Trending Topics:

‘New Yorker’ follows Lustick by publishing Munayyer’s argument against two-state solution

Israel/Palestine
on 66 Comments

Ian Lustick’s bombshell piece in the New York Times last Sunday describing the two-state negotiations as a charade with tremendous human cost has catalyzed the American discussion of the death of the two-state solution as no writer before Lustick was able to do. I can only imagine what J Street’s conference is going to be like next week– a lot of rouge and embalming fluid.

Here are three responses to Lustick. To his great credit, David Remnick at the New Yorker has seized the Lustick moment and published a very sharp and calm piece by Yousef Munayyer explaining why partition failed– because of the ideology of Zionism, and its need for a Jewish majority in Palestinian lands. Munayyer thanks Lustick:

Ian Lustick had no problem putting the two-state solution in its final resting place this past week, in a lengthy Op-Ed in the Times. If this can open the door to new thinking on a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian question, the timing could not be better. Identifying the flaws and faults of a two-state solution has been done many times before. What we need now is new thinking on a policy level that grapples both with the failures of the two-state approach and the realities on the ground.

 

…[T]e two-state solution, which has dominated mainstream discourse on policy toward this issue, is primarily a solution to a problem: Israel’s problem.

 

Israel’s problem is one of identity and territory. It claims it is both Jewish and Democratic, and yet, under the control of the Israeli state today, between the river and the sea, there are an equal number of Jews and non-Jews. Those non-Jews, the Palestinians, are either treated as second-class citizens or have no citizenship rights at all.

The reason for this problem is the implementation of Zionism. The ideology sought to establish a Jewish state, which envisioned and required a Jewish majority. It did so, problematically, in a geographic space where the majority of the native inhabitants were Palestinians Arabs. Every attempt to resolve this conflict between Zionist ideology and demographic reality for the past hundred years has included some form of gerrymandering—drawing oddly shaped, impractical, winding borders around often sparse Jewish populations to encompass them in a single geographic entity.

At last the American public is being brought to understand that the problem did not begin in 1967, and that Palestinian rejection of a Jewish state, surely one of the strongest forces shaping the political geography of Israel/Palestine, has a legitimate basis in their own experience.

From 1947 to 1949, Palestine was emptied of sixty-seven per cent of its native Arab inhabitants. A conventional two-state solution would do little to address the grievances of these refugees or their descendants, many of whom were launched into a lifetime of dispossession.

Munayyer explains that it is one state right now in Israel and Palestine. His grim description of the reality is unvarnished. Remarkable that Remnick, so long a believer in the Jewish state, is offering a Palestinian’s political commentary without Zionist lipgloss:

Why would the Israelis ever accept a single state—one in which they’d be equal to Palestinians before the law? No party in power willfully cedes it unless the costs of monopolizing become overbearing. Israelis face a choice today between affording equal rights to the Palestinians in one geographic space or managing conflict through an apartheid system. Neither alternative may be particularly attractive to Israelis, but continuing the apartheid route will only get uglier and costlier over time, as well as being constantly at odds with the state’s claim of democracy.

What I most savored about Munayyer’s piece is that he mentions Zionism seven times. That is essential intellectual/political business–especially when addressing a largely-Jewish audience. No ideology can be taken on until it is correctly defined and labeled. And when the belief in the need for a Jewish state–Zionism–is separated from the Jewish historical experience, in Europe and the U.S., then American Jews and American friends of Jews can say, Why do you folks need such an exclusionary politics? Munayyer’s conclusion:

It’s time to start thinking outside the Zionist box and look for solutions that secure the human rights and equality of all involved, and not simply the political demands of the stronger party.

At Open Zion, Jerry Haber is also advancing and amplifying Lustick’s argument. The best thing about this piece is Haber’s complete impatience with the Israel lobby’s bogus claim to have supported a two-state solution. I have to believe this is the new consensus.

