Total number of comments: 120 (since 2010-02-01 12:08:35)
southernobserver
Showing comments 120 - 101
Page: 2 1
Showing comments 120 - 101
Page: 2 1
-
-
- Netanyahu govt to impose fines on mayors of cities that … 0
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians … 1
- UN Committee: Israeli system ‘tantamount to apartheid’ 0
- Slater on Beinart 9
- And we live on… 1
- US official — we went to Israel first 3
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status … 23
- Israel takes 30 dunams of land near Salfit ‘for security … 4
-
- BDS victory: South Africa strips Ahava’s ‘made in Israel’ label 713
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 475
- Day after pogroms, Likud MK calls for internment camp for … 427
- Neverending Nakba: Israel breaks lull, attacks Gazan farmers 413
- ‘This is not fair play’: Mahmoud Sarsak’s family demands his … 389
- March of the Flags 345
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm … 323
- Nabi Saleh’s Bassem Tamimi convicted by Israeli courts based on … 293
-
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the … 235
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need … 156
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their … 130
- March of the Flags 127
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism 113
- Feeling the hate in Long Island 97
- Israeli judge to issue verdict in Rachel Corrie case 94
- WaPo’s Walter Pincus says US is ‘going above and beyond … 87
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Slater on Beinart (9)
- radii: the train has left the station and a few like Beinart have noticed but think they can still run and catch it...
- Citizen: This is all tempest in a Jewish identity teapot because Congress just gave Israel $4 Billion dollars for...
- Krauss: Have you all noticed how the real liberal Zionists, even with warts and all, keep getting more and more...
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (1)
- Annie Robbins: Having recognized its weakness, the US knows that it will be the UN that takes the lead in Syria and...
- Did Israeli Eurovision contestant watch too much Juliano Mer Khamis? (54)
- Annie Robbins: GL, urban dictionary has PEP, just no explanation of progressive except for palestine....
- German Lefty: Annie, it looks like you got infected with the Eurovision virus. Great. The more fans, the better. The...
- US official — we went to Israel first (3)
- traintosiberia: OMG! Why I don”t have that Stockholm Syndrome yet! How long do I have to feign that I have it.
- Annie Robbins: a U.S. official…asked to remain anonymous owing to the sensitive nature of the issue. sensitive?...
- And we live on… (1)
- Talkback: They should make Gaza the most beautiful place just to p*** compulsory expellers off. Enviromental...
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status for millions (23)
- piotr: How many Jews who made aliya were actual refugees from Roman persecution? Thus the “Jew who taunted...
- Slater on Beinart (9)
Our Writers
More WritersBlogroll
so, keeping this year, you start a war by using terrorism to drive out the great majority of the original inhabitants. You capture 78% of the land, steal their property, and place the few who remain under martial law.
This works, so you start new wars and during one of the wars of choice recapture many of those who fled your original war plus the remaining 22% of the land. You control the newly recaptured inhabitants by a combination of tyranny and poverty, and devise a plan to formally take over ~ 80% of this 22% particularly including all of the potable water and most of the arable land and divide up the the remaining 15 to 20% with prison barriers so that their lives will be unliveable; in the most cynical manner possible you implement this plan, all the while claiming to persecuted and attacked.
the original inhabitants prove to be unreasonably reasonable, and agree to give up 78% AND any self defense AND the stolen property and to negotiate for those who were driven to leave by unspeakable acts, return for a usable 22%.
The deal on offer rewards the aggressors right down the line, and gives the victims very little. It is at least questionable whether 22% with such restrictions can really be viable. Nevertheless, the victims are willing to try, to move on with their lives.
and the aggressor rejects it. I personally believe that the reasons are theocratic, but I am interested to hear otherwise.
Without question, yes, based on Israel's principles, no member of the IDF should be allowed to travel to any other country.
Ummm, ladies and gentlemen, I hate to ask, but in what way is this possibly be a good outcome?
I naturally wish Mr Rosenberg the absolute very best. However, this is yet another victory for the israel-first censorship of any disagreement over the wonderfulness of Israel. Mr Dersh will unquestionably burn in hell. Yes. But, here and now, he has yet again won. Those who are interested in Mr Rosenberg's views will continue to find them. However, let us not delude ourselves. Those who do not seek him out, ordinary non fascists who read media matters, will not see them.
May he live long and prosper.
Dear Mr Weiss,
What is most striking to me about the comments is that the majority still repeat the same old lies. There was a long argument about 'government land'; pointless even it wasn't still a war crime.
I would be very interested in your opinion. As somebody who has honestly and consistently the same views as Beinart and Robert Wright and Andrew Sullivan and MJ have now reached, what is your own view of the long-term outcome?
I abjured monotheism long ago, but it is hard not to reach for the old bad stories. This is not S&G. Breaking the silence and the others show that there really are righteous Israeli's. Just so few that I cannot now see how this can end except very very badly.
Noam Sheizaf in +972: "The major problem right now is that an inherently immoral order represents the most desirable political option for Israelis. All the left’s effort to demonstrate the problems the occupation creates – like the burden on the state budget – won’t help, since political choices are made based on alternative options, and right now the alternatives are more expensive, more painful, and more dangerous."
I admit that it took me a very very long time to realize this. mea culpa maxima. It looks to me very much that Noam's view explains people like Mr Burston (and Beinart) who I think genuinely are 'liberal' and yet somehow have rationalized 65 years of grossly wrong acts by the state, aye and by his friends, and himself.
More importantly, it is hard to know what this late dawn really means. My fear remains that we won't see the 'promised land' emerge, ever, but rather that sooner or later the 1948 solution will be continued. The bibi's of this world, the man himself or a successor will wait until some crisis, and then move.
no, we supported our friends. It wasn't simply the commonwealth or our boys would never have been dying in Korea or Vietnam. In every miserable tin shack town in new zealand there are simple monuments to the world wars, with lists of names of those who died. Remember just how small the whole of NZ is compared to even a medium sized capital, and you bleed.
cannon fodder for donkeys, thats us.
I am begging that you don't do it to us again, this time to 'protect the world' from a country that hasn't attacked anybody in modern history.
1. Yes indeed.
2. it has been alleged, but australian politics is played as a blood sport. I think that Julia just saw an opportunity. She blew it by supporting a carbon tax after saying that she wouldn't. one of her ministers is now making his own play...
what is disturbing is that a lot of american money goes into trying to influence aussie politicians; less so with NZ cause it is so small. They don't even bother to deny it.
I am not sure if most commentators quite understand how the USA is now seen outside of the continent?
From downunder the USA is now seen as a nation of mad warmongers. AIPAC, Israel and so forth are invisible. No surprise of course; there is essentially no independent news gathering, so we see what is on the wire or the tube only.
In Australia the local green branches tried to delay council based boycotts, and were massively attacked by the media and parliament. I suppose this all ensures that when the next major war happens, we will be being blown up at your side.
I would like to highlight the single most striking aspect of this...
The Zionist approach is consistently to crush, fire, shun and generally exclude any speech that they do not agree with, witness in chief the vile Mr Dersh.
When a forum of any kind does present the most minimally different view they demand 'balance' or the right to present their views, but never ever agree to reciprocate.
To informed observers this does come across as desperate, as highlighted in the last few days by the editors of this site and many others. Unfortunately I think it has worked for them. if you aren't actively looking for information, their strategy means that there really is only one voice, and yes what they are hearing at the moment is that Iran is 1. evil, 2. irrational, 3. on the verge of attacking us, so it would be an act of good to attack
My own beliefs are now really really simple. those who initiate war are damned. I just hope that they will not pull the rest of us down in to hell.
We should not discount the pernicious role of what is fundamentally romanticism amongst the neocons, and indeed bibi et al.
I what I mean is that they aren't necessarily or at least not only sociopaths. The truely dangerous thing is that they dream of being Winston Churchill, leading their nations against the ruthless onslaught of evil. Winston was a great man; but they want to be him without either the intelligence, or doing the hard yards. Even Winston himself was famous for saying that "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war". Instead, they want to leap straight into war-war.
More important everybody damns chamberlain for appeasement. Really, could England have gone to war then? They were massively unprepared, and would have been swamped. My reading is that he genuinely thought that it was possible to avoid war; in retrospect we can say he was naive, but unlike his critics was also well aware that they weren't ready to fight. Chamberlain bought time that made all the difference. He was not an 'appeaser' he was an informed, clever patriot and I believe saved England.
In the modern world I can only agree with American; if we are 'appeasing' anybody, it is the war mongers and terrorists of the likud.
'Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.' is a great quote, usually attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan. I see it used frequently by people, particularly Zionists, immediately before presenting long discredited 'facts'. Did the NYT actually stand up for the historical record?
