Trending Topics:

Latest DC mantra: The two-state solution is dead, long live the two-state solution!

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 59 Comments
355026
Israeli Economic Minister Naftali Bennett (above) on the two-state solution: “Never in the annals of Israel have so many people expended so much energy on something so futile.” (Photo: Reuters)

This post is part of Marc H. Ellis’s “Exile and the Prophetic” feature for Mondoweiss. To read the entire series visit the archive page.

Yesterday Haaretz reported on the end of the Two State solution to the Israel/Palestine crisis – again.

Today it’s the New York Times.

It’s become a media mantra: Is the Two State solution dead? Is the Two State solution dead?

Breathe in. Breathe out. We might be in for a decade or two of this.

The problem is that the media – and politicians like the Secretary of Pandering, John Kerry – are afraid of the next line. If the Two State solution is over, what’s next?

Actually the Secretary of Pandering is quite specific about what happens next, albeit in coded language. Decoded: “Without a Two State solution, Israel will be swamped by them. Believe me, none of us want that.”

This time out Haaretz cites three principles, Israeli Economic Minister, Naftali Bennett, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Saeb Erekat, Chief Palestinian negotiator. Of the three involved, who is telling the truth?

The idea of establishing a Palestinian state in the Land of Israel has reached a “dead end,” Economy Minister Naftali Bennett said on Monday, as the double-talk from the government regarding the conflict with the Palestinians continued.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu distanced himself from the comments, but the Palestinian chief negotiator said they were “part of Israel’s plan to destroy any possibility for a Palestinian state.”

Bennett is expansive and expresses himself with bravado. Haaretz quotes Bennett:

We need to move on from trying to persuade that a Palestinian state isn’t appropriate to behaving like this idea is behind us. Everyone who wanders around Judea and Samaria knows that what they say in the corridors of Annapolis and Oslo is detached from reality. Today there are 400,000 Israeli residents of Judea and Samaria and another 250,000 in eastern Jerusalem.

Do you remember when the Israeli settler population passed the 100,000 mark? 200,000? Now confirmed by a government minister the number has passed 650,000.

This brings me back to the good old days – 25 years ago and counting – when Progressive Jews told those to the left of them not to exaggerate, the occupation would end soon and the settlers, all of whom were religious fanatics, would be brought to heel by the Israeli government: So why are you spreading (self-hating/anti-Semitic) lies that the occupation is permanent?

Or the good old days – a decade ago and counting – when Israeli Consulate officials told us privately and lectured us publically that the Wall wasn’t permanent: So why are you spreading (self-hating/anti-Semitic) lies that the Wall is another form of Israeli expansion and a further ghettoization of Palestinians?

Listen once more to Bennett. Emphasizing that the establishment of a Palestinian state is a waste of time and stating that the Palestinians right to self-determination or a state of their own between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is spurious, Bennett exclaims: “Never in the annals of Israel have so many people expended so much energy on something so futile.”

So futile. So much energy expended. Is Bennett telling the truth?

After all, if Bennett is telling the truth, not only about what he wants, but the reality of the situation, that there is never going to be a Palestinian state – and if we realize at the same time that there is never going to be one state for Jews and Palestinians as equal citizens but there is already the one state Bennett enunciates – Israel controlling from Tel Aviv to the Jordan River – then the futility is obvious.

Here’s Netanyahu “contradicting” Bennett: “Foreign policy is shaped by the prime minister and my view is clear. I will seek a negotiated settlement where you’d have a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state.”

Saeb Erekat cites this as “double talk.” According to Erekat it’s “part of Israel’s plan to destroy any possibility for a Palestinian state.”

I return to Bennett’s comment: “Never in the annals of Israel have so many people expended so much energy on something so futile.”

An intriguing statement. Is futility the truth?

Initially, I wondered if when Bennett speaks of the “annals of Israel,” he’s talking about Israel’s double talk or those in Israel who want a Two State solution. Either way it’s a relatively small short span of history. Or is his reference to the “annals of Israel” the people Israel. That’s a much longer a span of history and quite a different perspective.

Bennett seems to be talking about both: “It must be said that this land has been ours for 3,000 years. There was never a Palestinian state here and we were never occupiers. The house is ours and we are residents here, not the occupiers.”

Bennett has Palestinians coming and going. He also has Jews of Conscience coming and going. Or does he?

There’s always a prophetic wild card in the Jewish deck Bennett is – truthfully – dealing from.

When it turns up, what will it mean?

It has to be beyond the Two State solution which is long gone. It has to be beyond the One State solution Israel has imposed. And since we never been further from the one state that Kerry worries about and many Jews of Conscience want, we are left with the obvious question: Where does the prophetic wild card lead?

If futility isn’t the truth.

Marc H. Ellis
About Marc H. Ellis

Marc H. Ellis is Professor of History and Jewish Studies and Director of the Center for the Study of the Global Prophetic. His latest book is Finding Our Voice: Embodying the Prophetic and Other Misadventures.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

59 Responses

  1. eljay
    eljay
    June 18, 2013, 10:38 am

    >> Here’s Netanyahu “contradicting” Bennett: “ … I will seek a negotiated settlement where you’d have a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state.”

    Such a thing should not come to pass.

    A Palestinian state must have the same right as every other state to militarization for defensive purposes.

    No-one – not even the Palestinians – should recognize Israel as a supremacist “Jewish State”. No state should be recognized as a supremacist state.

    • mondonut
      mondonut
      June 18, 2013, 1:09 pm

      eljay says: No-one – not even the Palestinians – should recognize Israel as a supremacist “Jewish State”.
      =====================================================
      Unless of course the goal is to have a state of your own. Small price to pay.

