-
-
- Video: Paterson, NJ raises the Palestinian flag over city hall … 2
- Princeton students ‘come out’ for Palestine to overcome shame attached … 3
- Jim from Newport Township, Illinois asks the wrong question 4
- There’s been a sea change in US opinion on the … 4
- Former AIPAC lobbyist assumes weighty mantle (and travel budget) of … 5
- Press Release: Isabel Kershner chosen to reveal future Israeli exonerations 5
- As Israel’s occupation drags on, boycotts are one way forward 1
- Both Massad, and ‘Open Zion’, ignore the experience of Middle … 12
-
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 796
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 314
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 227
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 149
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 148
- San Francisco bus ads condemn Israeli apartheid: backlash begins 121
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 111
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 102
-
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 96
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 84
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ … 74
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 73
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 69
- Uncompromising hope inspired by Ghassan Kanafani 63
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 62
- Dershowitz should stop lying about Tutu’s record 56
-
- RT @ggreenwald: From AJ Editor RT @hash_said @WHarkavy It was a temporary glitch. It's back up., 6 hours ago
- RT @WHarkavy: .@Mondoweiss @ggreenwald Right now, at least, column and editor's note aren't on Al Jazeera site. Here's an alt link http://t…, 7 hours ago
- Jim from Newport Township, Illinois asks the wrong question http://t.co/dezeLR7gp1, 7 hours ago
- Princeton students ‘come out’ for Palestine to overcome shame attached to issue in U.S. http://t.co/LCs1vTVK44, 7 hours ago
- Video: Paterson, NJ raises the Palestinian flag over city hall for Palestinian-American Day http://t.co/jV4CaYbOnE, 7 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Both Massad, and ‘Open Zion’, ignore the experience of Middle Eastern Jews (12)
- Jim from Newport Township, Illinois asks the wrong question (4)
- Former AIPAC lobbyist assumes weighty mantle (and travel budget) of US Special Envoy on anti-Semitism (5)
- Rusty Pipes: That’s from the EUMC’s “Working” Definition of Anti-Semitism, which was...
- There’s been a sea change in US opinion on the conflict (4)
- David Samel: Thanks, Pamela, for your impressions. I would only add that I thought Bob Simon’s 2009 piece on...
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite history: They fled ‘of their own free will’ (54)
- Hostage: Nowhere in this or the linked documents does it show that Kennedy (or any president) insisted on a the...
- New York City Council official urges Brooklyn College to hire ‘professor from Israel’ (12)
- Hostage: Whether professors believe that their expression of polemical political opinions should have consequences,...
- Widely denounced as ‘propaganda,’ Israel’s report on al-Dura calls attention to 950 other child killings (12)
- David Samel: who are the shameless manipulators, careerists, and opportunists, and who are the true believers? Is...
- Pamela Olson: That’s always an interesting question, Castellio — who are the shameless manipulators,...
Our Writers
More WritersBlogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
Gabriel at JSF ends an interesting essay with:
what cup should a thirsty rebel pick, the poisoned cup of imperialist "help," or the empty cup of anti-imperialist rhetoric? The answer is stuck in my throat.
that does capture the dilemma. Basically the Libyan people are trading in their future potential freedom from Western domination in exchange for potential security. (I say potential security because as we all know very well, the cost of US protection against Saddam Husein is nearly 1 million dead Iraqis, let us hope that we do not extract an equivalent price from the Libyans. But, again as we all know, US military contingency plans have that option available.)
Also we should ask: who was it among the Libyan people who invited in the Western military? The call, at least in part, came from ex-regime officials who suddenly, after decades working for Ghadaffy, decided to join the revolution. It will interesting to see how they end up in the 'control of the oil spigot' struggle that is sure to follow a successful "revolution".
Patrick Cochburn has a sensible analysis here:
link to counterpunch.org
Phil I really have to question your judgment that Robin Yassin-Kassab has an interesting left wing perspective on this war. That was one long anti-left screed. He never identifies who on the left believes what he claims are "left wing" positions. Without going into detail let me respond by analogy. It is similar to Israeli propagandists attacking anti- and non-Zionist critics of Israeli policies by equating them with antisemites and backers of terrorism. There was no person of any stature who supported Ghadaffy as a legitimate opponent of Western imperialism, certainly none in the past three decades. I recall no support for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan outside of the already completely discredited CP. Why support such slander, it is extremely offensive.
I am not at all upset that Israel would do this, since that is what Israel does. It is the nature of the animal.
What most people have not yet realized is the price that the Ukrainians paid when they accepted US backing during the so called Orange "revolution". This caused the toppling of a Russia supporting government and the installation of the US lackey Yushenko. Even though that pig is long gone, it does look as if Zionist forces have infiltrated Ukrainian security and they have become pawns in Israeli crime. I would hope that this becomes a political issue in the Ukraine today.
froggy you refer to publicly available information, I referred to private information. If Israeli operatives are using their expertise to gain access private data bases, then they could and should be prosecuted.
Have you heard of hackers being prosecuted in the US. Look it up. It is a crime.
If foreign agents collect non-public information on a nation's citizenry for the purpose of monitoring political interactions, then they are breaking the law in any number of countries. Even if the criminals are sitting in Tel Aviv and can't be prosecuted, the law is still being violated.
This plan by Israel needs to be widely publicized in Europe. This can be put to use politically by the BDS movement. For example, the argument can be made to terminate contracts with Israeli software and internet companies, not because of the boycott, but because the company is violating the nation's law. Spying on citizens makes it much more personal than a boycott for Palestinian rights.
eee's insistence that in the "future almost all Jews will be Zionists" raises a troubling question. Let us say that European nations begin to ban Israeli cyber security companies for the quite justified reason to protect their own citizenry. If so it would be a simple step to also ban companies associated with Zionists, since few doubt that being a Zionist places ones primary loyalty with Israel. To accept eee's claim and continue the logic to the next step would lead to unabashed antisemitism. Is that something he hopes to see? Or what? His comments are very puzzling.
