Nadia Hijab on Palestinian options, Jewish allies, and the Zionist crisis

US Politics
on 68 Comments

Nadia Hijab is a leading voice on Middle East issues. The author lately published (along with Ingrid Jaradat Gassner) an important piece on how to think about Palestinian conditions at al-Shabaka, the thinktank Hijab directs. I sat down with her last month to ask her about her ideas.

Q. I think of you as an optimistic person, yet you’ve spent years on this issue, much longer than I have. How have you done that?

Nadia Hijab: I’m pretty glass half full.  I think you have to be a person of an optimistic nature to do this work. I always think it’s such an insane piece of work to do. And that’s the Middle East Eye piece I wrote [“Things will get worse for the Palestinians. Why I still have faith”]. Really you see the world ranged against you– and you’re right. All the superpowers and the big regional power that is now Israel– and you have to have faith and you have to believe, you have to have the optimism to think you can change things otherwise you wouldn’t carry on.

Every once in a while you can get despondent or feel hopeless but what keeps you going is that there are so many others going with you, so I think we reinforce each other and we reinforce our ability to move forward.

Q. You told me that the presence of Jews in the struggle has been an important sign to you. Since when and why?

I’ll talk about the expansion of the Jewish presence as I experienced it in the Palestine solidarity movement as of the year 2000. That’s when I started collaborating, in 2001, with Phyllis Bennis and several others to co-found the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, as it was known then. We were dedicated, we were a smallish number, but the idea was to reach out and establish a coalition of organizations.

And people like Phyllis who happens to be Jewish had been in the movement a very long time. And there were other Jews that had been in the movement a very long time. But I didn’t get the sense that the numbers were many; and it was part of a larger radical politics. In fact at that time, a lot of the Jews who were in the progressive movement wanted nothing to do with Palestine–completely unlike Phyllis of course who dedicated much of her life and time to Palestine– but there were as you know Progressive Except for Palestine types and that applied to a lot of  the Jews in the progressive community.

There were a few people at the first launch conference of the US Campaign, which was in Chicago in 2002: a couple of young people there who wanted to dedicate themselves to taking this campaign forward. And one of them became one of the few staff members of the US Campaign and for a very small amount of money—Josh Ruebner, set up the systems and processes of the US Campaign. We started building, and it grew.

And I don’t have to ask this question anymore. But at that time I would say to Josh, why are you doing this thing and how do you as a Jew see this conflict? Because I don’t know that many Jews who really see this conflict pretty much in the same terms as I do, as a Palestinian.

He would say– well he had his own story that he could speak to– but he had an experience that made him think, well life’s too short and I need to do something with my life, and so he started working on this issue. He tried other things, but somehow he came to the first campaign conference and became part of the US Campaign.

And in building the US Campaign, I came across others. One of them I will never forget. It was one of those lobby days, in 2003 or ’04, we were striding along on the Hill going up to Congress because we both had the same New York rep. And she was petite and I’m tall, and I said, Erica, and for some reason I remember her name to this day, Why do you do this work? And she said, Well I was in Bosnia and I saw what was happening to the Bosniaks there and the attacks on them from the Serbs and the demolition of homes and all of that and I realized that the exact same thing was happening in Palestine.

And I looked at this young woman, and the understanding and awareness and intelligence that you could bring to the question, then I asked the question that I always ask, or I used to ask. “So what do your parents say?” And she said, “My parents are proud of me.”

But of course Jews would say, I have a problem with my aunt or my grandmother. But here are these supportive parents who may not agree with this but they’re supportive. Because they love their kids and they’re proud of them.

Then the numbers grew so many that you no longer ask. For years I haven’t felt that I wanted to ask the question!

Q. When you meet Palestinians, you don’t have the same question. There’s an obvious reason they would be engaged.

Yes exactly. I mean, Palestinians would have a personal trajectory, from being someone who was trying to get on in life in a material way and had to sacrifice in order to get into activism. But with another Palestinian, as indeed with many Arabs, I don’t have to ask. With Palestinians, you click at once, it’s the natural thing to do. Unless– there are obviously a lot of Palestinians who think very differently.

What’s been frustrating for Palestinians, in the present time is that there’s a movement for Palestinian rights in the U.S. but there’s been no clear Palestinian leadership of that movement. And no strong Palestinian organizations to lead it. And what I hear from young Palestinians is that you know, we’re very active in Students for Justice in Palestine, which is a great multi-ethnic multi-religious multiracial movement—but then when they leave university, there’s no natural home.

Q. What makes Jews important? Hispanics, blacks, Europeans, a lot of people are called to the question.

On the whole a lot more Jews are called to this question than other groups. I once saw the volumes that listed the number of American Jewish organizations that represented the Jewish community: obviously the Jewish community in the United States is very organized, in many different ways and different spheres, and so on. And I want to be very cautious of not stereotyping, or not making generalized statements.

Q. I can do that part.

You can and you do! But first of all, if Jews make this their issue, they’ve been in the system in the United States much longer than Palestinians and Arabs and they know how the system works and they know how to make it work. A lot of Palestinians and Arabs are now coming on stream that have that knowledge, but Jews have that historical depth with the system.

Secondly, no one can tell them that it cannot be their issue and they are better placed than anyone to challenge the Zionist discourse. They are– it’s just a fact. Now I’ve had a lot of arguments with my dear friend Phyllis, as to: Everybody should have a right to challenge. Yes, in theory, everyone has a right to challenge—but Jews are really, it’s a fact, much better placed to challenge.

Q. Jews started Zionism!

Yes, some Jews started Zionism. Because not all Jews did. And a lot of Jews were anti-Zionist and fought Zionism and didn’t want Zionism.

Q. But then the establishment Jewish community solidified behind it.

They did. A lot of it did. So they are in a position par excellence to challenge Zionism. But I really want to make a distinction. I never want to use the term “the Jews”. I think that’s a pitfall to fall into.

But when you have a large cluster of Jews who are extremely tenacious and are fighters on this issue and are not going to go away, and their numbers are growing, which they are– then it’s a challenge to the established Zionist organizations. Those organizations, if they want to question Israel’s policies, want to do it on their terms; and they have a very narrow definition of how to question Israel’s policies. Which is, that what should come out of it is that Israel would remain a Jewish majority state that would have to by its own definition continue to discriminate against its own citizens.

I’m not forgetting about the occupied territories and the refugees. To have a Jewish majority state you would have to make sure that for example the Palestinian citizens of Israel wouldn’t be free to marry Palestinians from other countries and bring them into Israel. And in fact there’s a law against that.

But I think there’s a real concern now with many of the established Zionist organizations that Israel has gone off track and that by wanting it all, it’s going to lose it all.

Q. You perceive that anxiety?

Absolutely. Because the actions of the right wing in Israel, which are actually taking the trajectory of how Israel began to its logical conclusion, are unpalatable in the 21st century. You can’t defend them.

Q. You’ve observed that fretting?

Yes because they put the whole thing in jeopardy. I think why John Kerry was working on this issue so hard was to save Israel for the liberal Zionist Jews. I’m convinced that that’s why he was working on it so hard.

Q. Because he believed in it?

Because he believed that Israel was necessary and the liberal Zionists that he knows in the U.S. need an Israel and want an Israel but they have to have an Israel that’s not going to be an apartheid state. I have no evidence, but that’s what he was so concerned about. The maximum that they want to see happen is set out in the Kerry parameters.