      • eljay
        eljay
        June 18, 2013, 1:25 pm

        >> Unless of course the goal is to have a state of your own. Small price to pay.

        It’s an unjust and immoral price to pay, one that would legitimize Jewish supremacism within – and the second-class status of all non-Jewish citizens of – supremacist “Jewish State”.

        It figures that a hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist like mondonuteee would view it as a “small price to pay”.

        He’s the guy who’d be saying to the victim, “Look, in exchange for your freedom, all you have to do is never seek justice against the rapist, and forever proclaim that he is a good and kind man whom you greatly admire and respect. It’s a small price to pay. And if you refuse, well, you’ll stay chained up down here and he’ll keep beating and raping you. So, c’mon, agree to praise him forever and never press charges. It’s such a small price to pay!”

      • Dutch
        Dutch
        June 18, 2013, 4:00 pm

        As if #1 could be a condition for #2. Besides, a ‘Jewish state’ is nothing. You can be a state, and be recognized as such, but this Jewish-thing is for the kids back home to figure out and play with.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        June 18, 2013, 7:47 pm

        Dutch says: As if #1 could be a condition for #2. Besides, a ‘Jewish state’ is nothing.
        ———————
        Of course it can if you are required to negotiate with a State that considers it a condition. And if it is, as you say, nothing, there is no reason to object.

      • eljay
        eljay
        June 18, 2013, 8:22 pm

        >> And if it is, as you say, nothing, there is no reason to object.

        IMO, Dutch is mistaken. “Jewish State” is not nothing – it is supremacism, it is injustice and immorality.

        If Jews were its victims, Zio-supremacists would strenuously object to it. But because Jews are the victimizers, Zio-supremacists – ever hateful and immoral hypocrites – embrace, justify, support and advocate for it.

  2. HarryLaw
    HarryLaw
    June 18, 2013, 10:54 am

    “There’s always a prophetic wild card in the Jewish deck Bennett is-truthfully-dealing from when it turns up, what will it mean?”
    According to Dannon “The Palestinian future is in Jordan” here http://www.imemc.org/article/65668

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      June 18, 2013, 12:33 pm

      I think that when all is said and done, the Jews in israel (with the help of the US and to the rousing cheers of the mainstream Jewish organizations and Christian zionists in the US) will attack and ethnically cleanse the remaining Palestinians from their own land, driving them into Jordan. It will be a genocide. (It will then be called “anti-semitism” to condemn this evil as evil, of course.) I hope I’m wrong, but fear I’m right because the ideology they adhere to is evil at it’s core and actually demands that these crimes be committed in order to be self-consistent and because there is no moral backbone in that society or the US at all sufficient to stop them. And these lunatics have nuclear weapons.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        June 18, 2013, 5:16 pm

        If that happens they won’t have an economy. Expecting the goys to suck it all up on the Shoah credit card is deluded.

        I think the nukes are oversold. They don’t protect against rating agency downgrades, for example .
        And Israel desperately needs people to love it. The nukes are also useless in that regard.

  3. Denis
    Denis
    June 18, 2013, 11:07 am

    Bibi: “a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state.”

    Why is that “double talk”?

    Reason #1) Because Palestinian state implies a sovereign state, and if it’s sovereign then it alone decides whether or not it’s “demilitarized.” What sovereign state does not have a military? Even the Vatican has its armed military.

    Reason #2) Because a demand for recognition of “the Jewish state” cannot be imposed on any sovereign state. What a sovereign state recognizes or does not recognize is determined only by the state itself.

    So Bibi’s idea of a “Palestinian state” is a state in which GoI calls the shots. Unless Palestine acquires its own armed forces and means of self-defense, that’s the way it will be.

    This is the arrogance of GoI. How many times do we see these toxic i-Jews, backed up by USG, demanding to over-ride the sovereignty of other countries, citing the existential threat canard?

    So the real issue here is not a two state solution. It is a two sovereign state solution, which means two armed states. In the present atmosphere, it will never happen. Palestine will never have a stable of F-16s or MIG-29s; therefore, there will never be a sovereign Palestine. Forget that; move to the next option.

    • hophmi
      hophmi
      June 18, 2013, 12:31 pm

      “Reason #1) Because Palestinian state implies a sovereign state, and if it’s sovereign then it alone decides whether or not it’s “demilitarized.” What sovereign state does not have a military? Even the Vatican has its armed military. ”

      Here’s the list.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces

      “eason #2) Because a demand for recognition of “the Jewish state” cannot be imposed on any sovereign state. What a sovereign state recognizes or does not recognize is determined only by the state itself. ”

      No, but it can be made as part of a negotiated settlement.

      “This is the arrogance of GoI. How many times do we see these toxic i-Jews, backed up by USG, demanding to over-ride the sovereignty of other countries, citing the existential threat canard? ”

      I-Jews? Is that a new Mac product?

      ” It is a two sovereign state solution, which means two armed states. ”

      Palestinians have plenty of armed police and security services, and there are lots of Arab armies to protect the Palestinians. I think everyone understands that Israel is not going to sign up to be attacked by a Palestinian army.

      • Denis
        Denis
        June 18, 2013, 1:11 pm

        @hop: “Here’s the list. ”

        Thanks for the link. Yes, of course. Tuvalu, how could I forget? That is the model.

        @hop: “I think everyone understands that Israel is not going to sign up to be attacked by a Palestinian army.”

        My point, precisely. IOW, there is no such thing as a 2-state “solution,” as much as I wish there was. The only way to get to a 2-state solution is to redefine “state” so that it excludes “sovereign” or redefine “solution” so that it means whatever GoI wants it to mean.