From my reading of Lustick I infer that he would not be adverse to a two-state solution if it addressed satisfactorily the core issues, provided peace and security to both sides, and achieved the overwhelming support of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples (including, of course, the Israeli and Palestinian diasporas). That sort of two-state solution has never been anywhere near the negotiating table, as I explained here, primarily because of the power disparities between the two sides to the negotiation.

I am not interested in Lustick’s pro-Israel critics, who continue to delude  themselves into thinking that they support a two-state solution, when what they really support is a strong state of Israel controlling a collection of emasculated Palestinian bantustans that they wish to call a state. Their clinging to the two-state illusion is the chief impediment to a viable two-state solution, even more than those who, like cabinet minister Naftali Bennett, have declared the Palestinian state dead.

Haber devotes a lot of energy to the view expressed by Hussein Ibish and Saliba Sarsar at Open Zion that the two-state solution is essential for Palestinian self-determination.

Ibish and Sarsar claim that the Israel-Palestinian negotiations represent “the only practical of means achieving the minimum goals of each party” without giving a single argument and without countering the historical record and the current circumstances, where one party—Israel—is simply not interested. Nor can the hardening of positions in Israel can be attributed to Israeli insecurity. On the contrary, history indicates that when Israelis feel most secure, their negotiating positions harden (cf. post 48 and post 67), and that is perfectly understandable. Until Ibish and Sarsar articulate how Israel can be effectively weakened so that the prospects of successful negotiations are enhanced, they are not serving their cause well.

What Ibish, Sarsar and Lustick share is a genuine desire to end the daily horrors of occupation and exile that have been the fate of the Palestinians since 1948. On the historical level Prof. Lustick is correct; there is no reason to believe that this round of negotiations will do anything besides hurting the Palestinians—unless the Palestinians can parlay them into advancing the idea of a genuine Palestinian state, and not the desert mirage offered them by the Israelis. It is not the fact that there is an international consensus for a two-state solution that should be emphasized, but rather that there is an international consensus for a Palestinian state. According to a recent poll, most Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank would prefer living in an independent state than in one state in which Jews and Arabs are considered equal. Can you blame them? After all, how many Zionist displaced persons would have preferred living in post-war Germany with guaranteed equality for Jews and Germans to living in their own state as a free people? That number appears to be dropping, though, as Palestinians realize what they are likely to get at the end of a negotiated process.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

66 Responses

  1. Mike_Konrad
    Mike_Konrad
    September 21, 2013, 1:32 pm

    The two-state solution is dead. Everyone knows that. The Israeli right does not want it. The left is furious about it.

    But a one-state solution will not work, either. Israeli Jews will never allow themselves to become a minority in Israel. Forgetting what is right or wrong, they just will not allow it.

    Why would the Israelis ever accept a single state—one in which they’d be equal to Palestinians before the law? No party in power willfully cedes it unless the costs of monopolizing become overbearing. Israelis face a choice today between affording equal rights to the Palestinians in one geographic space or managing conflict through an apartheid system.

    The term Apartheid is wrong; and unproductive. The Israelis can counter that by showing you the rare Israeli-Arab who has done well, and has the vote.

    Israel is not a strict Apartheid state, since some Israeli-Arabs inside the Green Line do have the vote.

    What best describes Israel is a Kafkaesque police state. The Arabs in Judea and Samaria are riddled with informers. You cannot get a permit to travel unless you divulge some info.

    They get Arabs to reveal things like the color of their friends bedroom. Where the windows are.

    They have compiled computerized profiles of everyone, used to intimidate the whole population.

    A Kafkaesque police state is the proper critique, not Apartheid. Israel has been careful enough to enfranchise just enough Arabs to deny the charge of Apartheid, something South Africa never did with blacks.

    Administrative dentention where you are convicted of crimes that you are not told of is the very essesence of a Kafkaesque police state. This is what the Jews were subjected to in Eastern Europe and Austria-Hungary. This is what they know. They tyranny applied to them, they apply to others, now.

