Trending Topics:

Netanyahu bats away Dershowitz’s suggestion of settlement freeze

News
on 29 Comments

Even Alan Dershowitz must be worried about Israel destroying itself. He calls for a partial settlement freeze to advance the peace process, in the Wall Street Journal, and says he discussed the idea with a high-ranking Israeli.

The piece reflects the usual pigginess about Palestinian land:

There would be no Israeli building in those areas likely to become part of a Palestinian state. There would be no limit on Israeli building within areas likely to remain part of Israel.

I recently proposed this idea to a high-ranking Israeli official. His initial reaction was mostly positive, but he insisted that it would be difficult to impose an absolute building freeze in any areas in which Israelis currently live….

I reminded him that Mr. Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that Israel is prepared to make “painful compromises” in the interests of peace. An absolute building freeze would be such a painful but necessary compromise.

But here’s Haaretz correspondent Barak Ravid’s twitter feed today.

PM Netanyahu: “we are a government who respects the rule of law and strengthening the settlements – there is no contradiction between the 2”

Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

29 Responses

  1. Woody Tanaka on June 4, 2012, 1:19 pm

    Wonder if this will make the Dersh-bag question his loyalty or whether he’ll do a Fredblogs-style doublethink job and come out loving Big Bibi?

    • eljay on June 4, 2012, 1:50 pm

      >> Wonder if this will make the Dersh-bag question his loyalty …

      He’ll just find a way to “prove” that strengthening the settlements IS respecting the rule of law. And once he’s “proven” it, anyone who disagrees will be branded an anti-Semite.

  2. hophmi on June 4, 2012, 1:34 pm

    Dershowitz has been a critic of the settlements for years. Why is it so difficult for you to admit that?

    • Woody Tanaka on June 4, 2012, 2:09 pm

      He’s not critical of the settlements, even now. He envisions some remaining instead of all the Israelis going back behind the green lines where they belong. You want to say that he is critical of “some” settlements, that’s arguable But to say that he is critical of “the” settelements is a flat out lie. (Case in point: show one citation where the Dersh-bag opposed the settlements in Arab East Jerusalem. If he was critical of “the” settlements, it should be easy.)

    • Koshiro on June 4, 2012, 3:34 pm

      He has been “critical” of settlements in the same way the US government is “critical” of them. Offering meek, vapid and entirely ineffective verbal “criticism” while otherwise using every trick in the book to make sure Israel can go on colonizing at its leisure.

      Note that even if Dershowitz was actually opposed to the settlements, that would not make him any less of a pathological liar and sociopathic monster.

      • evets on June 4, 2012, 4:32 pm

        I don’t think Dershowitz was as ‘meek and vapid’ on this issue years ago, though he certainly swung hard to the right in recent years. He may have swung so hard that he scared himself. Or the thuggishness he denounced at the Jeruslaem Post conference may have shaken him up a bit, caused him to look in the mirror. Or at his erstwhile comrades-in -arms.

  3. eljay on June 4, 2012, 1:45 pm

    >> PM Netanyahu: “we are a government who respects the rule of law and strengthening the settlements – there is no contradiction between the 2”

    Rapist: I am a man who respects the rule of law and raping to my heart’s content. There is no contradiction between the two.

  4. American on June 4, 2012, 2:11 pm

    PM Netanyahu: “we are a government who respects the rule of law and strengthening the settlements – there is no contradiction between the 2”

    rotflmao…..
    It really is freakish….informed people see their constant fictitious statements like this and it’s so freaky to even average intelligence it’s jaw dropping.
    I don’t think anyone is really shocked any longer at the stuff that comes out of zios though, we, or at least I, now regard them as some sort of aliens on planet earth.
    We ought to start calling Israel Area 51.

  5. YoungMassJew on June 4, 2012, 4:05 pm

    correct Koshiro, couldn’t have said it better myself, one wonders how Douche-bag-a-witz, the plagerizing professor, gets to keep his job at Harward?

  6. tombishop on June 4, 2012, 4:05 pm

    Norman Finkelstein was on Democracy Now! Monday morning:
    “Norman Finkelstein: Waning Jewish American Support for Israel Boosts Chances for Middle East Peace”
    http://www.democracynow.org/2012/6/4/norman_finkelstein_waning_jewish_american_support

    While pointing out the waning support for Israel in the Jewish Comminity, he continued his attack on BDS. He said people must adapt to the current consciousness of people if they want to win them over and therefore the tactics of BDS are “criminal” at this time.

    I find his position baffling as he has spent most of his life not adapting to the current consciousness of people but making a principled defense of the Palestinians. Now that the one state solution is being discussed as a possible solution by some, given the ethnic cleansing going on in the West Bank, he finds it necessary to attack people who take a principled defense of the one state solution as the only way to defend the Palestinians.

    Is there a drawing together of Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz, who wants curbs on settler activity, coming from opposite sides of the political spectrum based on their agreement of their desire for a two-state solution?