        IOW, the distinction between “2-state solution” and “final solution” is all semantics, which makes me anti-semantic, I guess.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 18, 2013, 1:49 pm

        Thanks for the link. Yes, of course. Tuvalu, how could I forget? That is the model.

        Well, what about Costa Rica?

        “My point, precisely. IOW, there is no such thing as a 2-state “solution,” as much as I wish there was. The only way to get to a 2-state solution is to redefine “state” so that it excludes “sovereign” or redefine “solution” so that it means whatever GoI wants it to mean.”

        Sovereignty does not require an army. I’d say it’s more important for the state to have a monopoly on the use of force. Look, Israel has one main interest: that the solution be an end to the conflict. If it’s simply an opportunity for one side to attack the other, what’s the point?

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        June 19, 2013, 8:37 am

        “Well, what about Costa Rica?”

        It’s known in S America as very close to being a US protectorate. We sent 7,000 US Marines there in mid-2010, plus a bunch of ships, helicopters, etc. Costa Rica signed a treaty with US. They were suppose to be gone by end of December, 2010. Can’t find anything on if they are now gone. The justification, according to Costa Rica at least, was to help fight the drug war.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        June 18, 2013, 1:17 pm

        “Here’s the list.”

        Doesn’t look like any of those states are precluded from having such, under threat by a neighboring state, so that the neighboring state could continue to oppress the first state, as the case would be here.

        “No, but it can be made as part of a negotiated settlement.”

        LMAO. Yeah, and I’m sure a rapist with a gun to a woman’s head could “negotiate” her “consent” in exactly the same way.

        “I-Jews? Is that a new Mac product?”

        No, it’s a rather elegent solution to the nonsense by people like you who lose what little minds you have when people refer to the Jews who run occupied Palestine with just the word “Jews.”

        “Palestinians have plenty of armed police and security services, ”

        Great. Equipt them with nukes capable of vaporizing Tel Aviv, so as to keep the mad dog to their West at heel, and that would be plenty. Short of that, they’ll always face the threat by the israelis.

        “and there are lots of Arab armies to protect the Palestinians.”

        They haven’t been able to prevent the predation of the Palestinians from the zionist wolves for the last 100 years, why do you think they will do so now, now that the wolves have nukes?

        “I think everyone understands that Israel is not going to sign up to be attacked by a Palestinian army.”

        No, but you and your ilk certainly expect the victims of zionist brutality to continue to be open to that brutality.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 18, 2013, 1:51 pm

        “Doesn’t look like any of those states are precluded from having such, under threat by a neighboring state, so that the neighboring state could continue to oppress the first state, as the case would be here.”

        They’re mostly island nations, so I’m not exactly sure who they’d be defending against. But Costa Rica isn’t.

        “They haven’t been able to prevent the predation of the Palestinians from the zionist wolves for the last 100 years, why do you think they will do so now, now that the wolves have nukes?”

        So why do the Palestinians need an army if it is no threat to Israeli hegemony?

      • tree
        tree
        June 18, 2013, 3:34 pm

        So why do the Palestinians need an army if it is no threat to Israeli hegemony?

        You’ve got it backwards as usual. Israeli hegemony is a threat to Palestinians. Which is why its particularly cruel and cynical for Israel to demand that Palestine be demilitarized. Unless of course Israel proposes demilitarization for itself as well. Given its continual aggression towards its neighboring states since its founding(which was in itself an act of aggression) its surely more in need of demilitarization than the theoretically possible but unlikely Palestinian state.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 18, 2013, 4:17 pm

        “Unless of course Israel proposes demilitarization for itself as well. Given its continual aggression towards its neighboring states since its founding(which was in itself an act of aggression) its surely more in need of demilitarization than the theoretically possible but unlikely Palestinian state.”

        Because Israel lives a great neighborhood, and has never once been the subject of threats from its neighbors, right?

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        June 18, 2013, 4:27 pm

        “They’re mostly island nations, so I’m not exactly sure who they’d be defending against. But Costa Rica isn’t.”

        No, it isn’t. It also isn’t neighbor to a state and a people who’ve spent the better part of 150 years murdering them and oppressing them. That is, the experience of the Palestinians suffering in the Age of the Curse of Zionism.

        “So why do the Palestinians need an army if it is no threat to Israeli hegemony?”

        The Palestinians need an army to protect against the predation by the zionists. If the Palestinians can’t fight back, the israelis will continue to murder, because it is what they do. (In a perfect world this defense would include nukes and the means to deliver them to Tel Aviv, so that the israelis remain on their side of the green line. Nothing but MAD, it seems, is likely to keep them from their murderous ways, as israel only understand force and inflicting terror.)

      • talknic
        talknic
        June 19, 2013, 3:24 am

        @ hophmi “So why do the Palestinians need an army if it is no threat to Israeli hegemony?”

        You know what hegemony means? https://www.google.com.au/search?q=hegemony

        Let’s paraphrase. ‘The Palestinians have not been able to halt Israeli hegemony without an army, so why do they need an army?’

        Maybe to stop Israeli hegemony..

        Israel can’t nuke the Palestinians it occupies without slaughtering Israelis and contaminating itself. Likewise the Palestinians can’t use a nuke to stop Israeli hegemony.

        All states have an equal right to self protection. The Palestinian State only needs enough of a military to stop Israeli hegemony.

        In fact, Israel has a ” sacred trust” to ensure the Palestinians reach that stage.

      • tree
        tree
        June 19, 2013, 11:02 am

        Because Israel lives a great neighborhood, and has never once been the subject of threats from its neighbors, right?