    But it is not classic Apartheid; and if you persist in that term, you will lose the debate.

    What it is is a Kafkaesque nightmare.

    However, ask yourself this:

    Imagine a Jew coming from a history of thousands of years of persecution: a mixture of real, imagined, and exaggerated persecutions. Some of the persecution was horrific. I hope no one here would deny the Holocaust. Some was nasty: The Inquisition. Some was exaggerated: The English did not have a very strong history of anti-Semitism, but it is brought up – though af far as Europe goes, the English were not really too anti-semitic.

    Imagine a Jew living in Tel Aviv, or in a Jewish community in Judea and Samaria.

    Do you think the Jews are going to willingly surrender the Jewish state to a one-man, one-vote state of all its citizens. The Jews see the horrors of Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, Libya, Bahrain, etc; and all they see is that Arabs are completely unstable – with many being Islamic supremacists.

    The Jews are not going to surrender the Jewish state.

    I am not even saying this is a wrong attitude. I am just saying this is the attitude, right or wrong.

    The Jews will never surrender what they see as their patrimony.

    This is just historical analysis, not criticism of the Jews, nor criticism of the Arabs.

    The Jews will not surrender their Jewish state apart from nuclear war.

    I am not saying this is right to the Palestinians. I am just saying this is fact.

    So much of what you suggest will never happen.

    All your suggestions should start with this incontrovertible fact in mind: The Jews will not abandon Israel no matter what the rest of the world says.

    When I came to that realization, I suggested paying the Palestinians to leave.

    Is it right? (Who cares?!)

    It is the only solution which may work.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      September 22, 2013, 1:06 pm

      Mike, you appear to say Israel cannot be forced to annex areas of the West Bank with too many non-Jews. I think you clearly are correct.

    • SQ Debris
      SQ Debris
      September 22, 2013, 2:21 pm

      Konrad “But it is not classic Apartheid; and if you persist in that term, you will lose the debate.”

      Wrong. Here’s an excerpt from the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them”.

      That is an excellent definition of the Zionist enterprise since 1948. A realistic evaluation of the situation is that Israel surrendered the “Jewish State” (since when was Apartheid Jewish?) when it occupied the remainder of Palestine between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river. The inevitable has come to pass. The non-Palestinian population under Israeli rule is rolling into a minority position. What’s left is Zionists like Konrad rattling swords about maintaining minority privilege. Time to wake up and shake off apartheid denial.

      • September 22, 2013, 4:03 pm

        You just repeate somebodies half truths.
        Take ’67. Immediately after the war Israel got in his face the Khartoum Arab Ligue resolution with its famouse three No’s – no peace, no recognition and no negotiations. I am quoting here Wikipedia which I hope is not considered a”propaganda site” here. Here is the link
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_Resolution
        The Khartoum Resolution of September 1, 1967 of 1967 Arab League summit is famous for containing what became known as the “Three No’s”: “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.”[2]

        Abba Evans famouse quote about it “I think that this is the first war in history that on the morrow the victors sued for peace and the vanquished called for unconditional surrender.
        Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/abba_eban.html#GBly6M8wQtrztiJG.99

      • MRW
        MRW
        September 22, 2013, 4:57 pm

        @fnlevit

        Wikipedia is absolutely considered a propaganda site here at MW. Israel is not only conducting courses in propagandizing Wikipedia, it advertises it. Don’t you know how to do real research?

        Course: Zionist Editing on Wikipedia (Arutz Sheva)

        Wikipedia Editing for Zionists
        http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/wikipedia-editing-for-zionists/?_r=0

        Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups

        Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups
        http://www.eutimes.net/2010/08/wikipedia-editing-courses-launched-by-zionist-groups/

        Defending the indefensible: Israel’s Wikipedia war
        http://www.middleeastmonitor.com/resources/commentary-and-analysis/1457-defending-the-indefensible-israels-wikipedia-war

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        September 22, 2013, 5:28 pm

        [email protected];

        If Wikipedia is considered a ‘propaganda site’ why does Annie Robbins use it ?