This discussion is terrific and very much to the point. The outcome described by VR is the Allon plan. At this point, I cannot see how it can be avoided.
Everything I have now come to understand about the west bank says that it is coming to fruition. Everything that nice people say about trying to make the occupation less horrible is irrelevant; every statement from the resident habaristas' on this blog make it clear that the primary goal is to make life so unpleasant that the Palestinian's will leave piecemeal.
This vision of the nonstate solution has the Palestianians on no more than 8% of the area of Palestine, in a series of prisons. If they surrender, they will be allowed to leave through tight security to work in factories under the control of israel. If not, well it is other peoples responsibility to feed them.
If there is a 1ss, then given that we are dealing with a progrom state, I cannot see how it will be less horrible.
In response to Pablemont, my question is whether even this goal would be viable. It is very small. The access to the sea, or to jordan or between gaza and the WB are all extraordinarily dependent on the good will of a state that has never shown good will. The water supplies have been appropriated by Israel --- so they would be dependent on desalination plants run by the same people. Every statement from Israel I have seen says that that the current 'agreed' allocation is inviolable, and the engineering solution is that or thirst.
Finally, yep, hot pursuit and the oppressed guaranteeing the security of the oppressor, has been consistently required, and as best I can tell was agreed to.
All of this comes before we get to what this state is actually like. Currently, it looks like a police state. I am not criticizing the people at all, but this isn't a good place to start. We may equally note, Israel has very strong neo-fascist, theocratic-police state tendencies, and is also a long way from becoming a fully democratic state.
no.
An interesting point; totally the sheer energy put into preventing progress was the one feature suggesting that something important has happened. Can we take the stated reason as correct, that an actual veto would enrage the world against the US, and therefore it would better for the US to bury it?
I personally would have said that this public determination to ever prevent justice was just as bad as a formal veto, but this is diplomacy. Not rocking the boat is seen as a positive goal. I suppose by everybody except for those being murdered by israeli pogroms.
and down south, in Australia protesters against Max Brenner are "kettled", roughed up by policy while holding a legal and both peaceful and honestly nondisruptive protest, charged with illegal assembly. Now there is a great catch 22. They were investigated for an illegal secondary boycott, which would have been very very expensive, but got off on the grounds that it wasn't sufficiently effective to cause economic loss.
Now there is a faint judgment. Democracy? Only if you are on the governments side.
You know he won't answer, 8-), because even neofascists know that what they intend is wrong. Tony Judt's last comment is still the best
"What I do know is that since I wrote that in 2003, everyone from Moshe Arens through Barak to Olmert has admitted that Israel is on the way to a single state with a potential Arab majority in Bantustans unless something happens fast. That's all that I said in my essay. But ok, since it looks as though Israel is determined to give itself this future, what will it look like? Hell. "
Again, there is an element of truth here.
However, again, I guess that the Palestinians also know this. Still, but they have been offered a deal that offers less than nothing, enshrining them in an open air prisons for ever, possibly this is still the less bad option?
Dear Hophmi,
Unfortunately, you are right, at least in practical terms, as much as a reasonable and ethical person might hope otherwise. I have two questions though.
First why are Israel's representatives going mental? This seems to suggest that they are not sanguine.
Second, even if the UN gains the Palestinians nothing, what do they get from "negotiating"? We already know from the Palestianian Papers that previous Istratine governments offered the Palestinians less than they have now as an oppressed minority. We also know that the current prime minister considers the previous team to have been insanely generous.
Less than nothing vs nothing. I would have said that UN was therefore the least bad option, but I await clarification.
It isn't clear to me whether Florida is really all that different from the rest of the US. Still, isn't this the state of which Brian Griffin once said "somewhere, Jeb Bush is eating a puppy'
I have gradually come to believe that 'Israel' has never intended to share... anything. Murdering unarmed demonstrators is all of a piece with the rest of its actions. The goal remains the Allon plan, to make life sufficiently miserable for the palestinians that eventually they will leave. The bibbi one and a tenth state plan is just a variation on this, the 'generous compromise'... that will give them 10% of their original territory in a nonviable prison-like pseudostate.
the worst of it is that as far as I can see, even if the palestinian state was genuinely established according the best possibility 'on offer', the 1967 borders, on 22% of the original territory, to supposedly take in many times the current population of 'greater israel' would it be even remotely economically viable?
The french offer was well meant, however, from what I read, we could reasonable take from it that actually the french intended to again lean on the palestinians to compromise, to give up space and water and resources and border control, all the things that make a state real, in return for having a 'state'.
I am beginning to wonder whether it would be better to go all out to boycott istratine forever, and work for justice to happen in 200o years?
Thank you for this report about the support of apartheid in the USA.
Actually the most disturbing aspect for me that hecklers in a public and 'official' venue can be abused to the point of being hospitalised. Were the thugs arrested? If not sure this gives the lie direct that free speech is a value of the USA in general or Israeli supporters in particular.
Thanks Irish, an incisive comment that goes to the heart of the problem.
May I venture to suggest that Israel has been an apartheid state from the very beginning. The few Palestinians who were not killed or terrorised into leaving, were carefully and deliberately limited in where they could live, go to school and what political and civil rights they could exercise. At the very least, as discussed on this site, even after military rule was lifted, it was not and has never been a democracy, but rather a reasonably vile ethnocracy. Given that the JNC (as Max B is highlighting at the moment) and other ad hoc and systematic rules severely restricted where Israeli Christians and Muslim could live, in many ways it is closer to out and out apartheid
If I may quote one of the extreme right-wing from last year, there was never a golden age of innocence
Dear Mr Slater,
I have re-read this statement that few if any gentiles believe that the creation of Israel was not justified three times, and your expanded justification. Honestly it still says to me that you really do believe that those, such as myself who have withdrawn my support for the creation of Israel are antisemitic. Even at the time many thoughtful people of both the jewish and nonmonotheistic persuasion thought that it would be a moral and practical disaster, including the late and lamented Albert E.
History has now proven beyond doubt that the original opponents were c0rrect in every way about the bad effects of setting up a religious state. It is really too bad to continue to pretend that they were either wrong or of bad faith.
The old lies are always the best.
It is depressing to see that Jerome Slater who knows and documents the, in his own words, "the injustice--better said, the criminality--of the Nakba", still believes that it was justified, and the coherence of his arguments fails.
link to jeromeslater.com
Is this an example of the power of cognitive dissonance? i.e. we did it. bad things happened. if we did it despite knowing the bad things, then our reasons must have been exceptional good?
Nice portrait of the west bank, the largest open air prison in the world.
Following on from seafoid, correct me if I am wrong, but there is no single Israeli ID is there, I understood the IDs are coded by religion, in the great theocratic tradition,
Excellent news! The first step to recovery is to recognise idiocy when it rises up and kicks you where it matters...
A great report thanks Alex. to me this is the most shameful part of the whole miserable untouchable alliance, that we are now associated with the most horrible of torturing tinpot regimes.
It wasn't that long ago that we were hunting down and prosecuting torturers. Now we are all doing it.
The last time I mentioned this, several contributors pointed out that the longer this goes on unpunished and uncensored, the more it spreads. This is so true, and getting worse by the week. I am sure that everybody has been following Glenn Greenwalds denunciation of the continuing torture of Mr Manning with horror. Manning is a hero, and I now accept that while Mr Obama is less bad than shrub, he still has no real principles. Bah.
The new friends of Israel are the extreme, fascist right wing of europe....
link to newsweek.com
What people say is maybe not so important, but knesset members are seeking them out... This is beyond irony.
Thanks for the update, Phil. Good on Nick. The National post though is just as I remember it. Most of the column inches are about the effort of the campus bigots to recall him.
“All through history people have been oppressed but no people has done what the Palestinians have done—no people has shown itself so morally sick as the Palestinians have.”
I am struggling to understand what this person is trying to say. His intent is clearly hateful unpleasant, and yet does he mean: The palestinians are the only people to have been attacked unexpectedly, terrorised, driven in to the sea or desert, brutally occupied for over 60 years and then agreed to make peace in exchange for a fraction of their original land?
This seems on the face of it to be rather positive to me.
or does he just mean "Cet animal est tres mechant; quand on l'attaque, il se defend" ?
The only news worthy of the name is on the comedy shows! Yes.
my mistake, thanks. It explains even more about why israel has so many aspects of a theocracy of course
Dear Phil,
It is very telling that even a supposedly secular liberal uses such intensely religious language.
Good to hear. One of the main reasons given by the previous dictator for supporting the blockade was that he did not want Israel to shed its responsibility for Gaza on to Egypt.
