Trending Topics:

Two-state solution is ‘psychological solution’ allowing people to take themselves off the moral hook — Telhami

Israel/Palestine
on 59 Comments
Shibley Telhami, photo by Dina Telhami

Shibley Telhami, photo by Dina Telhami

Shibley Telhami said today that the two-state solution is a “psychological  solution” that has allowed world leaders and liberal supporters of Israel to escape moral responsibility for the wrongs of the Israeli occupation. But the time has come that this psychological solution is “immoral,” he said.

Telhami, a Beltway insider who is an analyst at Brookings and a professor at the University of Maryland, explained:

“If we wake up in the morning, and say it looks like the two state solution isn’t going to happen, I think that psychologically we rationalize it and say it’s still going to happen, I can’t give up on it, in part because we just can’t live with the dissonance. I think that rationalization is immoral. At some point you’re going to have to call it the way  it is. I think that’s why I believe a lot of people are reaching that point where you look yourself in the mirror, ‘I know I know, I’m still saying it’s still possible, but it it really? Am I escaping moral responsibility? Am I escaping making the tough choices I have to make.’ And I think each one of us is going to look in that mirror.”

Telhami spoke on a conference call organized by Americans for Peace Now. He responded to a question from Kathleen Peraitis, a board member of the organization, and said the issue of dissonance is especially pertinent for liberal Zionists:

“The two-state solution was a psychological solution for many to resolve the dissonance, particularly for many people who wanted to support Israel and at the same time have a moral position, a liberal position, an accommodating position for human rights.”

Telhami said he senses growing “anger and frustration” from the Obama administration over the failure of the peace talks:

Here in the elite around this administration, there’s no question, one senses this anger and frustration and  feeling that it’s about time to do something else.

He also said there’s a shift in the Democratic Party, where people are putting more weight on human rights and international law than on being for Israel.

Some pressure on the elites comes from American public opinion. Telhami’s polling shows that if the choice is between occupation, annexation, or one state with equal rights, two-thirds of Americans say they would then support one state with equal citizenship– including 52 percent of those who call themselves pro-Israel. And when you ask the public if you have to choose between Jewishness and democracy, again more than two thirds of the American public would choose democracy over Jewishness.

Of course the Obama administration has to deal with domestic political pressures, Telhami said, meaning the Israel lobby. And he predicted that with the end of peace talks, the Obama administration’s only real option is to lay out a specific plan for a solution of the conflict, ala the Clinton Parameters, and “put teeth” in the plan by indicating that the U.S. will not veto a UN Security Council resolution against settlements.

By allowing that resolution to go through, the U.S. would be enabling Palestinians to take their case to international fora, including the International Criminal Court, over such matters as house demolitions. And that would make the conflict “an international issue,” rather than an American domestic issue, and cause the Israelis to make concessions allowing a two-state solution.

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

59 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    April 28, 2014, 7:02 pm

    Saying 2SS is still possible is immoral in the same way as saying that “climate change is not a threat requiring immediate action because it is gradual and no-one has died of it yet.

    Every day that goes by makes the difficulty of dealing with I/P that much worse. Going to 2SS would require displacing most of the 10% of Israeli Jews who live in OPT. Costly, politically difficult, not going to happen without massive outside pressure (sanctions) on Israel.

    Going to 1SS with democracy in all The Land would be received by Israeli Jews as a sort of death knell and be very strongly resisted.

    40 years ago few would have suggested 1SS — and 2SS would have been within reach. Waiting didn’t help. The settlement project didn’t have to happen, didn’t have to go so far as it had by 1980, when UNSC 465 demanded Israel remove all settlers and dismantle all settlements. It would have been difficult even then to do as the UNSC then demanded. Today? Many would say it was impossible.

    In 1930, we might have said that the Holocaust needn’t happen. And it needn’t. But it did because people in power wanted it to happen.

    So it goes.

    • JeffB
      April 29, 2014, 11:05 am

      Going to 2SS would require displacing most of the 10% of Israeli Jews who live in OPT.

      No it wouldn’t. There are lots of 2SS that don’t involve the 1967 lines. I’m not even sure a negotiated solution requires the 1967 lines. But certainly Israel could simply annex Area-C and some Area-B for contiguity. Then renounce all claims to the remainder. The world would then have to decide what to do with the scraps. They could call it Palestine, and argue the 1967 stuff still in Israeli hands isn’t Israel’s (disputed territory) but even there self determination is going to be a problem.

      Take Gaza for example. Israel didn’t negotiate they just renounced claim on that chunk of the “occupied territories” and left. Slowly they are winding the Hamas government and the people of Gaza towards just governing their territory and giving up their expansionists ambitions for more territory.

      • Woody Tanaka
        April 29, 2014, 1:02 pm

        ” They could call it Palestine, and argue the 1967 stuff still in Israeli hands isn’t Israel’s (disputed territory) but even there self determination is going to be a problem.”

        Nope. Israelis have no right of self-determination. One can’t claim for one’s self what it denies another.

      • Hostage
        April 29, 2014, 7:03 pm

        No it wouldn’t. There are lots of 2SS that don’t involve the 1967 lines. I’m not even sure a negotiated solution requires the 1967 lines.

        There are no 2ss that ignore UN resolutions, the ICJ opinion, and international law that will ever fly. The Palestinians have made the 67 lines the departure point for any negotiations. Many of the PLO Executive members have bluntly stated that they’ve made all of the concession they ever intend to and want the whole 22 percent that’s left. The UN and EU will never recognize any territorial acquisition that changes the 67 lines without Palestinian consent. So, you can be pretty certain that a negotiated 2ss settlement is not in the cards, unless Israel opens the discussions based upon the 67 lines.

      • JeffB
        April 29, 2014, 7:23 pm

        @Hostage

        I don’t buy the “never recognize”.

        The European powers were all pretty firm they would never recognize the Bolshevik Party as the legitimate rulers of Russia especially after they withdrew from WWI. By 1933 everyone had.

        Or to pick an Israel example in 1967 all the Arab parties swore no recognition of Israel. A dozen years later Egypt and Israel were at peace.

      • Hostage
        April 29, 2014, 11:36 pm

        The European powers were all pretty firm they would never recognize the Bolshevik Party as the legitimate rulers of Russia especially after they withdrew from WWI. By 1933 everyone had.