        As she did here recently.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/09/in-2012-settler-population-grew-three-times-faster-than-rest-of-israel.html/comment-page-1#comment-595029

        Presumably when someone quotes a factoid from Wiki you happen to disagree with THEN all of a sudden it becomes a suspect site.

        Anyone in doubt about what Wiki says can always check and cross reference info from another source.

        You are presuming people are just drones who are unable to do so.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        September 22, 2013, 6:00 pm

        Anyone in doubt about what Wiki says can always check and cross reference info from another source.

        You are presuming people are just drones who are unable to do so.

        I think all people – not just Annie – may cite Wikipedia because it’s easy.

        It’s the easy way to find out about something.

        But Wikipedia has been exploited by Zionist trolls (like yourself). And that is a FACT that’s been documented in the links above.

        If people cite Wikipedia to simply refer to a statistic – then they should find the original source and check the veracity of said statistic based on said source.

        Wikipedia articles are a synthesis of many sources and contain editorialization by the authors of the edits.

        And through the edits we see the politics of the editors.

        If you cite a Wikipedia article, IN FULL, as cornerstone to your argument – whatever it may be at any given time – then you are intellectually bankrupt.

        It has nothing to do with the hypothetical that ‘people are just drones’.

        I don’t want to see a CAMERA or StandWithUs edit-war laden Wikipedia article.

        That’s the point. It doesn’t even have superficial credibility no matter the ‘sources’.

        The synthesis of the sources and the editorial can push the agenda of the editors wherever they wish, beyond the scope of the ‘sources’.

        As Donald said, you are a troll ‘miriam6’.

      • annie
        annie
        September 22, 2013, 6:00 pm

        miriam, i use it all the time against hasbara because since everyone knows wiki’s heavily monitored by pro israel think tanks so one can use the ‘facts’ presented against those same sites. besides, it’s all in who’s being sourced. the link of mine i used to shoot down your argument( that you just linked to ) was sourced by Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. one can reasonably imagine that bureau is not working against the goi’s hasbara dept.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        September 22, 2013, 6:02 pm

        its a bad habit to cite a public encyclopedia.

        do you think any Zionist commentator – especially a concern troll type – is going to understand (yes, but won’t present themselves as doing so) WHY you’re citing Wikipedia?

        it’s just another pathetic quibble they will focus on in their ‘point-scoring’ bs dance

      • September 22, 2013, 6:30 pm

        OK, here is a references WITH EXACT TEXT OF THE RESOLUTION.
        http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/three_noes.html
        Please look at the p. 3 (I copy)
        The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.

        NO NEGOTIATIONS! NO NEGOTIATIONS!!! How Israel was supposed to withdraw? After its spectacular (and miraculous) VICTORY. Recall my quote of Abba Evan (not from WIKIPEDIA).

        Another link
        http://middleeast.about.com/od/arabisraeliconflict/f/khartoum-declaration-faq.htm
        Less than two months after the third Arab-Israeli war in 1967 (also known in Israel as the Six Day War), Arab states and the Palestine Liberation Organization gathered in Khartoum, Sudan, to discuss the consequences of the war and agree on a strategy in its wake. Israel had not only defeated Egypt, Jordan and Syria. It had humiliated them militarily. It had also shown the Arab world that defeating Israel militarily would not be possible. At Khartoum, Arab states led by Egyptian President Gama Abdel Nasser engaged in much bombastic speech-making and resolved on what became known, infamously, as the Three No’s: No recognition of Israel, no conciliation with Israel, and no negotiations. But the three No’s demolished the prospect that Israeli conquests of the Golan Heights, the West Bank, the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip would be used as bargaining chips in land-for-peace agreements.