Yes Seham, I saw your comment but did not respond since I agree with so much of what you are trying to say. Our difference is that I am much more skeptical of Western intentions or their ability to manipulate events. I just wanted to mention that skeptical perspective.
Are you referring to those backers of FARC who attended conferences with them. Sorry Linda, if those fools cannot distinguish between a revolutionary movement from a drug-dealing criminal enterprise, they do not have my support.
Do not even mention them in a thread about Hezbollah. As much as I oppose religious fundamentalism I do respect and recognize the following:
1. They have never attacked the US nor targeted US citizens (unless they may have been in IDF uniform at the time).
2. A small group of 3000 fighters defeated the fourth most powerful military in the world -- an admirable feat of courage and military leadership.
3. Politically they are a social welfare organization that at least until today are incorruptible.
Fuster for once you state the obvious truth. They sold us a "no fly zone" without telling us explicitly that it would be an open war zone. Now it is too late, the dogs of air war have been unleashed and they are not going to be controlled by Western liberal sensibilities.
Now that the US led attack on Libya has begun the outcome is quite unpredictable. I strongly opposed this action for a variety of reasons but that is quite irrelevant now. The US cannot stop now until it achieves its goals and what those might be is unknown. Kill Khadhaffy? Impose a Western compliant puppet? Destroy Islamic political power?
Perhaps we succeed in killing Khadhaffy quickly, the opposition wins, sets up free democratic elections, and an enlightened society emerges. I would support such an outcome and be happy to admit my initial reaction was overly cautious.
There is also the possibility that the US invasion will rally his supporters (concentrated in the western half of the country) behind his regime. This would also silence the democracy supporting opposition.
Then there is the possibility of a rural tribal group in alliance with Islamists become the dominant group within the opposition and are positioned to set up an interim government (Afghanistan anyone?). Now we would be committed to fighting the terrorists or Obama would be accused of supporting them.
Too many ways this could go south. All we do now is sit back and watch what happens.
Seham what seems to be going on in Libya is that significant forces within the Libyan government and military defected within days of the beginning of what were likely spontaneous demonstrations against the Ghadaffy regime. These are people that served that regime for many years. These guys did not get where they were in that government for taking courageous stands against the establishment. They very likely defected in unison with an understanding that others were with them. That is, it was part of an attempted coup. I certainly cannot oppose what they did, but if I were an activist hoping to build a democratic Libya I would not pin my hopes on them leading me to freedom.
We suspect that Western intervention will be backing this faction. This faction along with its other Western oriented sympathizers could very well begin to lose out to a coalition dominated by Islamic and/or Pan-Arab leftist forces (i.e. anti-American or what will be called 'terrorist'). That would mean we (meaning the US foreign policy establishment and military) will have no choice but to support the pro Western side. Should this happen, we will again be in a situation where the neoliberals inside the US has yet again led us into imperial suppression of a national liberation movement.
This dear Seham is how leftist movements, both in the third world and in the US, move from liberation against oppression, to accommodation with the oppressors. I say this fully appreciating your many positive contribution to MW, but you display a certain naiveness.
Now that the US, France and Britain have entered the war in Libya perhaps it would be prudent to ask which side of this conflict we are supporting.
I really do not know the answer to that question but we can begin by asking: who have these Western powers supported in the past? And whose national interests have those powers represented in previous engagements? Just asking this question makes it highly suspicious that we are supporting a "peoples" insurrection against dictatorship.
Then we can ask who are the "people". I am no expert on Libya but casual reading permits the opposition to be described as a coalition of disparate forces. These include a Western trained professional class that seems to sincerely want Western style democracy. They are a tiny minority. There are also various tribal groups that have grievances against Ghadaffy's tribe going back generations. There is also a surprising number of former members of Ghadaffy's government and military that joined the rebellion very early. This almost looked like a coup and these people, who seem to provide much of the public face of the current leadership, can hardly be considered democratic leaders of the people. Then there will be organized Islamist elements and Pan-Arab leftists and intellectuals. Add to that the large numbers of unemployed youth and dispossessed farmer/herder types though it is not clear if they have there own political organizations. Given this complex mix of forces (and the many overlaps that must exist among them) who is it there that the US supports. We can be sure that different factions will now spend much if not most of their energy appealing for backing from their Western backers. Given that the Western military is by itself more powerful than any single faction, we can be pretty sure that the forces that come to define the interim government will be picked by the West.
Just laying this out in this way makes me think that there is very little here that any progressive person could possibly support. I see it as another case of "humanitarian" war in the service of Western imperialism.
The Palestinians are generally not identified as Amalekites. In Jewish tradition Muslims are considered “Yishma’elim”, descendents of Abraham’s son Yishmael, our “cousins”.
Aha, we now know the kind of rabbis that you consult.
What a convenient story for the Zionists. The orthodox rabbis have already declared the Palestinians modern day Amalekites and Caananites so it is permissible to kill their children and slaughter their sheep (all with G-d's blessing). This purim story explains Israeli obsession with the Iranians. I always thought Haman was Babylonian (just more Arabs under another name) but no, a real Persian. Why he must be an obvious direct ancestor of Ahmedinijad. Now when Israel attacks Iran it can do so with rabbinical blessing and the knowledge that they are carrying out G-d's will.
I sure hope Obama does not buy into this logic. He has shown little ability so far to resist the lobby's arguments.
When Obama first asked for the settlement freeze two months into his presidency, I wondered what Axelrod and Emanuel knew that the rest of us didn't about changes in the lobby that would make that move politically possible. As we now know, these guys didn't know anything. It turned into a fiasco, with Netanyahoo publicly dissing him and forcing a humiliating backdown.
At least privately urging EU leaders to take a stand is better than nothing. I really do not think Obama should destroy his presidency over Israel by taking on the lobby.
There is another implication to the meaning here -- it is shame before the non-Jewish world but maybe not a shame inside the Jewish world. Like murder and theft of Palestinians is shameful when exposed to the world, but there is nothing wrong with those acts inside the tribe.
Your sarcasm does not disguise your intent. This is so disingenuous as to be downright dishonest.