Whereas the Jews who are active in the movement for Palestinian rights have a completely different and a very sophisticated understanding of what the issues are and what to do about them and what the ultimate goal should be. I’m calling it the movement for Palestinian rights rather than the Palestinian solidarity movement, because the movement for Palestinian rights involves Palestinians. Many Palestinians have made the point, why am I a Palestinian in the Palestine solidarity movement. I’m me, and these are my rights I’m talking about. I can’t be in solidarity with myself.

Q. To return to your friend on the Hill: Erica did not need a lot of education, doctrine, information. She was brought to one injustice and she made the analogy. She didn’t get stopped by the hasbara, oh, this is different, for this reason.

That’s exactly right. People are getting it.

But you see this was why I spent a couple of years working with a group of liberal Zionists in New York and I had the highest respect for them. These were liberal Zionists that wanted to support Palestinian rights, within the framework of two states, in which Israel is a Jewish state. They were willing to go very far but there was a limit to how far they could go. But at the same time I had enormous respect for them because by taking the positions they were taking they were alienating themselves from the people that they loved. And for want of a better word, from their tribe. They were taking personal risks with their jobs. So I had a lot of respect for that.

Q. When was this?

It was in the late 90s. I was still at the U.N. then.

Q. Did you believe in two states then?

I’ve been agnostic on the state issue, and that ties into my article, because there are some dangers in getting the discourse wrong. But at that time, two states seemed to be the thing that was achievable, if one could get enough power behind it, so perhaps one had to go through that naïve or less politically aware position.

But after about a year and a half, two years, I stopped working with the liberal Zionists. I will happily speak to any community that wants to invite me to speak. And I found that when I spoke at synagogues, people were very respectful, they were very open to listening, even if they didn’t agree with you, it used to be quite fantastic. Now the issue’s in a different place, there’s an attempt to shut down the discourse. But at that time people were open to listening.

Q. Much more is in play now?

Yes, much more is in play. I stopped working with them, why? Because I realized the limits of liberal Zionists. With all the respect I had for them in taking these risks, the limits—in the final analysis if it came to a choice between Israel’s security versus human rights, Israel’s security tended to trump the human rights piece of it.

There was not a well defined, common, agreed frame of reference, of values, where once you had that frame of reference you didn’t have to keep negotiating the issues all the time, and I realized the limits of that experience. Then it was soon afterward that we went on to co-found the US Campaign with that clear framework of principles and values that made us move very quickly. There was no need to continually renegotiate: We were all on the same page as to what is meant by Palestinian rights.

Q. Were there liberal Zionists who have moved since then?

I can’t think of a specific person.

Q. Maybe some in the movement now are the children of liberal Zionists.

What I’ve found is that they grew up in homes where they were inculcated in a very strong set of morals, and so what is Israel was doing was offending that moral or values or rights framework, whatever, and they couldn’t deal with it.

Q. Norman Finkelstein says the international consensus is two states, the best that anyone can get is two states, even Bernie Sanders won’t go past that, on the left. So for anyone in the real world of politics, the two state solution is the only game in town.

What undermines Norman’s theory completely, with all due respect, is that this has been international consensus for 50 years. So where is the two-state solution? If they’re so behind it, where is it? And there was a very powerful Palestinian movement behind it [in the 1970s and 1980s], and a very powerful international movement behind it, still it didn’t happen. I find it hard to conceive of the kind of movement that would need to happen differently from the previous movements, to actually bring about a two state solution.

However, at the same time, there is an international consensus that these are occupied territories, and that everything Israel is doing in them is illegal. You know, all the changes that they’ve done to the nature of occupied territories is unlawful, as experts like to say, rather than illegal, and that they must be reversed.

The Palestinian leadership was not strategic and put itself in the position of negotiations with Israel, and they should have been able to spot this in the early days and then get out of it. Unfortunately, when they did spot it, a decade after the end of the first intifada and the Oslo process– oh this is not going anywhere — the response was not strategic. The response was the second intifada.

And it enabled Israel to then reoccupy the cities and develop a military solution. That’s when the PA [Palestinian Authority] decided to become really the subcontractor to Israel. So Israel’s acts are unlawful, and they have to be addressed.

The approach that has been used to address them is through negotiations between Israel and the PLO, and that is a nonstarter. That should have been a nonstarter from day 1, because you cannot negotiate with your occupier, the far superior power. Remember what happened to Mahmoud Abbas, going to a negotiating meeting and not being allowed to pass the checkpoints to get there. Those kinds of games were played all the time. So the whole notion that the only way you can reach a resolution of the conflict and achieve a two state solution is through negotiations has been the worst nonstarter, the worst thing to happen really to the Palestinian people.

So the value of the fact that what Israel is doing is illegal or unlawful is something that we should make use of as a movement. And therefore we should not be focused on the ultimate political settlement. Whatever the ultimate political settlement is, it’s going to be some form of state, OK? It’s going to be one state or two states. Whatever the ultimate political solution is going to be it’s going to have to guarantee the rights of all its citizens. Otherwise it’s going to be abhorrent to moral people, to all of those of us who want to see human rights.

So what’s happening in that debate between one state versus two states and what the solution should be is that a lot of people are losing track of what our sources of power are, to get from here to there and what we need to do to get from here to there.

And that is the piece that Ingrid [Jaradat Gassner] and I tried to address, that we’re at risk of throwing out the baby out with the bathwater. We need to hang on to the Green Line. I’m not making a case for two states, I’m making a case to hold on to one of the most effective ways that the international community has to take a position against Israel’s unlawful acts in the occupied territories, and to put pressure on Israel. We have to push for that, irrespective of what the ultimate political settlement is.

First let’s agree that what we need as an ultimate political settlement is either a one state solution or a two state solution that guarantees the rights of all their citizens. And that, actually recognizes that Israel needs to make reparations to Palestinians for what they’ve been through, and the losses that they’ve incurred, and that Palestinians’ self determination has got to be recognized. And therefore we need tools and sources of power  to bring about this recognition by Israel.

Those tools include many of the things associated with the state system, i.e., the fact that a prolonged occupation and changing of the nature of the status of the people living under occupation, and using their resources without justification are all unlawful.

That’s a source of power. Being able to take Israel to the ICC is a source of power, being able to use the UN system is a source of power. Being able to call for Boycott Divestment and Sanctions on Israel till it withdraws or ceases those actions is a source of power.

The BDS call implicitly recognizes Israel, because it calls on Israel to do three things. To recognize the Palestinians’ right to self determination, and as part of that recognition, to end its occupation, guarantee the equal rights of the Palestinian citizens of Israel, and guarantee the right of the Palestinian refugees to return. There’s an implicit recognition of Israel there.

Q. At a Hadassah panel last night in New York, Zionist feminists said that BDS calls for dismantling of the Jewish state. Is that accurate?

It calls for equal rights for the Palestinian citizens of Israel. If you can have equal rights for all your citizens as a Jewish state, then great, go for it, show us how.

How can you be a state that privileges one religious or ethnic group– depending how you define yourself– over others. That’s anathema in the 21st century. Israel exists. Nobody is saying that Israel does not exist, and it exists by virtue of being a recognized member state of the United Nations. It has relations with a number of world powers. There it is! What is the problem with Israel is its policies. Toward the Palestinians under occupation, toward its own citizens. And its policies with regard to the refugees which it promised to allow home

Israel’s existence is not the problem anymore, and that actually is a victory that Israel has achieved that it is now putting in jeopardy.

