wait and see how much war you can take – judging by the public panic over gas masks in israel two months ago, during the peak of the Syria crisis, I’d say bravado, even biblical bravado, won’t serve you right whatsoever when the sh*t hits the fan. I really advise you have plan B ready – you just never know what life has in store for you, especially during payback season.

      • Inanna
        October 27, 2013, 4:51 am

        Don’t thank me. That comment of mine comes from seeing the self-destructive path that Israel is on, one that you cannot see since you are so inside your fears you can’t step back and see what is really going on. You can’t see what you need to do right now to bring about real peace – the delusion of zionism will blind you until it’s too late. Israel will go the way of all other settler-colonial city-states in the Middle East. They all perished due to their own internal contradictions, the incredible amount of resources required to maintain themselves in a hostile environment and the eventual loss of external support that made their existence possible.

      • MahaneYehude1
        October 27, 2013, 4:58 pm

        @Taxi: I agree with you that you never know what life has in store for us, so I recommend you to tone down your arrogant comments which remind me several Arab leaders like Gamal Abdel-Nasser.

        I wonder why do you use the public panic over gas masks in Israel. The panic was caused by the horrors we saw on TV news that showed Syrian citizens hurt by chemical weapons by their own regime. Many Israelis thought that if the Syrian regime has no problem to kill its citizens, it will not hesitate to attack Israeli civilians randomly. I, instead of you, would not use this horrific massacre and war crime (that you call Syria crisis) as an example to support any claim.

        I agree with you that occupied Palestine is not my country, never was and never will be. My country and homeland is the Jewish state of Israel. A land in which my children and my grandchildren to come will live and build and will continue the Zionist legacy.

        I already recommended you in the past to stop advise us what to do and, instead, look at your sack of problems and try to improve at least part of them. Shukran!!!
        link to mondoweiss.net

      • MahaneYehude1
        October 27, 2013, 5:19 pm

        @Inanna: I am sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t see the self-destructive path that Israel is on, not because I am inside my fears but because there is no such path, only in your imagination. Your mistake, hence your delusional prediction, is that you think that we are a settler-colonial state. When you start realize that there is here a people on his homeland, people that has connection to this piece of land exactly like your people, your melody will be changed, hopefully toward peace instead destruction and wars. Inshallah!!!

      • Taxi
        October 28, 2013, 4:15 am

        Mehane,

        None of the holy land is yours. It is ALL Arab land, Palestinian land, to be more precise, for Palestinian jews, Palestinian christians and Palestinian moslems. And it will be liberated, yes in your lifetime. Best your children and grandchildren are not living in the war zone come the 12th hour. Best for all your family and friends to keep their second passports handy.

        Best for you to ween yourself off zionism: the biggest and most lethal enemy of judaism.

    • yrn
      October 25, 2013, 4:16 am

      This is exactly what Egypt and Syria thought before October 1973
      Where is Syria and Egypt Now.

      • Walid
        October 25, 2013, 3:26 pm

        “This is exactly what Egypt and Syria thought before October 1973
        Where is Syria and Egypt Now.”

        Egypt and Syria were doing fine until they were sold a bill of goods by the Americans that made them stop. So were the Saudis that had set the oil embargo in motion that after a year was wrecking the Western world’s economy, again until the US pulled a fast one over the Saudis’ eyes by promising them them that if they’d lift the embargo, they resolve the Palestinians’ problems with the Israelis. That was a big lie as nothing happened after the embargo was lifted.

        So as you surely could see, the Arabs on all fronts were winning until the Americans made them all these bogus promises. Well, one of them sort of worked out a couple of years later on returning the Sinai in exchange of a peace treaty and an annuity of 1.2 billion to the Egyptians. The rest were empty promises. Paroles, paroles:

    • yrn
      October 25, 2013, 4:35 am

      Taxi represents the Arab Muslim thinking.
      This is the real truth, this is what the the Arab Muslim countries always wanted in the first place,not 1967 not 1948 but everything inch of land Jews ever owned in Israel.

      Most Arab Muslims think exactly like her,I really believe every word she says, at list she is no hiding it and sells it with hypocrite rhetoric like Barghouti & Co.
      all those post-non Zionist should read her words, as they fall into the rhetoric of Barghouti & Co, that tries to picture the situation in the “pseudo liberal” rhetoric they would like to hear.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 25, 2013, 1:58 pm

        Arab Muslim countries always wanted in the first place,not 1967 not 1948 but everything inch of land Jews ever owned in Israel.

        by the same token i could easily say that’s what israel founders, and zionists today always wanted in the first place, not 1967 not 1948 but everything inch of Palestinian land. so are you a hypocrite or are you going to admit it? and then tell me why you are not over on the ethnic cleansing sites arguing w/ zionists to stop their rhetoric. the ones not hiding it and sells it with hypocrite rhetoric like ‘liberal’ zionists & Co.

      • yrn
        October 26, 2013, 4:41 pm

        Annie Robins
        on June 29, 2013 you write.
        “don’t ever listen to their lying words, look at their actions. they are growing, expanding. that is their intention, obviously. they use the fog of violence and war as their excuse to expand. that is the plan, and they will likely not stop at the british mandate borders, they will just use an excuse to capture more and more from jordan/lebanon and syria”

        on June 30, 2013 I answer:
        please enlighten my knowledge and send links or other information of the hidden plans of the Zionist Jews “to capture more and more from jordan/lebanon and syria ” ?

        and then you answer :
        does anyone have a geographical description of eretz israel available?

        And you are still waiting for someone to answer?
        So make up your mind.

        Israeli Zionist like me “Today” as you mention, want the borders of 1967 and have a Palestinian free and independent state.
        Your “Hidden Zionist Agenda”, fits Taxi Agenda.
        You don’t want the same outcome and solution as Taxi.

      • Hostage
        October 27, 2013, 6:58 am

        please enlighten my knowledge and send links or other information of the hidden plans of the Zionist Jews “to capture more and more from jordan/lebanon and syria ” ?

        and then you answer :
        does anyone have a geographical description of eretz israel available?

        And you are still waiting for someone to answer?
        So make up your mind.

        Jabotinsky was the Propaganda Minister of the Zionist Organization when it started a campaign to complain that Transjordan had been excluded from the Mandate and that both banks of the Jordan were an integral part of Eretz Israel and the Jewish homeland. See Yaacov Shavit, Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Movement 1925-1948, link to books.google.com

        That remained the position of the Zionist Organization. In 1946 the Jewish Agency spokesmen complained about plans for independence and claimed that Transjordan was an indivisible part of the Mandate. They said the Jewish people had a reserved right to the territory and that its independence violated Article 80 of the UN Charter. See “Mandate is Indivisible: Jewish Agency Objections to Severance of [Trans-Jordan] T-J”, Palestine Post, Apr 9, 1946, Page 3 in the Historical Jewish Press Archives. link to jpress.org.il

        The Jewish Agency successfully lobbied the US Congress and the State Department to block any recognition or UN membership for Transjordan:

        In view of application of Trans-Jordan for membership in UN received July 5, we have to establish our attitude without delay and I am sending memorandum to President requesting his views. I should appreciate knowing your thoughts in advance of beginning of SC Committee discussion on membership on July 15.
        As you are aware, we have had correspondence with Senator Myers regarding Trans-Jordan and he has introduced resolution containing request that executive take no action in any way recognizing Trans-Jordan as separate or independent state and that US representative on UN be instructed to seek postponement of international determination of status of Trans-Jordan area until future status of Palestine as a whole will be determined.
        We also have received a long detailed legal argument from Rabbis Wise and Silver [on behalf of the Jewish Agency for Palestine] objecting to independence of Trans-Jordan.