        Another link
        http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2011/0104/oped/op_tenembaumperils.html
        In p.8 of the document : In Khartoum, Sudan, The Arab League had already declared in September 1967 its categorical collective stance by enunciating its three NOs: 1) No to negotiations with Israel; 2) No to recognizing Israel; and 3) No to making peace with Israel.
        One more link
        http://www.jpost.com/Features/In-Thespotlight/This-Week-In-History-The-Arab-Leagues-three-nos

      • Ludwig
        Ludwig
        September 22, 2013, 6:33 pm

        It’s so strange how anti-zionists always accuse me of being a member of the JIDF, Megaphone, or some elusive Hasbara department. Jews and other people of conscience worldwide support Israel. It’s as simple than that. It’s called morality.

      • annie
        annie
        September 22, 2013, 6:45 pm

        if it was a simple as that the goi wouldn’t have to employ students for covert hasbara ops, there’d be no need for israel’s foreign minister to ever even offer a megaphone download and paid online activists hired by the israel project et al, would self identify, they do not, ever. your theory kinda goes splat under these circumstances.

      • eljay
        eljay
        September 22, 2013, 6:46 pm

        >> Jews and other people of conscience worldwide support Israel. It’s as simple than that. It’s called morality.

        There is nothing at all moral about defending, justifying, supporting and/or advocating for oppression, colonialism and supremacism.

      • just
        just
        September 22, 2013, 7:00 pm

        “Jews and other people of conscience worldwide support Israel. It’s as simple than that. It’s called morality.”

        Nope. The “people of conscience” that you speak of are supporting Israel out of some weird guilt, out of ignorance of the practices of the state of Israel, or because they are equally immoral and complicit.

        People of conscience recognize the bastion of hypocrisy & cruel Occupation that Israel has become.

      • annie
        annie
        September 22, 2013, 7:03 pm

        @ fnlevit September 22, 2013 at 6:30 pm

        re Khartoum:

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/03/palestinian-responsible-maintains.html/comment-page-1#comment-547491

        Hostage says:
        March 14, 2013 at 4:26 pm

        >>Israel tried a land for peace deal with Syria and Egypt weeks after the June ’67 War. No takers.>>

        It’s not very surprising, since Israel was still refusing to comply with the second principle of President Johnson’s five point plan and allow the 300,000 or so new Palestinian refugees to return to their own homes. See the text of Johnson’s “Address at the State Department’s Foreign Policy Conference for Educators, June 19, 1967 link to presidency.ucsb.edu

        ================
        Obsidian says:
        March 15, 2013 at 2:35 am
        @Hostage

        Is this your opinion or did the Arab States say ‘no exchange of Sinai and Golan
        without the repatriation of the 300,000′?

        ===========
        Hostage says:
        March 15, 2013 at 7:04 pm

        >>Is this your opinion or did the Arab States say ‘no exchange of Sinai and Golan without the repatriation of the 300,000′?>>

        Yes, the Arab States made that a condition for any negotiations. That’s why Johnson incorporated it into his 5 point plan. There are an entire chapters of the FRUS volume XIX on the 1967 Arab-Israel Crisis and War devoted to the post war negotiations and the process to draft the terms of Security Council resolution 242. link to history.state.gov

        con’t….

      • annie
        annie
        September 22, 2013, 7:06 pm

        i know cliff. miriam knows the difference too.

      • tree
        tree
        September 22, 2013, 7:10 pm

        What morality engages in ethnic cleansing, in demolishing homes based on the ethnicity of the homeowner, that expropriates land from Palestinians, both citizens and non-citizens alike, to give to Jewish only settlements on both sides of the green line?

        What morality sprays Bedouin crops with herbicides to kill them?What morality fails to “recognize” villages that have existed since before Israel became a separate country and thus denies electricity and other utility services, and any planning permissions to build or add on to their homes, to Israeli citizens simply because they are not Jewish, while at the same time hooking up the smallest Jewish “settlement” illegally built in the Occupied Territories?