That’s why the liberal Zionist establishment is so fearful. Zionists have successfully created the state of Israel.. Israel’s policies are putting that state in jeopardy: its discrimination, its human rights violations. It’s Israel that’s putting Israel in jeopardy, not BDS.

Q. Where do you see the freakout? They haven’t pulled Israel back.

They haven’t been able to. The biggest evidence is Kerry. There are different Zionist institutions that have protested Israel’s policies. Like J Street– but even more establishment organizations have protested Israel’s policies.

But I think Kerry’s push to get a solution and his push to get those parameters agreed is the biggest evidence that the liberal Zionist community wants to see this thing sorted while it still can claim that you can be a Jewish state and not actually discriminate against your citizens, that it’s OK to be a state that is Jewish. While it can still push that.

Q. Netanyahu et al say the middle east is in turmoil. They say there are a lot bigger problems than the apartheid and second class citizenship. Does that hurt the movement?

Of course it hurts. And it’s a tragedy in and of itself. What happened to Iraq is a horrible horrific tragedy that should never have happened, and happened in violation of the U.N. charter. The U.N. charter does not allow for the Bush and Blair attack on Iraq.

But irrespective of that, Israel has no right to be colonizing the occupied territories. Israel has no right to be discriminating against its own citizens. Israel has no right to continue to deny the rights of the refugees to return home.

It is using disarray in the Arab world, and the power play between Saudi Arabia against Iran, to distract. There should be no linkage between Israel’s own actions in the lands it occupies and the state it established and the refugees, on the one hand, and the tragic conflicts in the region, on the other – there’s no linkage.

Q. Khalil Shikaki says, young Palestinians are increasingly saying two states don’t work, let’s go to one state.

This is the problem. People are saying two states aren’t working, let’s go to one state. This is not the question. The question is how are you going to get from here to there? How are you going to get either to one state or to two states? What you need is as a minimum Israel to recognize your self determination and get Israel to pay reparations to you.

Let’s assume you want to work for one state. You are going to have to use as many of your sources of your power as you can and one of those is that Israel’s occupation is unlawful. Just don’t make a statement that you want one state. Make a statement that we need to get Israel to recognize our rights, and once it has recognized our rights, we can go and negotiate a political settlement that achieves those rights.

If it’s one state, great. If it’s two states, fine. It would have to be two states anyway that are very closely joined together in many respects.

But people are ignoring the issue of how we get from here to there. That’s one issue that’s confusing the discourse about the Palestinian question because we need a huge movement to  change the power dynamic to make Israel do what we want it to do.

We are way not there. And to get there, we need to be able to challenge it, for example at the ICC. We need to be able to challenge at the ICJ.

A lot of those tools are state tools. That doesn’t mean you recognize the state. But you call on all states for example to ban settlement goods like Amnesty International just did. If states took a serious position against Israel, that would make it think twice.

If the European Union said that actually everything you’re doing is violating the terms of agreement, that would make Israel take notice.

Then the other thing that is muddying the waters of this discourse is, What is Israel doing? Is it settler colonialism? Is it discrimination? Is it racism? Is it ethnic cleansing? Is it an attack on indigenous peoples? What is the intellectual frame of reference?

Q. That’s in the article. Why is that important?

It’s important because what is happening is a whole bunch of arguments between a lot of academics, and also a lot of policy analysts, and activists, that we need to call it what it is; we need to call it settler colonialism. Oh no, we need to call it what it is, we need to call it apartheid. No it’s ethnic cleansing!

So people are debating this all the time. And what is it? Because unless you have a consensus and an agreement on what it is then you cannot develop the messages and you cannot develop the tools. Like indigenous peoples’ rights: it has a lot going for it, it’s recognized by the United Nations. Settler colonialism has a lot going for it as a framework of analysis. It also recognized as a wrong in the United Nations. And racial discrimination, there’s a UN convention against it, to forbid racial discrimination.

So a lot of these frameworks of analysis have a lot to recommend them. So how do you choose?

What Ingrid and I argue is we need a framework of analysis that’s strategic. And what  do we mean by strategic? It needs to be a framework of analysis that’s going to help us build up the sources of power that will push Israel to recognize Palestinian self-determination and to make reparations. So we zeroed in on two frameworks of analysis.

One is apartheid and one is settler colonialism. and we found that apartheid actually is by far the more robust of the two. Why? Because the settler colonialist framework in the international system of states—and we have to be realistic about states– will only apply to Israel beyond the green line. Whereas the apartheid framework applies to what Israel is doing to its citizens in Israel, to what it is doing in the West Bank and to what Israel is doing to the refugees.

That was very well set out in the ESCWA report by Richard Falk and Virginia Tilley; and they said apartheid applies to all segments of the Palestinian people.

We’ve come to a similar conclusion but in a different way of getting there. Which is, that the apartheid frame of reference is the most strategic for the Palestinian struggle, and it is one that can frame the messages, if we can get people to get it.

We need to have a lot more discussion and education stemming from the analysis she and I did, to get there. It’s one of those difficult things that you need to talk through and then internalize. Because if you don’t internalize it, it will always get away from you when you try and explain it.

Q. I have a question about self-determination, through my own lens. I’m not an abstract thinker. I live in this country as a Jew, and Jews don’t have self-determination. I’m one of them, we all vote. Whereas in Israel and Palestine, this two peoples with competing claims model, that’s problematic. These settlers Zionists have been burying their families there for generations, they feel connected, they have a bizarre mythology. Obviously I think the Palestinian connection is a more robust and valid one, given the ethnic cleansing. But I think that ultimately, and being subjective, I say, you guys got to learn from me. You are going to be one people there, and with a self determination model, they’re mutually exclusive.

They’re not necessarily mutually exclusive. The Palestinian right of self determination is different from what Israel is setting out as its right to self determination. There are many contradictions at the heart of the Zionist project, one of which is, How you define a Jew? I have a friend who married a Jewish woman and he converted. So he goes to Israel, the family wants to settle there. Does he have a right to self-determination? How do you define a Jew?

Q. I reject that out of hand. I don’t want that right I think it’s wrong.

How do you have that right?

Q. Through Zionism. Zionism established it.

Zionism can’t establish it. There’s a number of Jews who want nothing to do with Israel. Does that mean they’re giving up their right? At a certain point Israel has to become the state of its own citizens. Like Switzerland. Immigration has to involve certain criteria that don’t involve your ability to go there only because you’re Jewish; and many people feel that Judaism is a religion, it has nothing to do with a piece of land somewhere. That has to be recognized too. This conflation of Judaism and a right to a Jewish state is something that eventually is going to be picked apart long after we’re dead, because it makes no sense.

The people who are living there now they can’t be eradicated or displaced. Israel has tried to do that to the Palestinians. Nobody is doing that to the Israelis. Even if they have the power, they shouldn’t at this point do that.

Q. You said there’s another reason that the growing number of Jews in the movement is important.

It’s because what’s coming out of the Jewish activism for Palestine in the movement for Palestinian rights, and here I’m thinking specifically of JVP, which is very strategic, and we need that kind of strategic thinking in the US movement, we don’t have very much of it. There is strategic thinking coming from the Palestinians, including the call to BDS. That is a very strategic call.