        –See Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. General; the United Nations Volume I, Page 411 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
        The Secretary of State did exactly what Senator Myers requested. See –Minutes of the 57th Session of the Security Council, S/PV.57 pages 100-101 (pdf file pgs 3-4 of 52) link to un.org

        In his infamous letter to his son Amos in 1937 Ben Gurion said that he intended to use military force to colonize Transjordan:

        But if we are compelled to use force – not in order to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev or Transjordan, but in order to guarantee our right to settle there – our force will enable us to do so.

        link to docstoc.com

        Ben Gurion wrote editorials which explained that the Jewish people have always regarded, and will continue to regard Palestine as a whole, as a single country which is theirs in a national sense and will become theirs once again. See “The Jews”, David Ben Gurion, The Palestine Post, Thursday, July 15, 1937, Page:5 link to jpress.org.il

        Even Zionist historians admit that:

        As a historian of Zionism, Gideon, you must know Ben-Gurion’s words in the 20th Zionist Congress in 1937 (this time in Zurich not in Basel): ‘If I had been faced with the question: a Jewish state in the west of the land of Israel (note the emphasis of the ‘west of the land of Israel’ meaning there is also a ‘east of the land of Israel’) in return to giving up on our historical right to the entire land of Israel I would have postponed the (establishment) of the state’. And he added (as far as I know, to applause from many of the delegates): ‘No Jew is entitled to give up the right of the Jewish nation to the land. It is not in the authority of any Jew or of any Jewish body; it is not even in the authority of the entire nation alive today to give up any part of the land’.

        –– Israel Harel, Jewish Quarterly, Winter 2007, Number 208, link to jewishquarterly.org

      • Bing Bong
        October 27, 2013, 9:27 am

        Are you still using the flawed Institute of Palestine Studies translation and transcription that has been proved to be incorrect? Why? I even gave you a new and original translation by Hebrew speakers after you cack handedly tried to make your own using OCR software and Google translate.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        You were shown to be wrong, why are you continuing to promote a distortion while in the same thread claiming a Jewish conspiracy of doing the same regarding information about Israel/Palestine?

      • Hostage
        October 27, 2013, 1:28 pm

        Are you still using the flawed Institute of Palestine Studies translation and transcription that has been proved to be incorrect? Why?

        I’ve already pointed out that the Ben Gurion estate owned the rights and helped publish the version CAMERA challenged. This particular portion about colonizing Transjordan by force is the same in all of the versions and hasn’t been redacted or challenged by CAMERA. It even stipulates that the use of force to colonize those territories is “not in order to dispossess the Arabs.” It’s still illegal to use military force against the territory of another state. A better question would be: Why are you still so deliberately ignorant about this subject?

      • Taxi
        October 25, 2013, 2:52 pm

        yrn,

        You really are a trashed-out bugger, aren’t you? I’ve met bikini-clad christian ladies on the beaches of Beirut who would not even think twice about throttling isrealis with their bare manicured hands, for all the killing and destruction that israel has dumped on their country. You’re a terrible islamophobe, assigning Arab rage as singularly “muslim”. It isn’t. Arab hatred of israel is not due to religion, but due to the continuing heinous crimes of colonialist isreal. And the natives ain’t gonna just forgive and forget at this stage, cuz they simply don’t trust a single word that comes out of the lying, thieving, mass murdering israelis. They will war with israel till the end cuz israel has left them no other choice but to be ready for war.

        And I don’t believe that the BDS movement is useless. Different people fight using different weapons and some weapons are of the non-violent kind, such as BDS. I supoort BDS and I will support the military war against isreal when it finally arrives. I support all methods of fighting racist ethnic cleansing and colonialism.

        I’ll remind you here too that cultural “Arab” presence in the holy land is older than 1700 years – uninterrupted. You’re not gonna be able to wipe all that Arabness off the map in just 64 years of colonialism and land theft. The natives will never let you live in peace while you’re committing crimes against them on a daily basis. You are not the victim and you deserve to be punished for all your crimes against all your neighbors.

        Now go away with your amateur script, your stupid attempt at using my analysis as islamophobic propaganda. Israel has NEVER EVER EVER EVER wanted peace and the whole frigging world knows this by now.

      • yrn
        October 28, 2013, 5:33 am

        Show me One Christian Arab Country.
        There is None, your attempt to push everything to islamophobe is pathetic, as this is the reality, All Arab country’s are Muslim and Lebanon the only one that had once a Christian majority is now is now 59.7% Muslim and 39% Christian, Over the past 60 years, there has been a steady decline in the ratio of Christians to Muslims, due to higher emigration rates of Christians.
        Imagine why ?

      • Hostage
        October 29, 2013, 6:34 am

        Show me One Christian Arab Country. There is None, your attempt to push everything to islamophobe is pathetic, as this is the reality, All Arab country’s are Muslim and Lebanon the only one that had once a Christian majority is now is now 59.7% Muslim and 39% Christian,

        That’s a non-sequitur and your tautological analysis simply repeats that error. Nothing prevents a Christian from being an Arab and a head of state, member of Parliament, or Provisional State Government Executive Committee member, like Michel Suleiman the President of Lebanon, or Hanan Ashrawi, member of the PLO Executive and member of the Palestinian Parliament.

      • eljay
        October 29, 2013, 8:15 am

        >> Show me One Christian Arab Country.

        Why should a country exist as a “Christian Arab” state? That would be as supremacist as a “Jewish State”.

        >> … All Arab country’s [sic] are Muslim …

        The solution is for those countries to transform from “Muslim countries” into secular, democratic and egalitarian nations of and for all their respective citizens, equally. The solution is not to create a supremacist “Jewish State”.

  8. pabelmont
    October 24, 2013, 11:20 am

    Who’s afraid of the big bad wolf (1SS)?

    Yuval Diskin says: 1SS would be “an immediate existential threat of the erasure of the identity of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state”. Well, yes, and there is already a 1SS, and there is already NOT a J&D State. What there is is an apartheid state.

    Thanks, Yuval Diskin, you have finally explained that phrase, which Israeli leaders usually SHORTEN to “existential threat to Israel”. All you mean is that if there is a democratic, non-discriminatory 1SS, that One-State (although it will be jes’ fine, jes’ fine! apart from a loss of Jewish domination over the Arab population) will NOT BE “a Jewish and democratic state”.

    You are not saying “throw the Jews into the sea” (which the words “existential threat” sort of suggest), you are just saying that the character of the state of Israel will change.

    Well, my goodness gracious, my stars and garters, yes indeed, Israel may well change, but whether it does or not, it is NOT NOW “a Jewish and democratic state” because it sure isn’t “democratic” (read GOLIATH) and in many ways it is not “Jewish” either.

  9. Mndwss
    October 24, 2013, 11:21 am

    What Comes Next?

    A peacekeeping machine?

    We could send in Jan Egeland! The United Nations superhero man. The peacekeeping machine..

    Gray hair
    Glasses
    Suitcase
    Humble
    Clever
    And constantly working for peace
    Uganda
    Congo
    And the Oslo treaty plan
    Oh my God, what a plan
    Not as famous as Gahr Støre
    Not a daddy’s boy like Jens
    But when handgrenades are flying
    There’s just one man you can trust
    When there’s war and all is hell
    Send in Jan Egeland!