    • lysias on June 4, 2012, 4:16 pm

      Finkelstein said he now sees a reasonable possibility for what he would consider a reasonable solution to the Israel/Palestine dispute (two states; solution to right of return through either return or compensation,) and he doesn’t want supporters of a solution to be marginalized through excessive demands.

      I think that’s probably bad tactics. Time is now on the Palestinians’ side, and what might appear today to a lot of people to be excessive demands will, I think, in a few years just be common sense. That, after all, is what happened in Algeria, among other places.

  7. YoungMassJew on June 4, 2012, 4:38 pm

    *Harvard

  8. Sumud on June 4, 2012, 8:37 pm

    Israel is so ‘innovative’ it has superseded basic logic:

    Netanyahu: we are a government who respects the rule of law and strengthening the settlements – there is no contradiction between the 2

    Livni as exposed by AJ’s Palestine Papers: I was the Minister of Justice. I am a lawyer… But I am against law – international law in particular. Law in general.

  9. on June 4, 2012, 11:54 pm

    Cheap electioneering by Netanyahoo:
    “I’m even more radical, more suicidal than the well-known SS Dershowitz! Vote for me!”

  10. moonkoon on June 5, 2012, 3:50 am

    PM Netanyahu: “we are a government who respects the rule of law and strengthening the settlements – there is no contradiction between the 2”

    Bibi’s “have your cake and eat it too” rationalization of “settlement” expansion on occupied land is eerily reminiscent of Stalin’s statement to the 1930 Soviet party congress where he established his version of “the struggle of opposites” (which he dubbed the diamat, short for dialectical materialism) as the the philosophical basis for his totalitarian regime.

    “We stand for the withering away of the state. At the same time we stand for the… strongest state power that has ever existed… Is this “contradictory”? Yes, it is contradictory. But this contradiction… fully reflects Marx’s dialectics.
    – Stalin, Soviet party congress, June 1930

  11. Blake on June 5, 2012, 5:36 am

    “Painful promises” how melodramatic. It ALL belongs to the Palestinians. How would giving back what you stole be so painful? Surely it would mean a clearer conscience and peace through justice? Enlighten me to the zionist mindset please Fred? Hopmi? OlegR? anyone?

  12. hophmi on June 5, 2012, 6:57 am

    It ALL belongs to us every bit as it ALL belongs to them. That’s why it’s a land conflict. You will get nowhere denying my people’s right to self-determination.

    • eljay on June 5, 2012, 7:47 am

      >> It ALL belongs to us every bit as it ALL belongs to them.

      It does not all belong to the Palestinians, and even less so does it “all belong” to Jews from around the world.

      >> You will get nowhere denying my people’s right to self-determination.

      “Your people” did not self-determine. They migrated to Palestine and used terrorism and ethnic cleansing – among other things – to create an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state.

      Your hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist indignation is laughable.

    • RoHa on June 5, 2012, 8:29 am

      “It ALL belongs to us every bit as it ALL belongs to them.”

      Who is “us”? If you mean “Jews in general”, how on earth can any part of Palestine “belong to” an Australian who was born and raised in Australia, has never left Australia, and has no legal ownership of any part of Palestine.?

      “You will get nowhere denying my people’s right to self-determination.”

      We have already shown that this idea that “peoples” have the right of self-determination (in the sense of the right to create a state) is a fantasy.

      You have done nothing to show the contrary.

      • MHughes976 on June 5, 2012, 9:40 am

        Your persistent questioning of this strange idea of ‘self-determination of peoples’ has been very valuable, RoHa. No substantial reply – even in the form of a consistent definition around which some rational discussion could start – has been elicited, as far as I can see.
        For my part, I can’t see how the idea of group rights is consistent with the idea of individual rights.

      • hophmi on June 5, 2012, 3:18 pm

        You have done nothing to show that self-determination means anything if it is not in the context of state, a la the Kosovar Albanians, the Serbs, the East Timorese, the Indians, and the Pakistanis, all of whom exercised self-determination by achieving statehood.

        Self -determination is inextricably linked to SOVEREIGNTY.

        Your denial of my people’s right of self-determination shows your real aim, which is simply to undo 1948 and substitute one people’s right for another through a one-state solution rather than recognizing the rights of both peoples through a two-state solution, a two-state solution that is based in international law, as Mr. Finkelstein pointed out.

        You just want to re-fight 1948, because you lost the first time. Everybody in the international community understands that. No one falls for the pretense that those who want a one-state solution are interested in anything other than reversing the 1948 War and pretending it didn’t happen. The Arabs who support the Palestinians do so for that reason, not because of any notion of democratic justice; most of the their societies have no real semblance of democracy. It isn’t about correctly historical injustice either, because most countries have historical injustices of their own that they will never deal with. It is simply a political land conflict, where one side has repeated tried to vanquish the other and repeatedly lost.

        BDS is simple another tactic, an old one that the Arabs tried for decades to isolate Israel, now the province mostly of cultish Western activists, to reverse 1948 and try and undo my people’s right to self-determination. It’s another tactic that emphasizes once again that the pro-Palestinian community is more eager to tear down the achievements of others rather than accomplish something by themselves or promote any positive achievements in Palestine. It is sad, and it will fail like all the other tactics tried over the years.