Although it was cruel, is there any reason to think that there could be unexpected bad outcomes from abandoning the blockade?
There is no question that israel's multiple fascist party's would really love to make gaza a foreign country and demand that somebody else be responsible for everything ---- while will still attacking gaza at random.
Splitting off gaza would 1. fragment palestine further, 2. limit the numbers of palestinians included in the apartheid state, 3. mean they would not have to provide even residual services. 4. let them say that they are no longer occupying gaza. If there is a problem, cite egypt at the UN, not us.
Dear Mr Slater,
You are absolutely correct. a state with continued Israeli control, including no control over its borders, defence, water, airspace, finance, radiofrequencies, movement within its borders, ability to sign treaties, or to prevent armed incursions is not in any respect a state. such a nonstate cannot even develop economically. It is in fact a large, open air prison, just as the west bank is today.
Based on the Palestinian papers, and publically available information, none of the negotiations in the last 10 years have been based on a genuine Palestinian state. The Israeli requirements have been based entirely on a fragmented nonstate closely following the Allon plan. What the Palestinian side were reduced to begging for would have been less extreme, but I am not persuaded that it would have been any more successful.
Actually, I am not persuaded that the original Geneva plan would represented a viable state either. It still imposed severe fragmentation, and too much of the putative economy depended on israeli good will, with poorly paid palestinian workers crossing into israeli financed and controlled areas that could be cutoff at a moments notice.
Bravo. Even if they are unsuccessful, they have at least gotten the issue raised.
seconded, at least for news about the middle east. Weak on the Antipodes.
I spent some time mediating on and reading about Chanukah this year; at the wrong time, but OK. It is a sweet, low key celebration, and dear god, at least no reindeer are harmed in its production. It is celebrated as a rebellion against the Greeks. On current histories, it appears that actually it was a tawdry civil war between traditionalists and modernists wanting to adopt greek customs, with Antiochus standing well clear. Lots of unpleasant things were done, forced circumcision, and the usual.
If we look at what Israel has become, I wonder if perhaps the 'wrong' side won? The bits of Israel that I think most of us admire, the partial democracy, the hunger for technical innovation are very old school Greek. The bits that are loathsome, the rabbi's who call for nonjews to be killed, the uzi armed settlers, the segregated buses, the attacks on the rainbow front, are very very Maccabee.
Thank you for this very strong example to us all.
I have no brief for Saif, but there is an element of piling on here.
It would not surprise me at all if there were technical breaches in many PhD's. A thesis is a book. At the moment turnitin can't cope with something so large, so we rely on the expert reviewers to comment on any aspects that they aren't happy with. [I have to say that I have been wondering whether there is a way around this, but it would be patchy]. Pragmatically, the reviewers are usually focused on the work as a whole. We hope that they know the field well enough to spot whether substantial bits are copied, but it is a pretty big ask to expect word by word checking from an unpaid external reviewer, and yeah sometimes they do a superficial job.
The question is how major these breeches are. Has he copied or paraphrased major portions, particularly of his analysis? Pure intellectual theft.
Did he copy virtually whole paragraphs in the background or interpretation without attribution? Easily done and he may well have done so with the intention of either putting in quotes or paraphrasing and lost track, but I have seen senior authors formally censured for this.
Has he cited somebody else, but in doing so copied a couple of sentences instead of putting their words in quotes or paraphrasing completely? I hate to say it, technically wrong but really easily done and doesn't necessarily compromise the integrity of something the size of a book.
I am now putting my own manuscripts through turnitin. Most what it picks is standard methods from our own papers, 8-). So far I have found one wording of a citation that was uncomfortably close and conversely once where it turned out somebody else had actually copied bits of one of my old reviews. a very amusing outcome. I chose to see it as flattery.
Anyway the judgement on his thesis can only be meaningfully made on the basis of the whole.
I fully concur with Shingo, the two state solution has been dead for sometime. The only offer that has ever been made by Israel is the Allon subjugate-them-forever-partition.
I fully agree with this comment, but could I oppose dragging poor old Neville? Current analysis suggests that whether or not he was duped, Britain simply wasn't prepared for war at that time, and he genuinely used the extra time to prepare for war. i.e. buying time was still absolutely the right thing to do, whether or not you believed in the agreement. This step killed Neville's reputation, and yet it meant that when Britain finally went to war, they had a chance.
In contrast, Obama, sadly, is a dupe to monsters.
The strangest thing (Of many) is the meme that the UN is not the forum to resolve conflicts. None of us was there at the time, to my knowledge, but I thought that the one and only reason that the UN was created, and the League of nations before it, was to help avoid war, and it if it couldn't be avoided, to manage and help resolve it? Sorry paraphrasing their purpose statement.
I see that Meretz has finally called for a boycott of settlements. Why can't the USA?
link to meretzusa.org
I take the point from Leper and Krauss, an amusing description. The title of this piece isn't necessarily wrong though. Reading the original English discussions by nonJews supporting the formation of the proto-Istratine, my impression was that there was an element of wanting not to have any actual Jews left elsewhere.
I now can't track down the precise passages, sigh, and in any case my memory was that it was never very explicit. Nevertheless, why be so enthusiastic about moving all jews to their supposed homeland unless you are complete comfortable with the idea of losing all of your country men and women of that persuasion?
In this vein is actually to the Russians credit that they did not want to lose their very long-standing Jewish community.
The central question is whether the offered agreement is genuinely better than nothing for the Palestinians. As best I can tell, the answer is no, they would actually be substantially worse off. The offered 'state' appears to remain the Allon plan--- an abusive apartheid state, not materially different from now --- but now without any chance of improvement since the abused side would have signed away any rights. A viable state requires control over its resources. Well they would not control water, airspace, airwaves, finance, borders/custom, security, or movement within the state or to other states. The economic development would be almost entirely the 'opportunity' to be a cheap workforce for israel controlled factories in highly controlled borderzones. Finally, the beneficent israel would continue to reserve the right to randomly kill, imprison and blow up bits of the 'state'.
This is not only not in any respect state, it is a large open air prison, except that the guards expect others to feed the inmates. How is this better?
Despite the ground swell of support for human rights, seen by many on this blog, but not all, it is very sad that our supposed liberal countries, continue to support this abomination.
I am so depressed. This is what our dear leader has to say about the Egyptian heroic bid for freedom: link to scoop.co.nz
On the good side, even our commentators found it to be very strange.
"All very well that John Key is New Zealand’s third Jewish prime minister, as the Jerusalem Post described him at the time of his election. Monday’s TVNZ’s Breakfast programme Key seemed to be regarding a nation’s stance towards Israel as being the basis of our foreign policy attitude towards them. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from this bizarre exchange"
Perfect answer. In fact repeatedly made the offer, only to have it completely ignored. I can only guess that israel rejects the 1967 borders.
Success has many mothers and fathers. Failure is an orphan. Potsherd's quote is absolutely right on the money. This is nothing to do with Israel, and very little to do with the USA. If we don't want to support people trying to escape gross oppression by autocrats, well who should we support?
The phrase, "But he was not squeamish, by the way" was to me the single most disturbing aspect of this report. This site has commendably highlighted this before.
Sooner or later, if we tolerate torture by our clients, then it will come home to bite.
Sorry, of course, I forgot it already has. We actively torture, and our agents have impunity. Even the suggestion that murder during interrogation should be investigated has been received with outrage. 'Understandably' since everybody in the last administration should be prosecuted. The appalling treatment of Mr Manning is pure home grown torture by sleep deprivation and extreme isolation.
Parvez, our thoughts are with you tonight
"Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch".
To be honest I have never understood this quote (or more likely unverbalised policy). how can it possibly be worthwhile sacrificing all your principles to support a regime that spits on them, and exploits and tortures its own people? Observation obviously says that I am thinking wrong, but why? Anyway things may be looking up for Egypt and Tunisia, but definitely no thanks to us in the 'west'.
From Brian Whitaker, the Guardian: Israel should henceforth be referred to as “the only democracy in the Middle East that supports dictators”
If it makes you feel any better, this punishment of those who publically note Israel's crimes is everywhere. New Zealand is mostly a liberal democracy, and yet Malcolm Evans, one of our better cartoonists, twice voted cartoonist of the year 1999 and in 2003, was fired for commenting on the assault on Gaza. link to uncensored.co.nz
The strange thing is this. I listened closely to the public statements from Istratine at the very start of the campaign to destroy Gaza, and before the recent attack on Lebanon. Both Mr Barak and senior commanders repeatedly said in many different ways, that they intended to behave like a mad man, so that nobody would dare so much as look sideways at istratine. Having said that their policy was to a be a rogue, how can they possibly say in retrospect that what happened wasn't preplanned?