        G-d, you’re such a tool. Palestine has suffered much more predation at the hands of Israel than Israel ever has at anyone else’s hands. And yet you propose a demilitarized Palestine and a fortified to the teeth Israel. The main reason Israel is in a “bad neighborhood” is because its spent the last 65 years bullying its neighbors and so the neighbors don’t take too kindly to that. What a surprise, eh? Outside of 1973, when Egypt was trying to regain its own territory, all of Israel’s wars have been wars of choice, when it was the aggressor. If you didn’t so firmly have your head up your ass you’d acknowledge that.

        All your neighbors hate you because you are a bully? Then stop being a bully. If Israel wants Palestine to be demilitarized then Israel should be demilitarized as well. The demand that Palestine be demilitarized is the same friggin’ supremacist attitude that insists that Iran or any other Middle East country can’t have nukes, only Israel can.

        Seriously, Israel complaining about being in a bad neighborhood is like a serial sex offender complaining about sexual harassment.

      • Ecru
        Ecru
        June 18, 2013, 2:10 pm

        @ hophmi

        Yes there are states that have decided for themselves to not have an armed service. They’ve chosen for themselves not had it foisted on them by a bunch of rabid goose-stepping supremacists. Bit of a difference that. Especially with the Jews’ habit of saying “ooh i like your house….it’s mine now”

        I think everyone understands that Palestine is not going to sign up to be attacked by a Israeli army.

      • homingpigeon
        homingpigeon
        June 19, 2013, 2:40 am

        Actually, I agree with hophmi that there is no good reason for a Palestinian state to have an army. But neither is there a good reason for the Israeli state to have an army. It has brought nothing but misery to its citizens. It gets so many of them killed in foolish adventures. But who cares about discussing the Palestinian state as though it might exist. Our focus must be on the future nation which respects equality of the people between the river and the sea. This nation should not waste time and money on an army either. Let us aid, abet, and harbor deserters from every army and fighting force on the planet.

  4. Sycamores
    Sycamores
    June 18, 2013, 11:27 am

    the answer is simple in theory the Palestinian people need an universal vote.
    atonement and forgiveness would come after but should not get in the way of setting up an unifeid State.
    everyone can get behind the Palestinians and cried in unison ‘one vote, one state’.
    the cry will reach all around the world until it gains enough momemtum to end israel delusion as a Jewish state but it will make it a true democracy for all, a place where the three Abrahamic religions can co-exist.

    lessons can be learnt from the ending of South Africa Apartheid and applied to the Holyland.
    leap of faith is where the prophetic wild card is leading, i guess.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      June 18, 2013, 11:50 am

      I think you underestimate the desire of the racists (both here and in the Levant) to maintain their ethno-religious supremacist state.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        June 18, 2013, 12:09 pm

        They can be quite sensitive to slurs, behind the sunglasses

        http://motnews.blogspot.ch/2007/11/rice-i-know-what-its-like-to-be.html

        “Timmermans told the Washington Post that Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni pleaded with Arab representatives at the summit to stop “treating her like a leper,” and questioned why they refused to shake her hand.”

      • Tzombo
        Tzombo
        June 18, 2013, 3:10 pm

        Might have been the blood dripping from it…

      • Sycamores
        Sycamores
        June 18, 2013, 12:46 pm

        racists are at their loudest when their ideology nears its end.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 18, 2013, 1:52 pm

        Then why are BDSers so loud?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        June 18, 2013, 6:25 pm

        The anti BDSers are way louder than the BDSers Hop.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        June 18, 2013, 7:02 pm

        Are they? Maybe in the US. In Europe I think BDS is considerably stronger.

      • amigo
        amigo
        June 19, 2013, 10:27 am

        “Then why are BDSers so loud?”.

        I guess your ear drums are sensitive to the truth.

      • tree
        tree
        June 19, 2013, 11:09 am

        In Europe I think BDS is considerably stronger.

        Stronger is not a synonym for louder in this case.

  5. seafoid
    seafoid
    June 18, 2013, 11:43 am

    As Clinton once said, its the economy, stupid

    And Bennett is a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/top-businessmen-warn-netanyahu-stalled-peace-process-will-ruin-israel-s-economy.premium-1.530429

    “Some of the country’s top businessmen met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last month to express concern that the stalled peace process with the Palestinians would ultimately harm and even endanger the Israeli economy.
    The businessmen told Netanyahu they are worried by the signals they are getting from the international business community.
    “We come from the field, and we’re feeling the pressure,” one said. “If we don’t make progress toward a two-state solution, there will be negative developments for the Israeli economy. We’re already noticing initial signs of this. The future of the Israeli economy will be in danger.”
    One businessman who attended the meeting told Haaretz that the lack of progress toward a two-state solution could send Israel down a slippery slope toward a binational state that would be either not Jewish or not democratic.
    “The world will not accept this,” he said. “Foreign investments will not come to such a state. No one will buy goods from such a state.””

    Suck on that, Zionists.

    • MarkF
      MarkF
      June 18, 2013, 12:31 pm

      So it really is “all about the Benjamins”……

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        June 18, 2013, 1:11 pm

        Netanyahu killed Oslo. He convinced Israel he had the answers. He richly deserves the Golem he created,

  6. homingpigeon
    homingpigeon
    June 18, 2013, 11:58 am

    Let us loudly agree with Bennett that the 2ss is dead. And then let’s ask what he’s going to do about it. I would like to shift the debate. I don’t want to argue with people any more to convince them that 2ss is dead. Wouldn’t it be better to start forcing the issue of what the legal status of all citizens is between the river and the sea?

    Forget this neurotic distraction called 2ss. What is going to happen to the Palestinians in what most people now agree is the one state? Ethnic cleansing? Continued apartheid? Or perhaps a movement towards equality? 1p1v?