  10. irishmoses
    October 24, 2013, 11:27 am

    Brilliant as always, Chomsky points out that there is a third option already in place that makes both a 2SS or a democratic 1SS irrelevant. As I have been saying for awhile, there is an existing apartheid 1SS in place and it has largely been in place since 1967. The past 46 years have been nothing more than gradual consolidation of that solution; the Greater Israel solution.

    I also think the so-called “demographic threat” is largely bogus. It is already being solved in two ways: Increasing oppressive pressure in the West Bank, with NGO activist activity and publicity being slowly shut down and shut off, will cause more and more Palestinians to leave as any international support for their plight dries up. The current separation of Gaza from the West Bank will be made permanent making Gaza a separate “nation” thereby excluding its Palestinian citizens from the demographic count. Those other pesky Palestinians, waiting impatiently in refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, have already been excluded from that critical demographic count. That will leave just 2.8 million West Bank Palestinians to count (or “vote”) in the future charade of an expanded Greater Democratic Israel. Once they get all the details in place, and cut off all access to any bad acts and bad publicity, it won’t even look like apartheid.

    I recommend a 12 step program for those involved in the “What Comes Next” debate. Step number one is admitting your “debate” is fanciful and irrelevant as it ignores the permanence of what is really going on.

    I suspect Palestinians may soon conclude that their only remaining choice is to return to violence, as in ‘give me freedom or give me death’. Death, unfortunately, will be the likely fate for most, and success a real long shot.

    • ritzl
      October 24, 2013, 7:16 pm

      Yeah, I sure wish that as part of this series, there would be a definition of terms. But that’s a whole discussion in and of itself.

      This is a really good article, but what does Chomsky have pictured in his head when he says stuff like, “Except in stages, the one-state option is an illusion.”. It seems to conflict with the several paragraphs just above it.

      As you say, Chomsky’s “illusion” is the current, inescapable reality, for as far as the eye can see. It’s hard to tell how his analysis/opinion squares with that reality. One state simply IS, barring some massive change in world/US/Israeli perceptions. There’s no illusion about it. What is he wishing for?

      It sure seems that long time, lonely, courageous voices for doing what’s right, like Chomsky and Finkelstein, are having a hard time acknowledging that events have passed them by. And that the pace is accelerating. They almost seem wistful, at this point, for the “Israel that could have been.” It’s understandable, given the massive energy and effect they have put into the doing-what’s-right process, but it’s almost like they’re trying to rewrite recorded history using terms that don’t exist/have meaning anymore.

      • Hostage
        October 24, 2013, 8:05 pm

        This is a really good article, but what does Chomsky have pictured in his head when he says stuff like, “Except in stages, the one-state option is an illusion.”. It seems to conflict with the several paragraphs just above it.

        He has been writing about a bi-national federal state, since the 1960s and getting criticized from the PLO and Israel since at least the 1970s for doing that. Many people who propose a 1ss have not passed him by, they are just now catching up.

        He has been explaining the terms used in this article and the idea of implementing the 2ss as the first step to the formation of a federal bi-national state, since at least 2004. See Advocacy and Realism: A reply to Noah Cohen, ZNet, August 26, 2004 link to chomsky.info

      • ritzl
        October 24, 2013, 9:41 pm

        @Hostage I get that he is and has been thinking binational as a future antecedent for a long time. That has been wholly rational and reasonable. But now he seems to be in the mode of trying to overlay that on current conditions. It’s an arguable position at best, and as in this article it comes across as an unadjusted starting point.

        That’s not a criticism of the man or what he has represented or done. There was a time when his PoV made so much sense, should it have been implemented. It is vanishingly unlikely that it will be implemented now. I don’t know how you get from GoI desire/inertia of unobstructed WB assimilation and cleansing, to even a modest binational “step” toward something other than an absolute and near-term one state.

        He seems to be acknowledging that two states is past, and one state is the future, but only in steps. There are no “steps” involved, imho, barring, based on your comments on the legal basis, some precipitating event that ensures some pressured, finite, interim, and importantly, concretely-advanceable arrangement. That’s a lot of ifs to go into an analysis from someone of such stature, though this conflict is nothing but what might be.

      • irishmoses
        October 24, 2013, 10:37 pm

        Ritzl said:

        ****” I don’t know how you get from GoI desire/inertia of unobstructed WB assimilation and cleansing, to even a modest binational “step” toward something other than an absolute and near-term one state.”****

        I think what’s missing in much of the analysis on this thread is the issue of leverage. There is a lot of wishful thinking that seems to ignore the incredible power of the lobby/Israel juggernaut. They have money, brains, discipline and a massive organization that has been in place since what, the 1920s, and has stronger and powerful every year. I personally find it very difficult to imagine a scenario that’s going to change things much. I think anything we think might happen or might be done to change the course of this ocean liner is or has been already gamed out with all the necessary responses and pressures ready to go. You may dislike revisionist Zionism, but you shouldn’t underestimate its power.

        An example: A rights-based approach vs. the current dispute approach poses a major threat to Greater Israel Zionism. They knew that and planned carefully to overcome it by stressing and insisting on Israel being recognized as a Jewish state. Once you accept that proposition, which probably seems like a no-brainer to most Jews and even non-Jews, the rights of Palestinians no longer seem so vital. Please tell me how you are going to convince US Jews to give up the icon of Israel as the Jewish state, the Jewish lifeboat in favor of rights for Palestinians? It will work only on the margins, on MW, but never in the Jewish mainstream; its too visceral an issue.

        But, you say, Jews fought harder than anybody in our civil rights movement. True, but defending and enhancing civil rights for blacks also helped and enhanced civil rights for Jews so there was no conflict. Not true for Israel. There is a huge conflict for US Jews when it comes to protecting the rights of Palestinians. Maybe that’s why so many Jews avoid any discussion of it.

        I suspect a return to violence will soon be seen as the only remaining course for the Palestinians. Think Algeria, think Vietnam. On the other hand you gotta know the Israelis are fully prepared for that one as well: militarily, politically, and hasbarically.

        Pretty glum picture in my view.

      • Hostage
        October 24, 2013, 11:54 pm

        @Hostage I get that he is and has been thinking binational as a future antecedent for a long time. That has been wholly rational and reasonable. But now he seems to be in the mode of trying to overlay that on current conditions. It’s an arguable position at best, and as in this article it comes across as an unadjusted starting point.

        First of all, its the PLO and its supporters who have changed their national agenda from the demand for a single state to a two state solution, and then back again. The need to accommodate changing Palestinian national aspirations created the current situation. Chomsky is simply dealing with that reality.

        He has always argued that there isn’t any workable way to divide-up the territory west of the river into viable independent states. Even the UN Commission and Ad Hoc Committee admitted that much in 1947. They based their entire “Plan for the Future Government of Palestine on: complete regional economic integration, economic union and transit between the two states, revenue sharing, establishment of a common currency and common network of roads, ports, and communications, a regional minority protection plan, international supervision of that bi-national economic plan and program.

        The UN also rejected the idea that Palestine could be used to solve the Jewish Question, without violating the rights of the non-Jewish sector of the population in both of the proposed States and unfairly diverting natural resources needed by the existing population.