        What morality denies common civil rights to people based solely on their ethnicity?

        “Morality”. To quote Inigo Montoya, ” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        September 22, 2013, 7:39 pm

        @ludwig

        There is nothing ‘moral’ about Jewish nationalism/colonialism or any other nationalism/colonialism.

        Most people do not support Israel. Certainly not ‘worldwide’. Israel consistently tops the ‘worst liked country’ polls.

        Your support comes from bought-and-paid-for politicians or careerists, dictators or other anti-democratic leaders who depend on American/Israeli hegemony, Islamophobes, the right-wing, and Christian evangelicals.

        There are few if any, worldwide, who support Israel and do not fall into one or more of the above categories.

      • just
        just
        September 22, 2013, 9:43 pm

        Inigo Montoya’s words were/are fully worth remembering: ‘My name is Indigo Montoya– “you killed my father, prepare to die.” ‘

        I despise murder and revenge, BUT the Palestinians do not deserve the wrath and theft of everything that has been leveled at them. Others might. Funnily enough, Mandy Patinkin is a Jewish Person of Conscience.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/05/demonizing-patinkin-tough.html

      • Ecru
        Ecru
        September 23, 2013, 1:51 am

        @ Ludwig

        Jews and other people of conscience worldwide support Israel.

        Two things

        1) Classic Jewish supremacy there – all Jews are apparently deeply moral people but only some of the goyim are.

        2) NOBODY with a functioning conscience supports Israel.

      • bintbiba
        bintbiba
        September 23, 2013, 8:41 am

        We love Mandy Patinkin!

      • September 23, 2013, 5:25 pm

        Do you EVER read the references you post? This is what Johnson said about the refugees

        “A new conflict has brought new homelessness. The nations of the Middle East must at last address themselves to the plight of those who have been displaced by wars. In the past, both sides have resisted the best efforts of outside mediators to restore the victims of conflict to their homes, or to find them other proper places to live and work. There will be no peace for any party in the Middle East unless this problem is attacked with new energy by all, and certainly, primarily by those who are immediately concerned. ”

        It says BOTH SIDES!! TO FIND THEM OTHER PROPER PLACES TO LIVE OR WORK!!

        That is what Israel did with Jewish refugees from Arab countries – it gave themplace to live and work. Not so with the Arab countries for Palestinians. In fact (I quote) “The Arab League has instructed its members to deny citizenship to original Palestine Arab refugees (or their descendants) “to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland”.[57]

      • annie
        annie
        September 24, 2013, 10:13 am

        Do you EVER read the references you post? ….It says BOTH SIDES!! TO FIND THEM OTHER PROPER PLACES TO LIVE OR WORK!!

        i’m curious professor, do you upgrade your students work/logic based on their usage of capitol letters? or if they scream at you?

        try scrolling the supporting doc; read thru his reference to what’s been tried “In the past”, and focus on his conclusions :

        Our country is committed–and we here reiterate that commitment today–to a peace that is based on five principles:

        –first, the recognized right of national life;

        –second, justice for the refugees;

        –third, innocent maritime passage;

        –fourth, limits on the wasteful and destructive arms race; and

        –fifth, political independence and territorial integrity for all.

        This is a time not for malice, but for magnanimity; not for propaganda, but for patience; not for vituperation, but for vision.

        On the basis of peace, we offer our help to the people of the Middle East. That land, known to every one of us since childhood as the birthplace of great religions and learning, can flourish once again in our time. We here in the United States shall do all in our power to help make it so.

        Thank you and good morning.

        http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=28308#ixzz2fonE7Uht

        now, he’s clearly referencing the holy land when he speaks of reiterating the commitments: “recognized right of national life…. justice for the refugees…..political independence and territorial integrity for all”

        obviously he’s not referencing other … places to live.

