‘It’s hard to see why Israel won’t follow white South Africa’s road to extinction,’ says ‘Forward’ writer

Israel/Palestine
on 151 Comments
Nelson Mandela addresses the UN's Special Committee Against Apartheid. (UN Photo/Flickr)

Nelson Mandela addresses the UN’s Special Committee Against Apartheid. (UN Photo/Flickr)

The wheels may be coming off a wee bit faster than expected. Articles in two leading Jewish papers on the Mandela funeral and the clumsy official Israeli response concede the similarity of conditions in Palestine to apartheid in South Africa. Both articles use moral language. The Forward says that Israel may well face extinction ala South Africa. The Jewish Week says Israel cannot remove the indelible stain of supporting apartheid.

(By the way, Jimmy Carter said it was apartheid 7 years ago, and Terry Gross and others said he was wrong to do so.)

First, Jay Michaelson, a contributing editor, writing in the Forward: “Is the Israel of Today Becoming 1980s South Africa?”:

Unless Israel changes its policies, it will soon be quite similar to South Africa in the 1980s, and it’s hard to see why it won’t follow white South Africa’s road to extinction. True, Israel has much better lobbyists, but South Africa had its supporters too, especially within the Republican party (sound familiar?) and with its mineral wealth, it had plenty of money to spend. It also had wonderful tourist attractions, an entrepreneurial spirit, and a thriving cultural scene. Nothing helped. You can’t whitewash apartheid. Eventually, unless you’re too big to oppose, like China or Russia, the world does turn against you.

There is one open question, though, to which no one can yet know the answer. If Israel/Palestine 2025 is South Africa 1985, who will be Palestine’s Mandela?

And here is Rabbi Gerald Skolnik in the Jewish Week, faulting Netanyahu for blowing off the Mandela funeral:

Is it possible that a man who is such a political animal – and a remarkably effective one at that – could actually be so tone-deaf to political sensitivities that he would risk hurting the global interests of the country he loves for the sake of making a sarcastic and very ill-advised political point? If true, it was as if he were saying, “OK, you want me to spend less, I’ll spend less. I’ll skip Mandela’s funeral.” It would be the ultimate example of penny-wise, pound-foolish…

It is hardly a secret that, during the years of apartheid in South Africa, Jerusalem and Pretoria were serious trade partners. Weapons, nuclear technology, agriculture… it was all part of a lucrative arrangement for both sides. …

None of this is to be understood as a “whitewash.” Dealing with South Africa during its apartheid years left an indelible stain on Israel’s soul –  a price that, one might say, it willingly and understandably had no choice but to pay at the time. I have to think that, in some way, the lasting impact of that stain played a role in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision to stay away from Pretoria last week. The decision was at best an ill-advised one, enhancing the perception that Israel’s policies on the West Bank are comparable to apartheid.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

151 Responses

  1. NormanF
    December 17, 2013, 10:59 am

    The comparisons are overblown.

    Israel is not in danger of disintegrating while its enemies are drowning in their own hate.

    What prevents peace is not Jewish stiff-neckedness but the inability of Palestinian Arabs to accept the Jews as their equals and decide to end the conflict.

    That is a grinding one but the Arabs are the ones who bear most of the cost – not from Israeli policies but from the decision of their leaders to hold out for victory over the Jewish State than to accept a compromise peace.

    I don’t see the latter happening for a very long time.

    • amigo
      December 17, 2013, 11:19 am

      “What prevents peace is not Jewish stiff-neckedness but the inability of Palestinian Arabs to accept the Jews as their equals and decide to end the conflict.”NF

      Nothing to do with Jewish stiff neckedness.

      It is Zionist brutality and greed not too mention oppressive supremacist racist policies.

      As to Israeli willingness to allow a Palestinian State and ergo peace please read the words of your former leaders (all Terrorists in their own right) and then take a gander at the Likud Charter for an update on policies.

      “In 1938, Ben-Gurion made it clear of his support for the “Jewish state” on part of Palestine was only as a stepping ground for a complete conquest. He wrote: “[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state–we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107 & One Palestine Complete, p. 403) * One day after the UN vote to partition Palestine, Menachem Begin, the commander of the Irgun gang and Israel’s future Prime Minister between 1977-1983, proclaimed: “The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized …. Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever.” (Iron Wall p. 25) * “”Shamir has said Israel must keep the territories in order to accommodate the immigrants. “A great aliyah [immigration],” he said, “requires a Greater Israel.”(5) He has insisted that, although Soviet Jews are not being directed to the territories, any Jew has the right to live anywhere in the land of Israel, which for most Israelis includes the territories. ”

      Could it be clearer who is not interested in peace.

    • Sumud
      December 17, 2013, 11:41 am

      You’re right Norman those greedy Palestinians and their Arab Peace Plan and their “we’ll settle for just 50% of 45% of mandate Palestine and you can have the rest”.

      They’re just so UNCOMPROMISING, and the whole world can see it. And suicide bombers and the Grand Mufti killed all the jews, and stuff!!!

      • Mike_Konrad
        December 17, 2013, 2:07 pm

        You’re right Norman those greedy Palestinians and their Arab Peace Plan and their “we’ll settle for just 50% of 45% of mandate Palestine and you can have the rest”.

        They want Israel gone as a Jewish state.

        They’re just so UNCOMPROMISING, and the whole world can see it. And suicide bombers and the Grand Mufti killed all the jews, and stuff!!!

        The Grand Mufti was a chief architect of the Holocaust.

        Great Video on the history.

      • Shingo
        December 17, 2013, 4:19 pm

        They want Israel gone as a Jewish state.

        By Jewish state you obviously have Greater Israel in mind, as depicted by the Irgun.

        The Grand Mufti was a chief architect of the Holocaust.

        Without a doubt, the most derringed and absurd statement made. The Mufti was about as responsible for the Holocaust as Ben Gurion.

        Great Video on the history.

        Great piece of BS fiction.

        Yes indeed, the cracks are not only appearing in the stranglehold of the narrative by the lobby, there are also cracks appearing in the sanity of Israeli apologists.

      • andrew r
        December 17, 2013, 4:44 pm

        The Grand Mufti was a chief architect of the Holocaust.

        Chalk up yet another poster who doesn’t understand why MW has moderation if someone can get by with this steaming pile of fertilizer.

        Great Video on the history.

        The video just gets stupider and stupider by the minute: it claims Hajj Amin al-Husseini founded Fateh (Founded in the late 50’s in Kuwait), that he coordinated a terrorist attack with Hasan al-Banna (evidence?), that Hitler and Mussolini sent weapons (Germany had a policy of not antagonizing the British empire in the 30’s; no way could the Palestinians get weapons from there), that he organized the Farhud (Not possible; the Farhud took place after the British reoccupied Iraq).

        Also, Wisliceny’s testimony has never been substantiated and to anyone half-educated about the Third Reich, the idea they needed an outsider to convince them to exterminate the Jews is so beyond asinine, it should be regarded as Holocaust denial. The Mufti did play a role in recruitment of the Handschar division, but he did not “oversee” recruitment and training. In any case, the Mufti’s collaboration was limited to himself; there was no pro-Axis movement in Palestine.

      • traintosiberia
        December 17, 2013, 7:33 pm

        Grand Mufti was the same unelected one who was hoisted by British Post master general deputed to liase with UK,Jewish,and local Arabs.The British perosn was: Samuel – something( forgetting last name) , a Jeiwsh person

      • Hostage
        December 18, 2013, 12:35 am

        The British perosn was: Samuel – something( forgetting last name)

        LoL! He didn’t have a last name, just two first names, Herbert Samuel;-)

      • James Canning
        December 19, 2013, 7:46 pm

        Prominent English surnames often were taken by Jews as their given names. Herbert, Howard, Sidney, etc etc etc.

      • Hostage
        December 17, 2013, 8:09 pm

        The Grand Mufti was a chief architect of the Holocaust.

        The Allies certainly didn’t think so. They had plenty of Jewish legal advisors, including Lautherpact, Robinson, and Lemkin, who could have easily helped bring him to justice during the Nuremberg Tribunals. In fact they were tasked with the job of prosecuting the chief architects of the Holocaust.

        For that matter, Israel never kidnapped or assassinated him, like Eichmann or a multitude of much more innocuous, but nonetheless dead, Arab leaders that spring to mind.

      • andrew r
        December 18, 2013, 1:07 am

        By the way, the British would not put the Mufti on trial for treason or collaboration on the grounds he was not a British subject, and the Foreign Office gave a collective *yawn* when the Jewish Agency submitted letters written by the Mufti and hearsay testimony from Rudolf Kasztner about his special relationship with Eichmann. The FO concluded that while he committed acts hostile to the Allies, there was no evidence he took part in any atrocity. (See The Mufti of Jerusalem by Philip Mattar.)

      • eljay
        December 17, 2013, 8:31 pm

        >> What prevents peace is not Jewish stiff-neckedness but the inability of Palestinian Arabs to accept the Jews as their equals and decide to end the conflict.

        Zio-supremacist Jews don’t want equality, they want Jewish supremacism in a supremacist “Jewish State” that covers – at a minimum – the greater part of the geographic region of Palestine. No-one – not even “Palestinian Arabs” – should be asked, expected or required to accept that.

        >> They want Israel gone as a Jewish state.

        And rightly so. Israel has no right to be a supremacist “Jewish State”. No state has a right to be a supremacist state.

      • MRW
        December 18, 2013, 12:59 am

        Watch another video, Mike:

      • Hostage
        December 18, 2013, 2:58 pm

        The video depicts an argument between Zionist propagandists that likens German Jews to one of many old Jack Benny sketches. Basically implying that many Jews would rather die than part with their money.

        The Havaara Agreement was a business partnership between the Nazis and Zionists. It saved Jewish money, not Jewish lives. Anyone with at least 1,000 Palestinian pounds was granted free entry into Palestine under a so-called ‘capitalist visa’. The Haavara Agreement simply allowed those who already had the money for a capitalist visa to circumvent the German currency control laws and launder the rest of their personal fortune through the German and Zionist banking partners. They in-turn charged up to a one-third currency exchange fee. The Zionists also kept any windfall profits from sales of German goods in neighboring countries.

      • thankgodimatheist
        December 18, 2013, 2:51 am

        “The Grand Mufti was a chief architect of the Holocaust.”
        I’m glad you made this statement. No one can take you seriously, (if they ever did that is) from now one. By the way, nice hat you’re wearing here:
        link to i151.photobucket.com

      • thankgodimatheist
        December 18, 2013, 3:17 am

        “The Grand Mufti was a chief architect of the Holocaust.”
        If true, why wasn’t he prosecuted as was every single character with established responsibility and involvement in the Holocaust? Hmmm?

    • talknic
      December 17, 2013, 12:08 pm

      @NormanF “What prevents peace is not Jewish stiff-neckedness but the inability of Palestinian Arabs to accept the Jews as their equals and decide to end the conflict”
      Strange, the UNSC says the opposite

      1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

      2. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly;

      3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

      Were Israel to get out of all non-Israeli territory for once might do the trick… It has never been tried.

      It worked when Israel withdrew from all of Egypt’s territory. Israel had to and agreed to withdraw first tho

    • Krauss
      December 17, 2013, 12:20 pm

      NormanF, the George Wallace of the Jewish People.