Q. Why is it important?

You have to compete to counter Israel. Israel has a very, very powerful capacity of constantly scanning the external environment and positioning itself to respond. It’s trying brute force to deal with the challenge, and so far, touch wood– we have to keep at it, because if we don’t they can succeed, through brute force. I mean legal tools that they’re using and the attempt to shut down the discourse by calling people anti-semitic. These are all very difficult things to push back against. That’s why it’s very important to have a group like JVP; which is very strategic.

I’ll give you one example, Israel’s attempt with the organized Zionist community to shut down the discourse is by conflating criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. And conflating criticism of Zionism with anti-semitism. And so at the JVP conference this year, the first plenary of the first full day, was, oh, you want to conflate Zionism and anti-Semitism, ok let’s talk about Zionism. Go right to the root cause of the conflict– that is so strategic. Because it’s not just a panel, it also kicked off a year of discussion and learning and study and debate, about what is Zionism really, and how has it impacted the Palestinians.

That’s the strategic thinking and positioning we need.

Q. Meanwhile there’s ethnic cleansing and transfer and annexation. Does the possibility exist that Palestinians will be even more defeated in a year or two or three than they are today?

Yes. Sure. Absolutely. Not only does that possibility exist, it will happen. Israel will ramp up. They really want to legalize their occupation and they want to empty out the land as fast as they can before they’re stopped, assuming that they are or they might be stopped.

And it’s going to be very bad for Palestinians in the next two or three years. Things are going to get worse for the Palestinians.

Q. So why do you still have faith?  

Because the harder they try to legalize this illegal enterprise, the worse they look, and the worse they look, the more unpalatable the whole thing becomes.

Q. Is it possible we will be sitting here in 30 years and saying, We failed. You know what, We tried, we had fighters, we fought the good fight, we failed.

I don’t think it can happen, and that’s because so many people are galvanized now, and that includes the Jews. I mean, Do Jews really want a Saudi Arabia?

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

68 Responses

  1. JLewisDickerson
    July 10, 2017, 11:48 am

    RE: “[W]e’re at risk of throwing out the baby out with the bathwater. We need to hang on to the Green Line. I’m not making a case for two states, I’m making a case to hold on to one of the most effective ways that the international community has to take a position against Israel’s unlawful acts in the occupied territories, and to put pressure on Israel. We have to push for that, irrespective of what the ultimate political settlement is.” ~ Nadia Hijab

    MY COMMENT: That’s why I profess my support for making Jerusalem an ‘international city’ pursuant to General Assembly resolution 181 (II) November 29, 1947, which provides for the full territorial internationalisation of Jerusalem: “The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations.”

    Netanyahu recently made it clear that as far as he is concerned there will never be a sovereign nation-state of Palestine in the West Bank (with, or without, E. Jerusalem as its capital). Consequently, unless Jerusalem is protected by virtue of its being made an ‘international city’ administered by the UN, it is just a matter of time before the Dome of the Rock, the Al-Aqsa mosque and numerous other historic sites come under existential threat as Israel’s radical, extremist nationalists (like Yehuda Glick and Moshe Feiglin of the Temple Institute) become more and more determined to completely “Judaize” the city.

    • JLewisDickerson
      July 10, 2017, 1:16 pm

      P.S. ■ Judgment of Solomon
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon

      [EXCERPTS] The Judgment of Solomon refers to a story from the Hebrew Bible in which King Solomon of Israel ruled between two women both claiming to be the mother of a child by tricking the parties into revealing their true feelings. . .

      IMAGE – Fresco of the Judgment of Solomon, Wallfahrtskirche Frauenberg (de) Frauenberg, Styria

      Biblical narrative

      The story is recounted in 1 Kings 3:16-28. Two young women who lived in the same house and who both had an infant son came to Solomon for a judgment. One of the women claimed that the other, after accidentally smothering her own son while sleeping, had exchanged the two children to make it appear that the living child was hers. The other woman denied this and so both women claimed to be the mother of the living son and said that the dead boy belonged to the other.

      After some deliberation, King Solomon called for a sword to be brought before him. He declared that there was only one fair solution: the live son must be split in two, each woman receiving half of the child. Upon hearing this terrible verdict, the boy’s true mother cried out, “Oh Lord, give the baby to her, just don’t kill him!” The liar, in her bitter jealousy, exclaimed, “It shall be neither mine nor yours—divide it!”

      The king declared the first mother as the true mother, as a true, loving mother would rather surrender her baby to another than hurt him, and gave her the baby. King Solomon’s judgment became known throughout all of Israel and was considered an example of profound wisdom. . .

      P.P.S.■ The Judgement of Solomon
      Peter Paul Rubens 1577 – 1640
      oil on canvas (234 × 303 cm) — c. 1617
      Museum Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen

      P.P.P.S.
      “Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation” Paperback – 7/04/2017
      by Eyal Weizman (Author)

      Acclaimed exploration of the political space created by Israel’s colonial occupation ~ This new edition of the classic work on the politics of architecture—and the architecture of politics—appears on the fiftieth anniversary of the Six-Day War, which expanded Israel’s domination over Palestinian lands.

      From the tunnels of Gaza to the militarized airspace of the Occupied Territories, Eyal Weizman unravels Israel’s mechanisms of control and its transformation of Palestinian homes into a war zone under constant surveillance. This is essential reading for those seeking to understand how architecture and infrastructure are used as lethal weapons in the formation of Israel.

      KINDLE, HARDCOVER, PAPERBACK – https://www.amazon.com/Hollow-Land-Israels-Architecture-Occupation/dp/1786634481/

      • DaBakr
        July 13, 2017, 12:32 pm

        The story of Solomon’s judgement is a powerful parable for both parties to the conflict sharing administration of sites considered sacred. But that isn’t what the majority of commenters here want when they hiss with fork tongues about what a just solution would be.

        I would add that while bringing up the Solomon story as analogy it might have to be changed to suggest that Solomon took such a long time to announce his decision that the said baby grew up into an adult and decided on it’s own.

      • echinococcus
        July 13, 2017, 1:43 pm

        “Solomon’s judgment” my @$$. Learn about making analogies. You guys are interlopers dropped from outer space by the English and all you deserve is getting thrown out and paying for all damages.

      • eljay
        July 13, 2017, 2:41 pm

        || DaBakr: The story of Solomon’s judgement is a powerful parable for both parties to the conflict sharing administration of sites considered sacred. … ||

        Given that there is no Solomon to judge that they are its “true mother”, Palestinians know better than to cry out that all of Palestine should go to the Zionists.

      • Mooser
        July 13, 2017, 5:42 pm

        “The story of Solomon’s judgement is a powerful parable for both parties”

        Only if you wish to ignore well-known medical techniques which positively identify parents.

  2. yonah fredman
    July 10, 2017, 1:58 pm

    A level headed thinker and thus encouraging.

    I listened on line to one jvp speaker on the topic of zionism and judaism and she sounded like she read judaism for dummies and Wikipedia article on zionism and thus was an expert.

    The casual reference by hijab to judaism is a religion and not state sovereignty smacks of a similar superficiality.

    It is true tho that the essential question is one of immigration. Israel only told its Palestinian citizens that they cannot wed west bank Palestinians in 2002 or so, so it is not there since creation, but trajectory-wise I see the continuity from the expulsion (Nakba) to emphasizing the demographic problems of today.