It's hard to believe the complaint will be held up, but I also would never have thought it would go this far in the first place. Guess it helps to have friends in high places.
Actually an action of this kind coming from this office was predicted by Paul Craig Roberts over a year back (relying on memory here).
He has warned for years against the different hate crime legislations that are popular with the left. Basically assault is a violent crime and adding a hate enhancement to it is unneeded. Roberts saw that this office was being set up to not only define hatred of Israel as an enhancement to real crimes but to make hatred of Israel a crime in itself.
Of course defining "hatred" is the problem since that requires the thought police. But, nevertheless, this very dangerous office was established (and promoted by Obama) to regulate the debate on US support for Israel. It is not enough to lament that it could "go this far in the first place" because it has. We should recognize that this is the result of well laid plans by pro-Islraeli supporters that have achieved high government position. Tammi Rossman-Benjamin is not the problem, she is just a foot soldier involved in executing this plan.
More power to these students. Hamas has always been one nasty group. Their efforts over the last 30 years to impose their insane religious fundamental views on the rest of society has disrupted secular Palestinian society. There was a reason that Israel supported Hamas from its very beginning. Even after Hamas started killing Israelis Mossad continued to give them support. After all mindless terrorism is good for Israel, if not using it themselves against the Palestinians they have always used Jewish martyrs of Hamas terrorism to build support for Israel in the West.
I do hope these students succeed in undermining Hamas power in Gaza. It will be bad for Israel if they are successful.
Fuster if you haven't noticed yet Avi gave a very concise and accurate response to your first post. Responding with juvenile sarcasm does not enhance your position. Nor does trying to change the subject. The fact is Israel succeeded in financially isolating Hamas (and convincing the US and the EU to join in) after Hamas won the election.
You should follow the old Chinese proverb: 'sometimes it is better to sit silently and be thought a fool than open mouth and remove all doubt'.
Mazen, perhaps you have not been paying attention. The major beneficiary of this act of violence is the WB settler movement and the Zionist enterprise. This is the fuel they need to continue their annexation of the WB.
The immediate loser was the unfortunate murdered family but given their ideology I suspect that they were happy to contribute their and their children's lives as martyrs to the cause of settling Judea and Samaria.
The biggest losers are the Palestinians.
Avi thanks for this. There was something in Ilene's article that grated on my nerves. You identified much of it.
Must reply to both Hop and DBG. If the settler land thieves start war, and place their infants in the foxholes with them, then when those infants die as a result I will blame the settlers for the deaths of their own children.
I despair when Palestinians engage in violence because that is the game that the Israelis know how to win. Look at this development: Israelis support building 500 new WB houses in response to Itamar attact.
link to haaretz.com
This just goes to show that Israel needs war to win. This is the kind of violence that they love. More death, especially of Jews, then better for their war aims. They love war. Nonviolence can defeat this tactic but it requires tremendous patience on the part of the Palestinians. Unfortunately, it is so easy for agent provocateurs to disrupt nonviolent tactics. Do we yet know who killed that settler thieving family?
Sorrry eee that is the war that you choose. WB settlers steal Palestinian land, they breed on that land, the natives object to the theft, and surprise and more surprise, the natives object. And people die.
The fact that these parents put their children in the front lines of this war is not our decision but it is theirs. If they want to risk their infants and children in the war for occupation of the the WB that is their choice, not the Palestinians who object.
fuster tells us the assailant is : than the guy is a Palestinian
And how do you know that?
This kind of violence is not helpful. bbc.co.uk has a short report on this incident and they finish the report with
Nearly half a million Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel's 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
They are held to be illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.
That puts the incident in some perspective. Perhaps it would be helpful if we could hear Israel's defense for why these settlements are NOT illegal under international law.
It is representative of a fellow Zionist fustur, if you do not approve of that language you should work harder to distance yourself from your comrade's rhetoric.
fuster I can see why you want to distance yourself from these statements by a fellow Zionist. But calling him an "ass" is not enough. Horowitz is an out and out racist from the same mold as those Southern senators Eastland and Thurmond (plus legions of other like-minded folk).
Horowitz may be an ass for exposing the Zionist movement for the outright racism he represents (and presumably embarrassing you while doing so) , but if you really want to distance yourself perhaps you should come out and tell us why Horowitz does not represent Zionism and, if he does, you will denounce his racism.
Lester you bring up a good point. Immediately after 911 for that brief period when this country was united in grief, shock and a desire for revenge, I reacted with terrible disappointment at my fellow Americans incredible cowardice. I hadn't attributed it to any political leanings then, but just felt that it was a symptom of this country had lost its courage.
However, today I realize that I overgeneralized in my reaction -- those were just the Zionists and Republicans showing us their character. The rest of America does still possess some of the old time virtues and deserving the moniker 'home of the brave' .
It difficult to disagree with anything Giraldi says in his piece. But I still support J Street because it a gateway movement for many American Jews. Those national conferences allow many to come together and express dissatisfaction with Israeli policies and with the destructive support American Jewish organizations give to those policies.
J Streets positions are internally contradictory and they will have to change or the whole group will become totally irrelevant. But in the meantime many American Zionists, after experiencing that process, will be in a better position to break completely their Zionist identification. So for now, J Street remains a positive movement.
thanks mrw, I tend to be a little paranoid in these matters, but have to admit that I really do not understand how it all works. So are you saying that the disruption is somewhere between the url and the google search engine?
Of course they would cite security. How else to escape from their untenable situation. The fact is that this seal was a crew member on a vessel that engaged in piracy in international waters. That is a violation of law in the US and many European countries. He could be arrested as soon as he set foot in the US. The law against piracy is well established and is recognized in the US.
Piracy violations can be litigated in tort law, so even if the US justice department decided not to act, private citizens or even foreign powers can bring cases in US courts. The Israelis know this and someone there realized that it would be foolish to send this pirate here to the US.
Nope I do not think some kids hacked the url, someone has hacked into the google search engine codes.
Yep I just got a malware infestation notices when attempting to link here. I do think that mondoweiss has been attacked at the level of the google search engines.