      SEGREGATION FOREVER!!!

    • Mike_Konrad
      December 17, 2013, 1:43 pm

      The comparisons are overblown.

      Seriously overblown. There are civil issues with the Arabs, but Apartheid is not the right word.

      Israel is not in danger of disintegrating while its enemies are drowning in their own hate.

      Agreed. Israel will not go under. She will not buckle to this.

      What prevents peace is not Jewish stiff-neckedness but the inability of Palestinian Arabs to accept the Jews as their equals and decide to end the conflict.

      Yes, the Arabs are pushing most of this. But for a correction: Israel cannot afford to give Palestinians in Judea and Samaria equal rights. At best, the Palestinians will be offered an limited autonomy in Judea and Samaria, not an equal independent state.

      The Israelis, for security, cannot offer any more.

      The land is too small for two people to share. You cannot put two arms in one sleeve.

      One or the other should be reimbursed to leave.

      • Shingo
        December 17, 2013, 4:41 pm

        There are civil issues with the Arabs, but Apartheid is not the right word.

        No, Israel apartheid is actually worse than South Africa was.

        “The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel like South Africa, is an apartheid state”
        (South Africans Prime Minister, Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd. Rand Daily Mail, 23 Novemeber 1961).

        Former Israeli Foreign Ministry director-general ambassador to South Africa Alon Liel: “If you, President Obama, intend to come here for a courtesy visit – don’t come. Don’t come! We don’t need you here for a courtesy visit. You cannot come to an area that exhibits signs of apartheid and ignore them. That would simply be an unethical visit. You yourself know full well that Israel is standing at the apartheid cliff. If you don’t deal with this topic during your visit, the responsibility will at the end of the process also lie with you.” (2013)

        Israeli Defense Minister (and former Prime Minister) Ehud Barak: “As long as in this territory west of the Jordan River there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic. If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.” (2010)

        Former Israeli Minister of Education Yossi Sarid: “What acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck – it is apartheid… What should frighten us, however, is not the description of reality, but reality itself… The Palestinians are unfortunate because they have not produced a Nelson Mandela; the Israelis are unfortunate because they have not produced an F.W. de Klerk. “(2008)

        Former Israeli Minister of Education Shulamit Aloni: “Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what’s right in front of our eyes. It’s simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practices its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.” (2007)

        Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert: “If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished.” (2007)

        Israeli newspaper Haaretz editorial: “The de facto separation is today more similar to political apartheid than an occupation regime because of its constancy. One side – determined by national, not geographic association – includes people who have the right to choose and the freedom to move, and a growing economy. On the other side are people closed behind the walls surrounding their community, who have no right to vote, lack freedom of movement, and have no chance to plan their future. ” (2007)

        Former Israeli attorney general Michael Ben-Yair: “[In 1967] We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one – progressive, liberal – in Israel; and the other – cruel, injurious – in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day.” (2002)

        Israeli human rights group B’Tselem: “Israel has created in the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality. This regime … is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa.” (2002)

        Former Israeli admiral and Knesset member Ami Ayalon: “Israel must decide quickly what sort of environment it wants to live in because the current model, which has some apartheid characteristics, is not compatible with Jewish principles.” (2000)

        “Israel, he said, better rid itself of the territories and their Arab population as soon as possible. If it did not Israel would soon become an Apartheid State.”
        [David Ben-Gurion, first Prime Minister of Israel, (cited):1967]

        Agreed. Israel will not go under. She will not buckle to this.

        That’s what the leaders of apartheid South Africa said too.

        Israel cannot afford to give Palestinians in Judea and Samaria equal rights.

        That’s what the leaders of apartheid South Africa said too. Giving Palestinians in Judea and Samaria equal rights would mean having to end apartheid.

        The Israelis, for security, cannot offer any more.

        That’s what the leaders of apartheid South Africa said too.

        The land is too small for two people to share.

        That’s funny. One minute you hasbarats are criticizing the Palestinians for not being prepared to share the land, the next you admit they were right. This begs the question that if the Zionist founders knew the land was too small for two people to share, then why did they migrate to Palestine? Obviously it was not to share, which means it must have been to conquer the territory, which means the Zionists were to blame, not the Palestinians.

      • talknic
        December 17, 2013, 8:03 pm

        @ Mike_Konrad “There are civil issues with the Arabs, but Apartheid is not the right word”

        Uh huh. What is the right word Mike?

        “Israel will not go under. She will not buckle to this”

        When has adhering to the law resulted in a state going under?

        “Israel cannot afford to give Palestinians in Judea and Samaria equal rights. “

        Because it isn’t Israeli and not Israel’s right to give. BTW its official name is the West Bank

        “At best, the Palestinians will be offered an limited autonomy in Judea and Samaria, not an equal independent state”

        The West Bank as it is officially named, is not Israel’s to offer

        “The Israelis, for security, cannot offer any more”

        Nonsense statement. 1) States have EQUAL rights to secure borders, Israel has no more right than its neighbours, especially by taking its neighbour’s territory. 2) Not Israel’s to offer.

        “The land is too small for two people to share. You cannot put two arms in one sleeve”

        The zionist colonialistas should have thought of that in 1897

        “One or the other should be reimbursed to leave”

        Uh? One party was given, COMPLETELY GRATIS over 50% of the territory of Palestine for a state and has since illegally acquired over 50% of what remained. Are you asserting they, being one party and in breach of the law and UN Charter, should be paid to leave?

        Please put a value on that per capita … bearing in mind that the other party should receive an equivalent per capita for ALL of pre May 15th Palestine

      • Hostage
        December 17, 2013, 8:23 pm

        Seriously overblown. There are civil issues with the Arabs, but Apartheid is not the right word.

        The “civil issues” are discriminatory legislation, policies, and practices that are described exactly as constituent acts of apartheid in Article II of the convention on suppression and punishment of the crime of apartheid.

        But even if it were not the right word, anyone could nonetheless look at the findings contained in the ICJ advisory opinion and reasonably conclude that a state which denies a targeted group fundamental rights, like protection from the elements, access to adequate housing, adequate supplies of food and water, access to health care and an education, and denial of the right to work is guilty of the crime of persecution. Jews have never failed to claim we were being subjected to persecution when any of those same things were done to us. Nuff said.

    • The Hasbara Buster
      December 17, 2013, 1:49 pm

      That is a grinding one but the Arabs are the ones who bear most of the cost – not from Israeli policies but from the decision of their leaders to hold out for victory over the Jewish State than to accept a compromise peace.

      If you live in 2013, why do you use the rhetoric of 1990?

      “The Arabs” have long accepted a compromise peace. In 2002, the Arab states, under the auspices of the Saudi king, offered recognition of Israel and full diplomatic ties in exchange for the State’s retreat to the Green Line. Unlike Israel’s offers, which are always secret and temporary and never set forth in writing, the Arab peace proposal can be found on the Internet and has not been retracted.

      The Israelis have never responded to this incredibly generous offer, which gives them 97% of what they are asking for.

      • JeffB
        December 17, 2013, 2:29 pm

        @The Hasbara Buster

        “The Arabs” have long accepted a compromise peace. In 2002, the Arab states, under the auspices of the Saudi king, offered recognition of Israel and full diplomatic ties in exchange for the State’s retreat to the Green Line. Unlike Israel’s offers, which are always secret and temporary and never set forth in writing, the Arab peace proposal can be found on the Internet and has not been retracted.

        That’s not what happened at all. I remember this quite well because it is the only serious peace offer I’d ever seen in my life. The Saudi King, King Faud made an off the record offer of full normalization and an Arab state handling of refuge problem in exchange for a return to the ’67 borders. I thought that was a tough offer, but even as a righwing Zionist (I was rightwing at the time) I would have been willing to sign. I wasn’t the only one who reacted startled. Ariel Sharon thought it was such a good offer he immediately called for direct or indirect negotiations to tighten the offer up. Sort of a “I’ll meet King Faud anywhere to discuss this”.

        A few weeks later that offer got pulled. It then became the typical normal diplomatic relations i.e. peace+embassies and “attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees”. Which was an insult not a peace offer. It is a return to the same nonsense that people had been talking about for decades. And that of course was rejected out of hand.

        I think the point of that little episode shows that Israel is willing to have peace providing it is to their advantage. Which is what other countries do. For Israel like any other country the choice between peace and war is strategic, “We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means. What remains peculiar to war is simply the peculiar nature of its means.” (Carl von Clausewitz).

      • Shingo
        December 17, 2013, 4:47 pm

        Ariel Sharon thought it was such a good offer he immediately called for direct or indirect negotiations to tighten the offer up. Sort of a “I’ll meet King Faud anywhere to discuss this”.

        False. Ariel Sharon thought it was such a good offer that he dismissed it as a plot to destroy Israel and rejected it as a threat.

        “Sharon Warns Saudi Plan May Be Arab Plot”:
        “If the goal of the Arab world is to replace UN resolutions 242 and 338 with a demand for a total withdrawal to pre-June 1967 borders, we obviously cannot accept it [the Arab peace Initiative].”

        Ariel Sharon, former Israeli Prime Minister, was quoted in a Mar. 4, 2002 Jerusalem Post article titled

        Emmanuel Nachshon, an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, as quoted in a Mar. 28, 2002 PBS Online NewsHour article titled “Arab Leaders Approve Saudi Plan”:

        “The Saudi initiative as it was presented by the [Beirut] summit of the Arab League represents a non-starter. We cannot accept on the one hand to have negotiations for the creation of a Palestinian state, an independent Palestinian state, and on the other hand have all the Palestinians come into Israel. This means the destruction of the state of Israel and obviously we cannot agree.
        Mar. 28, 2002 – Emmanuel Nachshon

        A few weeks later that offer got pulled.

        False. See above.

        I think the point of that little episode shows that Israel not willing to have peace if it means returning stolen land. The fact that you suggest there is a possibility that not having peace might be to Israel’s advantage proves that Israel needs violence and a permanent state of war to sustain it’s Zionist agenda.

      • JeffB
        December 17, 2013, 5:23 pm

        @Shingo —

        I write an entire post about the distinction between King Faud’s offer an the Arab peace offer and you completely conflate the two in your response quoting me as if I were talking about the one when I was talking about the other. So no, not false you just aren’t reading.

      • Shingo
        December 17, 2013, 5:43 pm

        I write an entire post about the distinction between King Faud’s offer an the Arab peace offer and you completely conflate the two

        They are identical and Israel has rejected both of them, so don’t waste your time.

      • Shingo
        December 17, 2013, 6:18 pm

        The Saudi King, King Faud made an off the record offer of full normalization and an Arab state handling of refuge problem in exchange for a return to the ’67 borders.

        That is the same as the Arab Peace Offer, that you pretend was entirely different

        (I was rightwing at the time)

        And still are when it comes to Israel/Palestine.

        Ariel Sharon thought it was such a good offer he immediately called for direct or indirect negotiations to tighten the offer up.

        There is no evidence to support that, so unless you have a link, you are making it up.

        A few weeks later that offer got pulled. It then became the typical normal diplomatic relations i.e. peace+embassies and “attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees”.

        False.