Actually such low level prosecutions as have happened must be wrong, since the rabble were doing what they were told to do.
Dear Colleagues,
metaphors are always dodgy. Why not call it what it is? The largest open air prison in the world. Even this description is not perfect, since it doesn't convey the internationally applauded imposition of precisely calibrated malnutrition and the random right to die for working within a variable distance of the border.
Indeed. Full kudos to Al Jazeera! Having now worked my way through most of the documents, I don't think that the Palestinian negotiators come off badly at all. They may have given up on nearly everything, but they held the line on three key issues: settlements that break up the WB or complete the cordon from EJ, water, and not allowing israeli troops.
Israel of course refused because what they want is the full Allon plan, and they have it today.
On the really really bad side, I see it is confirmed that yep the new US trained Palestinian troops also routinely use torture, closely mimicking israel. Extraordinary. When did the USA (and the UK) stop believing that this was very bad?
In retrospect, all completely and deplorably true, and I should have wised up in '67.
It is no excuse, but for what it is worth, I was brought up in a neighbourhood, where the nearest christmass tree was three blocks away. Every family in those blocks except for mine found some way to send their kids to Israel at least once.
Actually I remember arguing with my father in '67, about why that was happening. His view if I may bowdlerize was that it was completely wrong, but you had to admire them for being gutsy. Does this make sense? In my family it passed for sophisticated thought yes.
So, I cop for over 30 years of a sort of completely asinine neutrality. The weird thing is that it wasn't any of the specific events that brought me out of it. Oh well.
Dear Mr Weiss, and interesting and very sad sign of just how slow progress really is. It is telling that the unrepentant supporters of Israel consider that boycott is wrong, and yet it is their first tool when dealing with anybody who is not 100% with them.
Personally, I no longer consider Israel to be a 'legitimate' state. I was sadly convinced of this, not directly by the Palestinian arguments, but by the speech and actions of Mr Desh, particularly during his vile attack on Norman and everybody else who doesn't follow the line. He convinced me beyond doubt that he and his client state had no moral basis.
I have been trying to think of a parallel case where an empire was so blindly set on some particular course that it would deliberately attack and undermine loyal allies and its own interests over simple disagreement. A stupid quest. Of course, as everybody here already knew, there are so many examples that it is impossible to keep count.
Here, in my adoptive country downunder, we are committing crimes in Afghanistan for no better reason than that, as I now read from wikileaks, we would be seen as disloyal. I don't remember ever being offered the choice or any opportunity to vote on this, but doubtless our 'leaders' are at least partly correct. The example of the destruction of Rhodes was doubtless foremost in their minds.
What I have not been able find is an example of unconditional support for over two thirds of century for an ally that violates international agreements and repeatedly murders our citizens without apology or redress. Any suggestions or examples, dear Colleagues?
Ah, this is an important and common misunderstanding. Humanisation does _not_ necessarily mean that you come to understand them as good.
The single most entertaining example I know of is a classic study of mental illness undertaken in a remote part of the US of A. They found that the hillbillies had a really remarkably wide tolerance of behaviour that they accepted as normal, even some with particular psychoses. Once over that very high threshold, they completely cut people with (by definition) severe mental illness off.
The researchers then tried to teach the population about mental illness --- in an attempt to encourage them to provide more support or at least be less severely hostile to their neighbors with such problems.
You can probably guess what actually happened --- with education, a wider spectrum of people in that community were now identified with mental illness ---- and treated just as badly.
In this context, it is not unreasonable that the outcome of really understanding the motivations and drivers of the state of istratine would be to see them not as some sort of bogymen, but as humans, really really bad humans.
Dear Mr Weiss, thank you for such a nice, Orwellian juxtaposition.
Istratine obeys no international laws, not even the UN resolution that it claims as its foundation, denies the international court of justice and actively denounces the Geneva conventions. Despite this, as shown by Mr Jager, everybody who disagrees with the random istratine position du jour is flouting international law.
Impressive in a 1984 sort of way.
Actually, it was. Trade unionists, communists, free thinkers, gay, Romani, aye, and the devout christians who failed to support the regime. And then there was the crime of being slavic, which killed many times more again.
It is well said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Ouch.
I wonder in fact whether because mr shrub really really did think that he was doing disinterested good, it was that much harder for him to recognise that it was going bad? And of course once things are a disaster there is no way to pull out with admitting just how bad a cockup it was. I don't believe for one minute though that the poison gnome, cheney, ever meant well.
And a nice comment for the season from mr cook. The whole article is absolutely spot on, but a nice comment for this blog
link to jkcook.net
The final battleground in Israel’s “spin war” is outside Israel—on internet sites and in overseas newsrooms, especially those in the U.S. and those with a global reach.
Increasingly important among the new media platforms are blogs—especially ones by dissident American Jews such as Philip Weiss at Mondoweiss and Richard Silverstein at Tikun Olam. Weiss has helped to establish and nurture an online community of mainly Jewish writers that speaks with a refreshing clarity about Israel’s occupation and the power of the Israel lobby in the U.S. Silverstein, meanwhile, has broken several important stories about Israel leaked to him by Israeli journalists who could not report the issues themselves because of the increasing use of gag orders and censorship.
The readership for these overseas blogs, including among Israelis, is steadily rising. The sites are also freeing Israeli bloggers to become more outspoken: they can relay back to Israeli audiences information from foreign websites without the risk of being first to break censorship rules.
speaking of weak-tea pundits, mr weiss may want to discuss the latest waste of space on bitterlemons.
link to bitterlemons-api.org
Yuval Rabin and Koby Huberman are pushing their 'israeli peace initiative' again, as a rather belated response to the 2002 arab peace initiative. On the one hand it is great to see some istratinian's finally follow this up. 8 years may be seen as a long gestation of course. On the other, the actual suggestions seem to be more of Mr Clinton' failed proposal, with no acknowledgement that if the Palestinians make all of the sacrifices yet again it can't possibly work. The usual code words are there, and don't discuss any of the real problems, either that 40% of 22% is not remotely sufficient for any meaningful return of the Palestinian diaspora or that the settlement blocs destroy the hypothetical state before it starts.
Even the Istratine partners on Geneva initiative clearly laid out that Ariel had to be given back. Even that seems to be lost.
a very fair comment about Zionism overall. This is why the zionism vs racism debate is so uninteresting. It isn't that that your race is inferior, just that god did not give you the property deeds and sign them personally. To be honest I am really uncertain why anybody wants the property. The termites are just unrelenting.
However, I have been monitoring Cotert and Max's site carefully, and boy is there a lot of total dehumanizing rhetoric out there, well up on the scale associated with previous large scale country endorsed killing.
Dear Colleagues,
reading the litany of atrocities over the last few days, I started to wonder whether these despicable actions are genuinely just a 'side effect' of a harsh but rationale policy or whether there is a deeper psychological, I would even say, evil.
Potentially rationale aims of current policy include: 1. obtaining control of all significant potable water and 2. making life so harsh that palestinians will agree to 'give' Istratine the water formally and persuade most of them to leave. To the extent that this is true, it is extremely nasty, but makes sense, if your ' opponents' are considered not to be as important, as valid a group of humans as you. There is a large element of this, as spelt out by BenG, Allon and others.
However, less murder and harassment would work equally well to accomplish these hypothesized goals; in fact mere intransigence without the murder and abuse would be even more effective internationally. After the discussion yesterday about pogroms, could it be that the nation is recapitulating its collective memories, and taking revenge on the Palestianians for the pogroms and persecutions and the auto da fees.... carried out entirely by nonPalestianians. If correct, this kind of subliminal thinking would explain why the occupation has become so unnecessarily evil, and why there is so much over-reaction to people like Rosengarten.
Dear Mr Weiss, you are neither right nor wrong. Ummm, this is a deal. With all deals, the devil is in the details. Is that mustang coupe original, rust free and lovingly looked after, and thus good for another 100k with continuing care, or stolen, or a mashup that will roll at the first corner and then die long before you can pay off the loan. Is the two state solution fair, does it genuinely free the Palestinians from oppression and theft and repeated military attack by Israel? Or is just another minor dictatorship, with continuing Israeli oppression, unable to establish any economic base except for sending servants to work in other countries.