        LoL! The Bolshevik’s published the secret treaties, because they had no expansionist designs on the territory of others. So the refusal to recognize them had nothing to do with a border dispute. In fact, the Bolsheviks signed a separate peace with the Central European powers and were recognized by them and the majority of the other European states in the early 1920s. The US and UK were the main holdouts over their objections to state control of banks and expropriated foreign assets. But even they recognized the Soviet government with retroactive effect in order to pursue their assigned claims. Try reading Ti-chiang Chen, “The international law of recognition, with special reference to practice in Great Britain and the United States”, Praeger, 1951 https://archive.org/details/cu31924016945770

        Or to pick an Israel example in 1967 all the Arab parties swore no recognition of Israel. A dozen years later Egypt and Israel were at peace.

        There isn’t a single Arab state so far, that has recognized so much as one inch of captured territory as belonging to Israel.

      • pjdude
        April 30, 2014, 4:03 pm

        Why does israel have a right to contiguity but Palestine gets to be carved up and not be? Why doesn’t Palestine need contiguity?

      • JeffB
        April 30, 2014, 5:47 pm

        @pjdude

        Why does israel have a right to contiguity but Palestine gets to be carved up and not be? Why doesn’t Palestine need contiguity?

        For Palestine to be a state in a meaningful sense, which will include the “might makes right” sense in reply to your other comment they do need contiguity. And they need more territory A collection of disconnected regions without adequate supplies is going to end up effectively a colony of the Israel or Jordan not a meaningful state. That’s not a terrible outcome. Monaco has the highest per capita income in the world as a colony of France or Italy for the last 700 years.

        My point above though is that the UN has already declared Palestine a state. Moreover if Israel renounces territory it really doesn’t matter what happens in this territory it isn’t part of Israel.

  2. Hostage
    April 28, 2014, 7:26 pm

    The article’s title doesn’t match the conclusion he reaches in the final paragraph.

    The US efforts in the Security Council to block resolutions regarding the illegality of the settlements are no longer relevant. The General Assembly conferred legal statehood on the Palestinians. So long as the crime of apartheid is subject to the jurisdiction of the international criminal court, and it is, Bantustan victim states can self-refer their situations to the Prosecutor and demand action.

    South African, British, and Israeli experts published a study pointing out that the General Assembly can ask for another advisory opinion from the ICJ on the question of the legal consequences of the continued occupation, colonialism, and apartheid. The role played by other states, transnational corporations, and businesses that aid, abet, and profit from those Israeli policies can be addressed too under the auspices of the recent UNHRC reports on the subject of international complicity.

    I’ve always viewed the so-called two state solution as a possible way station on the path to a regional federation or confederation. Once the final solution that “ends all claims” leaves everyone dissatisfied, the parties may finally conclude that the formation of a joint polity with equal rights is in the best interest of all concerned.

    • libra
      April 28, 2014, 7:41 pm

      Hostage: The article’s title doesn’t match the conclusion he reaches in the final paragraph.

      Indeed so, though quite a clever ‘bait and switch’ nevertheless. But then Phil forgot to mention that Telhami is also a nonresident senior fellow of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. I can’t imagine that’s a place that spends much time envisaging a democratic single state.

      All in all a dud post, would have been a much better if it had ended with your last paragraph instead.

      • Krauss
        April 29, 2014, 12:52 am

        I agree with both of you.

        This last paragraph:

        By allowing that resolution to go through, the U.S. would be enabling Palestinians to take their case to international fora, including the International Criminal Court, over such matters as house demolitions. And that would make the conflict “an international issue,” rather than an American domestic issue, and cause the Israelis to make concessions allowing a two-state solution.

        Is completely contradictory to the rest of the post. He says its a psychological solution and then turns around and says its still possible.

        Maybe Telhami is really eager for that paycheck and don’t mind indulging in said psychological solution the same way as he hints at it.
        In many ways that’d make him even more immoral than the rest, because as a Palestinian he has much more moral power than a non-Palestinian, yet he chooses to indulge liberal Zionists at the Saban center for money and throws the Palestinians under the bus because he wants a cushy job.

  3. pabelmont
    April 28, 2014, 7:51 pm

    As Telhami suggests, proposing (or holding fast to the hope for) 2SS is a sort of anodyne (or narcotic) for the pain of looking reality in the face. But merely proposing a “solution” without proposing a means to achieve it, without a reasonable reality-based hope for it, is self-delusion.

    We human beings in democracies have had heroism leached out of us by the failures of democracy, by the instillation of consumerism and individualism which are me-first-the-others-nowhere mental approaches to communal life.

    We need heroism to oppose (and by opposing to end): the ever-worsening threat of climate change, Israeli settler-colonialism, the oligarchic (plutocratic) government which has replaced democracy in the USA.

    Heroism is washed out by addictions, whether to narcotics, to nostrums, to false hopes, to corrupt “leaders”. Heroism is possible when we look reality in the face.

  4. chuckcarlos
    April 28, 2014, 7:51 pm

    you know you got to al jazeera and electronic intifada and others and get the photos and a blurb and one gets really mad…

    and personally I could give a shit about the Jews…but it’s US…here in the USA and Mexico and our friends who I care about…whether you live in Manila or Santiago…

    but THEN…one gets here and reads Hostage and others who factually delineate the laws and regulations of Israel and one then blows their freaking top…and then this guy Juan Cole outlines the actual discrimination and racial stuff…

    and THEN one reads here a Jew can not even marry a non Jew in Israel…what in the hell is this some kind of Third Reich deal? “Jewish State” should be ANATHEMA to very citizens of the USA and believer in OUR CONSTITUTION…we support this shit? Muslim States, Catholic States, Jewish States…what the hell is this 1492? Is the Torquemada next? Even Scalia read the riot act to some imbecile in front of him who (she) referred to USA as a “Christian Nation”…

    Of course this guy is correct…

    Israel sounds worse than the Mad Hatters Tea Party

    • JeffB
      April 29, 2014, 11:09 am

      @Chuckcarlos

      Jewish State” should be ANATHEMA to very citizens of the USA and believer in OUR CONSTITUTION

      I love our constitution. Let’s start with the very first clause:
      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      Doesn’t seem particularly applicable to how other countries govern themselves.

      • brenda
        April 29, 2014, 12:43 pm

        weak, JeffB. Can’t you come up with anything better than this?

        Also wondering, do you hold dual citizenship? If so, is there any cognitive dissonance for you in the finely written US Constitution (it was an inspiration for aspiring nations of the early 20th Century) and the lack of any national constitution in Israel?

      • JeffB
        April 29, 2014, 12:53 pm

        @Brenda

        Also wondering, do you hold dual citizenship?

        No.