Mohammad, even though your post has not resulted in many comments please keep in mind that most of us here are in the US or Europe. We do follow what you say. But you describe an internal Palestinian dispute and though we can hope you prevail, it basically is a dispute with your countrymen and who we support is really quite irrelevant. But having dissociated myself from your argument, it would be so nice if the Palestinians could provide a united front against Israeli oppression.
Nope, but I bet he will never show. They know which side of the law they occupy.
fuster you wish, it most definitely fits the definition of piracy. Why do you think that this Israeli seal decided to not attend the event? Because he has good legal advice, that is why.
I think this is very good news. I believe they canceled because of legal liability. This means people like him cannot travel openly in the US and Europe. Israel uses its IDF vets to propagandize the west but now they will be hesitant to expose them to this danger. Just imagine if the side of justice managed to bag one of these thugs. The trial itself would be a great opportunity to expose Israel's crimes to the world. Many weeks of front page publicity in the host country. Yes it would be a PR disaster for Israel. Israel is much better off isolating their citizen soldiers from international exposure lest they lose the PR war. We can chalk this one up to self imposed BDS by the Israelis themselves.
That is disappointing news. I was quite excited about seeing the application of international piracy laws in this case.
But we can look forward to other possibilities in the future. Every Israeli in the chain -- from lowly crew men to the officers and officials who planned the operation are possible suspects. And the many dozens of countries around the world that signed international piracy treaties will have jurisdiction.
The US courts have jurisdiction under well established piracy laws, there is no need to send him to the Hague. The beauty of these laws is all crew members, not just the commanders, can be found guilty if their ship was engaged in an act of piracy. Two hundred years ago many an able-bodied seaman from pirate ships were found guilty and hung.
He was there. He has a story to tell.
That was true for Ted Bundy as well. But first things first: 1) incarceration and 2) tell your story to a jury.
Yes they probably can under piracy laws that have been in affect for 300 years. The US has agreed to honor those laws at least with Europen and South American countries. There are active attorneys here in the US that have handled piracy cases.
No problem. Piracy is an international crime, recognized by the US and any victim of piracy who were attacked on the high seas has jurisdiction in US courts to bring a case. They do not even have to be US citizens, only establish that a crime on high seas occurred and that the pirate is in the US. These laws go back 300 years so there is a lot of precedent as well as common legal definitions for what constitutes piracy between different Western nations.
International law is usually quite limited in its reach but in the cases of piracy on the high seas there are 200 years of precedent so many Western governments agree on what piracy means. It applies not just to commanders of pirate vessels but their crews as well.
There have been some successful cases in US courts applying piracy laws in the past 30 years. There must be some active lawyers that know this law. What a wonderful opportunity.
rw tells us:
I mean, her syntax is strained, she must be an enemy of the revolution.
No not at all, what is being pointed out is that your syntax is incomprehensible. Hess is quite clear about what she says. She quite clearly lets the reader know that she is unhappy with the way BDS is being applied. Few, have any idea what you are trying to say.
As someone who has respected Amira for many years, I do sympathize with her current situation. She has for many, many years been recognized as a voice of sanity inside Israel and for many, many years she was greeted and respected by Palestinians and other Arabs. But unfortunately, talking with Israelis has not worked. That is why we have BDS. And as tragic as this may be, many innocent Israelis will suffer. That may not seem fair but it is the only tool remaining to kick some sense into the Israeli people, even if it is poorly discriminating tool.
This can be seen as another example of the growing irrelevancy of the Israeli peace camp.
Avi deals quite reasonably with most of your post but this caught my eye:
Because of my background, though, I’m aware of the degree to which literalism has a hold on many believers, and I suspect it would be the same in the case of the Islamic world.
I can't speak for the Islamic world but my experience with many Americans of ME ancestry that follow that faith contradicts your generalization. They are very secular even if many of the women wear scarves. They believe in modern science and even evolution. Some, when I asked, admitted they were atheist (even one who attends services weekly and joins in group prayers -- he explained that it was his way of connecting with his family and traditions). This is not the "Islamic world" but relatively successful middle class and academic Americans who identify to some degree or another with that world.
Richard Cohen who called Walt and Mearsheimer antisemites for their famous essay in LRB on the lobby. It is somewhat heartening to see that there is a line this liberal Zionist is unwilling to cross.
Colin says: A good first step would be to stop ROBBING Palestinians.
That is why the Israelis are in despair. We all know their game and it will not continue. The new emerging Palestinian leadership is demanding justice and that is something the Zionist cannot accept.
Surely the Palestinians are as ready to talk as ever.
Yes but what Gelb is recognizing is that the Palestinians are no longer ready to talk about the "Peace Process". That is officially dead. Today Israel has to start talking about justice for the Palestinians and this is something that neither Gelb or the Israelis are yet ready to do.
This is why the Israelis are so depressed -- 20 years of one sided negotiations down the drain, now they have to talk about true justice.
Chaos why do you try to engage RW in rational discussion. He says:
To Israelis, the assertion of human rights combined with single state, is a very different approach than just human rights (implying human rights within the context of partition).
This makes no sense whatsoever. Why do you argue with such nonsensical rhetoric? If he lacks the ability to communicate with the rest of the English speaking world, maybe he should just be ignored.
Schmuel, thanks for this excellent analysis. This reminded me of an argument I heard from Omar Barghouti last year during a debate with an Israeli. He refused to engage in any discussion about the relative merits of a 1 or 2 state solution, or any points that had been covered in the negotiations beginning with the Oslo process. He insisted that the only issue to be discussed was justice for the Palestinians and until that was placed as the central issue then the Palestinians had no choice but to continue their resistance (non-violent, of course).
That made perfect sense to me. Over the past 20 years the PLO/PA have made concession after concession without receiving anything much in return. If negotiations started yet again at the point of "everyone knows what a final deal looks like" they will be required to make even more concessions without the basic question of justice being covered.