        The offer has remained unchanged in 10 years, and has recently been updated to include land swaps. Israel continues to reject it.

      • JeffB
        December 17, 2013, 9:27 pm

        @Shingo:

        2 seconds of Googling: notice the date this is February before the plan got trashed: link to articles.philly.com

        Sharon is excited, proposes a meeting and the Saudis turn him down. Note also in the article the importance of “normalization” not just normal diplomatic relations.

      • talknic
        December 20, 2013, 5:53 pm

        Sibiriak “For some, lying in the service of “the tribe” is okay, especially lying to the enemy”

        Far worse than lying to the enemy .. the Jewish State has been lying to its citizens.
        No borders link to trumanlibrary.org
        Encouraging them to think they have a right to settle in Occupied Territories link to domino.un.org
        For 65 years selling them land in territory “outside the State of Israel” link to pages.citebite.com
        The UN is biased link to wp.me
        Israel wants peace link to wp.me
        All of it is bullsh*t

      • The Hasbara Buster
        December 17, 2013, 7:00 pm

        @JeffB

        It then became the typical normal diplomatic relations i.e. peace+embassies and “attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees”. Which was an insult not a peace offer. It is a return to the same nonsense that people had been talking about for decades.

        Absolute nonsense. For decades, the famous three “no’s” implied an absolute rejection of Israel. Consequently, and contrary to your claim, the Arabs had never proposed full diplomatic ties between Israel and all the Arab nations. In 2002 they did. That was a watershed.

        Also, the language about refugees was carefully crafted not to mention the concept of a full return. There was room for negotiation, but the Israelis missed the opportunity.

        Ariel Sharon thought it was such a good offer he immediately called for direct or indirect negotiations to tighten the offer up. Sort of a “I’ll meet King Faud anywhere to discuss this”.

        A few weeks later that offer got pulled.

        False.

        Sharon rejected the initial initiative, the one you claim was pulled, even before the formal offer was made.

        Indeed, the initiative was formally presented at an Arab League summit on 28 March 2002. However, Sharon had rejected the initial Saudi plan at a Cabinet meeting on 3 March 2002. See here.

        I think the point of that little episode shows that Israel is willing to have peace providing it is to their advantage.

        Yes — that’s why the Israeli peace plans come with caveats that render them unacceptable. Can the Palestinians be faulted for not accepting them?

      • Sibiriak
        December 17, 2013, 9:40 pm

        The Hasbara Buster:

        Sharon rejected the initial initiative, the one you claim was pulled, even before the formal offer was made.

        Sharon was absolutely and irrevocably committed to creating a Greater Israel–he would never have accepted “1967 borders”. Anyone who claims otherwise is misinformed or mendacious.

      • JeffB
        December 17, 2013, 9:41 pm

        @Hasbara —

        March the plan had been trashed and was now the Arab League plan. You are forgetting a key step. The Arab league plan wouldn’t have interested me. I would have been opposed at the time, and still am. Sharon’s rejection of the March plan after normalization was removed I fully supported at the time.

        Consequently, and contrary to your claim, the Arabs had never proposed full diplomatic ties between Israel and all the Arab nations. In 2002 they did. That was a watershed.

        You have a point that there was a new concession. You may be right on that. I was pretty ticked about them dropping full normalization. Given the cold peace with Jordan and Egypt I didn’t (and still don’t) see full diplomatic ties as being anywhere near worth what Israel was being asked to give up.* It’s OK, but I’d much rather have the territory. So I agreed with Sharon’s position. On the other hand real friendly relations, normalization, that’s something the IDF can’t get Israel. That’s something worth a lot to Israel, that was a real concession. And that’s why even me, someone from the right (at the time), was willing to support the original proposal.

        * = I’m going to make a quick comment. My definition for whose land it is, is whose army has possession. Formal recognition is a mild concession after the territory is firmly under an army’s control.

        Also, the language about refugees was carefully crafted not to mention the concept of a full return. There was room for negotiation, but the Israelis missed the opportunity.

        Missed what opportunity. Other than a few embassies what didn’t they get? A decade has passed. Its been a good decade for Israel. What did they lose?

        Yes — that’s why the Israeli peace plans come with caveats that render them unacceptable. Can the Palestinians be faulted for not accepting them?

        Yes they can be. I think Arafat may very well have driven his people to destruction when he turned down Camp David. When he turned down Clinton he compounded a bad choice with total insanity. Today anything like the Camp David agreement is never happening.

      • Shingo
        December 17, 2013, 10:02 pm

        2 seconds of Googling: notice the date this is

        The Saudi plan IS the Arab peace plan. They are identical and announced within a month of one another.
        link to en.wikipedia.org

        From your link:

        A state-run Saudi newspaper, al-Watan, said such visits must follow a Middle East peace agreement, not precede it.

        As Hasbara Buster has just explained,

        “The President praised the crown prince’s ideas regarding the full Arab-Israeli normalization once a comprehensive peace agreement has been reached,” White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

        So the proposal included the requirement that comprehensive peace agreement had to be reached first. That is clearly NOT what Sharon was prepared to accept.

        Hasbara fail

        Sharon is excited, proposes a meeting and the Saudis turn him down.

        No. Sharon turned it down, not the Saudis. The Saudis stated that the offer was conditional upon a comprehensive peace agreement.

        Indeed, the initiative was formally presented at an Arab League summit on 28 March 2002.

        In other words, it was Sharon that pulled the pin not Saudi Arabia. He first said yes before he said no. This also proves that the Saudi Proposal and the Arab Peace initiative were/are EXACTLY the same.

        Thanks for helping to debunk your own claims.

        Note also in the article the importance of “normalization” not just normal diplomatic relations.

        Note that this is precisely what is stated in the Arab Peace Initiative.

        The initiative attempts to end the Arab–Israeli conflict, which means normalizing relations between the entire Arab region and Israel, in exchange for a complete withdrawal from the occupied territories (including East Jerusalem) and a “just settlement” of the Palestinian refugee crisis based on UN Resolution 194 (which calls for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict and resolves that any refugees “wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors” should be able to do so or, if they otherwise wish, should be provided with compensation).[2]

        Truly pathetic JeffB.

      • Shingo
        December 17, 2013, 11:16 pm

        March the plan had been trashed and was now the Arab League plan.

        False. It was the same plan, only formalized at the Arab Summit.

        The Arab league plan wouldn’t have interested me. I would have been opposed at the time, and still am. Sharon’s rejection of the March plan after normalization was removed I fully supported at the time.

        False. The offer for normalization was NOT removed. Why even bother lying about it?
        ” The initiative attempts to end the Arab–Israeli conflict, which means normalizing relations between the entire Arab region and Israel….”

        For the 5th time. IT WAS THE SAME PLAN.

        . I was pretty ticked about them dropping full normalization.

        You had no reason to be because ti was NOT dropped. Why you keep lying about it suggests you are being grossly dishonest.

        Given the cold peace with Jordan and Egypt I didn’t (and still don’t) see full diplomatic ties as being anywhere near worth what Israel was being asked to give up.* It’s OK, but I’d much rather have the territory.

        Of course you would. That is always going to be Israel’s position and always has been. Israel as offered full normalization of relation and Sharon still rejected it as a threat to Israel.

        Yes they can be. I think Arafat may very well have driven his people to destruction when he turned down Camp David.

        No, because even Israeli foreign minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami admits he would have rejected Camp David had he been in Arafat’s shoes.

        When he turned down Clinton he compounded a bad choice with total insanity.

        False again. When e turned down Clinton, Clinton rethought his pathetic offer and came up with a new proposal which included the Clinton parameters at Taba . It was a Taba that both sides agreed on principal and were on the verge of an agreement when Barak pulled the plug.

      • talknic
        December 20, 2013, 6:01 pm

        The Hasbara Buster “the famous three “no’s” implied an absolute rejection of Israel

        link to wp.me

        On a legal basis while Israel failed to have respect for and acknowledgement of their sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; link to wp.me

        Both Jordan and Egypt signed peace treaties based on legal compliance

      • talknic
        December 17, 2013, 8:29 pm

        @ JeffB ” I remember this quite well because it is the only serious peace offer I’d ever seen in my life”

        We’ve never seen one from Israel…

        “(I was rightwing at the time) “

        Hilarious…

        “It then became the typical normal diplomatic relations i.e. peace+embassies and “attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees”. Which was an insult not a peace offer. It is a return to the same nonsense that people had been talking about for decades. And that of course was rejected out of hand.”

        Of course, people asking for their LEGITIMATE and LEGAL RIGHTS under the Laws and UN Charter Israel obliged itself to uphold is nonsense and an insult. Meanwhile a sh*te deal of Israel offering to swap non-Israeli (Arab) territory with the Palestinians for non-Israeli (Arab) territory, so that Israel can keep non-Israeli (Arab) territory and avoid the legal consequences of having illegally acquired, illegally annexed and illegally settled in non-Israeli (Arab) territory, is just dandy (to an ex rightwhinger)

        “I think the point of that little episode shows that Israel is willing to have peace providing it is to their advantage.”

        Israel already got 56% of Palestine on May 15th 1948 and has since been offered over half of the territory that remained of Palestine. Not enough advantage?

        “Which is what other countries do”

        Name one having since 1933 link to pages.citebite.com .. illegally acquired territory by war, illegally annexed territory illegally acquired by war and illegally settled in illegally annexed territory illegally acquired by war, dispossessing and denying the native inhabitants their rights, without being bombed into submission and its leaders dragged before Nuremberg

        “For Israel like any other country the choice between peace and war is strategic”

        Bullsh*t. Israel has never had a war within its sovereign extent. Its wars have ALL been in territories outside the State of Israel over territory Israel has invaded.

      • JeffB
        December 17, 2013, 9:10 pm

        @talknic

        We’ve never seen one from Israel…

        Sure we have. Return of all territories (Golan, West Bank, Gaza, Sinai) in exchange for a full peace. Not taken well: link to en.wikipedia.org

        Of course, people asking for their LEGITIMATE and LEGAL RIGHTS under the Laws and UN Charter Israel obliged itself to uphold is nonsense and an insult.

        Yes it is.

        Israel has never had a war within its sovereign extent.

        1973. The latest bombings from Hamas. And if you want to talk never during the early 1950s there were frequent cross border raids.

        Name one having since 1933

        Sure.
        South Sudan (2011) after horrible violence
        Kosovo (2008) broke free from Serbia
        East Timor (2002) after a generation of slaughter
        Eritrea (1993) after a terrible civil war
        Germany (1990) formed out of two countries after a long bitter cold war with occasional flare ups.
        Yemen (1990) after the North Yemen fueled a nasty civil war in South Yemen they flipped the government to a friendly and the two sides agreed to merge to become one country
        Namibia (1990) which was given to South Africa by the League of Nations (since you are into the law after all) broke off after civil war.

        etc…

      • Shingo
        December 17, 2013, 10:12 pm

        Sure we have. Return of all territories (Golan, West Bank, Gaza, Sinai) in exchange for a full peace. Not taken well

        Not cited correctly by you either.

        From your own link:

        “[i]n part [the Arab] stand was a response to Israel’s unwillingness or inability to consider withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza as part of any peace settlement

        Do you hasbarats even bother to read your own links?