"The deal will not make a contiguous or viable Palestinian state? Obama is determined to get past that; states in this day and age are less important in territorial terms and more important as international actors"
I, not respectfully, disagree. The current situation in Isratine carefully prevents any significant economic development. What appears to be on offer is a nonstate, with no water, no control of its borders, customs control, airspace, radio frequencies, or defense, no free movement inside the state and no free movement outside the state. We all know that the Istratine apartheid settlements have been carefully placed to control nearly all the water; and thus the occupied westbank does not have sufficient even for its current subsistence level existence. Isratine has already offered to build a water refinery, and then sell water on a fixed contract to the Palestinians. Extreme chutzpah, yes. Business has the same problems. Everything I read from businessmen who have been successful elsewhere and indeed from the Economist says that they cannot work with current limitations --- none of which would go away. The political arrangements all suggest that yet another unpleasant dictatorship is on the cards. I am not implying that the current 'leadership' is not trying to get an acceptable deal. I believe that they are trying very hard. However, they no longer represent their proto-grouping. Given the record what are the odds that what they negotiate will be accepted or that the current nondemocratic oligocracy will allow democracy to suddenly arise?
Even with subsidy from the US and Europe, it is now completely impossible that a viable democratic city state of Palestine can arise within Istratine.
This is very bad. If Istratine cannot agree to a viable, reasonable partition, and a non racist-apartheid state will not be allowed to succeed it, then what will happen? My personal belief is that we can usually trust people to do what they are currently doing.
What we see today is as near as damnit the Allon plan link to en.wikipedia.org
Mr Bibi has made many statements that indicate that this is his only acceptable solution. This is a 'two state solution' that will give us another 60 years of occupation, until finally something gives istratine an excuse to kill or expel every remaining nonjew into Jordan.
absolutely right. and maybe they don't immediately start cutting out pieces of suspects bodies, but they shift the line more and more, exactly as happened in istratine, that the suspects are no longer seen as quite human.
The videos of Milgram's experiments are still both moving and troubling. I saw a screening a long time ago. Even for those who refused, it clearly took a lot of moral courage to refuse, and they often went on for longer than they really wanted to or should have. The screams everytime they hit the button were awful.
Worse, of those who kept going, one of the men slumped lower and lower and looked more and more, I can only say, crushed, beaten. This was no sadist or apparatchik. Like most of us, he believed what he was told, believed it was important, and I think just couldn't believe that the man in the white coat would make him do something wrong, and actually suffered horribly to carry out the task.
In retrospect, these experiments were unequivocally abuse --- by Milgram. To me what they show is not that we are capable of great evil. We know that there are evil people. Stalin, Ben Gurion and the whole list of eager killers great and small. But that yes, we are social, that we work together, and will often do hard things if we are convinced by people who 'should' know that it was 'right'.
The big moderator is for the acts of evil to be be exposed. This is why it was so wrong for Mr Obama not to prosecute those who allowed us to start torturing. Because of this, I see that the junior mr bush is actually boasting that he approved waterboarding, instead of hiding in shame, and . This was not what the west stands for. If it now is, then we are now no better than the worst.
it is not enough just to look forward. there will be new mr bushes, and they will take up the bloody instruments again, and they will find people willing to do it, without being shouted at or bullied or coerced. Worse, his victims are still suffering ---- because they deserved it, sure. I am sure you have all seen this great piece by Tony Keller. I read it and wept. link to nationalpost.com
I have gradually become convinced that it is no longer possible for a moral person to argue in favor of the rogue apartheid state of isratine. This speech merely shows that advocacy also impair the brain cells. "Or, to speak mathmo for a moment, the chance of any randomly chosen state being Jewish is 0.0051%"
The actual figure is of course 1/195 = 0.5%. If we took it as a proportion of states that have an 'established religion' like istratine, it is rather more common. My personal estimate is well over 5 %, but I suppose that it depends somewhat on our criteria for established religion. Hardly uncommon though.
Unfortunately, I believe that Jethro is correct. Previous performance tends to predict future performance. I now strongly believe that Israel intends and has intended for 43 years to expel as many of the remaining palestinians as possible, and leave the rest in such intolerable conditions that they will leave 'voluntarily'.
A brave and wonderful effort. I am sure that this is a stupid question, but if Israel attacks an unarmed flotilla in international waters, isn't this simply piracy? Israeli law has no legitimacy outside its immediate litoral.
Mr Witty, I humbly venture to disagree. Mr Finkelstein did not engage in any ad hominen or character attacks whatsoever. He tried to make a few, limited points based on international law. Mr Morris tired to override him on every substantive point, shouting and near to hysteria.
Of the two, Mr Finkelstein came over as the rational and careful one. It is important to remember that surprisingly he is a supporter of the two state formula, but a careful and nuanced one. My view is that Mr Morris's strategy was deliberate, and intended to prevent him having the chance to discuss the legal basis for a reasonable solution.
Dear VR, you don't think that Israel will settle for permanent oppression? Ie a codified version of the current apartheid state, with the Palestinians permanently condemned to live in fragmented areas a, b and a little of C, with israeli posts between every city and on the border. As best I can tell this is what 'painful sacrifices' means, and the only change from oslo to now is that they are determined that no significant part of Jerusalem will be included, and that as many palestinians as possible will be encouraged to leave.
My main reason for thinking this is the sheer determined rationality of the glorious fascist state of Istratine. If they can keep the boiling frog strategy going for 60 years, surely they can manage another 60 years?
Dear Jonah,
please help me to understand. What gestures? What slaps in the face?
Israel has not made any meaningful gestures. The level of oppression within the West Bank remains extremely high. Construction of illegal settlements remains at an all time high, with a marked expansion in occupied Jerusalem. "new construction" is limited, but not to the point that actual construction was reduced. No colonies have been removed, not even those that are self defined as illegal even to Israel. There was a minor reduction in roadblocks, but the overwhelming majority remain in place. Murder, kidnapping and low level abuse of palestinians has not been reduced. Uplifting of water has not slowed. Fencing off of westbank farm land and villages has not slowed.
In contrast, the current palestinian leadership have accepted the loss of the majority of their state, got firm agreement for a wider peace for Israel with all arab states, if a deal can be achieved, prevented violent protests at the cost of being seen as major quislings, and are working hard to establish the institutions of a modern state. How is this not an outstanding effort by an occupied nation?
All people are capable of knowingly doing both good and bad. I believe that this is an inextricable part of the human condition. However, to achieve real evil takes religion.
This story made my gorge rise, it is smoothly evil. Looking at Gregory Stanton's paper on "The 8 Stages of Genocide" at the United States Department of State, he "suggested that genocide develops in eight stages that are "predictable but not inexorable"".
He starts with Classification People are divided into "us and them"... and moves up progressively through
3. Dehumanization "One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases."
through to...
6.Preparation "Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity..."
7. Extermination "It is "extermination" to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human."
But then, critically:
8.Denial "The perpetrators... deny that they committed any crimes..."
This is exactly what happened with the first of many genocides this century, the armenian, which in turn was the inspiration and guide for the german.
What we have in Palestine is not genocide, yet, however, this looks to be a good schema that can equally be applied to "lesser" crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Can we say that the state that is coming to be known as Istratine is oscillating rapidly between 6 & 8. Prepare to commit crime, wind up everybody, commit crime, deny that any crime happened, and repeat.
Is the frequency of oscillation increasing? What do you all think?
This is a horrible incident. When England did similar things in India it ultimately did lead to revulsion at home, which helped create a climate for change. The time course of course was slow, so my despair may not be reasonable. On the other hand, it is worrying that there seems to be so little effect on public American opinion so far.
One of the most sad things here, is that in most reports [obviously not here!] whereas the international volunteer is named, and has her country speaking for her, the palestinians, are usually just "3 palestinians".
An excellent article, but if over 40 years of brutal occupation can be ignored, this too will pass.
I have been reading the CNAS report, at link to cnas.org
Interesting, pragmatic work. The boys and girls have analysed previous peacekeeping operations, and tried to work out how an hypothetical international force would work under different scenarios from full agreement to unilateral withdrawal with collapse of the PA. That final chapter is worth reading, with caveats, because the authors seem to be highly realistic about what is politically possible and about the critical importance of how this potential international force would be perceived and could act.
The key statement is that in the case of a partial agreement " The IF in this scenario would almost certainly come to be perceived as a new
variety of occupation and become a political and military target"
If there is a Gaza, unilateral withdrawal by Israel "International actors undoubtedly would be leery of such a mission, but may see little alterna-
tive in a rapidly deteriorating situation." ie the outside world be sucked in.