What Omar is arguing is that politically the Palestinians must give up the current useless diplomatic "negotiations" and return to a popular struggle for civil rights. This likely means the removal of the current PA leadership and its replacement with a younger generation of leaders who will lead from the Palestinian street. This movement plus the international BDS movement will define the outcome. How the conflict resolves itself is unpredictable so it is now premature to propose any specific solution. As Omar said (to paraphrase) 'I don't care if the final solution is one state, two state or five states, what we demand is justice'.
Shmuel's argument that all of the specific proposals currently being debated are equally improbable makes perfect sense from this perspective. We will have to wait to see the outlines of a synthesis after further political conflict (to borrow from Hegelian dialectics).
PW writes His ignorance about the borders was shocking; symptomatic, too, that he regards his ignorance as irrelevant.
That is not at all clear. I think he is not ignorant at all. There something much more revealing going on here. Basically, it has been the Zionist plan to colonize the WB from the very beginning. During the peace process it was necessary to pretend otherwise in order to delay a resolution so that more facts on the ground could be established. Those facts are in place. What we are seeing now is an open admission that the whole WB belongs to and will remain in Israel. In their arrogance they can tell the rest of the world to stuff it -- they are the determining power and they therefore have the right to determine what the facts are. All that remains for the rest of us is to ponder and analyze these new facts that they create.
Anyway that is how they are behaving and that is how Weiner is behaving. I don't think it will work but that is what we are up against.
While Annie is wiping up the floor with Hop and the frog I will return to topic. Weiner's statement caused me to hesitate for a couple of hours. What does it mean that he believes the boundaries of Israel extend from the Jordan River to the sea? Are the Zionists now finally coming entirely out of the closet and letting us goyim know that the two state peace process was in fact a charade all along to hide their real intention to colonize the WB.
After reading the failure of Camp David in 1999 and the role of Denis Ross and Michael Indyk in the peace process, I began to entertain the possibility that the Zionists forces were just playing us and their real intentions were hidden.
However, to take this idea further required entertaining the idea there was a conscious Jewish conspiracy to steal WB land that was covered up with massive lying and deception. But no, we can't go there can we for that is antisemitism.
So the question remains -- what is going on inside Weiner's head.
I continue to be impressed with those Israeli activists that carry on the good fight. Unfortunately they are a small, a very small, minority. The days when major figures like Buber and Einstein had some influence on events are long gone. As our local hasbarists are so eager to point out, the Israeli public is dominated by the racist, colonialist view that the first generation of Zionist embodied suc that change within Israel is no longer possible.
The point is that if Israel cannot correct itself, it must be forced from the outside. And the only viable outside force has to be a grassroots BDS movement in the West. Our governments cannot provide that force -- the lobby both here in the US and in Europe have too much power.
I continue to be impressed with those Israeli activists that carry on the good fight. Unfortunately they are a small, a very small, minority. The days when major figures like Buber and Einstein had some influence on events are long gone. As our local hasbarists are so eager to point out, the Israeli public is dominated by the racist, colonialist view that the first generation of Zionist embodied so change within Israel is no longer possible. The point is that if Israel cannot correct itself, it must be forced from the outside. And the only viable outside force has to be a grassroots BDS movement in the West. Our governments cannot provide that force -- the lobby both here in the US and in Europe have too much power.
Just in the last ten years or so have I become aware of how biased both the NY Times and WaPo were when it came to Israel. I attributed the change to them. But that was probably not right. I just finished "Einstein on Israel and Zionism: His Provocative Ideas About the Middle East " where the case is unambiguously made that Einstein was opposed to the formation of Israel as a Jewish state. He clearly advocated for a binational state. He thought Shamir and Begin were the equivalent of the Italian Brownshirts in no uncertain terms.
The last chapter describes Einstein's obituary in the NY Times. They unabashedly distort Einstein's views on Israel and present him as a Zionist supporter of a jewish national state. The NY Times, apparently was, if not openly, then deceptively propagandizing for Israel from at least 1948.
Kate this is not a criticism but just a observation on your posts. I have never posted a comment because the case that you (and is it Seham?) make is just too powerfully depressing to want to say anything. But that does not mean you are not having an impact. In fact I suspect that these posts are influential beyond the measure of their posted responses.
Me too.
What exactly are the settlers “furious” about? Don’t they pretty much always get their way?
That is a good question. It has puzzled me for some time. I don't have an answer but can offer a conjecture. Until now the Zionist in Israel and here in the US have provided a united front against the rest of the world. They seem to have accepted that an attack against one is an attack against all. Thus we have the case where the US lobby Zionists will mobilize the whole US government to oppose any criticism of the settler crazeball movement. But some of the more enlightened Zionist are beginning to see that the fanatics might bring down the whole house. The settlers see this hesitation on the part of the "progressives" and have decided to bring down the whole house if their American supporters waver.
This is not a new idea -- I think it is part of the Masada complex.
I’m unclear on something . . . settlers seek revenge for what? . . . Palestinians living?
At some level the settlers have a better understanding of the problem than do the "progressive" zionist. The Zionist enterprise will fail if Jews fall into a minority. They all worry about the demographic threat, but the settlers are the only ones willing to take care of the problem. Too many Arabs in the WB, then reduce those numbers. On the other hand, the progressive zionist propose a separation of the WB from Israel, but they have no plan to carry that out.
For us in the west the only thing we can do is sit back, watch in horror and back BDS.
Why should Phil waste his bandwidth on this story. I saw it at the NYT. BBC, Haaretz, the Independent and the Guardian. (my daily perusal, surely there was more) Phil has dedicated his blog to cover a story that is not covered in the American press -- the Galliano story is thoroughly covered.
It does seem that the Academy has very likely aborted the Israeli policy of deporting all of those foreign workers. Something good came out of this. Of course, at the same time it will be spun as how flexible Israel is and how its basic humanitarian impulses are sound.
But it does suggest that there are some very powerful Zionists in the US that is becoming quite uncomfortable with how far right Israel has turned. Progressive zionism may be an oxymoron but with its contradictions and all, it certainly beats the fanatical settler brand.