        If so, is there any cognitive dissonance for you in the finely written US Constitution (it was an inspiration for aspiring nations of the early 20th Century) and the lack of any national constitution in Israel?

        Israel has a collection of laws passed during its first few decades called the Basic Laws which act as a constitution. They effectively passed their constitution in parts not as a lump sum. But they have what amounts to a constitution.

      • Hostage
        April 29, 2014, 9:11 pm

        Israel has a collection of laws passed during its first few decades called the Basic Laws which act as a constitution. They effectively passed their constitution in parts not as a lump sum. But they have what amounts to a constitution.

        No it isn’t a constitution, despite the attempts by the former Chief Justice to style it “as if” it were one. David Kretzmer, Yoram Dinstein, and a host of other legal scholars have explained that Israel has a system of parliamentary supremacy where the decisions of the Supreme Court on constitutional matters can be nullified or overturned by a subsequent statute or regulation. Even jus cogens customary international laws, which are part of the public law of Israel, can be rendered null and void, by the adoption of a conflicting Knesset statute.

        There isn’t any doubt among legal scholars, like Prof. Nahum Rakover, former Deputy Attorney-General in Jewish Law Department of Israel Ministry of Justice and former Advisor to the Knesset on Jewish Law; and Prof. Yoram Dinstein, former President, Rector and Dean of Law at Tel Aviv University, that the Knesset can overrule a Supreme Court decision regarding the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. See:
        *Rakover:“Modern Applications of Jewish Law,” 1992, and “Jewish Law and Israeli Law: On the Process of Integration”, 1998;
        *Dinstein, “Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Volume 25; Volume 1995”, pages 210-212.

        The Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty doesn’t mention or protect equal rights under the law. It does stipulate that Israel is a Jewish state. Article 10 explicitly says that the Basic Law does not affect the validity of existing discriminatory laws. Article 8 allows the Knesset to adopt new discriminatory laws befitting the values of a Jewish state. Article 12 is complete nonsense: i.e.

        “This Basic Law cannot be varied, suspended or made subject to conditions by emergency regulations; notwithstanding, when a state of emergency exists, by virtue of a declaration under section 9 of the Law and Administration Ordinance, 5708-1948, emergency regulations may be enacted by virtue of said section to deny or restrict rights under this Basic Law”

        http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic3_eng.htm

        The Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation is just as bad and possibly worse. It also stipulates that Israel is a Jewish state. Article 4 allows discriminatory laws befitting the values of a Jewish state. Article 8 and its amendments allows the Knesset or a ministerial regulation to waive the application of the Basic Law in accordance with an ordinary statute or series of statutes adopted by a simple majority. http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic4_eng.htm

        The bottom line is that the Knesset can overturn any Supreme Court decision the right wing governing coalition doesn’t agree with, and they’ve already done it on several occasions.

      • chuckcarlos
        April 29, 2014, 1:01 pm

        Israel and the Zionists are parasites of the USA…Israel would not exist if not for the corrupt and perhaps criminal support the USA has given to the racist fascist terrorist regime in Israel

        Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      • JeffB
        April 29, 2014, 3:47 pm

        @Chuckcarlos

        Israel and the Zionists are parasites of the USA…Israel would not exist if not for the corrupt and perhaps criminal support the USA has given to the racist fascist terrorist regime in Israel

        Yeah. Because Israel after all ceased to exist during the Eisenhower administration when the USA has mildly hostile.

      • Hostage
        April 29, 2014, 6:19 pm

        provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.. . . . Doesn’t seem particularly applicable to how other countries govern themselves.

        In fact dozens of countries have modeled their own constitutions on ours, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and the American Declaration Of The Rights And Duties Of Man. That’s powerful evidence of customary state practice.

        Like the Magna Carta, it explains that one of the goals is to constitutionally secure the Blessings of Liberty for our posterity, not just for ourselves. The 14th Amendment prevents a rogue Jewish state from arising here or stripping a person or their descendants of their US citizenship in the way Israel did. Our Supreme Court held in a case involving an Israeli petitioner, Afroyim v. Rusk, that the Constitution doesn’t even delegate the necessary power to the federal government to strip a persons citizenship from them involuntarily. That includes citizens born to parents who were living outside the borders of the United States.

        So, if you occupied the United States, Articles 43 and 46 of the Hague rules would not allow you to exile children born to US citizens living abroad and strip them of their citizenship or property by adopting a bill of attainder. The existing laws here are similar to the laws that were in effect in Palestine in the aftermath of the 1948 war. They guaranteed the citizenship of children born in Palestine or to a Palestinian father living abroad.

  5. Sibiriak
    April 28, 2014, 10:08 pm

    And he predicted that with the end of peace talks, the Obama administration’s only real option is to lay out a specific plan for a solution of the conflict, ala the Clinton Parameters

    And that “solution”, involving highly truncated Palestinian mini-state, will set the standard for an internationally acceptable outcome.

    • JeffB
      April 29, 2014, 11:13 am

      @Sibiriak

      And that “solution”, involving highly truncated Palestinian mini-state, will set the standard for an internationally acceptable outcome.

      Exactly the world, including the Arab world (Jerusalem exempted) buys into the idea of the Clinton Parameters that what’s Jewish should be Israeli and what’s Arab should be Palestinian. The Palestinians in rejecting this core idea of the Clinton Parameters are likely to find that they don’t have international support. The international community, which has experience actually governing states and wants peace, does not support the idea of Palestine trying to govern hundreds of thousands of people with access to arms, a powerful neighbor, foreign support… which would never be willing to live under Palestinian law.

      • eljay
        April 29, 2014, 12:25 pm

        >> Exactly the world, including the Arab world (Jerusalem exempted) buys into the idea of the Clinton Parameters that what’s Jewish should be Israeli …

        What’s Jewish should be Israeli? Really? Does that apply to what is Jewish anywhere in the world? If not, why not? Why the anti-Semitic double-standard?

        And what about what is non-Jewish Israeli – does that also get to be Israeli, or does that get “cleansed” from supremacist “Jewish State”?

      • JeffB
        April 29, 2014, 12:56 pm

        @Eljay

        Does that apply to what is Jewish anywhere in the world? If not, why not? Why the anti-Semitic double-standard?

        Because the Jews that settled in Palestine where Israeli. The Jews who built stuff in other countries are citizens of those countries. There is nothing anti-Semetic about allowing those Jews who wish to remain in the diaspora to do so, while allowing those Jews who live in / near Israel to be governed by Israel.