    How shall we facilitate the outcome we prefer? What tactics might be pursued? That’s what we should discuss, explore, and debate.

    • MHughes976
      MHughes976
      June 18, 2013, 12:56 pm

      Isn’t the reply to ‘What do you intend to do about this?’ the traditional ‘Nothing’? The late Richard Ben Cramer’s ‘How Israel Lost’ turns on the Dayanist idea that the solution is live without a solution. That idea has thrived, has paid enormous dividends and lives on vigorously. It has a second clause, that ‘whoever wishes may leave’, and the hope must still be that sooner or later that wish will take irresistible form.

    • mondonut
      mondonut
      June 18, 2013, 1:21 pm

      homingpigeon says: Let us loudly agree with Bennett that the 2ss is dead. And then let’s ask what he’s going to do about it.
      ====================================================
      The 2ss is not going anywhere, it will simply be refined. If the Palestinians are not interested in either negotiating a 2ss or in their own political unity the eventual outcome will be Israeli citizenship and rights for West Bank residents that choose to accept it, Gaza as Palestine, and the diaspora will remain where they are.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        June 18, 2013, 1:55 pm

        “…the eventual outcome…”

        How racist to assume that the israelis have the right to dictate to another people how their self-determination will be exercised. Typical. Scratch a zionist, uncover a fascist.

      • talknic
        talknic
        June 19, 2013, 1:23 am

        @ Woody ” Scratch a zionist”?

        No need. It ooooozes out like settler excreta over Palestinian farms

      • talknic
        talknic
        June 19, 2013, 1:18 am

        @ mondonut ” If the Palestinians are not interested in either negotiating a 2ss or in their own political unity”

        Uh? You’ve been shown this before

        Of course you must ignore it in order to continue your idiotic, false narrative. Such a good little propagandist.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        June 19, 2013, 11:16 am

        talknic says: Of course you must ignore it in order to continue your idiotic, false narrative. Such a good little propagandist.
        =============================================
        And what exactly am I ignoring? That statement is not part of an agreement nor does it constitute negotiation. It is simply a claim to territory.

    • Sycamores
      Sycamores
      June 18, 2013, 4:07 pm

      @homingpidgeon
      a good starting point to work on is what the Palestinian civil society is calling for throught the BDS movement

      1/ Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall;

      2/ Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality;
      and
      3/ Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

      the next question is how do we bring israel to the table to discuss a binational state, again look to how apartheid was ended in South Africa – boycotts, divestments and sanctions.

      civil society (particular in the US but not the only route) have to pressure their government(s) to change its foreign policy towards israel.

      and oh yeah the UN has to grow a pair, less bark and more bite.

      when focus public opinion has the power to change governments.

  7. Citizen
    Citizen
    June 18, 2013, 12:22 pm

    Israel is not immune from self-serving common sense, even if it’s from a goyishakopf,whether a capitalist, or moralist. This will tell in the end.

  8. Woody Tanaka
    Woody Tanaka
    June 18, 2013, 12:27 pm

    “What is going to happen to the Palestinians in what most people now agree is the one state? Ethnic cleansing? Continued apartheid? Or perhaps a movement towards equality? 1p1v?”

    Until you can convince the supporters of the racist ideology of zionism to stop being racists, they will simply act the way all brutal racist tyrannies in history have reacted.

  9. Ira Glunts
    Ira Glunts
    June 18, 2013, 12:49 pm

    This was also the lead article today in the print version of the Israeli daily Ma’ariv. Part of the subhead read as follows:

    He [Bennett] compared the conflict with the Palestinians to “shrapnel in the backside that you have to live with.”

  10. ziusudra
    ziusudra
    June 18, 2013, 12:51 pm

    Mr Bennett speaks falsely on Points:
    3K yrs of Jewish existence.
    Moses (legend & conjectual enters Canaan 1200BC.), no Israel!
    Egypt ruled over Canaan, who ruled under them cvering an area of 308K Sq Km!
    Land of Israel.
    The first Kingdom was of Hebron with King Saul in 1030BC! It was but a mudhole!
    Later King David takes over & his glorious Jerusalem is a village with 2K inhabitants!
    He later in 1009BC establishes his Kingdom in this village in 1008BC to 970BC!
    His Son, King Solomon 970BC to 931BC!
    Solomon’s Son Rehoboam splits the Kingdom in two in 930BC!
    Kingdom of Israel with 10 tribes. 930/722BC on an area of 7.3K Sq Km & disappearing into history !!!
    Kingdom of Judea with 2 tribes. 930/ 586BC on an area of 5.0K Sq Km landing in Babylonian captivity !!!
    Ancient Semites were semi nomadic People from 1200BC to 722BC!
    Ancient Semites were semi nomadic People from 1200BC to 586BC!
    5 K anscesters of the Judeans return in 456BC, after 130 yrs of their sojourne in
    Babylonia, to Jerusalem under the tutelage of Rabbi Ezra!!! 5K People on 308K Sq Km!!! They lived as a minority under other Semites!
    They start migrating to southern Euro. in 200BC und Macedonian rule.
    The Romans from 63BC to 636AD scatter those, they didn’t kill!
    – Land of Israel- there ne’er was one!
    – 3K yr Jewish History! – How about a generous 600yrs?
    – Ruling Empire? no!
    Benefactor of contiguous Canaan of 308K Sq Km? no!
    600 yrs longevity in Jeusalem + migrating Groups from 1492 to 1880 to 1948!
    That’s Mr Bennett’s history
    ziusudra

    • Ecru
      Ecru
      June 18, 2013, 2:18 pm

      Actually I’d say less. The defining characteristic of Jews has always been monotheism. Since they didn’t develop monotheism until the 6th Century BCE anyone before then was not a Jew. So all that mythology about Moses etc. is completely irrelevant.