Fuster you are one sick froggy. You defend the right of Zionist killing Palestinians, you accept they can kill, they can kill and they can kill some more. But then, they are so moral because once in awhile they admit they may have made a mistake. But they will go on killing over and over again.
I guess the important point you defend is that Zionist are allowed to kill and kill some more as long as they occasionally admit that they may have erred here and there. Golda Meyer described this so well -- Israeli soldiers are the most moral soldiers on this planet because they cry as they slaughter their Palestinian neighbors. One amazing ideology -- folks as long as the oppressors cry as they kill their neighbors it is OK.
Somehow this reminds me of scenes from "Schnindlers List". But of course we cannot bring up this up because holocaust comparisons are not valid (unless of course, the Zionist make the comparison).
Oh wow, the hasbara are getting desperate. It is always look away, look away and now it is looking at the Pakestan/India war from 1949. Folks do not look at land theft in the the WB today, rather look at what happened in India 60 years ago.
Let us pray that the Libyan people overthrow Qadaffi soon. If not, we risk US military intervention. Where is that assassin now that we need him/her?
It is so obvious that his regime has collapsed. It seems that his forces now only control parts of Tripoli. But as long as he supports this much real estate it opens the door for the US to intervene.
The left's answer to US military intervention in Libya should be obvious to any student of US imperial intervention in the third world. Stay out! Once those forces check in they do do not checkout. Give them an excuse and once they have a foot in the door it cannot be removed. They got their excuse in Afghanistan and today after 10 years of war we cannot withdraw -- why? because then it might be perceived that we have failed to achieve our goals and that will only embolden our enemies. Therefore, American troops and many thousands of Afghanis must die to make sure that the US saves face there. We are in Iraq (after killing about 1 million of them) and still cannot withdraw because it might be perceived as a failure of US policy. The more than 1 million dead Iraqs is about 3% of their entire population, so far Qhadaffi has killed a few thousand, that is less than .03% of their population. When it comes to killing people, Ghadaffi is an amateur compared to what the US is capable of doing.
Those people that believe the US should intervene in Libya are either total fools or believe it is the right of the US to exterminate the Muslim people. Because, if we intervene that will be the result.
eee yet again allows his psychotic impulses to show. "arabs of Israel submit or you will be expelled". His desire to see the expulsion is almost palpable.
Sorry boob, the Arabs, both inside and outside the green line, will continue to demand justice and will continue to resist your racist policies. And in the meantime we will hear your whines "this is antisemitism" or "remember the holocaust" but the outcome is fore ordained -- the Palestinian people will achieve justice in a ME state that recognizes the rights of its Jewish, Christian and Muslim citizens. A state where the word 'Zionism" will be some meaningless word in the preamble of one of the minority parties that compete for political power. Now that is a future state I could support.
Seham and Shingo
I think you over estimate the effectiveness of missiles armed with classical explosives. They are basically terror weapons against civilians and relatively easy to defend against (simple bomb shelters). With a disciplined population they really are not that effective. What exactly did the Germans accomplish bombing England during WWII -- not very much.
Of course, the less disciplined and more sensible Israelis will be heading for the exits, but they are not the problem.
They can’t use nukes, can you imagine what the “day after” looks like if Israel uses nukes in response to missiles? Be real. You basically are arguing here that the use of nuclear weapons is unthinkable so don't think about it. I know that the Israeli fanatics in WB settlements think about it. I heard one (reserve officer as well) in a heated argument make the threat explicit. Moshe Dayan certainly wanted the whole world to know that they were thinking about it.
I agree mostly but not with But they cant, as you say – they’re cornered.
That is when they will be most dangerous. Think about it. In a few years, more and more Ashkenazie Jews decide to exercise their rights afforded them by their second passports. The demographic nightmare -- Arabs become the majority. The anti-apartheid movement and BDS finally kicks in with the EU, all of the third world and increasingly Asia refuses to trade. The country is now run by the remaining fanatics and fundamentalists that make up the current ultra-right. They are armed with something like 400 nuclear weapons. And cornered like a rat.
I really do not see much good coming out of this.
Seham as much as I appreciate your passion, I have to say that your sense of the military balance of power in the ME is incorrect. Israel can and will engage in military violence against its neighbors for the foreseeable future and her neighbors will not be able to engage in a unified military response. That is a simple balance of military power. Israel is the only player that is armed with nuclear weapons and they have made it clear to the world that they will use them. They have the ability to kill 100s of millions. Not just that but the world's only superpower has committed itself to support them if the military balance falls out of Israel's favor.
These are simple undeniable facts of international reality. eee knows this, you can hear him lusting in his psychopathic imagination for a united Arab military response so Israel can unleash the ultimate dogs of war.
What a unitied Arab world can do, however, is to refuse to have any dealings with Israel. They can use their influence to support BDS, and with all of that oil they could have some real influence there. Israel can be more and more isolated from the rest of the world, and economically undermined, but war is not the way.
There will be more painful moments like operation cast lead and frustrations will run high. But violent reactions are what Israel needs to justify further violence. Peaceful witnessing of their atrocities are the patient response.
This is obviously Israeli policy in action. Slow motion ethnic cleansing. I note that none of his grown children are interested in protecting the land. They have left, it seems, the WB entirely. Can you blame them? If I had a choice of a real life somewhere else or perpetual war with fanatical settlers and soldiers of the IDF what would it be?
Tree just finished reading the Donald Neff article (in full at the link). Quite a story. There is one thing in that story that really stuck out. And that is the willingness of Israelis to lie to outsiders to cover up crimes against the Palestinians. And this was from people that were Neff's close colleagues and personal friends. In some cases "lying" might be too strong a word but willful denial of reality is not.
But the bottom line is that Israelis, especially officials but regular citizens as well should not be believed. This might sound extremely harsh, but the evidence is just too over whelming to accept otherwise.
And this activist has the right to ask the froggy to go play with the water snake you self-righteous twit.