        And what about what is non-Jewish Israeli – does that also get to be Israeli, or does that get “cleansed” from supremacist “Jewish State”?

        The Clinton Parameters was going to have that stuff transferred to Palestine.

      • eljay
        April 29, 2014, 3:49 pm

        >> There is nothing anti-Semetic …

        If “what’s Jewish should be Israeli” doesn’t apply to all Jews, it’s discriminatory and, therefore, anti-Semitic. I’m surprised you would defend anti-Semitic discrimination.

        >> The Clinton Parameters was going to have that stuff transferred to Palestine.

        All non-Jewish Israeli “stuff” was going to be transferred to Palestine? Against its will? That’s both unjust and immoral. Very Zio-supremacist, actually.

      • Hostage
        April 29, 2014, 5:53 pm

        Because the Jews that settled in Palestine where Israeli.

        But not the Palestinians Arabs and Christians who lived there. The world isn’t in a position to “accept” or whitewash ethnic cleansing as part of a final settlement, so Israel keeps postponing its day of reckoning.

  6. Sibiriak
    April 28, 2014, 10:10 pm

    pabelmont:

    But merely proposing a “solution” without proposing a means to achieve it, without a reasonable reality-based hope for it, is self-delusion.

    And what are the means to attain a 1SS, uniting Gaza/West Bank and Israel, which could not just as well and more easily be used to obtain a 2SS?

    • pabelmont
      April 28, 2014, 10:33 pm

      Siberiak: Perhaps my imagination is stunted, but I imagine only one “motor” to achieve motion away from the present 1SS apartheid (or, worse, further exile and “transfer” / “cleansing”). The “motor” I imagine is international sanctions, best organized via UNSC but UNGA might work in case of need. And indeed if the nations (or enough of them to get some sort of sanctions off the ground) get some pressure on Israel, then it might well grow (success is the father of more success).

      And this “motor” might be used (as I so often and so boringly suggest) to force the removal of all settlers and dismantlement of the wall and all settlements (as suggested in UNSC 465/1980 and ICJ/2004) — or to end apartheid. That is, might be used to bring about 2SS or 1SS, just as you suggest. A big enough lever can move the world!

      I must say that I’ve always thought of that “motor” as a means to a change that would be borderline acceptable to Israel, because I fear the nukes and also fear that the international community would not “go for” a too extreme outcome (even forcing Israel to allow the return of the exiles of 1948 might be more than the IC would persuade itself to insist on),

    • Hostage
      April 28, 2014, 11:08 pm

      And what are the means to attain a 1SS, uniting Gaza/West Bank and Israel, which could not just as well and more easily be used to obtain a 2SS?

      If you are allowed to use your imagination, a Security Council referral of the situation in Israel and Palestine in the context of the crime of apartheid would tend to preclude a two state result, i.e. the right of return to Israel; the Prawer plan; the Judaization of Jerusalem, the Galilee, and the Negev; and the separate funding levels and laws respecting the rural Jewish communities versus the so-called communities of the minorities; and unequal access to state land on either side of the Green Line.

  7. yonah fredman
    April 29, 2014, 12:01 am

    Correct me if I’m wrong. Both Fatah and Hamas back the two state idea. If the primary representatives of the Palestinians have not given up on the idea then it is the only game in town. I understand Telhami’s logic. But until Fatah or Hamas come out in favor of a one state solution, one cannot dismiss the 2SS.

    • talknic
      April 29, 2014, 12:30 am

      @ yonah fredman “Correct me if I’m wrong”
      OK

      ” Both Fatah and Hamas back the two state idea. If the primary representatives of the Palestinians have not given up on the idea then it is the only game in town”

      Wrong. They’re political parties. Political parties cannot negotiate for or declare the independence of a state. States exist regardless of what political parties administrate the state. The representative of the people of Palestine is the PLO, it is neither Hamas or Fatah.

      FFS Israel is a prime example. The Jewish People’s Council was not a political party. It was a body representing all the legitimate citizens of the territory being declared as independent, regardless of which political parties those citizens might have preferred.

      “until Fatah or Hamas come out in favor of a one state solution, one cannot dismiss the 2SS”

      Wrong.

    • adele
      April 29, 2014, 11:18 am

      Yonah,
      Why are Zionists now obsessed with a two-state? Are you afraid of living in equality with Palestinians?

      • Hostage
        April 29, 2014, 5:47 pm

        Why are Zionists now obsessed with a two-state? Are you afraid of living in equality with Palestinians?

        Because they are schizophrenic. The very same cabinet ministers who are funding tens of thousands of new settlement units, and creating tens of thousands of dunams of new (Israeli) state land for the settlements in the occupied territory of the State of Palestine, claim they just want a separation from the Palestinian people.

  8. yonah fredman
    April 29, 2014, 1:13 am

    The PLO is the representative of the people of Palestine. The PLO recognizes the 2SS as the way forward. Currently the PLO is controlled by Fatah. Fatah is currently negotiating sharing the PLO with Hamas.

    Talknic- Can’t you control your fingers or your foul mouth to omit FFS from your rhetoric?

    • Zofia
      April 29, 2014, 8:29 am

      state’s institutions are state’s institutions, and PLO is sth else. PLO is associated with state’s institutions, and the relation between them is murky, but YOU CAN’T MIX THEM! Read: Palestinian Politics After the Oslo Accords: Resuming Arab Palestine by N.J. Brown- he explains the problem with them…. (well PLO and the PNA, but still…). You should listen to your own advice…

    • eljay
      April 29, 2014, 9:09 am

      >> y.f.: Talknic- Can’t you control your fingers or your foul mouth to omit FFS from your rhetoric?

      y.f.: Computer students fuck with an app!

      Pot <–> kettle.

    • Hostage
      April 29, 2014, 10:41 am

      The PLO recognizes the 2SS as the way forward.

      No it does not. Several members of the PLO Executive Committee have stated that the so-called “PA” may collapse by the end of the year under the weight of current Israeli sanctions, and that when it does, they will turn administration back over to the IDF and demand Israeli citizenship and the vote. That will include Gaza.

      PLO is associated with state’s institutions,

      The PLO Executive Committee has been the provisional government of the State of Palestine ever since November 1988. The PA was only the municipal government created by the PLO and Israel under the now lapsed Oslo Accords.