        1973. The latest bombings from Hamas. And if you want to talk never during the early 1950s there were frequent cross border raids.

        Israel were perpetrating cross border raised since the 40s, so no, they are not wars.

        South Sudan (2011) after horrible violence

        No. South Sudan succeeded from Sudan after a referendum. Fail!

        Kosovo (2008) broke free from Serbia

        Broke free, did not capture and occupy and steal. Fail again!

        East Timor (2002) after a generation of slaughter

        No. East Timor succeeded from Indonesia after a referendum. Fail!

        Eritrea (1993) after a terrible civil war

        Same again. Fail!

        Germany (1990) formed out of two countries after a long bitter cold war with occasional flare ups.

        Opposite of all of the above and Israel’s actions. Fail x 2!

        Yemen (1990) after the North Yemen fueled a nasty civil war in South Yemen they flipped the government to a friendly and the two sides agreed to merge to become one country

        Again opposite of all of the above and Israel’s actions. Fail x 3!

        Namibia (1990) which was given to South Africa by the League of Nations (since you are into the law after all) broke off after civil war.

        Broke free, did not capture and occupy and steal. Fail again!

        So every example you have cited has bears no resemblance whatsoever to Israel’s crimes. None involved land being taken by war and settled against the wishes of the existing population.

        Some are the exact opposite and involve reunification, which make you look ever more ridiculous.

      • Shingo
        December 17, 2013, 10:30 pm

        Return of all territories (Golan, West Bank, Gaza, Sinai) in exchange for a full peace. Not taken well:

        What is truly remarkable, but entirely consistent with Israeli propagandists, is that they shamelessly provide a link that does not support their claims whatsoever.

        The names “Golan” and “Sinai” and the word “territories ” do not even appear on the link JeffB provides.

        The name “West Bank” and “Gaza” only appear in the sentence that states that even Benny Morris admits Israel was unwilling or unable “to consider withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza as part of any peace settlement.”

        Does it get any more dishonest and deceitful?

      • Shingo
        December 17, 2013, 11:17 pm

        Sharon was absolutely and irrevocably committed to creating a Greater Israel–he would never have accepted “1967 borders”. Anyone who claims otherwise is misinformed or mendacious.

        Agree 100%.

        A great way to describe JeffB.

      • Sibiriak
        December 18, 2013, 3:41 am

        Talknic:

        Lying is against the basic tenets of Judaism.

        For some, lying in the service of “the tribe” is okay, especially lying to the enemy.

      • Hostage
        December 18, 2013, 1:35 am

        Talknic: We’ve never seen one from Israel…

        Sure we have. Return of all territories (Golan, West Bank, Gaza, Sinai) in exchange for a full peace. Not taken well: link to en.wikipedia.org

        Michael Oren’s Six Days of War establishes that the Cabinet and Generals were already discussing the need to consolidate the territorial gains before the war ever started. We also know from the FRUS, the Meron Memo, and Accidental Empire that the Cabinet had already met to discuss “work camps” in the occupied territories on 27 August and approved working the land and taking over existing orchards from Arab cultivators at that time. Ministers Dayan, Allon, and Gvati met with General Rabin on 1 September and officially authorized the first “settlement outpost”. So the resolution adopted by the Arabs that day was already a moot question.

        Bear in mind that the references in UNSC resolution 242 regarding the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by war and the obligation of all members to act in accordance with Article 2 of the UN Charter, including a prohibition against threats or use of force against the political independence and territorial integrity of any state, have always been listed in the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council as the enunciation of terms that govern the final settlement.

        So Israel has no alternative, but to return all of the territories. The Arabs states have long since agreed to recognize Israel if it will withdraw as required by the UN resolution and conclude a just settlement of the refugee question as required by the UN resolution. But Hasbarists still pretend as if 242 doesn’t exist and that Khartoum closed the door on the requirement that Israel give back the territories.

      • talknic
        December 18, 2013, 1:45 am

        @ JeffB // We’ve never seen one from Israel… //

        Sure we have. Return of all territories (Golan, West Bank, Gaza, Sinai) in exchange for a full peace. Not taken well: link to en.wikipedia.org “

        The wikilink doesn’t support your lies. Only idiots bother to lie on the internet, especially when one can go check. Lying for the so called Jewish state is bizarre. Lying is against the basic tenets of Judaism. You’re not Jewish?

        //… asking for their LEGITIMATE and LEGAL RIGHTS under the Laws and UN Charter Israel obliged itself to uphold is nonsense and an insult//

        “Yes it is”

        No reason given. Too hard? You just have to say something no matter how stupid it makes you look? Your minders haven’t provided you with one?

        //Israel has never had a war within its sovereign extent//

        “1973”

        Uh huh. On what soil sovereign to Israel? Remember Israel has never legally acquired ANY territory since proclaiming its borders May 15th 1948

        “The latest bombings from Hamas. And if you want to talk never during the early 1950s there were frequent cross border raids”

        None of which were an invasion resulting in a war on Israeli soil

        “South Sudan (2011) after horrible violence etc”

        Secession after a referendum the rest of your list is similar, a gigantic idiot for Israel failure. Seems people who fall for the Israeli propaganda schtick really are quite inept

      • talknic
        December 20, 2013, 5:25 pm

        @ JeffB
        ” Given the cold peace with Jordan and Egypt I didn’t (and still don’t) see full diplomatic ties as being anywhere near worth what Israel was being asked to give up.”

        Israel wasn’t asked to give up anything. It was obliged (and agreed) to adhere to the law before peaceful relations were assumed. In the instance of Egypt, to fully withdraw from all Egyptian territories before peaceful relations were assumed.

        “My definition for whose land it is, is whose army has possession”

        The law says your ‘might is right’ definition is illegal link to pages.citebite.com You support criminal behaviour. Why should anyone believe ANYTHING you say

        “Missed what opportunity. Other than a few embassies what didn’t they get? A decade has passed. Its been a good decade for Israel. What did they lose?”

        Good will, credibility, moral ground. Israel has no legal status in Occupied Territories other than being the Occupying Power

        “Today anything like the Camp David agreement is never happening”

        It was never gonna happen anyway
        link to wp.me

    • Sycamores
      December 17, 2013, 3:42 pm

      “What prevents peace is not Jewish stiff-neckedness but the inability of Palestinian Arabs to accept the Jews as their equals and decide to end the conflict.”

      what sort of logic is that?

      if the Palestinians accepted the israeli Jews as their equals then everyone in israel & Palestine would be second class citizens, which would not benefit anyone. being equal to a Palestinian means you would have to suffer racial discrimination put in place by the israeli government.

      it would be far more logical if the israeli Jews accepted the Palestinians as their equals, start by getting rid of them 50 or so discriminary laws against non-Jews.

      it’s not the Palestinians preventing peace it’s israeli hypocrisy.

    • traintosiberia
      December 17, 2013, 7:20 pm

      South Africa’s enemies were also drowning back in 80s and 90s. Some of them are still. I guess Mandela was also accused of not accepting the White as equals.
      God has given people tongues and also has allowed them to twist the way they want.

    • James Canning
      December 17, 2013, 7:34 pm

      Norman, the larger problem is Israel’s refusal to get out of the West Bank. And Israel’s confidence the US Congress is willing to back continuing insane colonisation programme.

    • traintosiberia
      December 17, 2013, 7:40 pm

      I wonder why you are not using Dhimnitude, the Damned it ud to describe the reaction of Jewish people to Arabs. You can also say how sandy the desert was before and how ramshackle was the ramparts to wailing wall.

    • thetumta
      December 17, 2013, 9:11 pm

      Just 10 days too late, NormanF. You’ve had 60 years to end the conflict! Yes, the Gntiles have endured, why should they compromise now? Just be prepared to deal with them as they have suffered with you for 60 years. And yes, no visa here. Perhaps Berlin.

      Hej! Tumta

    • Basilio
      December 17, 2013, 10:57 pm

      Norman, with all due respect, isn’t Israel building and building more settlements thereby making a future agreement more-and-more difficult? Shlomo Ben Ami once said that settlement expansion didn’t violate the letter of Oslo, but the spirit of the agreement. It shows a clear lack of good-will and the fact that Israel doesn’t want a two state solution based on the 1967 lines at all, but rather something more similar to large Indian reservations. The Arabs didn’t force Israel’s leaders to build all those settlements. It was nationalism and dumb headed zealotry. You reference hate, but it’s not like Israel’s treating the Arabs with love when it often seizes land using military excuses while never seizing land from Jews for military excuses. I know you’ll say they’ve removed Jews from illegal outposts. Yet, even Palestinians who had ancestors who bought land during the Ottoman Empire or British Mandate in a legal fashion can have their land seized without getting so much as a penny or a farthing. Israel’s government is no better than horse thieves, truth-be-told.

      • JeffB
        December 18, 2013, 6:00 pm

        @Basilio

        Quite frequently the Israeli government does what most western governments do and offer to buy the property at or above market price: link to en.wikipedia.org

        The issue for the Palestinians are that they have social conventions against selling their lands to Jews so they don’t take the money. They don’t recognize Israel’s right to exercise eminent domain since they don’t recognize them as the legitimate government…. The Palestinians frequently define Israel doing things that any normal government would do with incredibly harsh language. My region of the country eminent domain is used more than any other and I’ve never felt it as a form of oppression.

      • James Canning
        December 18, 2013, 7:20 pm

        Many if not most illegal settlers in the West Bank apparently think Israel’s borders will automatically change to incorporate areas of heavy illegal settlement by Jews.

      • Hostage
        December 18, 2013, 7:29 pm

        Quite frequently the Israeli government does what most western governments do and offer to buy the property at or above market price: link to en.wikipedia.org

        That’s a real howler. The Prawer Plan was scrapped. at least in part, in order to molify MKs who wanted to revise it to prevent payment to Bedouins for the lands they own and to prevent other Bedouins from being granted a title of ownership versus a mere lease.

        The issue for the Palestinians are that they have social conventions against selling their lands to Jews so they don’t take the money.

        Yeah we all have that same social convention since the Nuremberg Charter established that the Hague rules are customary international law. Israel is an occupying power, so it can’t exercise “Eminent domain” against Palestinians for the private gain of Israeli settlers. That’s called pillage and its a war crime.

      • Shingo
        December 19, 2013, 7:12 am

        Superbly put as always hostage.

      • JeffB
        December 19, 2013, 10:39 am

        @Hostage

        Yeah we all have that same social convention since the Nuremberg Charter established that the Hague rules are customary international law. Israel is an occupying power, so it can’t exercise “Eminent domain” against Palestinians for the private gain of Israeli settlers. That’s called pillage and its a war crime.

        GP was arguing that eminent domain as intrinsically a form of theft. I was just pointing out that there are lots of people subject to it, that approve of it. I voted for a guy for township counsel who thinks my side of the street should be EDed and added to a development.

        Your claim of pillage IMHO just points to the completely unreality of calling what’s going on in the West Bank an occupation. I think the Palestinians would be thrilled if what the Israelis wanted to do in the West Bank was pillage, “please take everything you can carry and then leave forever”.