        So Chomsky is just repeating what everyone has said from the very beginning. The two state solution is completely unworkable, except as a confidence building measure or intermediate step towards a bi-national federal state and regional economic union between the two peoples. He never really changed his position at all. Nearly everyone else either has, or is in the process, of going full circle from 1ss-to-2ss-back-to-the 1ss.

      • Obsidian
        October 25, 2013, 12:09 am

        @Hostage

        “First of all, its the PLO and its supporters who have changed their national agenda from the demand for a single state to a two state solution, and then back again.”

        So once the PLO/PA’s demand for two-States is fulfilled, they’ll go back and demand a single State?

      • yrn
        October 25, 2013, 4:23 am

        Obsidian

        So once the PLO/PA’s demand for two-States is fulfilled, they’ll go back and demand a single State?

        That’s great logic…… he sits in the US and things that the kids in the ME will play switching chairs in their spare time.

        There is no limit to stupidity.

      • Hostage
        October 25, 2013, 7:03 am

        So once the PLO/PA’s demand for two-States is fulfilled, they’ll go back and demand a single State?

        No. Abbas and the PLO have repeatedly stated, that if the stalemate and settlement construction continues, they will give Israel the keys to the Muqata and demand citizenship in Israel and the vote.

      • Hostage
        October 26, 2013, 11:24 am

        That’s great logic…… he sits in the US and things that the kids in the ME will play switching chairs in their spare time. There is no limit to stupidity.

        Let’s review: The Zionists Organization was led by a pair of Jews, Weizmann and Sokolow, at the Versailles Peace Conference. When the US Secretary of State asked what they wanted, they opted for incorporation of their national home in Palestine. They both claimed that they didn’t need their own Jewish government or State. The United States government accepted that proposition and ratified the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention.

        Then the Zionist Organization changed its mind and adopted the Biltmore program, during a meeting held here in the USA. They demanded the establishment of a Jewish state in all of Palestine.

        Next the Zionist Organization changed its mind again and traveled to the USA where they asked the UN to partition Palestine into two States, one for the Arab majority and one for the Jewish minority. The USA voted in favor of partitioning Palestine in 1948. It also formally recognized the subsequent political union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan.

        By the Reagan era, the US government publicly opposed the creation of an Arab State in Palestine. Then during the Bush II era it changed its policy once again and backed the Performance based Road Map for a two state solution. Once again, the Zionist Organization and Israel have changed their mind and are demanding that the USA refuse to recognize the State of Palestine, even after the UNESCO and General Assembly votes. Members of your Knesset are writing Op-Eds saying that the two state solution is dead.

        It appears that stupidity is contagious and that the Zionists are responsible for unleashing the plague on Palestine in the first place.

      • talknic
        October 26, 2013, 11:51 am

        yrn says:
        “There is no limit to stupidity”

        Like there is no limit to the lack of research done by zionnutter posters

        Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become “as Jewish as England is English.” His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.’ In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims “the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development.”

        It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government. link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        The Zionists later changed their mind, demanding a Jewish state, robbing folk of the opportunity settling anywhere in Palestine link to wp.me

  11. seafoid
    October 24, 2013, 11:48 am

    I think one of the reasons that Israel is SUCH a car crash and that the Diaspora has not been able to do anything whatsoever to stem the moral decline of TJS is that the end of Zionism will be trigger a major crisis for Judaism. If the return to Zion turns into a meltdown what does that mean for Jewish Scripture and the version of the religion presented by the rabbis? Christianity and Islam have the advantage of being next world related but the Jewish Shangri la may appear in this life and the people in Kiryat Arba deludedly think they are going to hasten it.

    I understand the reluctance to interfere with this cosmic stuff and I think it explains why Israeli Jewish reluctance to go anywhere near the 1SS in the name of protection of unfair and injust economic privilege is given such a hearing.

  12. AlGhorear
    October 24, 2013, 11:52 am

    The other option is that Israel will continue to expand and make life so difficult for the Palestinians that they’ll eventually be squeezed out of the remaining land, creating a “self-transfer”. Travel through the West Bank in 2003 was difficult with the countless checkpoints, now it’s even worse with the expansion of the wall. Just look at the growing number of checkpoints in East Jerusalem that make travel between Palestinian communities uncertain at times and impossible at others. I think Israel’s goal is to completely separate and strangle West Bank villages so commerce is impossible and then add in denial of international aid, making life nearly impossible, same as in Gaza. The goal is to squeeze out the Palestinians, slowly but surely and then move on to taking more of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Then it’s on to the remaining non-Jewish population of Israel. I had some hope during Obama’s first term, but despite his promising speeches, Obama has shown no backbone and actually even further emboldened Israel with his actions and inaction. I must be having a bad morning…

    • MHughes976
      October 24, 2013, 12:22 pm

      The programme of ‘living without a solution and waiting to see who leaves’, which I first encountered in the late Richard Ben Cramer’s ‘How Israel Lost’ does indeed tend to where IM points, perhaps even to the reconstruction of the kingdom attributed to Solomon which is what AlG envisages. But the Palestinians are still there and I don’t think that the programme is really working out, not yet.
      The debate over 1SS and 2SS has two features – one concerning justice and the other concerning realism. To say that the Third Option – living without a solution until the Palestinians leave – is the only one actually being pursued or likely to be pursued is to say that pursuit of both 1SS and 2SS is quite unrealistic. This implies that there is no point in recommending one over the other from the point of view of what is possible and attainable. That does not make the question of what would be just completely beside the point because justice should never be forgotten. But I agree that there’s considerable danger in for ever debating whether the Palestinians should have 100% or 5% when 0% is all that is actually in prospect.

      • AlGhorear
        October 24, 2013, 1:30 pm

        True the Palestinians have remained steadfast in the face of so much oppression and injustice and that’s to be commended and supported. But I would say that in the current situation, arguing about which solution is more readily attainable or realistic is like arguing about which card the Palestinians should play, when Israel is holding the entire deck. Unless there’s a sea change in attitude and position by the US Government (the lobby collapses, the media does an about face, Obama recovers his spine), or by Israel (even less likely), then neither solution is remotely realistic or attainable, never mind just.

      • seafoid
        October 24, 2013, 3:07 pm

        Most palestinians are not going to leave because they understand 1948. Living in a slum abroad is not going to beat living in Palestine and who leaves is not allowed back. Zionism is transient. For third world populations it is not as if most are ever going to share in the consumer society anyway. Zionism has nothng to offer them and the arab world doesn’t want them either.

      • MHughes976
        October 24, 2013, 5:24 pm

        I don’t think either solution looks attainable at the moment, as AlG remarks. But I do think that the 1SS, were it ever to be attained, would provide some justice and a better world for all concerned, Jewish people very much included.

      • irishmoses
        October 25, 2013, 11:14 am

        Cramer’s “How Israel Lost” is a great piece of work, despite its informality. His analysis of Barak’s supposed great offer that was supposedly refused by an incalcitrant Arafat is brilliant as is his analysis of the political situation in Israel. His was a great loss.

      • Walid
        October 25, 2013, 4:10 pm

        “His was a great loss.” (irishmoses)

        The details of his death pointng to Israel with a little help from his friends were awful and no man should be taken out that way, but as to being a great loss, this is debatable. The man is gone and may he rest in peace, but it should be noted that overall, he had more liabilities than assets.

      • seafoid
        October 25, 2013, 4:40 pm

        Walid

        Whoever led the Palestinians or indeed any other oppressed people would have had a very weak hand with Israel nearby. Name a decent Arab leader over the last 40 years. Or even one that wasn’t corrupt.
        Giving the bots enough rope to hang themselves will probably turn out to have been inspired.