      And the Romans didn’t scatter the Jews. They depopulated Jerusalem and its environs but it looks like those people just moved to other local regions like the Golan. The myth of the forced diaspora is just another in a long line of Jewish fantasy. Seriously I’m surprised it hasn’t won a Nebula yet.

    • mikeo
      mikeo
      June 18, 2013, 7:24 pm

      Religious texts do not present reliable historical narratives in most instances. They are valuable historical documents (in the original) but should be seen through the critical lens of scholarship.

      The Bible is full of bunk as far as historical accuracy is concerned…

      http://www.yorku.ca/dcarveth/false_testament

      In the last quarter century or so, archaeologists have seen one settled assumption after another concerning who the ancient Israelites were and where they came from proved false. Rather than a band of invaders who fought their way into the Holy Land, the Israelites are now thought to have been an ‘indigenous culture that developed west of the Jordan River around 1200 B.C. Abraham, Isaac, and the other patriarchs appear to have been spliced together out of various pieces of local lore. The Davidic Empire, which archaeologists once thought as incontrovertible as the Roman, is now seen as an invention of Jerusalem-based priests in the seventh and eighth centuries B.C. who were eager to burnish their national history. The religion we call Judaism does not reach well back into the second millennium B.C. but appears to be, at most, a product of the mid-first.

      This is not to say that individual elements of the story are not older. But Jewish monotheism, the sole and exclusive worship of an ancient Semitic god known as Yahweh, did not fully coalesce until the period between the Assyrian conquest of the northern Jewish kingdom of Israel in 722 B.C. and the Babylonian conquest of the southern kingdom of Judah in 586.

      Some twelve to fourteen centuries of “Abrahamic” religious development, the cultural wellspring that has given us not only Judaism but Islam and Christianity, have thus been erased. Judaism appears to have been the product not of some dark and nebulous period of early history but of a more modern age of big-power politics in which every nation aspired to the imperial greatness of a Babylon or an Egypt . Judah, the sole remaining Jewish outpost by the late eighth century B.C., was a small, out-of-the-way kingdom with little in the way of military or financial clout. Yet at some point its priests and rulers seem to have been seized with the idea that their national deity, now deemed to be nothing less than the king of the universe, was about to transform them into a great power. They set about creating an imperial past commensurate with such an empire, one that had the southern heroes of David and Solomon conquering the northern kingdom and making rival kings tremble throughout the known world. From a “henotheistic” cult in which Yahweh was worshiped as the chief god among many, they refashioned the national religion so that henceforth Yahweh would be worshiped to the exclusion of all other deities.

      This was not all. As Israel Finkelstein, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University, and Neil Asher Silberman, a journalist who specializes in biblical and religious subjects, point out in their recent book, The Bible Unearthed, the patriarchal tales make frequent mention of camel caravans. When, for example, Abraham sent one of his servants to look for a wife for Abraham’s son, Isaac, Genesis 24 says that the emissary “took ten of his master’s camels and left, taking with him all kinds of good things from his master.” Yet analysis of ancient animal bones confirms that camels were not widely used for transport in the region until well after 1000 B.C. Genesis 26 tells of Isaac seeking help from a certain “Abimelech, king of the Philistines.” Yet archaeological research has confirmed that the Philistines were not a presence in the area until after 1200 B.C. The wealth of detail concerning people, goods, and cities that makes the patriarchal tales so vivid and lifelike, archaeologists discovered, were reflective of a period long after the one that Albright had pinpointed. They were reflective of the mid-first millennium, not the early second.

      Then came a series of archaeological studies conducted in the aftermath of the Six-Day War in 1967. Previously archaeologists had intensively studied specific sites and locales, digging deep in order to determine how technology and culture had changed from one century to the next. Now they tramped through hills and valleys looking for pottery shards and remnants of ancient walls in order to map out how settlement patterns had ebbed and flowed across broad stretches of terrain. Whereas previously archaeologists had concentrated on the lowland cities where the great battles mentioned in the Bible were said to have taken place, they now shifted their attention to the highlands located in the present West Bank . The results were little short of revolutionary. Rather than revealing that Canaan was entered from the outside, analysis of ancient settlement patterns indicated that a distinctive Israelite culture arose locally around 1200 B.C. as nomadic shepherds and goatherds ceased their wanderings and began settling down in the nearby uplands. Instead of an alien culture, the Israelites were indigenous. Indeed, they were highly similar to other cultures that were emerging in the region around the same time–except for one thing: whereas archaeologists found pig bones in other sites, they found none among the Israelites. A prohibition on eating pork may have been one of the earliest ways in which the Israelites distinguished themselves from their neighbors.

      Thus there was no migration from Mesopotamia , no sojourn in Egypt , and no exodus. There was no conquest upon the Israelites’ return and, for that matter, no peaceful infiltration such as the one advanced by Yohanan Aharoni. Rather than conquerors, the Hebrews were a native people who had never left in the first place. So why invent for themselves an identity as exiles and invaders? One reason may have been that people in the ancient world did not establish rights to a particular piece of territory by farming or by raising families on it but by seizing it through force of arms. Indigenous rights are an ideological invention of the twentieth century A.D. and are still not fully established in the twenty-first, as the plight of today’s Palestinians would indicate. The only way that the Israelites could establish a moral right to the land they inhabited was by claiming to have conquered it sometime in the distant past. Given the brutal power politics of the day, a nation either enslaved others or was enslaved itself, and the Israelites were determined not to fall into the latter category.