"Judging by the lessons of other peacekeeping operations, such as the relatively successful mission in Bosnia, once forces are in,
there should be no expectation of them leaving in less than a decade. "
Optimistically they suggest:
"While this in many ways appears to be a nightmare
scenario, the IF could have several unexpected advantages compared to the “partial agreement” scenario, all rooted in operating with a relatively
blank slate. Since the deployment would not be specifically tied to the political fortunes of the PA, it could reach out to Hamas and other spoilers
and seek to incorporate all armed groups into new institutions. It could also promote institutional reform"
Their overall message is that bold steps including international force are essential for a two state solution to work, and yet are not really likely to succeed, and if it does will take a long time before that becomes apparent.
In fact, I wonder whether they are not guilty of overoptimism, 8-) --- even under the very best, most favorable scenario this international force is there to protect the guilty aggressors from their victims. Thus, there would be constant pressure from the aggressor to attack Hamas et al, and 'cut the grass', under the threat of reinvasion, the very actions that will solidly establish the new force as occupiers.
The one thing that I did not see discussed is the pernicious role of the unbelievably large subsidy from the USA, as highlighted by the contributors on this site. Long a period with no subsidy would it take before Israel had an economic incentive to support peace, instead of sabotaging it?
Carthago delenda est
thanks Mooser. I should say up front that this is one man. Downunder at the mo, most are just 'do you agree that Israel has a right to exist?'. They managed to get the cartoonist for our national paper fired during the Gaza attack for being pretty mildly critical.
This discussion reminds me of an old question, that has interested me for the last few years. Why does Israel exist? At one point, and I am totally losing my grip on how long this was, it was sold as the refuge from the holocaust. ie. that it was the not-unique but serious attempt at genocide meant that Israel was need as where survivors could live in greater safety. However, since then we all know that Mr Obama was actually attacked by Israeli's for saying this, and that it is a pure religious entitlement.
Some background. I grew up in a neighborhood that had no Christmas trees in december. I knew a number of elderly people who had numbers tatooed on their forearms. Some, and by no means all older teenagers had visited kibbutz's. I can't speak in depth for their reasons, but mainly it was simply a supervised trip overseas. At that particular time, for what it is worth none chose to emigrate to Israel.
All I mean to say is that Israel is and was not the only refuge for those who espose the Jewish religion.
If the nation of Israel had existed before WWII would it have protected the european jews? We all know that it actually did very little in the fact. It wasn't nearly as heavily armed as it is now, but we can also look at Armenia. There is a nation state of Armenia, and it was unable to prevent the genocide in Turkey. All holocausts are different in their specifics but in many ways I see the same issues arising in all of them. By the time it is clear that genocide is in progress, it is too late for most of the victims, and the pace of killing has already slowed.
Surely then, in the age of missiles and the high impact air warfare, objectively it would be far safer to establish many places of safety, and not depend on one?
The religious argument though is very disturbing, since this denotes sustained religious persecution of the Palestinians.
I take it as read, as documented on this site, that much of the religous attachment is based on lies, or if you prefer myths. This is the nature of religion, fine. However, as suggested by one rabbi of my acquaintance the fascination with particular places on the west bank, including Jerusalem is surely classic idolatry, and proscribed?
This discussion reminds me of an old question, that has interested me for the last few years. Why does Israel exist? At one point, and I am totally losing my grip on how long this was, it was sold as the refuge from the holocaust. ie. that it was the not-unique but serious attempt at genocide meant that Israel was need as where survivors could live in greater safety. However, since then we all know that Mr Obama was actually attacked by Israeli's for saying this, and that it is a pure religious entitlement.
Some background. I grew up in a neighborhood that had no Christmas trees in december. I knew a number of elderly people who had numbers tatooed on their forearms. Some, and by no means all older teenagers had visited kibbutz's. I can't speak in depth for their reasons, but mainly it was simply a supervised trip overseas. At that particular time, for what it is worth none chose to emigrate to Israel.
All I mean to say is that Israel is and was not the only refuge for those who espose the Jewish religion.
If the nation of Israel had existed before WWII would it have protected the european jews? We all know that it actually did very little in the fact. It wasn't nearly as heavily armed as it is now, but we can also look at Armenia. There is a nation state of Armenia, and it was unable to prevent the genocide in Turkey. All holocausts are different in their specifics but in many ways I see the same issues arising in all of them. By the time it is clear that genocide is in progress, it is too late for most of the victims, and the pace of killing has already slowed.
Surely then, in the age of missiles and the high impact air warfare, objectively it would be far safer to establish many places of safety, and not depend on one?
The religious argument though is very disturbing, since this denotes sustained religious persecution of the Palestinians.
I take it as read, as documented on this site, that the myths are lies, or if you prefer myths. This is the nature of religion, fine. However, as suggested by one rabbi of my acquaintance the fascination with particular places on the west bank, including Jerusalem is surely classic idolatry, and proscribed?
This review is a despicable hatchet job on a gentleman and a great scholar. It is sad that anybody would stoop to take the honest attempt of this film to show the human factors that drove him and turn them around to present him as a frankenstein who should be pitied. I do not believe that either the reviewer or any of the abusive people who commented have ever sacrificed anything like as much to stand up for the truth.
There is a pleasing bit of inadvertent humor though. "Alan Dershowitz — who gets plenty of screen time but never seems to come off well, no matter how unreasonable his opponent"...
curious, eh?
From Antony Loewenstein’s blog
"Here’s famed Israeli leftist and novelist David Grossman speaking at a rally in Sheikh Jarrah in Jerusalem on Friday. Whatever the criticisms directed at the organised Left in Israel – and there are many – Grossman’s words here are poignant and powerful:
I think that we are all beginning to grasp — even those who maybe don’t really want to — how 43 years ago, by turning a blind eye, by actively or passively cooperating, we actually cultivated a kind of carnivorous plant that is slowly devouring us, consuming every good part within us, making the country we live in a place that is not good to live in."
MJ Rosenberg also has a hopeful post at TPM.
It is impossible to know whether the US senate would be able to work through the hysteria of the lobby as he and mr levy hope. Sadly, regardless, I think that the nay sayers are right.
I remain troubled by how far the camp david and taba discussions that are the basis of the new 'plan' were from what would be the minimum, reasonable needs of the Palestinians, keeping in mind that they have already agreed to the unconscionable loss of 78% of their original territory. I have read in detail both the Geneva initiatives' proposal, and critically the 2010 report "Getting to the Territorial Endgame" by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University, which outline the basis of the compromises needed to create a potential Palestinian territory.
Based on the discussions around these projects and the american lead I simply do not accept that the right of return is the fundamental problem. This right has already been sold in principle in return for compensation, again in principle.
Conversely the release of Barak's papers from camp david make it clear that the demand for a 'jewish state' is being made purely in order to prevent agreement.
The real problem is that the "territorial exchanges" and control of the jordanian border are not minor issues, and the sides are not close. The difference between the 1.9% offered by mr abbas, and the Israeli supposed offer of over 7% is huge. The maps make it clear that the Israeli approach
1. would provide only minimal palestinian access to jerusalaem, which could be blocked at any time.
2. would maintain sharon's fragmentation of the west bank.
3. would include continued military occupation of a substantial fraction of the WB and the jordanian border
4. would include continued israeli control of the water, airways, electromagnetic spectum and borders
5. dramatically rewards the israeli illegal behaviour of the last 60years.
In other words what is still being proposed and is conceptually acceptable to Israel is not a state, not even a demilitarized state, but a series of dependancies. Far from rationalising the border, it would exaggerate the weirdness of the 1967 border, with the known, overt intention as spelt out by mr sharon, to restrict palestianian movement.
I don't know what mr netanyahu's actual minimum goal is. Based on his statements and those of his colleagues, I think that it is to annex 100% of the expanded ministate of jerusalem, but who knows.
The Palestinian approach of offering citizenship to the settlers with the very minor adjustment of less than 2% in the border is far more statesman like and workable, and would be far more in accord with international law.
I do not live there, and cannot say whether having a partially occupied, economically nonviable, limited sovereignty dependency on perhaps two thirds of 22% of their former land is worth it to the oppressed people who actually live there. This is not the best of all possible worlds. However, history says that this type of approach of deliberately humiliating the losers is usually unstable.
Hoping that I am wrong
Thanks syvanen. Even if you were born on the westbank, you can be 'illegal'. The part that I hope the PA notes, is that these rules apply even in the tiny fragment of the west bank that Israel agreed would be administered by the PA. This means that 100% of the west bank is considered to be under the jurisdiction of Israel.
The one state solution exists today, in the opinion of the government of Israel.