      • eljay
        eljay
        September 24, 2013, 10:48 am

        >> It says BOTH SIDES!! TO FIND THEM OTHER PROPER PLACES TO LIVE OR WORK!!

        Actually, perfesser, it says “In the past, both sides have resisted the best efforts of outside mediators TO RESTORE THE VICTIMS OF CONFLICTS TO THEIR HOMES, or to find them other proper places to live and work.”

        >> That is what Israel did with Jewish refugees from Arab countries – it gave themplace to live and work. Not so with the Arab countries for Palestinians.

        “Jewish State” chose to accept Jewish refugees who, by accepting citizenship, relinquished their refugee status.

        Palestinians remain refugees, and refugees are entitled to return to their homes and lands.

        And that’s what bothers a Zio-supremacist like you: The fact that Arab countries failed to absolve the supremacist “Jewish State” of its responsibilities and obligations to the people it made refugees.

        So sad… :-(

  2. September 21, 2013, 2:22 pm

    There is perhaps another, more viable two state solution. The way things develop now there is no dobt that the Palestinains will get a very poor deal even if in its best version – the Almert’s offer. For though who dont know – see below the reference and short account of it and its faith.

    Here is the link to Almert’s offer
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/ehud-olmert-still-dreams-of-peace/story-e6frg76f-1225804745744

    From the end of 2006 until the end of 2008 I think I met with Abu Mazen more often than any Israeli leader has ever met any Arab leader. I met him more than 35 times. They were intense, serious negotiations.

    On the 16th of September, 2008, I presented him (Abbas) with a comprehensive plan. It was based on the following principles.

    One, there would be a territorial solution to the conflict on the basis of the 1967 borders with minor modifications on both sides. Israel will claim part of the West Bank where there have been demographic changes over the last 40 years…

    And four, there were security issues. [Olmert says he showed Abbas a map, which embodied all these plans. Abbas wanted to take the map away. Olmert agreed, so long as they both signed the map. It was, from Olmert’s point of view, a final offer, not a basis for future negotiation. But Abbas could not commit. Instead, he said he would come with experts the next day.]

    He (Abbas) promised me the next day his adviser would come. But the next day Saeb Erekat rang my adviser and said we forgot we are going to Amman today, let’s make it next week. I never saw him again. (Nov. 28, 2009)

    • southernobserver
      southernobserver
      September 21, 2013, 8:40 pm

      This is correct. Olmert’s offer was a very bad offer, another version of the prison farm solution, and it would have been wrong to ‘accept’.

      If you are trying say that Abbas should have accepted because the present Criminal regime is offering even less… This has been discussed many times here.
      1. Olmert was just about to lose power and it is most unlikely that he would have delivered.
      2. We don’t know exactly what was offered. However, the demographic change statement meant even then accepting a broken up statelets with no water or farming resources. The standard prison farm solution that it is still being offer.
      2. regardless, should they really have accepted a grossly inadequate offer, that would have prevented a viable state, to avoid a worse offer that also prevents a viable state?

  3. American
    American
    September 21, 2013, 2:34 pm

    ”What I most savored about Munayyer’s piece is that he mentions Zionism seven times. That is essential intellectual/political business–especially when addressing a largely-Jewish audience. No ideology can be taken on until it is correctly defined and labeled. ”>>>

    Defined, labeled…and ….vilified and destroyed completely.
    If the ‘separation’ and eternal victim beliefs arent throughly wiped out it will keep creeping back like a reoccuring infection.
    Realistically, I doubt it can be totally eradicated except over a long period of time.
    But there has to be a campaign to expose it as the dangerous destructive cult ideology it is, the sooner the better.

  4. NormanF
    NormanF
    September 21, 2013, 2:45 pm

    Zionism is the default view among Jews due to their realization that being at the mercy of others was – and is no way – for Jews to live.