        The UN’s definition of occupation is an army controlling a territory for a short period of time with little interest in establishing permanent anything. Under those conditions there would be little reason for development planning. But that’s just not what’s going on. Instead you have a government with a long term interest spending resources with the intention of benefitting from those resources for many years.

        That’s development it isn’t pillage. Frankly if there were Israelis involved were ever tried (which I don’t think they would be) I think any fair jury (which the UN is not) would have to find them not guilty. The people laying expensive water pipes were not trying to steal dirt, they were building the infrastructure that allows humans to live with high population density.

        Finally ED is not “against Palestinians”. If my house gets EDed it would be against “JeffB” but for the interests of New Jersey. Similarly when property gets EDed it is not against Palestinians and for settlers but rather it is for Israel. The Palestinians should be ethnically Palestinian Israelis and benefitting from that.

      • Hostage
        December 19, 2013, 2:01 pm

        Your claim of pillage IMHO just points to the completely unreality of calling what’s going on in the West Bank an occupation.

        Yeah we get it. Your talking points here are a form of hate speech that condones, denies, or trivializes war crimes or crimes against humanity directed toward Palestinians. FYI, Zionist watchdog groups jump all the way to the end of their choke chains when that tactic is used against Jews and they run straight to the Courts to get websites blocked and the names of those responsible from site operators, like Twitter, so they can be brought to justice. Stay classy JeffB.

      • Shingo
        December 19, 2013, 7:01 am

        The issue for the Palestinians are that they have social conventions against selling their lands to Jews so they don’t take the money

        Absolute rubbish. Many have sold their land to Jews.

        . They don’t recognize Israel’s right to exercise eminent domain since they don’t recognize them as the legitimate government

        1. Eminent domain only applied to sovereign territory. Israel had no right to assert eminent domain beyond it’s legal borders.

        2. The government if Israel hasn’t jurisdiction beyond Israel’s borders.

      • Shingo
        December 19, 2013, 7:10 am

        The Palestinians frequently define Israel doing things that any normal government would do with incredibly harsh language.

        What language would you use to describe mass murder, child killing, home demolitions, night raids, land theft and child torture?

        My region of the country eminent domain is used more than any other and I’ve never felt it as a form of oppression.

        What piece of stolen land do you live on?

      • JeffB
        December 19, 2013, 10:41 am

        @Shingo

        What piece of stolen land do you live on?

        Under your definition land from the Unami Delaware.

      • talknic
        December 19, 2013, 4:17 pm

        @ JeffB “Quite frequently the Israeli government does what most western governments do and offer to buy the property at or above market price”

        Within their own territory you silly person. The West Bank isn’t in Israel

        Resolution 476 (1980) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2242nd meeting on 30 June 1980

        1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

        MORE

        ‘The issue for the Palestinians are that they have social conventions against selling their lands to Jews so they don’t take the money”

        Best you and the illegal Israeli settlers get your bullsh*t on the same track. They claim they’re sold land by Palestinians.

        “They don’t recognize Israel’s right to exercise eminent domain since they don’t recognize them as the legitimate government….”

        Israel is the Occupying Power over the West Bank. It doesn’t have any eminent domain on any territories outside the State of Israel.

        “The Palestinians frequently define Israel doing things that any normal government would do with incredibly harsh language”

        Normal Governments aren’t in breach of the laws of occupation like Israel.

        “My region of the country eminent domain is used more than any other and I’ve never felt it as a form of oppression”

        Delaware is within the territory of the USA. Israel is an Occupying Power over non-Israeli territories.

        Anything else at high school level you need help with?

    • lysias
      December 18, 2013, 5:11 pm

      P.W. Botha offered to release Mandela in 1985 if he renounced violence. After Mandela refused, Botha blamed the intransigence of Mandela and the ANC for continued hostilities.

  2. William Burns
    December 17, 2013, 11:15 am

    Everyone here knows that Israeli Jews do not accept Arabs as their equals any more than white South Africans accepted blacks, so quit wasting our time. (Man, Norman Finkelstein’s really changed!)

    • Citizen
      December 17, 2013, 11:43 am

      True, everyone who comes to this blog regularly knows Israeli Jews do not accept Arabs as there equals; the MW archives are jam packed with the historical and contemporary factual evidence, as well as jam packed regarding the ideology of Jewish Zionism. NormanF is just doing his job as a hasbara bot by repeating Zionist propaganda points. NormanF does this to derail the educated discussion and to hope to convince those landing on MW who are naive and ignorant about the subject matter this blog is focused on. Norman F, in short is a Zionist troll. That’s a lucrative profession and/or hobby.

      Another Zionist agent is CAMERA; recently, re the Mandela Memorial attendance,
      CAMERA claimed that the NYT and many mainstream and key blogs focused on Netanyahu avoiding the Memorial (for the least believable reason in light of the $8’5 Million per day Israel gets from US taxpayers, not to mention constant ad-ons, like the quarter billion Obama and Congress just passed for Israel defense systems like Iron Dome–as part of the, yeah you guess it–the 2014 US defense budget!), while NYT and these other main media never mentioned the Dali Lama and PM of Turkey didn’t attend the Mandela memorial either. Wonder if they couldn’t afford it either–anybody know?

    • Sumud
      December 17, 2013, 11:48 am

      (Man, Norman Finkelstein’s really changed!)

      [I know you know this but it's] just another ziobot occupying something that isn’t theirs.

    • Don
      December 17, 2013, 12:39 pm

      You are kidding, right?

      NormanF above is…Norman Finkelstein? That almost does not seem possible.

      • Scott
        December 17, 2013, 2:07 pm

        Agreed it doesn’t seem possible, but maybe? Benny Morris wrote an important book on the ethnic cleansing, and now advocates nuking Iran.
        Maybe NormanF can clarify?

      • William Burns
        December 17, 2013, 6:12 pm

        Yeah, that was meant as a joke. Sorry if anyone took it seriously.

      • The Hasbara Buster
        December 17, 2013, 2:14 pm

        NormanF above is…Norman Finkelstein?

        No, NormanF is just another Zionist internet warrior who doesn’t care much for consistency. It’s interesting to follow these guys and see how they can say one thing and its exact opposite; how they can defend an action (if performed by Israel) and attack that very same action (if performed by the Arabs).

        For instance, when Israel denied entry to a Palestinian American because of her ethnicity, he claimed “A sovereign state is entitled under international law to refuse admission of a foreign national and does not have to give a reason for its denial. Israel did nothing here the world’s other 192 states don’t do.”

        But when Dubai refused a visa to the Israeli representative at the FIAT/IFTA conference earlier this year, he moaned “In other words, FIAT/IFTA has decreed “no dogs or Jews allowed.”” No mention of a country’s right to refuse admissions here.

        I find these contradictions quite amusing.

    • MHughes976
      December 17, 2013, 4:11 pm

      To my mind Zionism is the claim that there are certain rights belonging solely to people who are Jewish and so that no one who is not Jewish is equal in that regard. At that rate, it is difficult to see what compromise Zionists could offer without changing their nature.
      If anyone arrived in the place where I lived and said that only he and his family had a birthright here my reaction would be quite negative, maybe with a touch of hatred. Even so I’d like to know what compromise the Palestinians have been offered that they should, for all their negative feelings, have accepted and on what principle their claimed obligation to accept would be based.
      There are differences between Israel and SA but what they have in common is that a large group of those subject to the sovereign power are disfranchised and that is what the Forward writer perceives. Good for him.

      • JeffB
        December 17, 2013, 4:29 pm

        @MHughes976

        Even so I’d like to know what compromise the Palestinians have been offered that they should, for all their negative feelings, have accepted and on what principle their claimed obligation to accept would be based.

        There are lots of compromises that they could have accepted but the obligation is on the basis of the leadership’s pragmatic grounds to do what’s best in a bad situation for their people. To play a bad hand well. There is no claimed obligation beyond that.

        The Palestinians have a legitimate complaint. That’s what makes the conflict so difficult to solve. The easy road emotionally is for the Palestinians is to fight on to their destruction. The hard road is to accept that their will not be a deus ex machina and their best bet is to decide what is really vital to them, make the best deal they can (which won’t be good) and protect what’s vital at the cost of almost everything else.

      • Shingo
        December 17, 2013, 4:50 pm

        The Palestinians have a legitimate complaint. That’s what makes the conflict so difficult to solve

        No, what makes the conflict so difficult to solve is Israel’s refusal to solve it and America’s preparedness to protect Israel from the consequences.

        The hard road is to accept that their will not be a deus ex machina and their best bet is to decide what is really vital to them, make the best deal they can (which won’t be good) and protect what’s vital at the cost of almost everything else.

        No, the best option is to push the US to the side, take this to the UN an ICC and bring in the rest of the world to pressure Israel into abiding by international law.

      • JeffB
        December 17, 2013, 5:10 pm

        @Shingo

        No, the best option is to push the US to the side, take this to the UN an ICC and bring in the rest of the world to pressure Israel into abiding by international law.

        We discussed this already in your Europe boycott. The rest of the world without taking extraordinary actions can’t put enough pressure on Israel to create major concessions.

        And if the USA is pushed to the side, the Palestinians are kicked out of Israel within 10 days. The USA’s interest in regional stability is the only thing keeping the Palestinian population in Israel.

      • Shingo
        December 17, 2013, 5:40 pm

        The rest of the world without taking extraordinary actions can’t put enough pressure on Israel to create major concessions.

        Of course they can. They did it with South Africa and they’ll do it with Israel. As Jeffrey Goodberg has pointed out, Israel greatly fears isolation, delegirimization and BDS, in spite of your desperate denials.

        Israel’s economy olds very fragile, and would collapse.

        And if the USA is pushed to the side, the Palestinians are kicked out of Israel within 10 days. The USA’s interest in regional stability is the only thing keeping the Palestinian population in Israel

        Only in tmyour Zionist dreams. Israel wouldn’t and even if they did, it would guarantee Israel’s collapse. There would be no hesitation on the part of the rest if the world to impose a comprehensive embargo on Israel.

        BTW. The US. is not keeping the Palestinian population in Israel, they’re protecting Israel

      • talknic
        December 17, 2013, 8:52 pm

        @ JeffB

        “The Palestinians have a legitimate complaint. That’s what makes the conflict so difficult to solve.”

        Uh? So it’s not Israel breaking International law and the UN Charter .. AMAZING!!!!

        ” The easy road emotionally is for the Palestinians is to fight on to their destruction. “

        Ah yes, fighting a usurper to ones own destruction is so emotionally easy… What T F drugs are you on?

        “The hard road is to accept that their will not be a deus ex machina and their best bet is to decide what is really vital to them, make the best deal they can (which won’t be good) and protect what’s vital at the cost of almost everything else”

        HOW ABOUT ISRAEL SIMPLY ADHERE TO THE LAW?

      • talknic
        December 17, 2013, 8:59 pm

        @ JeffB

        “.. if the USA is pushed to the side, the Palestinians are kicked out of Israel within 10 days. The USA’s interest in regional stability is the only thing keeping the Palestinian population in Israel”

        Uh? Palestinians in Israel are all Israeli citizens. You’re telling us Israel would kick out its own citizens. What a f&cked up nasty Naziesque little state you support. Can’t even live up to its own declaration of independence

        BTW Whatever remained of Palestine after Israel proclaimed its borders on May 15th 1948 is yet not Israeli and not in Israel.