      If the Old Testament is to be believed, David and Solomon, rulers of the southern kingdom of Judah from about 1005 to about 931 B.C., made themselves masters of the northern kingdom of Israel as well. They represent, in the official account, a rare moment of national unity and power; under their reign, the combined kingdom was a force throughout the Fertile Crescent . The unified kingdom is said to have split into two rump states shortly after Solomon’s death and, thus weakened, was all too easy for the Assyrian Empire and its Babylonian successor to pick off. But did a united monarchy encompassing all twelve tribes ever truly exist?

      According to the Bible, Solomon was both a master builder and an insatiable accumulator. He drank out of golden goblets, outfitted his soldiers with golden shields, maintained a fleet of sailing ships to seek out exotic treasures, kept a harem of 1,000 wives and concubines, and spent thirteen years building a palace and a richly decorated temple to house the Ark of the Covenant. Yet not one goblet, not one brick, has ever been found to indicate that such a reign existed. If David and Solomon had been important regional power brokers, one might reasonably expect their names to crop up on monuments and in the diplomatic correspondence of the day. Yet once again the record is silent. True, an inscription referring to “Ahaziahu, son of Jehoram, king of the House of David” was found in 1993 on a fragment dating from the late ninth century B.C. But that was more than a hundred years after David’s death, and at most all it indicates is that David (or someone with a similar name) was credited with establishing the Judahite royal line. It hardly proves that he ruled over a powerful empire.

      Moreover, by the 1970s and 1980s a good deal of countervailing evidence–or, rather, lack of evidence–was beginning to accumulate. Supposedly, David had used his power base in Judah as a springboard from which to conquer the north. But archaeological surveys of the southern hill country show that Judah in the eleventh and tenth centuries B.C. was too poor and backward and sparsely populated to support such a military expedition. Moreover, there was no evidence of wealth or booty flowing back to the southern power base once the conquest of the north had taken place. Jerusalem seems to have been hardly more than a rural village when Solomon was reportedly transforming it into a glittering capital. And although archaeologists had long credited Solomon with the construction of major palaces in the northern cities of Gezer , Hazor, and Megiddo (better known as the site of Armageddon), recent analysis of pottery shards found on the sites, plus refined carbon-14 dating techniques, indicate that the palaces postdate Solomon’s reign by a century or more.

      Finkelstein and Silberman concluded that Judah and Israel had never existed under the same roof. The Israelite culture that had taken shape in the central hill country around 1200 B.C. had evolved into two distinct kingdoms from the start. Whereas Judah remained weak and isolated, Israel did in fact develop into an important regional power beginning around 900 B.C. It was as strong and rich as David and Solomon’s kingdom had supposedly been a century earlier, yet it was not the sort of state of which the Jewish priesthood approved. The reason had to do with the nature of the northern kingdom’s expansion. As Israel grew, various foreign cultures came under its sway, cultures that sacrificed to gods other than Yahweh. Pluralism became the order of the day: the northern kings could manage such a diverse empire only by allowing these cultures to worship their own gods in return for their continued loyalty. The result was a policy of religious syncretism, a theological pastiche in which the cult of Yahweh coexisted alongside those of other Semitic deities.

      When the northern kingdom fell to the Assyrians, the Jewish priesthood concluded not that Israel had played its cards badly in the game of international politics but that by tolerating other cults it had given grave offense to the only god that mattered. Joining ,a stream of refugees to the south, the priests swelled the ranks of an influential political party dedicated to the proposition that the only way for Judah to avoid a similar fate was to cleanse itself of all rival beliefs and devote itself exclusively to Yahweh.

      “They did wicked things that provoked Yahweh to anger. They worshiped idols, though Yahweh had said, `You shall not do this.'” Such was the “Yahweh-alone” movement’s explanation for Israel ‘s downfall. The monotheistic movement reached a climax in the late seventh century B.C. when a certain King Josiah took the throne and gave the go-ahead for a long-awaited purge. Storming through the countryside, Josiah and his Yahwist supporters destroyed rival shrines, slaughtered alien priests, defiled their altars, and ensured that henceforth even Jewish sacrifice take place exclusively in Jerusalem, where the priests could exercise tight control. The result, the priests and scribes believed, was a national renaissance that would soon lead to the liberation of the north and a similar cleansing there as well.

      But then: disaster. After allowing his priests to establish a rigid religious dictatorship, Josiah rode off to rendezvous with an Egyptian pharaoh named Necho in the year 609 B.C. Although Chronicles says that the two monarchs met to do battle, archaeologists, pointing out that Josiah was in no position to challenge the mighty Egyptian army, suspect that Necho merely summoned Josiah to some sort of royal parley and then had him killed for unknown reasons. A model of pious rectitude, Josiah had done everything he thought God wanted of him. He had purified his kingdom and consecrated his people exclusively to Yahweh. Yet he suffered regardless. Judah entered into a period of decline culminating some twenty-three years later in the Babylonian conquest and exile.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        June 19, 2013, 5:08 am

        Daniel Lazare, who is quoted here, is also the author of the review in the current London Review of Books of a fairly critical comment on Sand’s ‘Land of Israel’ book. Lazare is a follower of Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University, to us ‘the other Finkelstein’ I suppose, whose view of ancient history places great emphasis on the role of King Josiah in the late 600s BCE. This view (which Sand somewhat disparages) has difficulties of its own, such as the fact that Jeremiah, whose works were written or began to be written not much later, does not assign Josiah any major role. All that said, the Bible is surely an interpretation of history rather than a record of history but still has great historical value.

      • tree
        tree
        June 19, 2013, 11:10 am

        Interesting historical background. Thanks mikeo.

      • Denis
        Denis
        June 19, 2013, 11:26 am

        Well . . . this is a breathtaking change in topic. King David is a myth? Yeah, right. Next you’ll be telling us Superman didn’t come from Krypton.