      • MHughes976
        October 25, 2013, 5:12 pm

        I think IM is referring to Ben Cramer, Walid to Arafat.

      • irishmoses
        October 25, 2013, 7:13 pm

        Walid said:

        ****”The details of his death pointng to Israel with a little help from his friends were awful and no man should be taken out that way, but as to being a great loss, this is debatable. The man is gone and may he rest in peace, but it should be noted that overall, he had more liabilities than assets.”****

        Walid, I’m not aware of any of those controversies. Anything you could refer me to?

    • irishmoses
      October 24, 2013, 11:07 pm

      AlGhorear said:

      ****”The other option is that Israel will continue to expand and make life so difficult for the Palestinians that they’ll eventually be squeezed out of the remaining land, creating a “self-transfer”.”****

      Bingo. You see the plan; I only wish you were just having a bad morning. It is painful for me as an ill-informed bystander to watch this happen. I can’t imagine the emotions and helplessness you must feel.

      • Walid
        October 25, 2013, 4:19 pm

        Every morning is a bad morning for Palestinians.

  13. Kathleen
    October 24, 2013, 12:45 pm

    Prof Mearsheimer has been saying much of this for at least 12 years.

    The apartheid state will become even more visible.

    Has Chomsky spoken out about the illegal settlements over the decades that they have expanded?

    • Hostage
      October 24, 2013, 2:15 pm

      Has Chomsky spoken out about the illegal settlements over the decades that they have expanded?

      Yes, of course. For example, The Chomsky Reader, 1987, page 291 criticized the United States government for blocking sanctions against Israel, despite the fact that the Carter administration had repeatedly declared the settlements illegal.

      Contrary to Jeffrey Blankfort’s theory, I don’t think that observation was made by someone determined to keep Israel and Israelis from being punished or inconvenienced for the many monumental transgressions that even Blankfort acknowledges Chomsky has personally documented over the years.

      Chomsky even has an mp3 album on Amazon: “All Israeli Settlements Are Illegal”. link to amazon.com

      • Walid
        October 25, 2013, 4:29 pm

        “Contrary to Jeffrey Blankfort’s theory, I don’t think that observation was made by someone determined to keep Israel and Israelis from being punished or inconvenienced for the many monumental transgressions …”

        Despite many Israelis and other Jews openly campaigning for justice for the Palestinians at the apparent expense of Israelis, I’ve yet to meet anyone or read any any of them actually rooting for Israel to be severely punished. How many of those justice-seeking Jews would agree to have the Jews of Israel expelled to make room for the returning Palestinians? The first to object would be Avnery.

  14. HarryLaw
    October 24, 2013, 1:20 pm

    Professor Chomsky is correct the one state option is being implemented now, the Israeli state between the river and the sea, by that I mean area C, 60% of the West Bank now being administered and annexed in a de facto sense by Israel, which has just 5% of the West Bank Palestinian population, a figure easily absorbed into a greater Israel, and could easily be administratively whittled down more if required, what’s left after Israel has taken all the best land and water, is where the Palestinians come in, they will be left with [as the Professor say's] cantons, these will be huge concessions from the Israelis of course who remember will be sacrificing the “land of Israel” to let these ingrates stay, provided they keep their heads down, when David Bar-Illan, then director of communications and policy planning in Netanyahu’s office, was asked about Palestinian statehood, he answered “Semantics don’t matter. If Palestinian sovereignty is limited enough so that we feel safe, call it fried chicken.”

    • seafoid
      October 24, 2013, 3:13 pm

      Zionism won’t give them anything, not even cantonised islands. That is Zionism’s achilles heel. They want it all. They think they can have it all.L’oreal. Because Jews are worth it.
      And they propose to run apartheid on dead memes.

      And if semantics did not matter zionist jews would be cool about apartheid. And they are not. Pathological narcissism means they need us to love them when we can’t possibly.

    • Citizen
      October 24, 2013, 5:32 pm

      @Harry Law

      And the Americans can brag, as the Southern cracker kids in the old tv commercial, “Shake n bake, n I helped!”

  15. HarryLaw
    October 24, 2013, 2:18 pm

    The two state solution is favored by all states and institutions at the United Nations, the one state solution is favored by no state or by any political party in either Israel or Palestine, so to that extent at the present time it is a non starter, in order for the two state solution to work an end to the settlement enterprise must be the first thing on the agenda, unfortunately Abbas thinks freeing a few prisoners should come first, and engaging in negotiations, incredibly without a settlement freeze, instead he should be trying to enhance his state of Palestine at the United Nations by gaining admission to the other 63 UN Agencies and formally joining the International Criminal Court and putting pressure on the Prosecutor to open a file on the well known and grave war crime of transferring and settling your own population in territory under belligerent occupation, that is one obvious way settlements can be stopped, and it is the reason both Israel and the US have warned of dire consequences if Abbas signs up and then pressures the court, it must be remembered that the highest court in the World, the ICJ have already found that the settlements breach article 49.6 of the Geneva Conventions in their 2004 opinion in the wall case.

    • Citizen
      October 24, 2013, 5:35 pm

      @ Harry Law,
      Abbas surely sees what you see, so why has he done what he’s done?

      • Hostage
        October 25, 2013, 5:55 am

        @ Harry Law, Abbas surely sees what you see, so why has he done what he’s done?

        We are talking about Courts of last resort, where others exercise discretion over which cases they will prosecute or advise upon. I think that Abbas can’t just claim that all avenues of political settlement have been exhausted. He has “to be seen” to be beating a dead horse, while pursuing fruitless negotiations, before the international community will give him the extra leverage he needs. In the meantime, he is being openly threatened, coerced, and blackmailed.

      • Citizen
        October 26, 2013, 6:47 am

        @ Hostage
        Maybe he can act after Kerry’s 9-month peace process ends, with nothing gained except more of the same status quo?

  16. W.Jones
    October 24, 2013, 2:24 pm

    I am glad to see Chomsky being open about his view here on binationalism.

    He does mischaracterize the views of proponents of one state, though:

    it is assumed almost universally that there are two options for cis-Jordan: either two states – Palestinian and Jewish-democratic — or one state “from the sea to the river.” …The analysis is almost universal, but crucially flawed. There is a third option, namely, the option that Israel is pursuing with constant US support.

    Among others, I believe it is Jeff Halper who said there is already one state- an unequal one, which is what Chomsky refers to as the third option. While Chomsky says the proponents of the one state option have the wrong analysis, in fact their analysis is the same on that main score.

    The third option is one state with inequality, which is still, nonetheless one state.

    Also, I am not sure, offhand, that Chomsky has always advocated binationalism within one state- I think at one point he might have said it is not realistic. But generally I believed this has been always what he saw as ideal.

    Really the issue with Chomsky has not been binationalism or one state, but what he considers to be cultural Zionism, which is also not necessarily bad.

    • Hostage
      October 24, 2013, 3:21 pm

      He does mischaracterize the views of proponents of one state, though:

      No, I think Halper would fall into the category of advocates who support the “one state solution, anticipating a civil rights, anti-Apartheid struggle that will lead to secular democracy.” Chomsky addressed that difference as a preliminary matter before talking about the third option, which obviously wouldn’t result in a secular democracy.