      • eljay on June 5, 2012, 3:38 pm

        >> Your denial of my people’s right of self-determination …

        Self-determination is what people of a region do, with the intention of creating a sovereign state of and for all the citizens of that region, equally.

        Shipping Jews from around the world to Palestine in order to create – by means of terrorism and ethnic cleansing – an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state is not “self-determination”, it’s an unjust and immoral abomination.

        And you continue defend this abomination because you are a hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist.

      • Woody Tanaka on June 5, 2012, 4:20 pm

        “No one falls for the pretense that those who want a one-state solution are interested in anything other than reversing the 1948 War and pretending it didn’t happen.”

        Screw you, hoppy. I am for the one-state solution solely because I don’t believe that every individual has the right to participate in the government that controls their lives and the Jews controlling Palestine have demonstrated that they are unwilling to return to the 1967 lines. If they insist on keeping the land, then the people there have a right to participate in that government. The nonsense that I want to “reverse the 1948 War” is bullshit. I don’t give a shit who won what war. I care about people getting their rights now. If the Israelis want to maintain their ethno-racist state, then pull back to the 1967 lines stop being Pharoah to the Palestinians. If they aren’t willing to do that, then screw the israeli’s self-determination. It’s ike being concerned with the self-determination of the rapist over his victim.

        So if “your people” don’t give a shit about the Palestinians’ self-determination, and they don’t, then why should I give a shit about their self-determination?

      • hophmi on June 5, 2012, 4:36 pm

        “Screw you, hoppy.”

        THERE’s a grown-up response.

        “I am for the one-state solution solely because I don’t believe that every individual has the right to participate in the government that controls their lives and the Jews controlling Palestine have demonstrated that they are unwilling to return to the 1967 lines. ”

        The two-state solution is not in conflict with that idea.

        “If they insist on keeping the land, then the people there have a right to participate in that government.”

        But the people do not want to be part of Israel.

        “So if “your people” don’t give a shit about the Palestinians’ self-determination, and they don’t, then why should I give a shit about their self-determination?”

        I disagree. If Israel didn’t give a shit, they would have annexed the West Bank and not spent a decade negotiating.

      • Woody Tanaka on June 5, 2012, 4:42 pm

        That should have read:

        “I am for the one-state solution solely because I don’t believe that every individual has the right to participate in the government that controls their lives”

      • Woody Tanaka on June 5, 2012, 6:14 pm

        “THERE’s a grown-up response.”

        If you want a different response, then shove the bigoted “the only people who want a one-state solution want to reverse 1948” horseshit.

        “The two-state solution is not in conflict with that idea.”

        And when the Jews controlling the israeli state agree to that, then you’re point might be meaningful. But they’ve shown over the past 4 decades that they aren’t serious about it. They’ve not even acknowledged the Arab Peace Plan, an overly pro-Israeli plan than justice would demand.

        So based on the stiff-neckedness of the Israelis, yes, it’s not in conflict with the 2-state solution. BFD. Neither is a proposal that aliens from another solar system come down and open an inter-dimensional portal so that both people can occupy the same land at the same time. The way that the cancer of the colonialist settler pigs is spreading, it’s about as likely to happen.

        “But the people do not want to be part of Israel.”

        Then the Israelis need to get the fuck off their land.

        “I disagree. If Israel didn’t give a shit, they would have annexed the West Bank and not spent a decade negotiating.”

        Are you stupid or do you think everyone else is stupid? Because they haven’t annexed the West Bank de jure (in fact they have, de facto. They haven’t de jure because by doing so it lets them oppress the Palestinians, which they apparently love to do) because then they couldn’t do the whole “it’s okay that we strip them of human rights and destroy their lives and the lives of their children and have for generations, based solely on their ethnicity, because they’re not ‘citizens'” nonsense.

      • RoHa on June 5, 2012, 10:52 pm

        “You have done nothing to show that self-determination means anything if it is not in the context of state”

        I am not sure that it does mean anything if it is not in the context of a state. I have grave doubts that the idea of group rights, of rights for “peoples”, is coherent. So I am not trying to “substitute one people’s right for another”.

        But when you say “my people” I think you are referring to Jews in general. And yet you are, I think, an American. What is it that makes you regard Jews as “my people” rather than Americans?

      • talknic on June 6, 2012, 7:54 am

        hophmi June 5, 2012 at 3:18 pm

        “Your denial of my people’s right of self-determination shows your real aim”

        Uh? Israel was declared . Came into effect May 15th 1948. A Jewish State. Every day since, Israel has been “outside of the State of Israel” in Palestine. Neither Israel or Jews or anyone else has a right to illegally acquire Palestinian or any other territory, illegally settle, illegally annex.

    • seafoid on June 5, 2012, 8:43 am

      Reduce their incomes via BDS and see how many Israeli Jews want to self determine in Israel . It was never “Jewish land”. Ashkenazi land was always in Galut. We can’t trace the Sephardim back either.

Leave a Reply