    I am among those who are not horrified by the formulation “state of all its citizens”, but the open immigration policy hijab advocates would horrify or be utterly rejected by 9 out of 10 Jewish Israelis and this political reality weighs more to me than it does to hijab.

    • eljay
      July 10, 2017, 2:35 pm

      || yonah fredman: A level headed thinker and thus encouraging. … ||

      As long as it doesn’t conflict with your Zionism (see below).

      || … the open immigration policy hijab advocates would horrify or be utterly rejected by 9 out of 10 Jewish Israelis and this political reality weighs more to me than it does to hijab. ||

      That’s because you and 9/10 Jewish Israelis are Zionists – Jewish supremacists – who wish to see Israel remain a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”.

      • yonah fredman
        July 11, 2017, 8:23 pm

        There is an element of realpolitik in what I write.

        When I was in Israel and was accused by my niece of wanting to give the entire land back to the Palestinians, I said, “no.” so she said, “but back to the borders of 67” and I said, “yes, more or less.” I did not insist to tell her that not only that but that Israel should also take hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from Lebanon and elsewhere and allow them to return to 48 Israel.

        Israel is not near to reaching the necessary conclusions regarding the West Bank, that she should withdraw more or less back to the lines of 67 and that this in fact will create problems of Hamas control of the Jordan valley and security problems just as threatening if not moreso than the situation with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and despite that, i feel Israel should agree to it, because Hamas control of Ramallah is probably manageable, whereas the loss of democracy involved in the occupation is not manageable, it is essential and spells the end of Zionism, which I define as the attempt to fulfill the Declaration of Independence, even if it has never been fulfilled in the past.

        This is the major issue that Israelis don’t want to hear from me. My concept of reconciliation that would allow for the influx of half a million Palestinians over the course of ten years, which goes beyond Yeshayahu Leibowitz, (I assume), they certainly don’t need to hear from me, if I wish to make the argument that Israel must sacrifice the security of the status quo in order to protect Israel’s essence, I cannot in the next sentence advocate a change in demography which will threaten Israel’s essence in a way that the 67 borders will not.

        We are not near peace. I put the overwhelming majority of the burden on Netanyahu for his unwillingness to resume negotiations where Olmert left off, or where Beilin, Abd Rabbo agreed, or where the Clinton Parameters of December 2000 left off.

        Nonetheless given the distance between the present tense and the necessities of withdrawal that would be embodied in the peace plans I listed above, it is of greater importance to emphasize the wrongness of the occupation rather than advocate a change in the mindset of Israelis towards the hard core work of reconciliation.

        And it would take real reconciliation not to be nervous about a mass influx of refugees and it would take real reconciliation to opt for hope over experience regarding the possibilities of democracy in the new Palestine.

        But we are still far from a cold peace, let alone much further away from reconciliation, so we are not near the day that the term “demographic problem” is no longer part of the discourse.

      • echinococcus
        July 11, 2017, 9:34 pm

        There is an element of realpolitik in what I write.

        Wow! The power quote. Something you can afford to sign only if your name is, say, Bismarck or Churchill or, ehm, Reb Feldman, or was it Friedman…

      • eljay
        July 12, 2017, 6:57 am

        || yonah fredman: There is an element of realpolitik in what I write. … ||

        And you write an awful lot of words – sorry, realpolitik – just to reiterate that you and 9/10 Jewish Israelis are Zionists – Jewish supremacists – who wish to see Israel remain a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”.

    • Mooser
      July 10, 2017, 3:58 pm

      “hijab advocates would horrify or be utterly rejected by 9 out of 10 Jewish Israelis”

      And 9 out of 10 Jewish Israelis are the most powerful force in the world.

      • Citizen
        July 11, 2017, 10:23 am

        No, that would be the likes of Sheldon Adelson who has more tunnel vision than all the folks in Gaza, and more money.

    • chocopie
      July 10, 2017, 5:13 pm

      “the demographic problems of today.”

      Unbelievable that people actually say this.

      • Talkback
        July 11, 2017, 8:32 am

        I wonder if Yonah thinks that Jews in historic Palestine are a demographic problem. They are almost a majority.

      • Mooser
        July 11, 2017, 12:26 pm

        “I wonder if Yonah thinks that Jews in historic Palestine are a demographic problem.”

        You can’t be a demographic problem in your own ancestral homeland.
        I mean, shoot, there musta been at least 7 million Jewish Israelites in Palestine back in the Bible Days. Living a high-consumption Western lifestyle, too.

  3. Jon66
    July 10, 2017, 3:05 pm

    “That should have been a nonstarter from day 1, because you cannot negotiate with your occupier, the far superior power.”

    Both the Allied occupation of Germany and Japan were ended by treaties negotiated during the occupation. Allied occupation ceased only after the peace treaties were ratified.

    • eljay
      July 10, 2017, 3:34 pm

      || Jon66: … Both the Allied occupation of Germany and Japan were ended by treaties negotiated during the occupation. Allied occupation ceased only after the peace treaties were ratified. ||

      I agree completely: Allied powers should occupy the belligerent, colonialist state of Israel and negotiate a treaty which, among other things…
      – strips from it illegally-acquired territories and turns them over to Palestine;
      – limits the size of its military;
      – requires it to renounce WMDs (incl. nukes); and
      – demand reparations.

    • YoniFalic
      July 10, 2017, 3:52 pm

      World War II ended with the unconditional surrender of the German Reich and the Japanese Empire. Mopping up operations ended some time thereafter, and the Allied occupations did not end until much later. (Actually the war between Japan and the USSR did not end until 1956.)

      • Jon66
        July 10, 2017, 4:27 pm

        And the occupied countries negotiated the final peace while under occupation. To insist that the victor must withdraw before the occupied people can negotiate is not logical.

      • echinococcus
        July 10, 2017, 5:03 pm

        John Sixtysix

        Comparing the invaders and aggressors to the powers occupying aggressor Germany.

        You guys are the aggressor, with no right of occupation.

        The only WWII occupation one can legitimately compare yours is the occupation of Europe by the Nazis!

    • MHughes976
      July 10, 2017, 4:30 pm

      I think that representatives of the population of an occupied territory can negotiate with the occupiers – this procedure was followed by minor Axis Powers postwar., leading to the Treaties of Paris of ?1950. The clumsily named Treaty on Final Settkement with respect to Germany, never called a peace treaty, was not negotiated unti 1990.

    • John O
      July 10, 2017, 5:24 pm

      Millions of British and American citizens emigrated to Germany and Japan after WW2, kicked the natives out of their homes, jailed them if they objected, shot them at checkpoints, herded them into ghettoes, bombed the crap out of them every few years when they felt like a bit of target practice, and said repeatedly they had no partner for peace. Alt-history is such fun, no?

      • Jon66
        July 10, 2017, 8:11 pm

        John,

        The Allies carved large parts of pre-war Germany out and gave the territory to Poland.
        The vast majority of German citizens were expelled. Refugees who tried to return after the cessation of hostilities were denied the “right to return”.

        France annexed the Saar. The German population was integrated into France.

        While Allied servicemen were ordered to obey local laws while in Germany, soldiers could not be prosecuted by German courts for crimes committed against German citizens except as authorised by the occupation authorities.

        Starvation of the civilian population was rampant.

        The Potsdam conference, where the victorious Allies drew up plans for the future of Germany, noted in article XIII of the Potsdam Agreement on 1 August 1945 that “the transfer to Germany of German populations (…) in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary will have to be undertaken”.