      • Zofia
        April 29, 2014, 12:10 pm

        “PA was only the municipal government”- yes but that still doesn’t change the fact that there are problems with those institutions… The PNA had territorial and other (like: personal) jurisdictions but it couldn’t like the PLO conduct its own foreign relations [since 1974 PLO has represented Palestine at the United Nations]. After the collapse of the Oslo Agreement the situation didn’t change…. And till this day this situation isn’t completely resolved…
        Brown:
        In 1999 report, “Strengthening Palestinian Public Institutions,” Sayigh and Shikaki concluded that “the difficulty of distinguishing the mandates of PLO and Palestinian Authority institutions has impeded the promotion of key elements of good governance, especially the exercise of constitutional power, transparency and accountability, and
        the rule of law.” The claim may have seemed strange to many readers, since the relationship between the PLO and the Palestinian Authority was a temporary issue, governed by the Oslo Accords, which specified which functions the Palestinian Authority might assume. Although the Oslo Accords had spelled out some aspects of PA operation in detail, the Palestinian Authority in practice had trouble defining its precise relationship with the PLO, and the senior leadership seemed determined to maximize the confusion. For most Palestinians, whatever legitimacy the Palestinian Authority possessed stemmed from the fact that the PLO had granted it, as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Even those who strongly supported the Oslo Accords were reluctant to base PA
        legitimacy on agreements negotiated with Israel. Thus, the PLO was often referred to as the Palestinian Authority’s “source of authority”
        (marja‘iyya) in Palestinian discussions. The effect of this view was to undermine the institutional clarity and accountability of the Palestinian Authority in two ways….. the fuzzy relationship between the PLO and the Palestinian Authority was problematic on the level of institutional culture. The PLO was a loose organization built to represent a widely dispersed population, and its vocabulary was that of a national liberation movement rather than that of an administrative entity. The Palestinian Authority, on the other hand, was responsible for running schools and clinics, collecting garbage, issuing identification cards, licensing professionals, and certifying who was needy. For those interested in building the Palestinian Authority into a state, the PLO brought precisely those practices that a well-governed state needed to avoid: secretiveness, patronage, an excessive concentration on security, a stress on revolutionary and ideological rather than professional and technical credentials, and a willingness to be dominated by strong personalities rather than governed by robust institutions. PA reformers might talk dismissively of the PLO on occasion, but they could not call for its abolition as long as the body retained its status both internationally and among Palestinians. Ultimately, however, the problem could not be solved as long as the Palestinian Authority remained an interim body with a restricted purview rather than a full state. Thus one of the major questions that arose in constitutional discussions was how to avoid permanently entrenching the confusions and overlap of institutions characteristic of the interim phase. Constitutional architects, as noted above, worked to incorporate some PLO functions—most notably the representation of diaspora Palestinians—into the prospective state.

        Arafat (and others) used this situation for his own political gain and was criticized even by Fatah members for that.

        We know that Mahmoud Abbas signed applications to join 15 international treaties and conventions. “The issue is how to implement these treaties with the absence of the Palestinian Legislative Council,” Siniora added, referring to the Palestinian parliament (PLC) which has not been in session since 2007. The PLC was paralysed after several of its members were imprisoned by Israel, and due to persisting political divisions between the two major Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah.
        For these treaties to be implemented, changes must be made to the national legislation. But since the PLC is defunct, a presidential decree is needed to rule that international instruments take precedence over national legislation. This will bypass the need to resort to the PLC, Siniora said + The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which is responsible for holding negotiations and signing agreements with Israel, said it became a signatory to the conventions and treaties because Israel reneged on an agreement to release the last batch of Palestinian detainees on March 29. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/04/shift-palestinians-join-treaties-2014418111950813313.html
        So for all this to work the 2 institutions must work together. Their relations aren’t fully resolved yet.

      • brenda
        April 29, 2014, 12:29 pm

        very fine commentary, Zofia. I always enjoy reading your posts.

      • Hostage
        April 29, 2014, 4:00 pm

        “PA was only the municipal government”- yes but that still doesn’t change the fact that there are problems with those institutions…

        See PA officially changes name to State of Palestine’ http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/PA-officially-changes-name-to-State-of-Palestine

        Those institutions were absorbed into the government of the State of Palestine in 2012. The organs that were unique to the PA, like the PLC, never had any role in deciding questions about opting for foreign relations versus union with Israel. The 2003 Basic Law and its amendments were stop gap measures adopted after the Oslo Accords had lapsed, pending the attainment of statehood, and the adoption of a more permanent constitution.

        The separation of powers and competencies between the PLO and PA were imposed by the Israelis under the terms of the lapsed Oslo Accords in order to prevent the establishment of a functional government of the State of Palestine. So it was unsurprising that the Palestinian leadership circumvented the scheme after it had lapsed without implementing the aims stated in the Oslo Declaration of Principles. It was much less surprising that they abolished it as being unnecessary after the UN vote in 2012. The fact that people still use the term “PA” simply means they either don’t, or won’t, recognize the State of Palestine.

        We aren’t ever going to understand events in Palestine by looking through the prism of the interim basic laws. There are no rule books for a revolution or a coup. The PA did not alter the role of the PLO revolutionary council as the provisional state government. So it’s the PA, not the PLO that is an anachronism. In the case of the USA, the Continental Congress didn’t adopt any basic laws until 1781. They simply granted General Washington dictatorial powers. He didn’t hesitate to use them against the men of the New Jersey Line, when he resorted to firing squads to involuntarily extend their enlistments, without any prospects of Congress being able to pay them. The former colonies also discarded their war time Articles of Confederation in favor of a new Constitution.

        The Declaration of the formation of the provisional Government of the State of Palestine, dated 15 November 1988 made the Executive and Central Committees of the PLO responsible for the provisional government of the State of Palestine, for the duration of the Israeli occupation. It tasked the PLO Executive with establishing the form of government and governing coalitions. The same PLO bodies reserved the right to remove the governments, as required, for lack of confidence.

        Many of the 15 treaties that Palestine signed are considered to be self-executing by states which do not adhere to theories of “dualism”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism_and_dualism_in_international_law In any event, the 2003 Basic Law and its amendments did not involve the PLC in the exercise of the treaty power. So, there’s no legal problem with adopting the theory of monism or simply implementing them through decrees and ministerial or departmental regulations. We actually do that here in the (dualist) United States too, either in the case of an Executive Agreement or after so-called “enabling” legislation has been adopted. Many treaties are implement solely through Executive Orders, Notices of rule making in the Federal Register, and promulgation as law in the Code of Federal Regulations.