Messieurs, Mesdames,
Come, come, more heat less light. I agree with nearly all the points made in this discussion, by both sides; this is all well known. Economically, boycotts of a whole country essentially never 'work'. Gaza is being subject to a formal medieval style, cruel and in my considered opinion, actually evil seige, and yet shows no sign of surrendering. And yet, this doesn't mean that BSD is futile. To my frank surprise at the time, BSD did influence the outcome of South Africa. It turned out in retrospect that the sporting boycotts that we all despised, and indeed are still anathema downunder were the single biggest factor. The goal of BSD is not to kill thousands of people, unlike say the collective punishment of Gaza, but rather merely symbolically says, we can't be friends while you are doing this. It worked on my 5 year olds; it might work on the inheritors of the SA tradition.
It is important to cut to the bottomline. Mr Larry Derfner's conclusion is that current government will never compromise without something like this:
link to realclearworld.com
"Forget it. Bibi is not the man for that job.
So what's his strategy? How does he plan to hold off Barack Obama and his international allies? By playing for time, I guess. By trying to outmaneuver the White House until his allies, the Republicans, can maybe cut the president down to size in the November elections. I figure Netanyahu's strategy is to stall and hope for something to break his way, seeing as how his predicament with America and the rest of the world can hardly get worse.
So let's see - if Netanyahu isn't about to lead the country through fire and water to a new future, is there another Israeli leader who can? No there isn't. Not now, anyway. What's required of Israel in the two-state solution goes far, far beyond Menachem Begin's return of the Sinai to Egypt, or Yitzhak Rabin's recognition of the PLO, or Ariel Sharon's pullout from Gaza - and there is no Israeli leader today who comes anywhere near Begin, Rabin or Sharon. Leadership today lies in the hands of the Right, spearheaded by the settler movement. Mainstream Israelis don't want a battle royal with those people; they much prefer the status quo.
Only when the status quo becomes intolerable, when continuing the occupation arouses even more dread than the prospect of dividing the land and taking on the settlers, will Israelis be ready to free the Palestinians. And at that point, we won't need a Begin, Rabin or Sharon for prime minister, we'll just need a competent, respected executive to carry out the public's will."
This is from Jake Horowitz
link to war.change.org
"What will not fade away, however, is Israel’s ongoing military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. For all practical purposes, a two-state solution to the conflict is moribund. Israel has engaged in such prolonged and systematic settlement growth since the June 1967 War that most scholars and Middle East experts now believe that there is no longer enough Palestinian territory remaining in the West Bank to create a single, unified Palestinian state. Cut-up by Jewish settlements, checkpoints, high-speed highways, and a soaring wall of separation, a Palestinian state centered in the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital, has become a vision of the past."
I am so depressed. Taken with the article from Mark Bergmann this means that all the palestinians can look forward to is living in an apartheid version of monte carlo. The state of Israel holds all the cards and power. The government is more or less democratically elected and clearly does embody those it choses to represent. We can only reasonably conclude that the majority of the israeli people deliberate and callously intended to create this apartheid state, and I strongly suspect to provoke a further war in which most of the remaining palestianian citizens will be driven out. Everything I hear from the Israeli partisans on this site and elsewhere, underpins this conclusion. [although I must again thank Mr Alan D for convincing me first that they really intended what their policies inevitably lead to].
Many people drawn the same conclusion earlier, although more eloquently. To “get rid of as many Palestinians as possible while holding on to as much land as possible.”
I have often wondered whether the wrong side won the little civil war that is remembered at Hanukkah. The losing side was trying to embrace greek civilisation and the outside world. If they had won or there had been some compromise, would things have turned out better? I suppose probably not, but history does seem to be "rhyming" again.
This excellent post is another reminder of how easy it is for a bad situation to escalate and worse, for a civilised and democratic country to behave indistinguishably from terrorists.
As if we needed another example
Given the reputed expertise of mossad, does this mean that this is deliberate destruction of an essential civilian factory, and thus a deliberate war crime and in someways even worse, a crime against an occupied people for whom they are responsible? My father used to say, never say that things can't get worse, because they always can. anyway, none of this seems to affects Israel's standing with the US and EU. May I propose two controversial ideas.
1. Since Israel continues to impose complete control over the Gazan borders and airspace, and has therefore never ceased to be the occupier, should the UN withdraw all services and require Israel to be responsible for feeding and care of all in Gaza? Seriously, the UN and other aid agencies are clearly enabling the seige and continued abuse. It is one thing to rescue refugees who have escaped their attackers, and surely another to make the intolerable, tolerable? This complicity should stop.
2. the history of Israel is that the most evil, the most extreme, pretty consistently win in the short term. And sometimes the long-term. The moderates never care enough until it is too late. Not that it is always clear which extremists who will win. In the build up for WWII it was the communists who most consistently opposed the fascists. In Sri Lanka the most extreme Tamil organisation ruthlessly destroyed or took over the other Tamil organisations.
Given this historical observation, it seems rather improbable that we can effectively oppose the current unspeakable Israeli policy by being reasonable. Should we support out and out derecognition of Israel, as an extreme position from which compromise might lead to something reasonable?....
Hah, having said this, yah for us! See Mr Loewenstein's blog for what is happening downunder:
link to antonyloewenstein.com
Dear Don, thanks for the interesting update on the state of indian reservations. Citizen has already lucidly commented on what was meant by circular. Let me add that this not in anyway meant to belittle the native american suffering. There are many strong parallels with what is happening in Palestine now, right down to the strategy of starving them out.
The late and unlamented Custer was universally reviled as "squaw-killer" Custer. Barak and Bibi would be worthy of this title.
The weakness of the argument of course, other than that the USA was settled centuries ago, is that it works equally well in reverse.... "so you are saying that the Palestinians are absolutely right to try to recolonise Israel?"
Is Israel a democracy now? Based purely on Ofernicus statement, it really isn't already, if it ever was. An 'ethnocracy' at most. Even then, the use of extrajudicial murder, state sponsored kidnapping, detention without trial and ethnic cleansing puts it right in there with other democracies such as Russia and Iran.
Is it troubling that the hard line representative of another country that is doing this?
For my part, I was ultimately persuaded by the writings and speeches by Alan Dershowitz that the continuing support for Israel's occupation after 40 years was the symptom of something truely immoral, even vile. Some might question whether he intended that, but his essays are clearly Swiftian.
It used to be said that nationalism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Does it count if it is some other country's nationalism?
This unpleasant article in the national review repeats all the same points. It is all the fault of the oppressed.
link to article.nationalreview.com
This fragmentation is a very interesting aspect of the problem. We grew in Quebec. There the education system is split up on religious and linguistic fault lines. Catholic/French, Catholic/English, Protestant/French, Protestant/English, and broadly I think still is. The good thing was that noncatholics got put into the 'protestant' side. All the jews, maronites and non-judeo-christians such as myself etc were made honorary protestants. Something of a melting pot. Once you got into the 'french protestant' system, it was actively international, great fun, but totally unrepresentative of the wider society. I am convinced that this schism helped reinforce divisions
Mercifully though, and quite different from the problems of palestinians, although there was active discrimination in quebec, it was on linguistic grounds, not religion.
Indeed; more directly if honoring terrorists is a sign of bad faith, then surely Israel, say, wouldn't do it. They did put a plaque to commemorate the bombing of the King David Hotel. the UK protested. Does anybody know if the plaque was removed? Oh dear, in fact the Knesset held a eulogy for several famous Israeli mass murderers, including a massacre of civilian Palestinians on a bus, just last week. The arab members of the Knesset protested, to no effect.
Are the actions of the Knesset somehow different? Enquiring minds want to know.
I take back my earlier reference to the big lie technique. I have to salute Israel for saying precisely what they intend, which is further, steady, irrevocable ethnic cleansing, and confiscation. It is less literary than Hitler's oeuvre, but no less spelt out, and yet in hindsight the old mass murderer ultimately carried out everything he said he would do in Mein Kampf.
"The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.[2]" Goebbels, 12 January 1941.
It is good to see that the Israel lobby sticks to tried and true ways.
correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the central issue from both articles other than yet more state takeover there is no offer to compensate the evicted residents for the loss of their homes. The recent evictions/demolitions elsewhere in the east of the city have not either, on the factitious grounds that they are 'illegal'. The residents might or bluntly might not be offered apartments, but umm 1. apartment are usually smaller and plain different from a house which often is not good for a young family. 2. I also don't see the words 'given title to' which means this gift would come with paying rent.
On the information provided so far this is not a clash of cultures, but gross discriminatory abuse of state power. Possibly compensation may come out of the negotiations given the publicity, but the mere fact that it wasn't there upfront is the key.
Dear Colin and Potherd, this is one of the precise horrible incidents that I was thinking of. The other was the invasion of Sicily, which was a disaster for the Athenians. Some members of the city administration tried to stop it by increasing the cost, but the public were too inflamed with 'upholding democracy' to stop.