      • W.Jones
        October 24, 2013, 4:28 pm

        Hostage,

        In saying that I am basically agreeing with Kathleen and Krauss, who wrote: “in his dismissal of the 1SS he then procedes to say that what we have is in effect a one state reality. This is news? Mearsheimer and many others have been saying this for years.”

        Chomsky comments about people supporting a 2ss or 1ss, the latter including Mearsheimer and Halper,

        it is assumed almost universally that there are two options for cis-Jordan: either two states… or one state “from the sea to the river.”… too many Palestinians in a Jewish state.

        Many Palestinians and their advocates support the “one state solution,” anticipating a civil rights, anti-Apartheid struggle that will lead to secular democracy…. The analysis is almost universal, but crucially flawed. There is a third option…

        As you pointed out, Halper falls into the category of one state, supporting a civil rights struggle. Chomsky mischaracterizes Halper’s views by saying that their analysis is flawed because there is a third, bad, “realistic” option.

        In fact, as Krauss and Kathleen said, Halper and others are fully aware of this bad option, which is the reality.

      • Hostage
        October 25, 2013, 6:33 am

        In fact, as Krauss and Kathleen said, Halper and others are fully aware of this bad option, which is the reality.

        You are splitting some mighty fine hairs here. Chomsky is not just talking about awareness. He is talking about advocating concrete plans. He is saying that Israel exercises the third option and enjoys backing by an overwhelming international consensus. Israel doesn’t anticipate a civil rights, anti-Apartheid struggle that will lead to secular democracy, because it is actively taking concrete steps to prevent that from ever happening.

        Chomsky says that to merely propose that a secular democracy might happen somehow, without any concrete plan of action to bring about that end result, is critically flawed thinking in his opinion:

        In the areas that Israel is taking over, the Palestinian population is small and scattered, and is being reduced further by regular expulsions. The result will be a Greater Israel with a substantial Jewish majority. Under the third option, there will be no “demographic problem” and no civil rights or anti-Apartheid struggle, nothing more than what already exists within Israel’s recognized borders, where the mantra “Jewish and democratic” is regularly intoned for the benefit of those who choose to believe, oblivious to the inherent contradiction, which is far more than merely symbolic.

        There are still US laws on the books that require any Palestinian government that includes Hamas to recognize the right of the Jewish State of Israel to exist in order to qualify for US funding or aid. There is no corresponding obligation for Israel to recognize the right of Palestine to exists as any kind of state. Many in the US mainstream still view Israel as a democracy inside the Green Line. Unless you have a plan that can change that reality in the near future, I think that Chomsky is correct. Proposing a binational (“one state”) settlement without moving on to advocacy in effect provides support for Israel’s third option, the bad one.

      • seafoid
        October 25, 2013, 7:47 am

        ” Under the third option, there will be no “demographic problem” and no civil rights or anti-Apartheid struggle, nothing more than what already exists within Israel’s recognized borders, where the mantra “Jewish and democratic” is regularly intoned for the benefit of those who choose to believe”

        I think that is deluded. The Palestinian citizens of Israel have social welfare, they can work, they have freedom of movement and STATEHOOD. There are 33 or so laws that discriminate against them but Israel does enough to keep them quiet.

        The Palestinians under occupation have far less and most importantly are STATELESS and Zionism has nothing to keep them sweet. And how is Zionism going to continue to rule over 4-5 million people and imply that Israel is a democracy ? Palestinians have to focus on what Israel’s borders are .

        I don’t buy the notion that dumb Yanks are going to implicitly support this evil on the never never.

        The GOP built several Presidential campaigns on opposition to Gay marriage and that issue is now electorally dead.
        Zionism will go the same way.

        link to ft.com

        “A Washington Post/ABC News poll published last week found that 58 per cent of Americans now support legalising gay marriage, up from 47 per cent three years ago. Change, driven by voters, has been happening at a local level. Nine states and the District of Columbia have legalised same-sex marriage, and efforts are under way in Illinois, Minnesota and Rhode Island.

        Activists hope the Supreme Court will take note. “There is irrefutable momentum, and not just growing but broadening, and support for the freedom to marry,” says Evan Wolfson, a leading proponent of marriage equality. “We’ve worked hard to make our case in the court of public opinion, just as we will in the court of law.””

      • W.Jones
        October 25, 2013, 10:33 am

        Proposing a binational (“one state”) settlement without moving on to advocacy in effect provides support for Israel’s third option, the bad one.

        Is that what Chomsky does? He says a binational state has been his goal, but in articles like this he does not move on to advocacy.

        Anyway, Halper and other “one staters” do propose concrete steps- their analogy is the desegregation of South Africa. Perhaps this will not work, particularly now. But in any case, their analysis is that they want to see one democratic state, but see that the third bad option of one undemocratic state is the current reality and could be so for a long time. Actually that is the same position Chomsky claims. Halper is even a cultural Zionist like Chomsky.

        Your point seems to be that since they do not propose concrete steps, their analysis is flawed. In fact, they propose steps like those in South Africa. You may argue that this is unrealistic, however they are not necessarily confining themselves to the current bad reality in proposing that.

      • Hostage
        October 25, 2013, 10:39 am

        I think that is deluded.

        He said: “There are regular expulsions of Palestinians. . . . In the areas that Israel is taking over, the Palestinian population is small and scattered, and is being reduced further by regular expulsions.”

        So he is talking about the status quo of creeping expropriation and the creation of Bantustans plus the overwhelming silence and inaction which amounts to de facto international support for that strategy.

        We have MKs writing regular Op-Eds here in the USA announcing that the settlers are here to stay. The IDF turns the villages in the Hebron region into a closed military zone for use as a firing range and destroys villages in the Jordan Valley while manhandling diplomats for trying to distribute tents. Meanwhile, Israel is openly moving to adopt the Prawer plan, a giant railway plan to link settlements in the West Bank, construct thousands of settlement units in Jerusalem and the West Bank, and complete road nine. The ICC Prosecutor has continued to ignore all of that and the fact that she has a declaration in hand from the PA which grants the ICC jurisdiction and permission to act. Not a peep has been heard from the ICC Assembly of State Parties, which refused a request to put the situation in Palestine on the agenda during its last meeting. The press routinely reports that the Palestinians aren’t going to be allowed to pursue any “unilateral actions” in the UN or ICC and that the final status issues can only resolved through negotiations with Israel.

        It doesn’t look like Chomsky is deluded to me.

      • Hostage
        October 25, 2013, 1:28 pm

        Is that what Chomsky does? He says a binational state has been his goal, but in articles like this he does not move on to advocacy.

        Because he has written 30 books and delivered thousands of lectures on his plan of action regarding a plethora of issues in which he is an involved advocate. In this case he’s been advocating a bi-inational state for 70 years. For about two decades he has written about the phased steps needed to go from an unworkable two state division of resources and territory to a confederation or federal state that could achieve the goals outlined by rights based movements. Contrary to popular misconceptions and claims that he is determined to prevent Israel or Israelis from being inconvenienced, he has always included adoption of BDS sanctions in his plan of action, even before there was a movement. link to bdsmovement.net

  17. seafoid
    October 24, 2013, 3:34 pm

    In 30 years’ time the Holocaust will be almost 1o0 years old. And it is still going to get the bots out of jail as the most heinous event in humanity? With Chinese scholars looking into what Mao did ? And Israel several degrees crueler than it is today ?

  18. Nevada Ned
    October 24, 2013, 4:18 pm

    Rashid Khalidi says “one state solution? That’s what we have now!”