      • Sibiriak
        December 17, 2013, 10:18 pm

        JeffB:

        The easy road emotionally is for the Palestinians is to fight on to their destruction.

        More accurately: their political destruction.* The Palestinian people are not facing destruction. They will remain–and multiply.

        The easy road emotionally for the Israelis is to fight on to the utter destruction of their state’s moral foundation. It certainly seems like they will succeed in relegating the Palestinians to shrunken, non-contiguous, partially autonomous, Israeli-surrounded and supervised enclaves.

        If the Palestinians do no accept that, then Israel will be held morally–if not legally–accountable. Israel will be a pariah state, an Apartheid State, a Persecution State [Hostage -:) ]. Israel and Zionism will be delegitimized–and many thoughtful Zionists argue that delegitimization is an “existential threat.”

        And history doesn’t just stop. Where it will go from there is hard to say, but it I doubt it will be all that wonderful for Israelis.

        ——————-

        * Baruch Kimmerling coined the term “politicide” for this process of political destruction.

        Politicide is a process that covers a wide range of social, political and military activities whose goal is to destroy the political and national existence of a whole community of people and thus deny it the possibility of self-determination.

        Murders, local massacres, the elimination of leadership and elite groups, the physical destruction of public institutions and infrastructure, land colonization, starvation, social and political isolation, re-education, and partial ethnic cleansing are the major tools to achieve this goal.

        ( “Politicide: Ariel Sharon’s War Against the Palestinians” p.4)

      • MHughes976
        December 19, 2013, 3:29 pm

        But for all the tricks and all the ruthlessness it is really difficult to achieve lasting politicide if the inferior group both retains substantial numbers and refuses to abandon its protests. Not sure if it’s ever been done.
        I still don’t see what settlement the Palestinians should have accepted, still less why they should have accepted it, or why it is in all the circumstances in some degree fair – which presumably is the reason why acceptance would have been a good idea. We aren’t told even the beginnings of this story by anyone here.

      • JeffB
        December 19, 2013, 4:06 pm

        @Sibraik —

        Replying up a level

        If the Palestinians do no accept that, then Israel will be held morally–if not legally–accountable. Israel will be a pariah state, an Apartheid State, a Persecution State [Hostage -:) ]. Israel and Zionism will be delegitimized–and many thoughtful Zionists argue that delegitimization is an “existential threat.”

        These sorts of lines assume that Israelis are idiots when it comes to PR. Then there is a whole other batch about “the lobby” that makes them geniuses beyond measure. Let me propose a middle ground. Israel is pretty good at PR. The UN and the arab states are obviously where Israel is in worst shape, they face the most hostile crowd. The US congress is where they are in best shape. The EU sort of represents a middle ground.

        Israel is perfectly capable of adjusting behavior under pressure, for example in the mid 1960s the military rule of the Israeli Arabs was starting to cause international concern so they got rid of it. They could do the same thing in the territories. They are patient so they can be always pushing things in a Zionist direction but always slowly.

        Well how did the world deal with the Russians when they crushed the Chechens? What did the world say when the democratic government of Myanmar decided they didn’t like a muslim minority and engaged in mass murder and ethnic cleansing of their Rohingy minority? In Pakistan there are attacks on the Christian communities. Gypsies are still horrible mistreated in Europe…. The world will object but they won’t fight a war for the Palestinians and that’s probably what it would take to effect real change.

        Moreover Israel is IMHO already more powerful than North Korea. They are incapable of being a pariah state in the South Africa model. They cannot be safely isolated, because

        a) Israel’s intrinsic interests are towards regional instability. While most world powers want mostly regional stability.
        b) Israel is capable of inducing instability via. military means if left to their own devices.

        they need to be kept within an international system. The question becomes how does the world deal with Israel if Israel doesn’t treat a minority well?
        Israel won’t be a pariah state. What will happen though is they will be a normal state with problems and lots of stuff that people don’t like. The days of them being a shining light of morality are over. The Jews are going to be forced to admit that now they are walking in the Tzar’s shoes they can see his POV.

        And that’s good for the Jews. They need to become a nation like any other.

      • Shingo
        December 19, 2013, 6:13 pm

        These sorts of lines assume that Israelis are idiots when it comes to PR

        Not so much idiots as tone deaf.

        Then there is a whole other batch about “the lobby” that makes them geniuses beyond measure.

        Being effective doesn’t make them geniuses. Everyone has a price. You can get anything you want if you write a big enough cheque.

        The US congress is where they are in best shape.

        It is the only place Israel is in good shape.

        Israel is in lousy shape with the EU and worse still the rest of the world.

        Israel is perfectly capable of adjusting behavior under pressure

        Which is why BDS is such a great idea.

        They are incapable of being a pariah state in the South Africa model.

        Israel is already a pariah state . It’s prestige and popularity sites alongside that of North Korea.

        <blockquote<a) Israel’s intrinsic interests are towards regional instability.
        Wrong. Israel wants the region to remain unstable and fractured. One of the reading they attacked Egypt in. ’67 was to defeat pan Arabism. They want Syria, Levanon and Iran fractured and unstable.

        b) Israel is capable of inducing instability via. military means if left to their own devices.

        Israel has been the very cause if instability so it cannot possibly create it.

        Even Licni admitted Israel has become a pariah state. That ship has sailed.

      • Sibiriak
        December 19, 2013, 11:10 pm

        JeffB:

        The question becomes how does the world deal with Israel if Israel doesn’t treat a minority well?

        If Israel crushes Palestinian statehood, following the dictates of your illiberal Zionism, then Palestinians will be the MAJORITY within Greater Israel, not just “a minority”. There is no way such as state could ever be considered ” a nation like any other”.

      • JeffB
        December 20, 2013, 8:31 am

        @Sibraik —

        Replying up a level

        If Israel crushes Palestinian statehood, following the dictates of your illiberal Zionism, then Palestinians will be the MAJORITY within Greater Israel, not just “a minority”. There is no way such as state could ever be considered ” a nation like any other”.

        I don’t think so. I suspect with Gaza out we are looking at about 2.6m Palestinians including East Jerusalem. But besides the demographic issue, even if the Palestinians were a narrow majority there are lots of things Israel can do to create minor biases. Look at the United States for example where:

        population -> eligible voters -> registered voters -> actual voters get successively more narrow and more rightwing.

      • jon s
        December 19, 2013, 3:36 pm

        MHughes976, You definition of Zionism:
        “To my mind Zionism is the claim that there are certain rights belonging solely to people who are Jewish and so that no one who is not Jewish is equal in that regard. ”
        Zionism made no such claim. On the contrary, Zionism can be seen as a movement intent on putting the Jewish people on an equal footing with other nations. Not supremacy, but equality.

      • Hostage
        December 19, 2013, 8:17 pm

        Zionism made no such claim. On the contrary, Zionism can be seen as a movement intent on putting the Jewish people on an equal footing with other nations. Not supremacy, but equality.

        That’s not the case in Palestine. Judges sitting on the Israeli Supreme Court have handed-down racist rulings which say:

        The principle that the State of Israel is the state of the Jewish people is Israel’s foundation and mission [yessoda vi-yeuda], and the principle of the equality of rights and obligations of all citizens of the State of Israel is of the State’s essence and character [mahuta ve-ofya]. The latter principle comes only to add to the former, not to modify it; there is nothing in the principle of the equality of civil rights and obligations to modify the principle that the State of Israel is the state of the Jewish people, and only the Jewish people. (Ben-Shalom v. CEC 1988, 272)

        That violates Article 1 of the UN Charter by conditioning full participation in the political process of the State on acceptance of ethnic or racial superiority of the Jewish people.

      • JeffB
        December 20, 2013, 8:17 am

        That violates Article 1 of the UN Charter by conditioning full participation in the political process of the State on acceptance of ethnic or racial superiority of the Jewish people.

        Article 1 doesn’t say anything quite that strong: [Purposes of the United Nations section:] To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

        Israel can and has agreed to advance the purpose. Moreover, your interpretation of this would prohibit state churches which cannot possibly the case as many countries that are members have state churches.

      • Hostage
        December 20, 2013, 10:16 pm

        Article 1 doesn’t say anything quite that strong:

        I notice that you pruned-off the applicable portions of Article 1 of the UN Charter and only quoted the parts about the principle of non-discrimination. Those and the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples have long-since been codified in international law. That is the subject of the paragraphs that you cut-off.

        Article 1(1) requires “the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

        If there is a Jewish Nation Article 1(2) also requires it “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

      • JeffB
        December 21, 2013, 3:35 am

        @hostage —

        I quoted the charter as applicable to their domestic issues i.e. conditioning full participation based on acceptance… The things about solving problems peaceably etc… are potentially other issues but they don’t have to do with the point you were objecting to in the December 19, 2013 at 8:17 pm post.

        Similarly the section on the rights to self determination of peoples. That clause is a god send for Israel it defends the entire purpose of Zionism. The whole point of all the actions are to achieve self determination of a people. So that clause they have immunity from. To object to Israel one must believe that self determination is only a right for the right sorts of people, one that Jews should have been permanently denied. So no. They can never be in violation of that article.

        The point of my post is that Article 1 as written (and again I’m willing to accept that the GA has distorted it to mean anything what-so-ever but that’s not the charter that’s just the GA) sets down a purpose and what Israel is doing is agreeing to advance this purpose. It is a vague promise, easy to achieve and Israel does.

      • Philip Weiss
        December 23, 2013, 9:47 am

        Jeff what do I do about the fact that per your definition Benjamin Netanyahu is now my leader, as he states himself to be; but I voted for Barack Obama, and regard my nation as the US. What am I to do? I have referred to the Jewish people, and regard myself as a member of same; but I do so, as Shmuel pointed out here so wisely a long time ago, because I view a Jewish civilization, know it to exist, or to have existed and proudly see myself as formed by that. As we all know, civilizations thicken and diminish (c.f., the famous historical charts), and nations also come and go. But the Israeli nation and the US one now exist and I want them separated. This site began after my brother told me that the Iraq war would be good for Israel, in 2002. I did not feel the least bit torn, in opposing that war and many other militant approaches to the Arab world that representatives of the Jewish nation have sought to recruit me in

      • eljay
        December 19, 2013, 8:31 pm

        >> On the contrary, Zionism can be seen as a movement intent on putting the Jewish people on an equal footing with other nations. Not supremacy, but equality.

        A supremacist “Jewish State” is not equality, it’s supremacism.

      • Shingo
        December 20, 2013, 7:50 pm

        Israel can and has agreed to advance the purpose.

        Clearly it has not agreed and has not done so, as we can see from Hostages citation. Israel is an apartheid state after all.

      • Shingo
        December 19, 2013, 8:36 pm

        On the contrary, Zionism can be seen as a movement intent on putting the Jewish people on an equal footing with other nations. Not supremacy, but equality.

        That is not how it is seen. It is seen as a racist, ethnic supremacist movement with the intent on putting the Jewish people above other nations. Why else would they have dozens of blatantly racist laws disciminating against non Jews?

        Why would the Supreme Court reject the notion of Israeli nationality?