This is again part of the extreme danger of a downwards slide in values, driven by the belief that since we are 'good', representative democracies and not autocracies, therefore what we do _must_ be good.
This happened to Athens in antiquity. It is happening now. Once we accept that 'we' can murder others outside our state who oppose our actions, how long is before any opposition should be killed?
it is always interesting to find out what people thought in retrospect. I hope that I am wrong, but I don't believe that Israel actually wants a two state solution. Things can always get worse, and everything I see so far says that the nadir will be steadily worsening apartheid, folllowed by more expulsions.
Mr Zinn was a great man. If we are represented by people who murder their opponents, what does it say about us?
link to guardian.co.uk
It is hard to know how much difference this proposal will have. On previous form, Israel may blockade the fleet or even allow part or all of it to land, and then rely on inertia and stonewalling to ensure that it doesn't lead to any change.
Regardless, Israel is continuing to occupy Gaza, while 'saying that it is not' and forcing the international community to pay for it. The collective, indiscriminate punishment of so many people is a clear violation of the Geneva Accords. The length, cruelty and premediated nature of the occupation is in accordance with Israel's own approach to things, not simply a continuing war crime, but rises to the level of a crime against humanity.
There are times when international humanitarian aide merely allows intolerable situations to continue. I believe that on the evidence of 40 years observation that this is such a time. I suggest that at better solution would be for the EU and the UN to stop paying for the occupation... to withdraw completely, and explicitly and leave it to Israel to maintain Gaza.
Part of the rationale for obliterating large parts of Lebanon in 2006 was that the Lebanese had failed to eliminate Hezbollah. Combined with Mr Dersh's arguments, is there now anything that could be done to Israel in turn that would be wrong?
Just checking,
Robert Fisk has a analysis of the problem here, specifically including the possibility of a land bridge. It is a very sad piece, essentially dispairing. Would even 65 or 75% of israeli settlers remaining on 2% of the 1967 palestine work, particularly as the last and supposedly best offer actually was to take 6.5%?
link to independent.co.uk
Certainly it is not ideal, although it does seem to provide at least sea access. The real problem is that as previously discussed on this blog, israel is working hard towards breaking up the westbank, so that it represents a series of cantons only, that can be broken up at a moments notice. As I understand the maps, it looks like effectively a four or even five 'state ' solution.
A very interesting debate. More than ever I strongly believe that the sustained denial of human rights to the Palestinians for over 60 years, and the more nuanced but no less rigid advocacy that we see for Israel here, directly reflects personal guilt.
The problem with this is that the guiltier we feel, the worse we behave to prove to ourselves that we have no guilt.
I wonder if the other possibility is that rather than 'legitimate' Israel's spokespeoples are trying to mean, in a round about way, ' member of club of western democracies', i.e. a 'nice' state? I still think that transference must be important, or why choose this particular word? Nevertheless, in a legal sense, the context for 'legitimacy' doesn't make sense, whereas 'niceness' would.
If this is correct, then trying to change perceptions to acknowledge that Israel is not nice is clearly a reasonable goal. It just doesn't sound so dramatic (OK, meaningless but impressive, 8-).
Elsewhere on this blog, readers have highlighted the simply extraordinary amounts of money transferred to Israel and its neighbours by the USA and to a lesser extent other entities. I include the UN palestinian support in this category. These transfers are clearly harmful. It may be argued that they reinforce these states including israel as 'renter' states, in the same way as the oil states. The 'curse of oil' is well recognised, and means that it reduces the need for the state to live from taxation and therefore to obtain consent.
These huge subsidies allowed the wall to be produced, allowed Israel to repeatedly attack its neighbours, without impoverishing its citizens. In the same way that any government rent damages democracy, they are hardly less damaging to Egypt and Jordanian autocracies.
I have seen multiple regrets on this site that the US will never use the subsidy to leverage Israel. Surely, the argument should be that all subsidies should be withdrawn from the region, except for very limited, practical reasons?
Might I possibly turn to an fascinating aspect of this debate. The interesting question is why does israel care so much. It has largely contributed to starting numerous wars including the recent attack on Gaza, and is both maintaining the longest period of oppression in recent history and the evidence is overwhelming that it has indulged in extensive violations of severe Geneva conventions, to the point of committing war crimes. This behaviour has many similarities to north korea, zimbabwe, sudan and russia, and the previous south african regime. Worse in some some respects, and less in others, but of the same nature. None of them respond to criticism by whining about being 'delegitimized'.
This word doesn't mean anything as far as I can tell. An unpleasant, aggressive, apartheid state is still a state, recognised by the UN. That is all that legitimate really means in real politic, and Israels politicians and numerous lawyers have said as much.
Why then to do they react so strongly? Is the explanation just basic psychology, that the citizens and supporters actually in their heart of hearts strongly suspect that the original creation of Israel was not legitimate, and push this ugly thought away in a form of transference?
This would explain a great deal, including the approach taken by defenders on this blog.
I am not suggesting of course that this is the only reason. Nationalism and ethnicism are common foundations for fascism and oppression.
Dear Syvanen, I hope to hear more about this. We could see it as a hopeful sign that the great informed and liberal tradition is not dead yet in Israel. from the outside though, are there some less friendly interpretations. First, these are minority viewpoints. JPost is barely a newspaper, publishes in English, not Hebrew, and Larry Derfner is now their symbolic leftwing commentator. Haretz is highly balanced between the left and right but is barely surviving. The great majority of comments in most Israel newspapers seem to be harshly rightwing. The second, is that the worst, most fascist Israel writings also aren't really reported overseas. Most of what is said internationally is diplomatic, and like all diplomacy is intended to smooth over and present the best face,
hoping that I am wrong,
the ynet report says: "Ayalon patiently addressed all claims and refrained from engaging in a public altercation. Eventually, one of the students got up, demanded his peers' attention, and apologized to Ayalon – to roaring applause – for the behavior of the rogue students. " Is there any additional information on which it was; a few 'rogues' or overall rejectionism. If Ynet is correct, it was a little disappointing. We usually manage to make Chinese delegations do much more of a dance to avoid confrunting demonstrators.
Well known, and yet gobsmacking. Why do two developed nations, one with the worlds 6th largest nuclear arsenal need aid?
Surely though this is no different than the longstanding recognition from within previous administrations that the USA has acted "as Israel's lawyer" throughout? I mean to say that however improper this looks, and is, actually he is merely advocating the status quo. Given that it is well known, what I have never quite understood is why it should be surprising that the peace talks failed. The palestinians have nothing to negotiate with, and have no 'lawyer' of their own.
I have tried to follow the publicly available discussions for three decades. As best I can tell the Israeli side has never offered anything that an Israeli would accept if the tables were turned.
On this subject, an attack on another agency in the guardian:
link to guardian.co.uk
This is a frightening point that the Gaza war started with a deliberate, highly targetted attack on civilian policemen is central. They supported Hamas. Israeli police support Israel. American Police support the USA, by and large. Surely this was a straightforward, politically directed, major war crime?
I could not agree more with MHughes976 that it is objectively absurd to think that just being a democracy can possibly mean that you won't be brutal and irrational. And yet I have seen it argued that democracies won't start wars. Clearly wrong, but often bruited. The problem is that it is always possible to claim that the other side did something unforgivable, as Israel and many others have done for every war.
I am no doubt worrying too much, but in the sparta-athens war, actually neither side started it. As the spartans rather bitterly noted, they were dragged in by their client states. Israel may be disproportionately influential in the US, but actually this doesn't seem to have been all that important. The key was the belief by both that compromising would be fatal (as well as an humiliation). The endless talk of a clash of civilisations seems very similar!
Dear Colleagues, let me introduce myself. I am an antipodean who grew up in a conservative/orthodox neighborhood of Montreal. It is fair to say that views about Israel were highly polarised even then, 30 to 40 years ago, but that we could agree to respect the gumption and fighting spirit of the new state, while at the same time despising its deliberate oppression. Sadly, things have gone downhill steadily since then.
This little item seems to me very important. I don't understand two things. Ignoring its apartheid aspects, is Israel really the only democracy in the middle east? Surely Turkey and Lebanon are effective representative democracies? I strongly doubt the recent elections, but even Iran has had democratic elections in the not distant past.
The other is whether democracy is sufficient. Thucydides was once required reading. What he showed very clearly was that the war between Athens and Sparta was not necessary, but driven by a combination of stupid events and hubris, that because they were 'better' they must be right. Athens actions because steadily harsher and both unwise, and in some cases actually evil even by the standards of the time. To me, at the end it would have been hard to really hand on heart say that Athens was the side of good, or to mourn their fall. Even modern democracies can do great evil.