        FYI, the Palestinians circumvented the old restrictions by simply “wearing three hats” when they performed their duties and by merging the PLO foreign ministry and negotiations support unit into the PA. The same person simultaneously severed as President of the PLO Executive, the President of the State of Palestine, and the President of the Palestinian Authority and issued “Presidential Decrees”, while exercising the powers and authority of all three offices. After the 2004 advisory opinion, there was really no longer any excuse for any division of labor. The UN organs and international donors began removing impediments to the exercise of self-determination and backed the plan for ending the occupation and establishing the state. They began dealing directly with the relevant Palestinian Authority officials, regardless of which hat they were supposedly wearing. They also openly acknowledged that they were dealing with, and building-up, the institutions of a State. There’s no reason to go on pretending they are not, just to satisfy the dictates of the US and Israel.

      • Rusty Pipes
        April 29, 2014, 5:07 pm

        Thanks for the reminder, Hostage:

        “The separation of powers and competencies between the PLO and PA were imposed by the Israelis under the terms of the lapsed Oslo Accords in order to prevent the establishment of a functional government of the State of Palestine. So it was unsurprising that the Palestinian leadership circumvented the scheme after it had lapsed without implementing the aims stated in the Oslo Declaration of Principles. It was much less surprising that they abolished it as being unnecessary after the UN vote in 2012. The fact that people still use the term “PA” simply means they either don’t, or won’t, recognize the State of Palestine.

        …So it’s the PA, not the PLO that is an anachronism. “

      • Zofia
        April 29, 2014, 5:10 pm

        “PA officially changes name to State of Palestine’”- yes I know that.
        “The separation of powers and competencies between the PLO and PA were imposed by the Israelis under the terms of the lapsed Oslo Accords in order to prevent the establishment of a functional government of the State of Palestine.”- yes I know that too, it was my point when I said there were problems with them, and Palestinians shifted between them….
        “The fact that people still use the term “PA” simply means they either don’t, or won’t, recognize the State of Palestine. “- Well I didn’t write anything about that…but yes Israel still uses “PA” because it doesn’t want to recognize the State of Palestine.
        “The PA did not alter the role of the PLO revolutionary council as the provisional state government.”- Here I must disagree…the political problems arose because the PA was formed, and there were discussions among Palestinians what to do with PLO (and its great authority) and the institutions of the PA, how to deal with them… It had its impact, that is why:
        “FYI, the Palestinians circumvented the old restrictions by simply “wearing three hats” when they performed their duties and by merging the PLO foreign ministry and negotiations support unit into the PA.”- yes I know that too…but as I wrote there were serious discussions about that policy, among Fatah members especially.
        ALSO:
        Dr Hanna Eisa, a Palestinian professor and expert in international law:
        “The PNA was created following the Oslo Accords signed between the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Israel in 1994. “An end to the Israeli occupation in the Palestinian Territories is what really matters, not the change of the names – which can also create serious problems from a legal perspective,” he said.
        From a legal perspective, Dr Eisa said that Palestinian presidential decree has essentially abolish the PNA. “The question now is that are we ready to abolish the PNA TOTALLY? (my emphasis)” he asked.
        “The relevant presidential decree should therefore be followed by another one that abolishes the PNA and announces an immediate end to the Oslo Accords,” he stressed.
        http://m.gulfnews.com/news/region/palestinian-territories/israel-rejects-state-of-palestine-passports-1.1129025

        What I write here in not about which institution is an anachronism, but that till this day there are problems with the “PA” and PLO…the “PA” issue didn’t disappear, and still it demands serious work on the Palestinian side to deal with the issue, to get rid of it once and for all.

        That is why Abbas said he will dissolve the PA and disband Palestinian security forces operating in the West Bank if peace negotiations with Israel fail. I think Yedioth Ahronoth reported that citing Palestinian sources… or http://www.timesofisrael.com/if-talks-fail-abbas-said-to-be-weighing-dissolution-of-oslo-pa/
        Palestinian leaders call for ‘liberation’ from Oslo Accords, http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=519812 well that is old news from 2012

        And again US intervenes in this matter:US WARNS PALESTINIANS NOT TO DISMANTLE PA
        http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.586587
        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4511739,00.html

        Erekat: Palestinians have no intention of dismantling PA
        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4511939,00.html

        Why the White House and Tel Aviv Fear the Dismantling of the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian Reconciliation
        http://nsnbc.me/2014/04/23/why-the-white-house-and-tel-aviv-fear-the-dismantling-of-the-palestinian-authority-and-palestinian-reconciliation/

        So the issue is not resolved yet…there are still problems with the whole Oslo thing. That is all I am saying here…

        I am not disagreeing with you about the validity of the PLO, etc. but there is much more to it…and it raises many serious problems…

      • Hostage
        April 29, 2014, 10:06 pm

        “The PA did not alter the role of the PLO revolutionary council as the provisional state government.”- Here I must disagree…the political problems arose because the PA was formed, and there were discussions among Palestinians what to do with PLO (and its great authority) and the institutions of the PA, how to deal with them…

        It’s a moot court question. If the “PA” goes bankrupt, ceases to function, and the IDF resumes responsibility for administration as the occupying power, the provisional government of the State of Palestine will still exist:

        Taking into consideration that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in accordance with a decision by the Palestine National Council, is entrusted with the powers and responsibilities of the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine

        — A/RES/67/19, 4 December 2012 http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/19862D03C564FA2C85257ACB004EE69B

        The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States reflects customary state practice and international law on the subject. § 201 Reporter’s Note 3 says: “The United States will treat States the territory of which is under foreign military occupation as continuing to exist.” Over 100 countries recognized the occupied State of Palestine before there was ever any such thing as the PA.

        As noted above, the PLO was already the provisional government of the State of Palestine as a result of the 1988 declaration. The Oslo Accords did not contradict that in any way, and reserved the positions of the two parties. They required the PLO to go on conducting all foreign relations and conclude any international agreements on behalf of the PA. The Accords deliberately prohibited the PA from conducting foreign relations or serving as the government of state. There is a draft Constitution for the State of Palestine, but it was shelved several years ago. The temporary 2003 Basic Law stipulated explicitly that it did not alter the role of the PLO, i.e. “This temporary Basic Law draws its strength from the will of the Palestinian people, their firm rights, their continuous struggle and the exercise of their democratic right . . . At the same time, the enactment and ratification of this law by the Legislative Council does spring from the fact that the Palestine Liberation Organization is the sole and legitimate representative of the Arab Palestinian people.” http://www.palestinianbasiclaw.org/basic-law/2003-amended-basic-law

        So, the 2003 law and the 2005 amendments were only the constituent document of the Palestinian Authority, not the PLO or the Executive Committee acting as the provisional government of the State of Palestine.