      • RoHa
        December 19, 2013, 8:39 pm

        “putting the Jewish people on an equal footing with other nations. ”

        The “Jewish people” (insofar as there is such a thing) is not a nation.

      • jon s
        December 20, 2013, 9:44 am

        RoHa, with all respect, who are you to determine whether the Jews are or are not a nation?

      • Shingo
        December 20, 2013, 7:47 pm

        RoHa, with all respect, who are you to determine whether the Jews are or are not a nation?

        The fact that “the Jews” do not fit the definition of a nation.

      • RoHa
        December 20, 2013, 7:52 pm

        “RoHa, with all respect, who are you to determine whether the Jews are or are not a nation?”

        Someone who has actually put some thought into the question. We have discussed this at great length on MW, and repeatedly demonstrated that
        Jews are not a nation in any normal sense.

        No successful refutation of our arguments has been offered.

        Thus, to keep trotting out the line that Jews are a nation is simply dishonest.

        To follow the arguments, you can start here: link to mondoweiss.net

        (Why are the reply buttons missing?)

      • Shingo
        December 20, 2013, 7:49 pm

        But besides the demographic issue, even if the Palestinians were a narrow majority there are lots of things Israel can do to create minor biases.

        Those are only temporary and could easily be thwarted.

  3. David Doppler
    December 17, 2013, 11:25 am

    Helloooo. South Africa is not extinct, Apartheid is. The threat to Israel – the part of the threat that isn’t effectively deterred by IDF and US military – is primarily to its Jews-only public institutions. Keep defending that, Podhoretz, et al, and earn for yourselves a place up there with George Wallace and Jefferson Davis.

    • Citizen
      December 17, 2013, 11:48 am

      @ David Doppler
      I agree with your take, but how do you think, e.g., Bill Kristol would respond to your comment? Despite his neocon trail of disastrous advice, he’s on the mainstream news tv channels all the time (nearly as much as Bolton, even), unlike, say his brother in spirit like Podhoretz.

      • David Doppler
        December 17, 2013, 2:45 pm

        I would respond that it is time for Bill Kristol to lose his privileged perch, that there are consequences for being racist and deceitful, and disastrously wrong over and over.

  4. Keith
    December 17, 2013, 12:03 pm

    “…white South Africa’s road to extinction.”

    Road to extinction? Political apartheid was replaced by economic apartheid as blacks got poorer, average white income improved, and the transnational corporations and economic elite (now including corrupt black officialdom) made out like bandits. Worse than before, but no longer considered a pariah! I suspect that the Israeli economic elites and the corporations would be most pleased to see a South Africa solution implemented in Israel/Palestine. What stands in the way is the fanaticism of the some of the Zionists who will never willingly give up even one inch of the sacred soil, their fundamentalist ideology trumping rationality as it usually does. None of this bodes well for the Palestinians.

    • Chu
      December 17, 2013, 12:37 pm

      Great point. But South Africa’s model may only be a framework. No question the two situations are very different.
      I would think the West Bank and Gaza will have new economic opportunities to work with many other willing nations and support services, after the oppressor’s boot is lifting from their everyday life.

      • Mike_Konrad
        December 17, 2013, 1:58 pm

        I would think the West Bank and Gaza will have new economic opportunities to work with many other willing nations and support services, after the oppressor’s boot is lifting from their everyday life.

        Nonsense, the whole Mideast is a mess. Were it not for oil, everyone would avoid it.

        Why haven’t the Saudis produced a technological society like the Israeli Jews? The Per Capita GDP is West European in amount

        Kuwait is has a $58,000 GDP per capita. Where are its famous universities? Its patents? Its Nobel Prizes?

        There is an answer , but everyone here is too politically correct to admit it.

        Think! Here is a clue, as to what the source of the problem is:

        Put these coordinates in Google Earth:   21.422495°N 39.826165°E

        You will see what the source of the problem is. And, it is not occupied by the Jews.

      • eljay
        December 17, 2013, 2:59 pm

        Why haven’t the Saudis produced a technological society like the Israeli Jews? … There is an answer , but everyone here is too politically correct to admit it. … Put these coordinates in Google Earth: 21.422495°N 39.826165°E

        You will see what the source of the problem is. And, it is not occupied by the Jews.

        Once again, Zio-supremacists aim for the bottom:

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

      • ritzl
        December 17, 2013, 3:11 pm

        To clarify M_K’s cuteness, those coordinates are for Al-Haram in Mecca.

        So Islam is the blanket problem, Mike_Konrad?

        Way over the line, imho.

      • just
        December 17, 2013, 3:35 pm

        It is ritzl. Consider the source. He’s a racist Zio defending the indefensible policies of his beloved Israel and her ugly apartheid and avowals of entitlement and innocence.

      • Shingo
        December 17, 2013, 4:54 pm

        Nonsense, the whole Mideast is a mess.

        So is Israel, which is part of the Mideast.

        Why haven’t the Saudis produced a technological society like the Israeli Jews?

        Why haven’t black Africans? And why is it that Nazi Germany were such a technologically advanced society like Israel and apartheid South Africa.

        What does that tell us about technologically advanced societies?

        Put these coordinates in Google Earth: 21.422495°N 39.826165°E

        Didn’t you know MK? Saudi Arabia is Israel’s new best friend. But I agree that the Saudi State is an abomination, which explains why Israel has taken to it like a duck to water.

      • andrew r
        December 17, 2013, 5:28 pm

        Why haven’t the Saudis produced a technological society like the Israeli Jews? The Per Capita GDP is West European in amount

        Saudi has to buy technology while Israel receives it as a gift. Since you can only think in half-educated soundbites, that’s closer to the reality. Of course, no European power has been willing to share nuclear technology with an Arab state.

        Kuwait is has a $58,000 GDP per capita. Where are its famous universities? Its patents? Its Nobel Prizes?

        If you think Nobel Prizes are a measure of superiority, guess what? Not one Jewish Nobel Prize winner is of Mideastern origin, while two winners (Baruj Benaceraf and Claude Cohen-Tannoudji) are of North African descent. None of the Jewish communities of Syria, Iraq or Yemen have produced a Nobel Laureate.

      • andrew r
        December 17, 2013, 5:46 pm

        Of course, no European power has been willing to share nuclear technology with an Arab state.

        Almost forgot the Iraqi nuclear reactor was built by France. My bad.

      • talknic
        December 17, 2013, 5:50 pm

        @Mike_Konrad “Nonsense, the whole Mideast is a mess. Were it not for oil, everyone would avoid it.”

        Mike_Konrad points elsewhere in typical stupid Israeli apologist style.

        “Why haven’t the Saudis produced a technological society like the Israeli Jews?”

        Relevance and why should they? They have oil for income. Israel needs some form of income other than illegally exploiting non-Israeli resources in Palestine, billions in investment in the illegal settlement industry, billions selling non-Israeli land in non-Israeli territory to illegal Israeli settlers.

        Israel can no longer afford to adhere to International Law, its illegal facts on the ground are so vast and firmly entrenched and intertwined with the Israeli economy, the Jewish state would be sent bankrupt for decades were it to face the legal consequences of 65 years of illegal activities in “territories outside the State of Israel” …”in Palestine” link to pages.citebite.com

        “Kuwait is has a $58,000 GDP per capita. Where are its famous universities? “

        Where are Israel’s? link to timeshighereducation.co.uk

        “Put these coordinates in Google Earth: 21.422495°N 39.826165°E “

        Uh huh. That looks like a very very large complex. Israel have anything like it …. in Israel? ? And just east of the Haj @ 21°24’41.88″N 39°53’27.43″E Israel have anything like it …. in Israel?

        “You will see what the source of the problem is”

        The UNSC says it’s Israel

        1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

        2. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly;

        3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East; link to wp.me

      • seafoid
        December 17, 2013, 5:57 pm

        Mike Konrad

        If Israel didn’t have access to Azeri oil, how long before the country would shut down ? Israel’s high tech society is built on cheap oil. Never forget that.

      • Shingo
        December 17, 2013, 6:13 pm

        Why haven’t the Saudis produced a technological society like the Israeli Jews?

        Why hadn’t the Israeli Jews produced a technological society until the migration of several thousand Russian-trained scientists and engineers?

        Russian taxpayers laid out the resources and brainpower to teach and train those people; Israel reaped the benefits.

      • traintosiberia
        December 17, 2013, 7:27 pm

        in those famous and alleged 3000 thousands years of history, some noble prizes here and there and a lot of .. you know what I mean.

    • Mike_Konrad
      December 17, 2013, 1:46 pm

      What stands in the way is the fanaticism of the some of the Zionists who will never willingly give up even one inch of the sacred soil, their fundamentalist ideology trumping rationality as it usually does. None of this bodes well for the Palestinians.

      When it comes to fundamentalism, the settlers are mild compared to the mullahs.

      • just
        December 17, 2013, 3:08 pm

        Horse hockey.

      • MHughes976
        December 17, 2013, 4:19 pm

        All significant factions in Israel, not just the settlers, seem committed very absolutely to Zionism, which is so fundamental to them that they share the completely unshakable determination and readiness to use force of religious fundamentalists, such as those who will not at any price question the Bible or the Koran. You may admire, as some do, the firmness and moral clarity of this.

      • Shingo
        December 17, 2013, 4:55 pm

        When it comes to fundamentalism, the settlers are mild compared to the mullahs.

        The mullahs are not stealing land that does not belong to them and driving the population from it.

      • talknic
        December 17, 2013, 5:19 pm

        Mike_Konrad “When it comes to fundamentalism, the settlers are mild compared to the mullahs”

        When it come to stupid whataboutery and thread derailment, supporters for Israel’s illegal activities in non-Israeli territory have no equal

        A) The illegal Israeli settlers are in someone else’s territory on someone else’s land. The “mullahs” are in their own country.

        B) Why are you comparing the “mullahs” who’re not illegally acquiring Palestinian (or Israeli) territory, not illegally annexing Palestinian (or Israeli) territory, not illegally settling Palestinian (or Israeli) territory?

      • MRW
        December 18, 2013, 1:10 am

        When it comes to fundamentalism, the settlers are mild compared to the mullahs.

        Mullahs are Islamic scholars (and are prevalent throughout the nearly two billion Muslim population). They are learned in the theology. The definition of mullahs has nothing in and of itself to do with Islamic views held. They vary from Sufi to Shi’a. Mullahs are the closest thing that Islam has to a cleric, because Islam does NOT have a priestcraft unlike the other two Abrahamic religions.

        Settlers are another matter. One view. And they are not necessarily clerics. They are also defined by where they live; it’s fundamental to them.

    • Sibiriak
      December 17, 2013, 10:59 pm

      Keith:

      I suspect that the Israeli economic elites and the corporations would be most pleased to see a South Africa solution implemented in Israel/Palestine. What stands in the way is the fanaticism of the some of the Zionists who will never willingly give up even one inch of the sacred soil, their fundamentalist ideology trumping rationality as it usually does.

      Good point.

      But it may be the vast majority of Israelis –not just “some of the Zionists”–who stand in the way of a neoliberal “South Africa solution”.