    He also questions how viable a two state solution is at this point, after the Israeli government has worked hard for decades, carrying out measures that were specifically designed to prevent a Palestinian state. There are now 500,000 Jewish settlers living in illegal Jews-only settlements. That’s 10% of the Jewish population. And most of these settlers think that they have every right to live in illegal apartheid settlements. “God gave the land to the Jews” is the ideology.

    My modest observation is that either 1SS or 2SS would have to be imposed on Israel.
    Those who hold power in Israel are opposed to either one.

  19. just
    October 24, 2013, 6:55 pm

    and for the crowning touch and proof that Israel wants no peace, they just want the Palestinians gone and all of their land and resources, voila!

    “JERUSALEM (AP) — A senior Israeli official said Thursday that his country will announce new plans for West Bank settlement construction in the coming months, a day after Israel’s leader held lengthy talks with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met in Rome for seven hours with Kerry to discuss Iran’s nuclear program and also recently restarted peace talks.

    The Palestinians consider settlements a major obstacle to establishing a state that includes the West Bank and east Jerusalem, territories Israel captured from Jordan in the 1967 war. Israel has since built dozens of settlements that are now home to about 550,000 Israelis. The Americans typically criticize any new settlement construction plans, calling them unhelpful to peace efforts.

    But the Israeli official, speaking anonymously because new building plans have yet to be announced publicly, said the Americans and Palestinians were aware of the Israeli intentions that were made clear before talks resumed.”

    link to boston.com

  20. Kathleen
    October 25, 2013, 1:33 am

    “Jewish and Democratic” an “inherent contradiction”

    • seafoid
      October 25, 2013, 9:31 am

      Israel isn’t jewish. France in algeria wasn’t christian. Judaism has to extricate itself from Zionism because if it doesn’t the 2 will go down together.

  21. RoHa
    October 25, 2013, 2:29 am

    One state. Two states. Living without a solution.

    But ten, and twenty, and thirty, and forty, and fifty, and sixty years from now Israel, if it lasts, will still have Arab neighbours on all sides save the sea. How long, and how much, can Israel keep pissing off those neighbours? Will it be worth the trouble?

    • Walid
      October 25, 2013, 4:54 pm

      “How long, and how much, can Israel keep pissing off those neighbours? ”

      For as long as they need to be kissing up to America, RoHa; Israel is part of the package deal. Last week, an Israeli swimmer competed in Qatar and won the silver. In the same week, an American of Palestinian descent turned Israel-firster was published in the Saudi press preconizing the merits of normalization of relations with Israel. A couple of years back, Abu Dhabi invited an Israeli delegation to attend an ecological convention. Egypt and Jordan have their boots on the Palestinians’ necks to make Israel happy. The list is long and Israelis continue harping on their stupid existential threat from the Arabs. Maybe they’re really afraid only of Djibouti but are too embarrassed to admit it so they lump all the Arabs into the existential threat balloon they keep floating up.

      Israel is not pissing off its neighbours, it’s actually pissing on them. Must be a sado-masho connection in there somewhere.

      • seafoid
        October 25, 2013, 5:29 pm

        I dunno Walid. I noted at the time the phone calls from the Israeli embassy in umadunya the day Mubarak fell. They kept on ringing the Army head and he wouldn’t answer. They had to be rescued by commandos.

        I don’t think the sha’ab like Israel.

      • Walid
        October 26, 2013, 3:13 am

        “I don’t think the sha’ab like Israel.”

        No doubts that the sha’ab doesn’t but like mostly anything political, it likes what it’s told to like. The unanswered phone calls came at just about the time State was cramming the Brothers down Tantawi’s throat to let them out of the cellar and legally participate as a party in the coming elections after their blacklisting that had lasted 50 years. Tantawi did and sure enough, the first thing the elected Morsi did was to fire Tantawi. So it’s somewhat understandable that the army was not too happy with the US/Israel tandem at the time. Now el-Sissi, that the sha’ab has been told to like, is setting his sights at becoming the next Pharaoh.

        A couple of days or so ago, there was a big stink in Doha when the Israeli swimmers were permitted to participate in an international swim meet and the Israeli flag was being flown alongside other participants’ flags outside the pool building. After a huge brouhaha by the Qatari people about this chumminess with Israelis, the flag was taken down and when the Israeli swimmer won the silver, the electronic board showed a distorted Israeli flag. So there too, the sha’ab does not like Israel.

        The feelings towards Israel of rulers of the Arab countries are not at all the same as those of the sha’ab.

      • seafoid
        October 26, 2013, 1:13 pm

        The Arab Spring was a bit like Occupy. Sign of serious system dysfunction, popular discontent and subject of a reactionary fightback. But the problems continue to fester.
        The oil in Saudi has another 40 years max. And then ?
        The sha’ab all hate Israel.
        Maybe the bots can get someone to keep a lid on it forever but I wouldn’t buy the shares.

      • JustJessetr
        October 27, 2013, 6:13 pm

        Sounds like sour grapes to me.

  22. yrn
    October 25, 2013, 4:13 am

    RoHa
    If you look at the process with the Arab Neighbors, since 1948 there is only improvement.
    Arab Country neighbor understand now that Israel is reality and will always be there and accept it, Israel relation with the neighbor countries has never been better.
    With Egypt, Jordan and see now how the relationship with the Saudi and the golf states are getting closer, as they understand the benefit and the reality that having peace in the area makes more sense then anything else , the Palestinian issue that was used as a political instrument is fading out and as time passes by and the Palestinians know it, this issue became an obstacle for progress, so Israel will only have progress .
    So if you stick with the low propaganda LaLa land wishful thinking of the residence here, you are welcome, but they are completely out of the real world.

    • seafoid
      October 26, 2013, 1:19 pm

      “Israel is reality and will always be there ”

      Lehman Bros was also forever.
      Fate is really hard sometimes

      BTW Israel is parallel reality

    • eljay
      October 26, 2013, 1:46 pm

      >> … Israel is reality …

      No kidding.

      >> … and will always be there …

      Always is a very long time. Will Israel “always be there”? Nobody knows. Nobody can know.

      Whether or not Israel remains, oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” must go.

  23. wes
    October 25, 2013, 4:22 am

    RoHa

    will it be worth the trouble ? only time will tell

  24. Kathleen
    October 25, 2013, 2:37 pm

    Looking for some of the pieces that I had read and heard about Noam Chomsky not really supporting the push for academic boycotts of Israel and the BDS.

    link to electronicintifada.net
    “RA: Do you agree with the international and Palestinian calls to boycott Israel academically and economically?

    NC: So, in the case of South Africa, for example, in which I was involved in the boycotts, they were highly selective and they were selected in a way which would lead to help for the victims, not to make us feel good, help for the victims. The same in the case of the Vietnam war, where I was involved, and I was imprisoned many times, I was involved in civil disobedience, organizing resistance and so on.

    But we always had to ask ourselves, when we pick a particular tactic, what does it mean for the Vietnamese not what does it mean for us? And sometimes there are things you should do and sometimes there are things you shouldn’t do and in fact they were very helpful in that regard.

    And the same is true with boycotts. If you call for an academic boycott of say Tel Aviv University you have to ask yourself, what the consequences are of that call for the Palestinians and there’s an indirect answer. When you carry out an act in the United States, you are trying to reach the American population and you’re trying to bring the American population to be more supportive of Palestinian rights and opposed to Israeli and US policies.