Antidote, please do consult your friends in engineering. There is nothing that happened that day that cannot be explained by the physics and thermodynamics of a hot kerosene fire weakening structural steel. But please do not encourage the 911 truther fools, they have their own sites dedicated to ghosts, ufos and such to play at.
eee you can deflect the answers all you want but for those of us who were against the invasion of Iraq in 2003 have learned -- we lost that battle because of Israel. Their lobby here in the US had much more power than the millions of us who mobilized on the streets. We lost that one. There is nothing we can do to prevent that war. What we must do is to identify what made that war possible. And that is Zionism and Israel. Today, that needs to be central to our thinking or these forces will pull us into another of their crazy wars.
Do you understand eee -- we are trying to prevent the next war. And, as was pointed out above, all roads to that war lead towards Jerusalem.
I would prefer to think I pay taxes and vote in a nation that behaves honorably.
Me to. But I recognize that I live in a nation behaves otherwise.
The stuxnet virus story has had one very positive outcome. Threats of war against Iran from both the US and Israel has declined considerably. If the whole story was concocted just to allow us to save face then that is OK with me.
The proposal could be supported with a few caveats.
Those actions would have to be initiated and executed by nations from Africa and/or the Arab world. No US or NATO troops.
The fact that this proposal come from Wolfowitz is highly relevant. He has zero credibility in this department and if it was a serious proposal he should have had the good sense to keep his name off of it. As is it will only bring on hoots of derision.
Chaos haven't you noticed by now? RW has a general comprehension problem. He really does have difficulty thinking clearly.
What the hell are you talking about?
Obviously he is referring to one of the eee ravings of violence fantasies. Even if you guys are on his side we realize that you have not descended into the depths of sociopathy that poor eee has.
hopni you are becoming irrational. Is that the hysterical reaction as you slowly realize that current Israeli policies are unsustainable.
Now if McEwan is shunned by fellow writers after he returns to Europe then maybe he will serve as a useful lesson for other intellectuals and academics who continue to collaborate with their Israeli colleagues. This is very difficult to do -- I find it hard given that I have a number of Israeli colleagues that I genuinely like and respect. I sort of compromise -- will not travel to Israel but will meet with them in Europe.
Admirable people to be sure but their numbers are so small. Didn't 200,000 demonstrate in Tel Aviv against the invasion of Lebanon in 1982? The peace movement in Israel is in reverse, at least in terms of numbers.
eee yet again engaging in one of his fantasies imagining the horrors Israel can unleash on the Palestinians if they continue to resist. Last week he was almost to the point of orgasm creating a scenario where Israel retakes the Sinai slaughtering Arabs as they storm to the Suez.
You are aware, are you not, that continuous violence fantasies are a symptom of an unhealthy mind? Here we are talking about nonviolent resistance for justice and you respond with violent threats. You also exude the signs of powerless inferiority, one who can only attain self esteem in sadistic fantasies against innocent victims.
It remains difficult to see what the Israeli's think they will occomplish. Of course the pressure on the village must be considerable but the price that is being paid has to be very high. Not just bad publicity but a bigger cost is the hatred these acts will engender in the hearts of the Palestinians and especially in those children when they become adults. Hatred could very well be a consequence of these actions but perhaps this is the desired result.
That is Israel needs hatred to justify its war against the Arabs. Once hatred takes over and violence results then Israel knows how to deal in violence. It is non-violence that they are having trouble handling. A few hundred dead Israelis each year as a result of terrorism would, in the minds of the IDF, be a small price to pay as long as they could return to their own comfort zone of perpetual war.
ps Robert Fisk is also confused about the meaning of the withdrawal of troops and police from the roundabout in Bahrain:
link to independent.co.uk
Fisk is probably the most knowledgeable Western journalist working the ME and if he is puzzled it means there is a puzzle.
Annie you miss my point. I do not support the suppression. I do not believe that US foreign policy in the ME as practiced over the last half century has been in the interests of either the American or Arab people. My attempt at analysis is from the perspective of "US interests" as defined by our actual foreign policy, misguided as it may be. From that perspective, Obama could be radically departing from our traditional practices. Below, CK links to more information showing Obama's support for the people in the streets.
As I said above In short these events are very confusing. Theory of US imperialism 101 is not providing a useful framework for making sense of any of this. Could this mean that Obama is actually placing higher priority on a democratic power transition at the expense of US imperial interests? To soon to say but this could get interesting.
Watching the bravery of those demonstrators walking towards that row of tanks, knowing full well they could be fired upon, is breath taking. And then seeing the outcome is so tragic. Then today they were back and again marched into the roundabout. I could not do this. They deserve our respect.
If Obama's phone call last night to the king was the reason the troops allowed today's demonstration to proceed then kudos to Obama. These are dangerous times for US policy in the region -- unchecked demonstrations could result in the fall of another US puppet.
A democratic Bahrain would mean another Shiite led government. There is no way that this could be interpreted as a victory for US interests. I really thought this morning that we would let the Sunni King do what was needed to suppress the people. After all, his army is dominated by Sunnis so there would be little fear of a military revolt as happened in Egypt. In short these events are very confusing. Theory of US imperialism 101 is not providing a useful framework for making sense of any of this.
In recent months I have also noticed that comments in the NYT over IP issues seem to running about 5 to 10 to 1 in support of justice for the Palestinians. Someone, somewhere must notice.
Of course these are not scientific polls, it is simply a measure of views of the most educated and literate. But shouldn't our opinions count?
I heard Omar debate Shaul Moaz last year. He was incredible. He is a very disciplined debater and remained on message. He wants justice for the Palestinians, it could in principle be obtained in a one-state, two-state or more states solution. But the bottom line is justice. And that is not negotiable. Since justice does not seem to be on the negotiations table at this time the Palestinians have no choice but resistance. He, of course, is an advocate of non-violent resistance. I think this was the most one sided debate I have ever witnessed. Poor Moaz was left sputtering a few angry diatribes before it was over. He actually argued at one point that resistance was futile and the Palestinians must accept what is being offered.
I can see why the Zionists want to keep this guy out of the US. He is very persuasive in English. If anyone thinks that the US embassy in Tel Aviv is not a Zionist institution have not been paying attention to what has happened in our State Department these past decades.