  9. Stogumber
    April 29, 2014, 4:45 am

    Two State Solutions happen – even after a long time. Take the division of Tchechoslovakia or take the coming division between England and Scotland.

  10. MHughes976
    April 29, 2014, 4:50 am

    Kerry’s idea seems to be that the mere possibility of the 2ss is what stands between Israel as currently constituted and the practice of apartheid: and anything, as we all know, is always possible. As if a situation that would be of a certain kind were it to continue indefinitely is not already of that kind, for all practical and moral purposes, if it continues and continues without any kind of practical prospect of ending.

  11. American
    April 29, 2014, 1:58 pm

    The longer I/P goes on the more of this mumbo jumbo we get on it.

    You want to know what JUSTICE and FAIRNESS and INTERNATIONAL LAW would dictate—that would still leave Israel in place?

    That would be moving Israel back to within the original parameters the UN outlined and forfeiting all structures it has built on OT and compensating all the Palestine refugees families from 1948.

    Thats it——everything else is bullshit.

  12. hophmi
    April 29, 2014, 2:25 pm

    “Shibley Telhami said today that the two-state solution is a “psychological solution” that has allowed world leaders and liberal supporters of Israel to escape moral responsibility for the wrongs of the Israeli occupation.”

    I find that ridiculous. The entire premise of the two-state solution is to end the occupation. If one wanted to escape moral responsibility for it, one would simply endorse maximalist Israeli aims and argue for annexation.

    “The two-state solution was a psychological solution for many to resolve the dissonance, particularly for many people who wanted to support Israel and at the same time have a moral position, a liberal position, an accommodating position for human rights.”

    That’s incredibly unfair, especially since Telhami has long been a support of the two-state solution. First of all, many Palestinians support a two-state solution. Are they also people who want to support Israel and maintain a moral position?

    Maybe liberal Zionists are simply people who believe that Jews have a right to a state, and that Palestinians do as well.

    “Here in the elite around this administration, there’s no question, one senses this anger and frustration and feeling that it’s about time to do something else.”

    I have no doubt. But, you know, we’re America, and we’re supposed to be able to accomplish anything. Cowards are the ones who shrink from difficulty. But you would think that an administration with the foreign policy record this one has would try a little harder for a real achievement.

    “By allowing that resolution to go through, the U.S. would be enabling Palestinians to take their case to international fora, including the International Criminal Court, over such matters as house demolitions.”

    They’ll also open the floodgates for international criminal cases against American soldiers, and for Israeli cases against Palestinian leaders for engaging in terrorist activity.

    • Hostage
      April 29, 2014, 8:25 pm

      I find that ridiculous. The entire premise of the two-state solution is to end the occupation.

      That is certainly NOT why the Jewish Agency proposed the idea in the first place. There isn’t a single thing standing in the way of Israel ending its illegal occupation and abiding by the terms you trolls and bots keep claiming the Zionists accepted.

      First of all, many Palestinians support a two-state solution.

      That simply means they suffer from cognitive dissonance. There have been dozens of statements during the last 9 months from members of the Israeli governing coalition who say they will not allow a Palestinian State to be established between the Jordan and the Sea. See Israeli Violations During the Nine Months Negotiation Process http://nad-plo.org/userfiles/file/fact%20sheet/Israeli%20Violations%20During%20the%20Nine%20Months%20Negotiation%20Process.pdf

      They’ll also open the floodgates for international criminal cases against American soldiers, and for Israeli cases against Palestinian leaders for engaging in terrorist activity.

      I take it you haven’t read the Rome Statute, but prosecuting crimes committed on the territory of Palestine doesn’t involve any US soldiers, unless you mean US citizens serving in the IDF. The Palestinian leadership can already be prosecuted for crimes they’ve committed in Palestine using the open ended 2009 Article 12(3) declaration. That’s still on file with the Court and its definitely in full force and effect after the 2012 upgrade in Palestine’s observer status. Israel can register public comments under Article 15, like everyone else. But it would need to become a state party or file a declaration accepting the Court’s jurisdiction for crimes committed on its own territory or by its nationals elsewhere in order to officially refer situations to the Prosecutor.

    • talknic
      April 30, 2014, 12:25 am

      @ hophmi “The entire premise of the two-state solution is to end the occupation”

      A) There are already two states your mindlessness. One, Israel, is independent. It occupies the other Palestine. Occupation must end BEFORE Palestine can be independent.

      B) There is actually nothing stopping Israel from ending occupation immediately, withdraw Jewish forces from ALL non-Israeli territories for once and take its hundreds of thousands of stupid illegal settlers and go live in Israel.

      “Maybe liberal Zionists are simply people who believe that Jews have a right to a state…”

      You and they should catch up. Israel already exists. The problem is it keeps taking territory that has NEVER belonged to the State of Israel. A significant point you and they are too stupid to admit.

  13. JeffB
    April 29, 2014, 3:57 pm

    @eljay

    If “what’s Jewish should be Israeli” doesn’t apply to all Jews, it’s discriminatory and, therefore, anti-Semitic. I’m surprised you would defend anti-Semitic discrimination.

    The Clinton parameters applied to Israel. There is nothing discriminatory about not applying a solution to countries that don’t have the same problem.

    And what about any non-Jewish Israeli stuff that didn’t wish to be transferred – that wished to remain Israeli? Would it get to remain Israeli, or would it be wiped off the map and/or pushed into the sea?

    States can’t be compelled to govern territory they don’t recognize as theirs. I guess the people could pretend they were Israeli. But if Israel isn’t collecting taxes, isn’t providing services and doesn’t offer military protection what would that even mean?

  14. American
    April 29, 2014, 5:32 pm

    Here’s a novel solution for 2 states…one that actually gives Israel 2 states….LOL

    Can ‘New Israel’ in Texas Solve Mideast Crisis?

    (JTA) — With the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations floundering, it may, perhaps, be time to consider an entirely different kind of two-state solution. One that involves the State of Texas.

    Congressional candidate Allan Levene is proposing to cut the Gordian Knot of Middle East peace by creating a second State of Israel on the eastern coast of Texas, which he would call New Israel. The idea, briefly, is to take (through eminent domain) roughly 8,000 square miles of sparsely populated land bordering the Gulf of Mexico and give it to Israel as a second, non-contiguous part of the State of Israel. Israel would get the land only if it agrees to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders.