      [Also: the allure of neoliberalism is not the same as it was in the early '90s, when it was embraced by the ANC et al. See:
      link to theguardian.com
      link to counterpunch.org ]

      MB: <The Israelis are quite right to fear the one state solution — they know, very well, the ceaseless humiliations that they have heaped on the Arabs, and they fear that the Arabs will never, ever forgive them, and will never turn the other cheek.

      They are right — most Israelis, surely, must know what they have done. I am not suggesting Israelis feel guilty or sorry about it — they are racist supremacists — but they know very well Arabs will not forgive them.

      It is not at all the same case as when West and East Africa was handed back to its original African owners — in those cases, the white population, annoyed and peeved that they could no longer enjoy their manicured lawns, cucumber sandwich garden parties, cricket, evening cocktails and ‘England in the summer’ lifestyle, simply packed up their colonial bags and returned to the rolling fields of Southern England or France. [...]

      In Southern Africa it was different — the white settlers had deeper roots going back to the late 1600′s, and had developed a rural white peasantry, a working class and an affluent middle class, who had long severed their European roots. And in these countries, the black populations usually lived in chronic under class slum poverty, servitude, and even lived quasi hunter gather rural lives, a state for the most part, worse than the serf status of Europe in the 1600’s, with no education and no real means of taking organised, directed revenge beyond numerous random gruesome stabbings and lynching of white people, etc, which did happen in South Africa.

      In Israel though, it is different — you have a literate, well educated, powerful Arab population, with a long and enlightened cultural memory, with a sense of identity and dignity that goes far further back than the middle ages, a sense of pride, supported by very powerful connections worldwide, and all of these Arabs know they have had their faces shoved in the dirt and trash for decades — and they will not live in peace with those who turned up from Poland and Russia, Paris and Brooklyn, stole their homes and then proceeded to intentionally hurt everything sacred to them.

      The Israelis know that, and thus will not accept one state — that is the truth.

      Also, as Shahak and other have shown, Israeli society, culture, and religion is riddled with racism, prejudice and exclusion – the Israelis would never accept being on equal footing with ‘the other’.

      Not only that, many of Israel’s immigrant population hail from Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Russia, Moldova, Poland — ALL of these countries are deeply, deeply racist, macho, inward look, excluding societies, mired in ethnocentric nationalism, and exclusion of the ‘other’, and the Jewish immigrants have carried that racism with them to Israel.

      Do you think Ukrainians and Poles and Moldovans would ever accept equal rights with Arabs — never. Israelis will not either.

      link to mondoweiss.net

    • Sibiriak
      December 17, 2013, 11:50 pm

      Keith:

      I suspect that the Israeli economic elites and the corporations would be most pleased to see a South Africa solution implemented in Israel/Palestine.

      Norman Finkelstein’s take on this idea makes sense to me:

      [...]one reason South African whites ultimately acquiesced in the dismantlement of Apartheid was that, observing from afar the U.S. in the post-Civil Rights Movement era (and after the ANC’s principal ally, the USSR, imploded), they realized that the system of White privilege can remain largely intact despite the enfranchisement of the Black population.

      In the parallel instance of the Israel-Palestine conflict, I can envisage a couple of possibilities: (a) Israeli Jews might acquiesce in a one-state settlement if and when they become convinced that it won’t undermine their Jewish privilege, or (b) they will resist a one-state settlement with much greater ferocity than South Africans because of the real and imagined fears of “Arab domination.” Neither of these possibilities bodes well for the prospects of the “one-state solution.”

      link to mondoweiss.net

      Possibility (b) seems most likely, imo, but (a) certainly can’t be ruled out as a long-term scenario (perhaps following an initial 1.5 state settlement.)

    • lysias
      December 18, 2013, 5:16 pm

      The alternative to the South Africa solution is the Algérie française solution.

      • James Canning
        December 18, 2013, 7:36 pm

        The French did not enjoy a situation where they were in large majority in clearly-defined territory (in Algeria). That could be kept as part of “Metropolitan France”.

  5. Kathleen
    December 17, 2013, 1:47 pm

    Israel/Palestine 2025 South Africa 1985…. both of these nations were apartheid states long before these dates. Mearsheimer has drawn out the future of Israel very clearly. On a path of destruction

  6. Kathleen
    December 17, 2013, 1:52 pm

    Whenever you clicked on your own name you could look at your own comments. Cannot get there now. Something changing?

    • ritzl
      December 17, 2013, 4:24 pm

      I think so. The reply button is gone for fifth tier nested comments. I think they’re revamping the comment display function. Hopefully toward more nesting and/or response options.

    • Citizen
      December 18, 2013, 9:09 am

      @ Kathleen
      There’s been a glitch. James North contacted Mrs. Weiss, who told Phil, who just recently came back from a trip. He posted a comment he’s got somebody trying to fix the glitch now.

      • lysias
        December 18, 2013, 5:17 pm

        I was just able to view my old comments by clicking on my screen name.

  7. rensanceman
    December 17, 2013, 2:19 pm

    Let us please clarify: is NormanF actually THE Norman Finklestine the author who I once admired? But who shot himself in both feet by proclaiming BDS as a ‘cult’, and the the Iraq war was about “oil” and not about obliterating a threat to Israel? Norman, if this us really you, do come to your senses, blow out the crap from that fecund mind of yours, and help our community practice Tikkun Olam, the way it should be done.

    • Bill
      December 17, 2013, 2:38 pm

      I have known Norman Finklestein since August or September 1984 when we met while we were both trying to expose Joan Peters dishonesty. I am certain that NormanF is not Norman Finklestein. I also find any suggestion that it is Norman Finklestein to be despicable, even if it is an attempt at humor.

      • MHughes976
        December 17, 2013, 4:24 pm

        I don’t think it was an attempt at humour but an expression of anxiety and dismay.

      • seafoid
        December 17, 2013, 5:53 pm

        He’s a settler. Pops up on the settler blogs all the time.
        A million miles away from Fink.

      • thankgodimatheist
        December 18, 2013, 7:28 pm

        “He’s a settler.”
        Well, he calls, or used to call himself a cal conservative. He may have moved since to squat illegally on stolen land in the West Bank. Wouldn’t surprise me from this unscrupulous character.
        link to calconservativeblog.blogspot.com.au

    • thankgodimatheist
      December 18, 2013, 7:21 pm

      “is NormanF actually THE Norman Finklestine the author who I once admired?”
      Hardly! A wingnut, rather. Or a “conservative” to sugar coat it.
      His now defunct blog:
      link to calconservativeblog.blogspot.com.au

  8. Cliff
    December 17, 2013, 3:48 pm

    This is wonderful.

    I love seeing all these new trolls on MW pop up and spam these threads (while ignoring the threads by Kate who documents the daily abuses committed by the IDF and settler fascists and thieves).

    As well as the old trolls who are having a conniption over BDS’s momentum. Viva Palestine!

    • just
      December 17, 2013, 4:21 pm

      It’s a veritable hoot! *sniff* *sniff*– is that desperation I smell?

      Why, yes it is!

      • MHughes976
        December 17, 2013, 4:26 pm

        I keep fearing we shall be overwhelmed by trolls wielding their stone clubs to the extent that a rational, anti-racist and humane conversation gets drowned.

      • just
        December 17, 2013, 4:33 pm

        They can’/won’t do that here @ MW– too many intelligent participants here.

        Brave warriors for justice, armed with facts and hasbara- proof minds.

      • talknic
        December 18, 2013, 5:23 pm

        MHughes976 “… trolls wielding their stone clubs..”

        .. made of chaff, wielded by crippled little strawmen

    • Chu
      December 17, 2013, 4:47 pm

      What an amateur hour. I smell fear…
      The guardians of Masada are soiling themselves,
      like the IDF on the Mavi Marmara.

  9. James Canning
    December 17, 2013, 7:36 pm

    Gideon Rachamn has interesting comments in the Financial Times Dec. 17th: “Israel’s public paranoia masks private complacency”.

  10. Shuki
    December 17, 2013, 7:44 pm

    Get your propaganda straight, will you? The IDF troops on the Marmara were brutal thugs who attacked and killed peaceful humanitarians; not wimps who soiled themselves. C’mon, get on message!!!

    • Taxi
      December 18, 2013, 2:00 am

      Actually, shuki,

      The idf soiled their unmentionables WHILE brutalizing the peace convoy on the Mavi Marmara. The idf were so petrified of the unarmed peace convoy that they were shooting them in the back, or in the back of the head at close range.

      Hands down, the idf is the most cowardly army in the world.

    • Cliff
      December 19, 2013, 4:23 am

      Shuki,

      Why did IDF stormtroopers board the ship by helicopter? Why did they attack and surround the ship at night time?

      Why did they use live rounds?

      And guess what? No weapons were on the ship. You pathological liars murdered a bunch of innocent people, some in execution-style killings.

  11. Hostage
    December 17, 2013, 7:45 pm

    You can’t whitewash apartheid. Eventually, unless you’re too big to oppose, like China or Russia, the world does turn against you.

    I don’t think there is really an exception for those countries either. An ad hoc human rights process or something conjured-up by a coalition of states, like the Helsinki Accords, can still put events in motion that would shake up the status of those two powers.

  12. traintosiberia
    December 17, 2013, 8:01 pm

    Mike Konrad

    and NormanF

    The close opeartional relationship between US and Israel as prominet Jewish peopel acting political insiders and as financier started beairng fruits after 1970s in favor of Israel and continues till date.
    BenGurion shopped for military hardwares and left over ww2 ammunitions from 1946 , though he started it earlier through Jewish agency. His reasonings was that it would be much quicker, easier ,cheaper and prodcutive to use and copy US and western arms . This approach paid off, very soon whole S African military would come to depend on Israeli arms. From 1980s, another movement developed that mimicked later days NAFTA but skwed to Israel .This allowed israel access to US miliatry, penatgon,industry, from copying to manufacturing,servicing, and no bid contract acquistion for Israel within US and NATO , to selling the arms and and adding to the model. This activity also included the chemical and pharmaceuticals . These activities in turn generated demands for trainings and eductaion.
    Isareli universities tied to government through military flourished . The start-ups in Israel are government subsidiares so are the manufacturing concerns of all stripes -civilan , military. This development pitchforked Israel to a Developed nations .While all these were taking place, Israel was average receiving 6-7 billions per year in direct and indirect subsidy.

  13. Peter in SF
    December 18, 2013, 12:44 am

    Is it just me, or do other people also find it strange, from the content of Gerald Skolnik’s column, that at the end of it you find a byline describing him as a rabbi and “spiritual leader”?

  14. mcohen
    December 18, 2013, 1:30 am

    Are there any palestinians posting on this thread,i have a question about a village i saw on google maps and the name is in arabic
    Shingo,talknic,traintosiberia,peter,hostage,just,james,sumud,seafoid ,chu anyone ….from palestine who understands arabic

    • Hostage
      December 18, 2013, 2:39 pm

      I do happen to have several relatives from Mandate Palestine who understand quite a little bit of Arabic, why don’t you just try asking your question? Someone will probably chime in.

    • MahaneYehude1
      December 18, 2013, 3:49 pm

      @mcohen:

      I am from Palestine and I will be happy to help you read Arabic.

  15. Obsidian
    December 18, 2013, 2:46 pm

    Uhh.. Google Translate?

    link to translate.google.com

Leave a Reply