    So you therefore ask yourself, will an academic boycott of Tel Aviv University have – you ask yourself what the effect would be on the American audience in the United States that you are trying to reach. Now, that depends on the amount of organization and education that has taken place in the United States.

    Today, if you look at the people’s understandings and beliefs, a call for an academic boycott on Tel Aviv University will strengthen support for Israel and US policy because it’s not understood. There is no point of talking to people in Swahili if they don’t understand what you are saying. There could be circumstances in which a boycott of Tel Aviv would be helpful, but first you have to do the educational and organizational work.

    Same with South Africa. The equivalent of BDS, the boycott and sanctions programs, they began really around 1980. There were a few before, but mainly around then. That was after twenty years of serious organizing and activism which had led to a situation in which there was almost universal opposition to apartheid. Corporations were pulling out following the Sullivan law, the [US] Congress was passing sanctions and the UN had already declared embargo. We’re nowhere near that in the case of Palestine. We are not even close.

    Chomsky really avoids answering the questions asked. Many of us were involved with the anti Apartheid movement against the government of South Africa and corporations and universities supporting that institution. While I know Chomsky is brilliant how in the hell does he think the American public became more informed about the institutional creation and support of apartheid in South Africa except through the boycott and divestment efforts? That is the way people became informed

    • Hostage
      October 25, 2013, 5:12 pm

      Chomsky really avoids answering the questions asked.

      No I don’t think he did. He said that he and others spent twenty years helping to educate and organize people, and that there was almost universal opposition to apartheid before the first call for boycotts in South Africa began to finally take-off in the 1980s. He said it was counter-productive to call for boycotts of Israeli universities here in the US back then, even though such a boycott might be useful, unless you educate and organize people here first. He’s right. The majority of people in this country used to view Israel as a liberal democracy and calls for boycotts before Operation Cast Lead and the Flotilla Massacre usually just stirred-up support for Israel in many parts of the country.

      While I know Chomsky is brilliant how in the hell does he think the American public became more informed about the institutional creation and support of apartheid in South Africa except through the boycott and divestment efforts?

      He was talking about those educational and organizational efforts on Campuses, Churches, and Synagogues that provided grassroots public support for BDS. That laid the ground work for the Security Council resolutions and the official sanctions that were finally pursued by the Congressional Black Caucus.

  25. Kathleen
    October 25, 2013, 2:47 pm

    Still looking for articles about Chomsky stating that he does not support cutting off U.S. aid to Israel. I thought I had read this

    I found Noam Chomsky’s response to Mearsheimer and Walt’s book “The Israel Lobby” interesting

    link to en.wikipedia.org
    Dr. Chomsky “Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT, said the authors took a “courageous stand” and said much of the criticism against the authors was “hysterical”. But he asserts that he did not find the thesis of the paper very convincing. He said that Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out that “there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races.” He finds that the authors “have a highly selective use of evidence (and much of the evidence is assertion)”, ignore historical “world affairs”, and blame the Lobby for issues that are not relevant.[23]”

    Dr.Zbig’s response “Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to U.S. President Jimmy Carter, wrote: “Mearsheimer and Walt adduce a great deal of factual evidence that over the years Israel has been the beneficiary of privileged — indeed, highly preferential — financial assistance, out of all proportion to what the United States extends to any other country. The massive aid to Israel is in effect a huge entitlement that enriches the relatively prosperous Israelis at the cost of the American taxpayer. Money being fungible, that aid also pays for the very settlements that America opposes and that impede the peace process.”[37]“

    • Hostage
      October 25, 2013, 6:21 pm

      Dr.Zbig’s response “Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to U.S. President Jimmy Carter, wrote:

      Brzezinski was one of four invited guest experts that Mearsheimer and Walt invited to participate in their own special roundtable discussion about their book. Wikipedia trimmed-off the disclaimer that immediately preceded the Brzezinski quote:

      I do not feel qualified to judge the historical parts of their argument. But several of the current themes that emerge from their thinking strike me as quite pertinent. Mearsheimer and Walt adduce a great deal of factual evidence that over the years Israel has been the beneficiary . . . . & etc.

      link to mearsheimer.uchicago.edu

      Of course, one of the complaints about Mearsheimer and Walt is that they ignored and did not include a great deal of contrary historical evidence about Palestinian and Israeli diplomatic and lobbying blunders that didn’t fit in very well with their thesis. See for example The Lobby, by David Remnick in the New Yorker. He notes that Brzezinski went on to downplay the role of lobbying as nothing new and provide a perspective that is largely missing from Mearsheimer and Walt arguments:

      “The participation of ethnic or foreign-supported lobbies in the American policy process is nothing new,” he observes. “In my public life, I have dealt with a number of them. I would rank the Israeli-American, Cuban-American, and Armenian-American lobbies as the most effective in their assertiveness. The Greek- and Taiwanese-American lobbies also rank highly in my book. The Polish-American lobby was at one time influential (Franklin Roosevelt complained about it to Joseph Stalin), and I daresay that before long we will be hearing a lot from the Mexican-, Hindu-, and Chinese-American lobbies as well.”

      Taming the influence of lobbies, if that is what Mearsheimer and Walt desire, is a matter of reforming the lobbying and campaign-finance laws. But that is clearly not the source of the hysteria surrounding their arguments. “The Israel Lobby” is a phenomenon of its moment. The duplicitous and manipulative arguments for invading Iraq put forward by the Bush Administration, the general inability of the press to upend those duplicities, the triumphalist illusions, the miserable performance of the military strategists, the arrogance of the Pentagon, the stifling of dissent within the military and the government, the moral disaster of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, the rise of an intractable civil war, and now an incapacity to deal with the singular winner of the war, Iran—all of this has left Americans furious and demanding explanations. Mearsheimer and Walt provide one: the Israel lobby. In this respect, their account is not so much a diagnosis of our polarized era as a symptom of it.

      link to newyorker.com

  26. Kathleen
    October 25, 2013, 3:10 pm

    Ok here is Chomsky supporting cutting U.S. aid to Israel
    link to mondoweiss.net

    • Hostage
      October 25, 2013, 6:28 pm

      Ok here is Chomsky supporting cutting U.S. aid to Israel
      link to mondoweiss.net

      Chomsky is a member of the JVP Advisory Board. Here is our policy on Military aid:
      Jewish Voice for Peace calls for a U.S. foreign policy that promotes democracy and human rights. The United States must stop supporting repressive policies in Israel and elsewhere. U.S. military aid to countries in the Middle East must be based on rigorous enforcement of the Arms Export Control and Foreign Assistance Acts, which mandate that military aid may be used for only defensive purposes within the recipient country’s borders, and that aid may not be delivered to countries that abuse human rights.

      Under these guidelines, U.S. military aid to Israel must be suspended until the occupation ends, since the occupation itself is in violation of these guidelines. Military aid allows Israel to avoid making serious efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as conflicts with its other neighbors. It enables the occupation, contributes to the devastation of Palestinian society and fosters the increasing militarization of Israeli society.

      link to jewishvoiceforpeace.org

  27. Ludwig
    October 27, 2013, 1:05 pm

    Say goodbye to the “two state” solution :) Welcome to greater Israel.

    • Taxi
      October 28, 2013, 4:10 am

      Say goodbye to greater israel ;-)))

      Welcome to liberated Palestine.

    • talknic
      October 29, 2013, 8:55 am

      Ludwig “Welcome to greater Israel” … … with an Arab majority

Leave a Reply