        There are still American military bases on German soil.

      • YoniFalic
        July 10, 2017, 10:09 pm

        The comment comes from the Twilight Zone. The Saarland is one of the sixteen states (or Bundesländer) of the Federal Republic of Germany.

      • Jon66
        July 11, 2017, 8:35 am

        Yoni,
        Yes. It was returned in 1957 .

      • Talkback
        July 11, 2017, 9:37 am

        Jon66: “France annexed the Saar. The German population was integrated into France.”

        Nope. It was more or less a French protectorate with its own citizenship.

      • Citizen
        July 11, 2017, 10:50 am

        The largest Ethnic Cleansing in history befell ethnic Germans on the heels of WW2 & Nuremberg Trials. I’ve met personally no Americans who are even aware of this: https://youtu.be/s3fIX8L7yBk via @YouTube

        & then there’s this: Ike’s Holocaust: the slaughter of 1.7 Million German POWs: http://www.rense.com/general46/germ.htm

      • John O
        July 11, 2017, 12:13 pm

        @Jon66

        “The Allies carved large parts of pre-war Germany out and gave the territory to Poland.
        The vast majority of German citizens were expelled. Refugees who tried to return after the cessation of hostilities were denied the “right to return”

        Since both countries are now part of the European Union, all those people, together with their children and grandchildren, have the right to return.

      • Mooser
        July 11, 2017, 1:19 pm

        “& then there’s this: Ike’s Holocaust: the slaughter of 1.7 Million German POWs”

        Wait, let me guess. Ike ‘turned them over to the Russians’ and that was the end of them?

      • MHughes976
        July 11, 2017, 2:09 pm

        The expulsion of the German population from the territories which returned to Polish sovereignty, having been taken away by the eighteenth century Partitions, was an atrocity, surely, even if the loss of life was less than other atrocities caused. However, the Germans have chosen to accept the situation and formalise it through treaties, including the EU treaties, though the EU right for Germans to move anew to Poland does not amount to restitution of anything that was lost. Stalin was the moving spirit but the other Allies were responsible too. The Danes, I think, wanted to repossess territory which they had lost much more recently, just about within living memory, but were told by the British to forget it: so we weren’t following a consistent policy of negating Prussian militarism.

      • MHughes976
        July 11, 2017, 3:36 pm

        I too don’t think negotiations are impossible, indeed I think that there is a responsibility on the more powerful party to start them and to start them again if they stop. Ms. Hijab is talking of medium-term goals, I think, in particular of rallying American Jewish opinion to the cause of a just settlement. It’s not realistic to think that the long-term hope, the glorious dawn of liberty and suchlike, can be brought to reality soon. But the reason why I think that we should keep this conversation and flow of news going and going some more is that there is a short-term goal which may be realistic, that of pressing and pushing the Israeli government to make a clear proposal for the end of occupation and the final settlement.
        It doesn’t even have to be an acceptable proposal: just having something for all to see would be highly clarifying and would involve public opinion, even political opinion, in a way that has a chance of being constructive.

      • Jon66
        July 11, 2017, 4:30 pm

        Hughes,
        I agree.
        What did you think of Olmert’s proposal from 2008?

      • Mooser
        July 11, 2017, 6:21 pm

        “The expulsion of the German population from the territories which returned to Polish sovereignty”

        After WW2? Yes, I believe those nice Russians helped the Poles with their sovereignty up til recently.

      • echinococcus
        July 11, 2017, 6:56 pm

        How like Sixty-six to jump on a perfectly reasonable post in favor of exploring compromises –and blow it apart with a monstrous piece of Zionist criminal expansion!

      • Jon66
        July 11, 2017, 8:35 pm

        Hughes,
        “indeed I think that there is a responsibility on the more powerful party to start them and to start them again if they stop. ”
        I’m curious as to why you believe that the party holding more power should be the one pushing things ahead. In most negotiations, the weaker party is attempting to achieve a change in the status quo and so is almost always the party pushing forward.

      • Sibiriak
        July 11, 2017, 10:59 pm

        Mooser: … I believe those nice Russians helped the Poles with their sovereignty up til recently.
        ——————–

        You are conflating the Soviet Union with Russia, as you effectively did in your previous neatly bookended historical survey:

        [Mooser:]… don’t let these people talk bad about Russia. 70 years of Communist rule, WW2, the arms race, the planned economy, and then the collapse of Communism into anarchy has left Russia in fine shape…

        But that’s okay, Sen. McCain has a tendency to conflate Russia with the Evil Soviet Empire as well.

        Of course, he has his personal motivations for doing that. As you do, no doubt. Although the emotional roots of your anti-Russianism , like Yonah Fredman’s, might naturally reach down into an even more distant imagined past.

      • MHughes976
        July 12, 2017, 5:32 am

        ‘In war the weaker have always recourse to negotiations’ remarked David Hume – he and you, jon, make a very sensible point about self-interest , but isn’t there a corresponding point morally, that one should not maintain a situation which ought to be ended so that one gains more and more by superior power? Olmert’s proposal, though it did not quite get off the ground and became known only a bit later – Abbas apparently says that ‘Olmert was assassinated politically just as Rabin had beeen assassinated materially’ – is the sort of thing, a defined idea (nearly defined idea, perhaps), that we should see more of.

      • Jon66
        July 12, 2017, 10:40 am

        Hughes,
        I’m in the camp that believes that occupying Palestinian land is bad for both Israelis and Palestinians. The Palestinians, for a number of reasons, rejected the original partition and the 1948 results in hopes of a better ‘deal’. The situation has not improved for them since and the offers now on the table are even less attractive. The Israelis see the current Arab Peace initiative as inferior to the status quo and the Palestinians hope that circumstances in the future change this equation. It seems to me that one goal of BDS is to make the status quo less attractive to the Israelis in order to make compromises more attractive.

        While I understand your point about morality, practically the weaker party is incentivized to make the moves. The question from both perspectives is, ‘will my position be stronger or weaker in the future?’ The problem is it is unclear how the forces at play will balance and so neither side is convinced that future trends are unfavorable. BDS vs Israeli outreach to India/Africa, etc.

      • Mooser
        July 12, 2017, 12:54 pm

        “You are conflating the Soviet Union with Russia, “

        Oh, that’s right, the Communist Party fell, and then came a new birth of freedom, democracy and whiteness in Russia. And a new creation.

      • Talkback
        July 12, 2017, 4:04 pm

        jon66: “The Palestinians, for a number of reasons, rejected the original partition and the 1948 results in hopes of a better ‘deal’.”

        Nope. They rejected it like Israelis would reject a partition only because a minority wanted to create a state within a state. Palestinians only wanted the impedance of their state. And the UN did not even have the right to interfer and to make any ‘deal’ with the natives and that’s the reason why it prevented multiple proposals to refer the case to the International Court of Justice.

    • Talkback
      July 11, 2017, 8:54 am

      Jon66: “Both the Allied occupation of Germany and Japan were ended by treaties negotiated during the occupation.”

      Maybe the Allied were not interested in colonializing Germany and Japan and expelling it popuolation after 1945. I mean, who would do that after the Nazi horrors?

      • Jon66
        July 11, 2017, 12:52 pm

        Talkback,
        The Allies did 1) expel prewar German citizens from conquered territories which they then gave to Poland
        2) Colonize those territories with Polish and Ukranian citizens who they put into the homes of the former German occupants
        Operation Vistula
        This all occurred roughly in the same postwar period in which Israel was established.

