I wish this was a joke, but it’s not. Here’s a portion of an email promoting the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs. The actual articles are here. The email promotion (emphasis mine):
“The Problem is Palestinian Rejectionism” by Yosef Kuperwasser and Shalom Lipner and “Israel’s Bunker Mentality” by Ronald Krebs A heated debate over the source of Israel’s greatest threat, pitting two senior Israeli officials against a liberal American Zionist, as they lock horns over whether hard-line Palestinians or hard-line Israelis are to blame for the impasse in the peace process.
Isn’t this like ‘pitting’ a ram and a ewe? P.S. Foreign Affairs is edited by Gideon Rose, son of Zionist philanthropist Daniel Rose. Editor Rose must be given credit for running Ali Abunimah.
So it’s going to be a heated debate between three people who agree with each other? Oh boy, I wonder how these amateur actors — such as they are — will pull this off. Better make it an Off, Off, Off, Off, Off Broadway production.
Keeping it tribal. Without that ‘qualification’ one cannot participate in debate, but everyone can share the bill!
Followed by visions of yet more bleating lambs in spring.
Now that spans the political spectrum from A to B!
it may be the case that diehard zios only listen to other zios. from the ‘liberal zionist’ article:
whatever works…
Sorry if I appear naïve but I would be grateful for some elucidation of this ‘Jewish State’ business.
Am I right in thinking that their claim is that the definition of Israel’s borders and the independence of those otherwise living in Palestine depends upon the latter recognising Israel as a Jewish state?
If so, what exactly is a Jewish State? I understand what an Islamic state is with its socio-political evolution rooted in the Islamic code of conduct. But this doesn’t appear to be what a Jewish state means either in practice or in the context of negotiating borders and peace with the Palestinians. I see how Israel might reasonably define itself as a Jewish state within the 1948 borders since they were established under international law and presumably those living there can call themselves whatever they like. Is the Israeli position that wherever, and by whatever means, they extend their authority the area becomes ipso facto a Jewish state?
Also I do not understand how a Jewish state can have anything to do with the biblical account of the entry of the Hebrews into the area since the concept of statehood is a 19th century European notion and did not exist in the time of Joshua. In any event, surely borders have to be defined before any decision can be made as to what should go on within them.
Finally, if I have not exhausted your patience, would the Palestinians be prepared to accept a ‘Jewish State’ within the 1948 borders? And if not, why not?