    Israel wins because it would gain a new, peaceful territory far from the strife of the Middle East, in a place where, as Levene suggests, “the climate is similar,” and Israel could “have access to the Gulf of Mexico for international trade.” The U.S. wins because it would no longer need to send Israel billions of dollars a year in foreign aid. Texas wins because of all the construction jobs from building an entirely new state within its borders. The Palestinians win because they get the West Bank, and because now Israel, too, gets to see just how fun it is to have a non-contiguous state. Everybody wins!

    And, in fact, it’s an idea with plenty of precedent. Theodor Herzl temporarily embraced a British proposal to establish a Jewish homeland in Uganda (though the backlash against the idea almost destroyed the Zionist movement). And in 1938-40, various plans were floated to settle European Jewish refugees in the Alaska territories – a notion that later inspired Michael Chabon’s novel, “The Yiddish Policeman’s Union.”

    Admittedly, the plan raises a few questions. OK, a lot of questions. Texans don’t generally seem too excited about the federal government stepping in and seizing land. And it’s not clear exactly how the construction of an entirely new state, and all those delectable construction jobs, gets funded (since, remember, this is supposed to save the U.S. billions of dollars). And while Israelis have generally shown plenty of enthusiasm for moving to places like New York and Los Angeles, coastal Texas has never ranked all that high on the list of preferred destinations. And – well, you get the picture. There are questions.

    But Allan Levene has never been daunted by long odds – or, for that matter, by multi-state solutions. A British Jewish immigrant and naturalized citizen, Levene is simultaneously running for Congress, as a Republican, in two non-contiguous states — Georgia and Hawaii (though not, interestingly, in Texas).

    ..continued..

    I dont know how Texas would take to this idea but there might be some merit to taking the Isr OT settlers and plunking them down in Texas to get them out of Palestine.

    • libra
      April 29, 2014, 6:03 pm

      American: The idea, briefly, is to take (through eminent domain) roughly 8,000 square miles of sparsely populated land bordering the Gulf of Mexico and give it to Israel as a second, non-contiguous part of the State of Israel.

      Even better, why not stretch those 8000 square miles into a transcontinental ribbon along the US-Mexican border and let New Israel stop illegal immigration using the tried and trusted techniques of the mother country?

  15. JeffB
    April 29, 2014, 7:32 pm

    @Hostage

    But not the Palestinians Arabs and Christians who lived there. The world isn’t in a position to “accept” or whitewash ethnic cleansing as part of a final settlement, so Israel keeps postponing its day of reckoning.

    hostage. There is no “day or reckoning”. The Israeli public is absolutely unified and passionate behind not accepting RoR, they would rather war. A war with Israel is vastly more expensive than any of a dozen different solutions to the Palestinian refuge crisis. The world can easily accept that the refugee status doesn’t extend beyond to 2nd generation or beyond 5-10 years and isn’t passed generation to generation to generation. Which is the USA’s official position.

    • Hostage
      April 29, 2014, 11:18 pm

      hostage. There is no “day or reckoning”. The Israeli public is absolutely unified and passionate behind not accepting RoR, they would rather war.

      The Israel public will undoubtedly get their wish. They’ve made millions of innocent people their state’s enemies and have done their best to reverse and overturn the international laws that were adopted in the wake of the Holocaust to protect them. The problem with you Jeff is NOT that you practice Nakba denial, it’s that you are so damn proud of it.

      • JeffB
        April 30, 2014, 8:46 am

        @Hostage

        The Israel public will undoubtedly get their wish.

        I don’t agree with your crystal ball.

        have done their best to reverse and overturn the international laws that were adopted in the wake of the Holocaust to protect them.

        The laws adopted in the wake of the Holocaust didn’t help Israelis. They were part of the “never again” spirit which was a good motive IMHO. But ultimately there were some serious problems in the UN’s thinking on these matters. Which is why I like 19th century International law far far better.

      • pjdude
        April 30, 2014, 4:16 pm

        So your basically admitting your a thug who thinks might makes right? Cause that was pretty much international law than until the turn of the century. Let’s look at the wars of conquest than the Mexican American war the war of 1812 the Franco Prussian war the boer war and so and so forth

      • Hostage
        April 30, 2014, 5:13 pm

        The Israel public will undoubtedly get their wish. I don’t agree with your crystal ball.

        What cyrstal ball? Among other things, Anita Shapira was awarded the Israel Prize in Jewish history and a National Jewish Book Award for Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881-1948. The current Prime Minister of Israel admits there has been a continuous armed struggle between the Zionists and the Arabs, since the days of the First Aliyah.

        You said that the Israeli public (only the Zionists really) would rather wage a war than live in a bi-national state. I’m simply saying that is an on-going, self-fulfilling prophecy. The Zionists have been waging a war against a bi-national state ever since the day they got off the boat in Palestine and formed their first illegal militia. Your historical ignorance and lack of awareness is simply stunning.

  16. JeffB
    April 30, 2014, 8:43 am

    @Eljay

    If “what’s Jewish should be Israeli” doesn’t apply to all Jews, it’s discriminatory and, therefore, anti-Semitic. I’m surprised you would defend anti-Semitic discrimination.

    I tend to see discrimination as having different policies without an otherwise different underlying cause. So for example a 4 year old black child not having the same contracting rights as a 40 year old white isn’t racial discrimination because it isn’t based on color but rather on age.

    Jeffb: The Clinton Parameters was going to have that stuff transferred to Palestine.

    Eljay: All non-Jewish Israeli “stuff” was going to be transferred to Palestine? Against its will? That’s both unjust and immoral. Very Zio-supremacist, actually.

    If you mean Zionist then yes. Clinton bought into the core idea of Zionism that Israel was a Jewish state in the same way France is a French state. One of his primary frustrations (and rightly IMHO) with the Palestinians was that they weren’t really embracing the 2SS in that they didn’t want to disentangle the populations.

    • eljay
      April 30, 2014, 11:15 am

      >> I tend to see discrimination as having different policies without an otherwise different underlying cause.

      So now there’s a difference between Jews in the Levant and Jews not in the Levant? Interesting.

      >> Clinton bought into the core idea of Zionism that Israel was a Jewish state in the same way France is a French state.

      Clinton bought into a lie.

      “Israel is an Israeli state” would be the same as “France is a French state”. Both would be presumed to be states of and for their citizens, immigrants, ex-pats and refugees, equally.

      “Israel is a ‘Jewish State'” – a state primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews – is fundamentally a religion-supremacist construct.

Leave a Reply