Huckabee is no fool. Christian Zionists are part of his political base and he will need them in the primaries. But the main reason for his extreme statements with respect to Israel is that it resonates with some very rich American Zionists. He is seeking donations. Since every presidential candidate has already paid obeisance to Israel the Huck is just trying to stand out in the crowd.
triple e has dominated this thread but it is instructive. Notice the Hasbara talking point -- rock throwing is violence. Gandhi would not approve. Therefore, Israel is free to unleash state violence against rock throwing children. Israel, who in this one example, is upholding Gandhian principles of non violence as justification of their own violence. I mentioned this before but has anyone noticed -- the Zionists are now experts on Gandhian nonviolent principles especially when they can be used to justify the oppression of the Palestinians.
Anyone who followed the Tahrir square demonstrations must know that the antigovernment demonstrators engaged in some very heavy duty rock throwing. But those demonstrators are now being held up heroes of the Egyptian uprising as they should be. Even the US government is now praising them. And furthermore they are being praised for their restraint and non violence, as they should be.
This is the double standard. The Palestinians are being held to impossible standards and that despicable human triple e is out in force to tell us all why Palestinian children deserve their punishment. And I do hope that Gandhi's disciples among the "liberal Zionist" know enough to shut up about now.
It is very difficult to see what the Israel's believe they are accomplishing by attacking the children like this. Of course the pressure on the village must be considerable but the price that is being paid has to be very high. Namely, bad publicity but that is not something Israel seems not to care too much about. The biggest cost is the hatred these acts will engender in the hearts of the Palestinians and especially in those children when the become adults. Hatred could very well be a consequence of these actions but perhaps they are the ultimate reason for them.
That is Israel needs hatred to justify its war against the Arabs. Once hatred takes over and violence results then Israel knows how to deal in violence. It is non-violence that they are having trouble handling. A few hundred dead Israelis each year as a result of terrorism would, in the minds of the IDF, be a small price to pay as long as they could return to their own comfort zone of perpetual war.
Which poor Gorbachev learned so dramatically.
Over the last 20 years, first Arafat then Abbas made a number of concessions to the Israelis in those never ending negotiations called the "peace process". The Israelis agreed to nothing. But do notice the pattern that has emerged -- the Palestinian side threw out a large number of ideas on things that they would be willing to concede. Have you noticed a pattern here? At each step it is understood that the earlier concessions that the Palestinian negotiators offered become the base line for future negotiations. That is, their un-reciprocated concessions are accepted by Israel (and, of course, the American "even handed" intermediates) and become the starting point for the next round of negotiations. Israel gives nothing, the Palestinians give more and more. This process must stop.
The next round of negotiations must begin with the 1967 borders and the ROR as the base line. All 500,000 thousand settlers in the WB will be negotiating chips, not just the 50,000 Olmert agreed to. This is the new reality that has left Israel in such a panic over the last month.
I too appreciate Slater's comments. By openly discussing his ideas he reveals, it seems to me, the inherent contradictions of liberal Zionism. This has been well covered above by others.
There was one surprise here for me and that was his feeling that the Palestinians will have to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. Apparently the Israeli public now demands that before they will sign off on a peace treaty. This strikes me as gratuitously insulting to the Palestinians. They of all the people of the world are being asked to make such a recognition. I am sure, Israel will not demand this of Europe and the US. What will they do if they are refused? Cut off diplomatic relations? No this is just reserved for the Palestinians. Perhaps the Israelis will insist that only those countries that recognize Israel after a certain date will have accept the Jewish state part. In that case, it will mean that the majority of Arab and Muslim states will be forced to accept this condition. And, in any way you cut it, it is a condition where that recognition means that Christian and Muslim Israelis have a lessor status than do Jews. It will be a license for discrimination.
There is a feeling that I have had for the last two days that I sense others have also but I have not yet seen it discussed explicitly. I feel today that the chances of war in the ME are today considerably less than they were on January 25th. Somehow the remarkably peaceful ending to Egypt uprising has reduced the chances of war.
Not sure why that should so, but we can consider some conjectures.
Such things as 'feelings' and 'senses' are quite unreliable so there may be nothing here but hopeful optimism. But if there is more consider some of the worst hotspots. Last summer J Goldberg was rattling the sabers of war against Iran insisting if the US didn't bomb then Israel would. More recently, there was a number of dark hints in the Israeli press that there would be another war against Lebanon. These stories were coming straight out of the IDF. The third flash point is Gaza -- always a target for Israeli aggression. Today it just seems inconceivable that Israel would launch attacks against any of these targets. Certainly not with the whole world basking in the glow of the ultimately peaceful resolution in Egypt.
Of course they will continue with their oppressive tactics in the WB and the occasional bombing here and assassination there, but they will be very reluctant to engage in some spectacular military aggression. And when Egypt breaks the Gaza siege, there is really nothing Israel will be able to do but fume in its own isolation. This may be one of the big changes brought in by the revolution in Egypt.
Yet still you maintain Israel is more dangerous.
Look at the historic trend line.
1) In 1948 Israel declares war on the Arab and moslem world that predictably would last many generations if not centuries.
2) They settle 80% of all Jews in a small area called greater Tel Aviv -- a size that can be measured in a few atomic bomb blast radii.
3) Now the kicker -- they introduce atomic weapons into their unending war! Didn't they learn that old lesson -- he who lives in glass houses should avoid rock fights.
But at one level I agree with you -- Israeli Jews (at least of Western origins) will not perish in such an atomic war. They will know, probably better than anyone else, when it is time to run. That is how the Zionist dream ends.
I agree with most people here that "liberal zionism" is an oxymoron. It is an ideology that cannot survive its internal contradictions. It is why the ultra right in Israel logically has the better argument. Basically, if you accept Zionism you better be prepared to engage in perpetual war and oppression in order to protect it. But I still cannot criticize Beinhart for his views. I see him and people like him on a path where justice eventually triumphs over Zionism. It is asking too much for them to accept Braverman's thesis in one full swoop.
Not nice.