      • John O
        July 11, 2017, 1:20 pm

        @Jon66

        Thank you for the reference to Operation Vistula. It took me about two minutes to look it up and find it was a Soviet operation, involving their puppet government in Poland. And it took place in POLAND, not Germany or Japan – the countries mentioned by Talkback.

        Above all, you seem to be excusing Israel’s ongoing appalling treatment of the Palestinians by referring to the many awful things that happened in the aftermath of the bloodiest war in history, despite the fact that most, if not all, of them have long since been put right.

      • Jon66
        July 11, 2017, 2:23 pm

        John,

        The territories became Poland AFTER they were taken from Germany after the war ended. The territory was a Polish as the Golan is Israeli.

        My entire point in this thread was a response to the claim presented by the author here and also stated many times by posters on MW that no negotiations can take place between Israel and the Palestinians until the occupation ends. That stance is ludicrous. The purpose of negotiations is to reach an agreement to end the occupation.

      • eljay
        July 11, 2017, 2:36 pm

        || Jon66: … My entire point in this thread was a response to the claim presented by the author here and also stated many times by posters on MW that no negotiations can take place between Israel and the Palestinians until the occupation ends. That stance is ludicrous. The purpose of negotiations is to reach an agreement to end the occupation. ||

        Your entire point incorrectly conflates Israel with the Allies, when Israel is Germany and Japan: Belligerent and intransigent aggressor and thief.

        What’s missing from your entire point are the Allies who need to occupy Israel, put an end to its on-going thieving, colonialism and sundry (war) crimes and negotiate an agreement that strips it of its ill-gotten gains, de-militarizes it and forces it to pay reparations.

        But that would remove all the victimhood from your entire point.

      • Mooser
        July 11, 2017, 2:54 pm

        ” referring to the many awful things that happened in the aftermath of the bloodiest war in history, “

        Anything the US, Russia, or Germany can do, Israel can do.

      • Talkback
        July 12, 2017, 10:12 am

        Jon66: “This all occurred roughly in the same postwar period in which Israel was established.”

        Did the Allies annex more than 78% of Germany and Japan and expell more than 75% of their populations to colonialize the territitories and make Germans and Japanese a minority in their own territory? Nope. That’s why there was room for honest negotiation to PEACE instead of an dishonest stalling to conquer and annex more territory and to expell or revoke the residential status of even more Germans and Japanese.

        There’s no negotiation possible with settler colonialism which conquers your land, steals its ressources and in this case doesn’t exploit, but even tries to get rid of you for “demographic” reasons.

        Jon66: “The vast majority of German citizens were expelled.”

        The vast MAJORITY [!] of GERMAN CITIZENS [!]? We are talking about 12 -13 million people with German ANCESTRY who were not expelled from Germany, but from Eastern European Countries. Plus one million German settlers in German colonies.

      • Jon66
        July 12, 2017, 10:42 am

        Talkback,
        Sorry if I was unclear. I was referring to Germans in the ‘recovered territories’.

      • Mooser
        July 12, 2017, 3:03 pm

        “Sorry if I was unclear. I was referring to Germans in the ‘recovered territories’.”

        The ones which formed the USSR’s “buffer states” after WW2? Those “recovered territories”?

      • Talkback
        July 12, 2017, 4:16 pm

        jon66: “Sorry if I was unclear. I was referring to Germans in the ‘recovered territories’.”

        No problem. In this case you are correct regarding the expulsion. But then you are wrong about saying that the territories were as Polish as the Golan Hights are Israeli, because you use the polish term “recovered territories” which refers tothe reagin of a part of the former territory of the Poland Lithunian Commonwealth and which was annexed by Prussia. (IIRC)

        Still, you are refering only to a part of Germany. And still, the allies were never interested in conquering and annexing Germany or parts of it and to expell the majority of its citizens to achieve a non-German majority. But in the case of settler colonialism – no chance for negotiating peace which are against the goals of Israel written in its declaration: “WE APPEAL to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora to rally round the Jews of Eretz-Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great STRUGGLE for the realization of the age-old dream – the REDEMPTION of Israel.” In other words. Conquering the whole of Palestine while maintaining a Jewish majority.

        Right now Jews in historic Palestine are a minority who rule over a majority of Nonjews. It’s pure Apartheid.

      • Jon66
        July 12, 2017, 6:44 pm

        Talkback,
        A substantial part of the Allies, the Soviets, were in interested in effectively annexing and expelling Germans from the Eastern territories. Stalin certainly viewed these gains as practically part of the Soviet Empire since there was no autonomy of Poland.

        In addition, the Soviets annexed parts of Poland.

        “The prewar eastern Polish territories of Kresy, which the Red Army had overrun during the Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 (excluding the Białystok region) were permanently annexed by the USSR, and most of their Polish inhabitants expelled. ”

        The Soviets took parts of Poland and then took parts of Germany and gave them to Poland all while controlling Poland. They then expelled the native populations from these areas.

      • Mooser
        July 12, 2017, 6:58 pm

        “Jon66”, I must admit, I never ever thought I would see a Zionist defend both sides of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in defense of Zionism.

      • Talkback
        July 13, 2017, 6:27 pm

        jon66, you are constantly missing the point.

        Did the Allies annex more than 78% of Germany and Japan and expell more than 75% of their populations to colonialize the territitories and make Germans and Japanese a minority in their own territory? Nope. That’s why there was room for honest negotiation to PEACE instead of an dishonest stalling to conquer and annex more territory and to expell or revoke the residential status of even more Germans and Japanese.

        There’s no negotiation possible with settler colonialism which conquers your land, steals its ressources and in this case doesn’t exploit, but even tries to get rid of you for “demographic” reasons.

        Would you like to adress this instead of distracting from it?

      • Talkback
        July 13, 2017, 6:29 pm

        Mooser: “Jon66”, I must admit, I never ever thought I would see a Zionist defend both sides of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in defense of Zionism.”

        Really? Allthough “Boris” defined Jews through the eyes of Nazis and Sowjets only a few days ago to support the Zionist claim of a Jewish nation?

      • Mooser
        July 13, 2017, 8:59 pm

        “Really? Allthough “Boris” defined Jews through the eyes of Nazis and Sowjets only a few days ago”

        You are right, their discourse was certainly tending that way. No wonder they see the Nazi-Soviet Non-Agression pact as a formula for Zionist policy.

      • Jon66
        July 13, 2017, 9:02 pm

        Talkback,
        The Allies annexed 25% of Germany and expelled the citizens in order to form a demographic majority. Yet, they achieved peace.

        You believe that it is Israels intent to remove all Palestinians from the areas of the West Bank. I don’t. They haven’t and the population there is growing not decreasing. That is why I think I am correct in the Israeli intent and that peace is possible but you don’t.

      • Talkback
        July 14, 2017, 12:58 pm

        jon66: “The Allies annexed 25% of Germany and expelled the citizens in order to form a demographic majority.”

        Did Germany loose 78% of their territory and 75% of their population? Were Germans who were expelled a majority in the country from which they were expelled? Yes or no?

        jon66: “You believe that it is Israels intent to remove all Palestinians from the areas of the West Bank. I don’t. They haven’t and the population there is growing not decreasing. T”

        I never said that Israel has to expell all Palestinians to maintain a siginificant Jewish majority if it wanted to illegaly annex even more. But every single anouncement to build more settlements shows that Israel is not interested in peace, but in illegally settling in Palestinian territrory without being disturbed. That’s the kind of peace Israel wants.

        jon66: “That is why I think I am correct in the Israeli intent and that peace is possible but you don’t.”