        We started out on a specific topic delegitimizing i-Jews for beating up on the 2ss, a 20/21 century situation, and — boom — suddenly we’re delegitimizing the entire Jewish history all the way back to 4-digits BC.

        But the shift in focus is OK w/ me, these sorts of generalizations happen all the time on MW because that larger Jewish historical picture is always a part of the discussion when the topic has anything to do with Jews and Judaism. I have learned more history [now established as flawed, I guess] over beers with my Jewish friends than I did in 24 years of formal education. As the Coen brothers said through Walter in the Big Lebowski: “Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax– YOU’RE GODDAMN RIGHT I LIVE IN THE PAST!”

        But I wonder if we couldn’t just adopt the Church of Scotland’s POV and agree that the mess in Palestine today has nothing to do with Abraham, or Solomon, or David, or anybody who goes back beyond Sandy Koufax. Let’s just shit-can this entire deep-historical approach to legitimizing Israel.

        The most relevant thing in that long quote may have been the thought that in the days of faux-King David, ownership of land was not determined by possession but by who could take it and hold it.

        Well, if that doesn’t describe the attitude and rationale of Ben-Gurion & Co. from 1945 right up through the modern-day settlers and their supporters, I don’t know what does. Is that the thing here? Do these i-Jews justify the theft of Palestine by evoking the same attitudes as their distant, unknown, unknowable, barbarian (but circumcised, please note) forefathers? Did Ben-Gurion, Sharon, Shamir, Stern and all of those blood-thirsty i-terrorists see themselves as modern day Davids? Does a kippah get you some sort of a moral bye when stealing land because of precedents set by some fictitious king?

        And toxic Zionists like Gellar have the chutzpah to talk about “civilized” people?

      • mikeo
        mikeo
        June 20, 2013, 3:55 am

        “suddenly we’re delegitimizing the entire Jewish history”

        Actually I don’t believe I am delegitimizing Jewish history, I am merely questioning the historical accuracy of the Old Testament.

        Jewish History exists separately and in addition to the historical narrative in the bible texts.

        Like all history it is subject to revision over time as new documents, archaeological discoveries and improvements in scholarship and research and analysis techniques emerge.

        I may be delegitimising Jewish myth…

        Nobody complains when people claim that the Rig-Veda is not historically accurate, or claims that the Indian people are being delegitimized.

      • Denis
        Denis
        June 22, 2013, 1:39 pm

        @mikeo: “Actually I don’t believe I am delegitimizing Jewish history, I am merely questioning the historical accuracy of the Old Testament.”

        Like . . . huh?? Distinction sans difference.

        @mikeo: “I may be delegitimising Jewish myth…”

        C’mon, mikeo, I must object to your semantic tactic knowing full well that Foxman is going to excoriate me for being anti-semantic.

        What you are doing is delegitimizing Jewish history by demonstrating that it is not history after all, but myth. [I am, of course, referring to ancient history, as are you.]

        Personally, I think that’s a good thing and I applaud your efforts. I believe we are on the same page, you just need to admit what you are doing. When myths are presented as history to justify stealing an entire people’s land, that is fraud on a massive scale, and you are doing a service to us all by exposing that fraud.

        Let me re-word my main suggestion:

        Let’s just shit-can this entire deep-historical deep-mythology-posing-as-history approach to legitimizing Israel.

  11. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    June 18, 2013, 3:43 pm

    The centre of Jewish life by the third C CE was Galilee, where identifiable synagogue buildings and informative inscriptions, rare from earlier times, have been found quite plentifully. Roman Jerusalem, officially ‘Aelia Capitolina’ after the 130s, seems always to have been a one-horse town, which shows that no substantial pagan population appeared in the region. Indeed, it was in many ways still Jerusalem, since the Mishnah was completed there around 200, meaning that there was no rigorously enforced ban on Jewish presence there, though a really substantial Jewish population would not have gathered without the Temple. Why the Temple was not rebuilt is rather a mystery, perhaps something to with Jewish-Samaritan rivalry and mutual vetoes. The population of Judaea must have been sparse, but it must still have been quite Jewish. Jerome says somewhere – I’ll check the reference sometime! – that Jewish mourners gathered in Jerusalem on the Ninth of Ab and that they were on the whole poor people, meaning that there was a Jewish peasant population in Judaea throughout the relevant years. There were and always had been Jewish people who were happy enough with the Roman Empire – indeed the governor of Egypt during the years of war that led to the destruction of the Temple was Jewish; many were happy to seek their fortunes in the western lands. Not to deny that there were highly anti-Roman Jewish people in Egypt and Libya, where the Diaspora Revolt of around 115 was very fierce – though it may be that the Jewish insurgents hoped, like Agrippa I before them, for support from other elements. And not to deny that the Jewish population of the eastern lands, long established and favoured by the Parthian kingdom, was very anti-Roman.

  12. kayq
    kayq
    June 18, 2013, 6:47 pm

    We no longer have to rely on the US, or the Israeli “left”, in order to achieve freedom for Palestinians. We must rely on the international community.

    Anyhow, one thing we can rely on is the Israeli right. Sure, they’re dangerous and have wacky ideologies, but with them around, it is safe to say Israel is driving itself into the ditch.

  13. ckg
    ckg
    June 18, 2013, 9:01 pm

    In the NY Times link Jodi Rudoren attributes poll results to Israelis when they are actually attributable to Jewish Israelis. This is common practice in Israeli press–after all, Arab citizens aren’t *real* Israelis–who needs to include these marginal persons in public opinion reports? The NY Times does not need to echo a disgusting, racist practice.

Leave a Reply