        ROFL. Israel doesn’t even intent to abide to international law.

  4. echinococcus
    July 10, 2017, 4:00 pm

    Do Jews really want a Saudi Arabia?

    Of course they do! As long as they don’t have to live in it themselves. That’s only good enough for the 2nd class cannon fodder, you know, the boobies who were illegally sent to colonize Palestine. The smart 1st-class ones can enjoy life as influential citizens of the liberal, opulent countries.

  5. HarryLaw
    July 10, 2017, 5:54 pm

    Nadia Hijab is a thoughtful and intelligent person, she is right about BDS and the primacy of getting the EU on board for action on these issues. It must not be forgotten that President Abbas does not support BDS, also the Palestinians need unity above all else, how can outsiders fight for Palestinian rights when their leadership are advocating war crimes against Gazans for purely political advantage [Abbas calls on Israel to cut electricity to Gaza]. Professor Finkelstein said the end of Apartheid in South Africa could not have happened without the backing of the African front line states, indeed the whole of Africa. Compare that with the lack of support from Arab states in the middle east, Saudi Arabia and other GCC states are allying with Israel in their religious and ideological battle with Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, the very combination who have promised to confront Israel on behalf of Palestinian rights and self determination. The crucial issue which Zionists must realize is that self determination for the Palestinians involves Palestinian sovereignty over the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Jordan valley. In a recent interview with the NYTimes Naftali Bennett addressed this issue honestly, he said Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank is not negotiable and that areas A and B should be ‘administered’ by the PLO in what I can only describe as Bantustans, they would not be allowed to send representatives to the Knesset . “The Palestinians will have political independence, hold their own elections, select their own leadership, run their own schools, maintain their own social services and issue their own building permits. They should govern themselves and run their day-to-day lives. Israel should not interfere. Much of this already exists, but we can do better.

    This Palestinian entity will be short of a state. It will not control its own borders and will not be allowed to have a military”. then he adds Lastly, I propose applying Israeli law in Area C, which is the part of the West Bank controlled by Israel under the Oslo agreement. The Palestinians who live there would be offered full Israeli citizenship. We can start with the known settlement blocs that everyone agrees will remain part of Israel even under a final status agreement. By applying Israeli law and asserting national sovereignty in those blocs, while upgrading Palestinian autonomy in Areas A and B, we will reduce the scope of territory in dispute, making it easier to reach a long-term agreement in the future”. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/opinion/naftali-bennett-for-israel-two-state-is-no-solution.html There we have it, no Palestinian sovereignty for any part of the West Bank, and Israeli rule in area C [60% of West Bank] means annexation. Palestinians need unity first and foremost, then they need the backing of Middle Eastern front line states, unfortunately the ‘West’ does not have the political will to confront Israel, they may be forced to when the ‘arc of resistance’, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah backed by Russia prevail in their war against those proxy forces in Syria [backed by Saudi Arabia and other GCC states and much of the West] are defeated. Netanyahu said Israel will live by the sword, those are fighting words, other states in the region may not be so easily pushed around and have too much self respect to be cowed by Israel or its backers in the West.

    • Citizen
      July 11, 2017, 11:04 am

      I agree with your analysis; yet two other factors weigh in here, which may weaken all those powers arrayed against the Palestinians: the decline of the petro dollar and N Korea.

      • Citizen
        July 11, 2017, 11:17 am

        Another factor: there are only about 85,000 Palestinian Americans, and if there’s even one with wealth approaching Sheldon Adelson’s I’d eat my shorts. As Nadia says, they don’t have the historical depth in USA as the Jews do. They also don’t have the wealth, and $ is protected free political speech here. On the upside, the Palestinian American community has nearly a 50% college education rate–the rate generally for all Americans is about 18%.

      • YoniFalic
        July 11, 2017, 12:30 pm
  6. JoeSmack
    July 10, 2017, 9:04 pm

    This piece is very different from the one written by Nada Elia on the role of Jews in the movement:

    http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/it-is-time-to-stop-celebrating-jewish-dissent-in-the-palestine-solidarity-movement/

    Frankly, I find this piece to be discrediting of Nadia Hijab. The coalition she mentions, USCPR has spent the last 15 years refusing to condemn Zionism as an ideology, building coalitions with liberal Zionists (read: racists), and ignoring the larger Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim communities from which most of our activism stems. The first part of the commentary Hijab gives more or less explains why: according to Hijab, Jews are particularly qualified to give their views because Zionism gives them that privilege. Instead of challenging this as what it is — naked racism — Hijab (not to mention the other liberals at USCPR) embrace it as though it is progressive. This is a fairly frank admission of the kind of racist politics that underlie the US Campaign.

    The rest of the piece is just standard liberal talking points. There is no serious discussion of Palestinian national self-determination or anything like that, in fact that rhetoric is being dishonestly paired with the Oslo surrender.

    This is a fairly succinct summary of everything that is wrong with liberal activism on Palestine. Very disappointing to hear such utter garbage from a prominent Palestinian. God knows it will simply give validation to racist Jewish liberals about how important they are.

  7. aloeste
    July 11, 2017, 6:01 pm

    acknowledging that nothing will change near term, and that the leftist jews in the US will essentially be a-religious leftists, they will have no connection to Israel other than opposing it as a religious entity which they despise and a ‘colonialist’ entity inconsistent with their dogmas.

    what will need to be considered is : 1] the left in Israel will remain weak for the next generation at least , especially in the face of terror. i e ‘no partner for peace’ 2] the jewish community will most likely be increasingly Orthodox , and their tenets are totally counter all the readers here . they partner with people of faith , and believe in a Holy land— which doesnt bode well for a ‘secular entity in all of palestine’

    • Mooser
      July 11, 2017, 8:56 pm

      ” the jewish community will most likely be increasingly Orthodox , and their tenets are totally counter all the readers here “

      And the Israeli Orthodox are the most powerful people on earth. And the most numerous. There’s simply no opposing them, and they need no help from Jews outside Israel. Sure.

  8. yourstruly
    July 12, 2017, 12:27 am

    The author and Ingrid Gassner chose the word apartheid for their strategic framework of analysis, rather than either settler colonialism or ethnic cleansing. She states that deploying settler colonialism to their framework would have been inappropriate, since these words apply only to the occupied West Bank (even though Israel was created by way of the ethnic cleansing of its indigenous people), whereas apartheid accurately describes the situation in both Israel and the West Bank. But, historically speaking, so do settler colonialism and ethnic cleansing, which means that the authors framework of analysis is incomplete or watered down. Was this done because they perceived that the word apartheid somehow would be less disconcerting to what seems to have been their mostly Zionist audiences? If so, that’s a mistake, because a watered down analysis and narrative of what’s been happening this past century between the River and the Sea will never impact people to the extent required. If, that is, we’re “to build the sources of power that will push Israel to recognize Palestinian self-determination and to make reparations.” Nothing but the complete story will bring this about.

  9. Kathleen
    July 19, 2017, 3:57 pm

    ACLU Letter to the Senate Opposing Israel Anti-Boycott Act | American …

    https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-letter-senate-opposing-israel-anti-boycott-act

Leave a Reply