    There was the Philip Weiss Of Iraq – a wealthy, well-connected non-Zionist Jew, with Arab friends and connections in high places in Iraq. His name was Shafik Ades. In September 1948, he was arrested by the Iraqi authorities, tried in a show trial and executed for arms smuggling and treason, with his property and wealth confiscated. His body was hung on the gallows in front of his own home as Arab mobs cheered. This development had a jolting effect on Iraq’s Jews:

    “The execution of Ades sent shivers of fear down the spines of Iraq’s Jews. If it could happen to Ades, a friend of the Regent, a man whose sympathies could not be further from Zionism if he tried, it could happen to them, they reasoned. Shafik Ades’s execution was one of the main reasons why Iraq’s Jews streamed out when they were given the chance – the vast majority to Israel. ”

    Jewish safety and well being must never be dependent on others. Jews can be truly safe only if they have their own country and their own army to protect them. Zionism is a powerful argument against Jewish persecution and genocide. Yosef Munayyer does not understand this is precisely why the vast majority of Jews will never let go of Israel. And there is nowhere else for them to go. Ades could have saved his own life. Iraq’s Jews took note of his grisly fate – and nearly all of them understandably chose to move to Israel.

    • seanmcbride
      seanmcbride
      September 22, 2013, 10:13 am

      NormanF,

      Zionism is the default view among Jews due to their realization that being at the mercy of others was – and is no way – for Jews to live.

      But Israel is entirely dependent on the kindness of strangers — especially Americans and Europeans — who could decide at any moment that supporting Israel is more trouble than it’s worth.

      How does Zionism solve that problem?

  5. Citizen
    Citizen
    September 21, 2013, 2:46 pm

    Some Zionist claim that the Palestinians already have a state: Jordan. They ignore how the Palestinians are treated (lots of discrimination) in Jordan, while arguing the Palestinians are more than a majority there. They also ignore that the Jordan regime denies it’s a Palestine state and says Israel’s just trying to ethnically cleanse Israel at Jordan’s expense, and that the diaspora Palestinians’ homes were located in land Israel sits on and the land it occupies, and is settling illegally.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      September 21, 2013, 4:20 pm

      Some Zionist claim that the Palestinians already have a state: Jordan.

      The New York Times published yet another Danny Danon Op-Ed yesterday to peddle that shopworn concept. After transferring three quarters of a million illegal settlers into Palestine the dimwit had the nerve to say that:

      Despite attempts to rewrite recent history by fringe elements, the failure of the Oslo framework cannot be attributed to a lack of will and persistence by Israel.

      The Times may as well make him a regular columnist at this rate. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/opinion/israel-should-annul-the-oslo-accords.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        September 21, 2013, 4:57 pm

        If there is a large cultural group some of whose members live in a territory where they have a right to live but are disfranchised and underprivileged the injustice they suffer is not diminished because other members of the same group live (if they do) with reasonably full rights and acceptable levels of prosperity elsewhere. It doesn’t make begin to sense to claim that one person has what is due because another has. I couldn’t pay a debt to you by paying a debt to your cousin.

  6. September 21, 2013, 3:38 pm

    There is no doubt original geographical Palestine included Jordan. Even if Palestinians will get an offer of the sort Almert offered (with Nataniahu it is far from being a sure) and accept it they will still have only about 5.500 sq. km state area (Israel area within Green Line is roughly 22.000 sq. km with Negev desert 60% of it). State without access to sea, depending heavily on Israel – no way around it. So why in this renewed discussion not revive the Jordanian option? After all, the Palestine which British got under their mandate included both banks of the Jordan river. The kingdom of Jordan was just an absolutely artificial British colonial creation who arbitrarily divided the Palestine under their mandate into two parts. Present day Jordan has close to 6 mln inhabitants and close to 50% of them are of Palestinian origin living on impressive 90.000 sq. km. They have free access to the Red Sea and through that to Indian Ocean, etc.
    So why not think of one large Palestinian – Jordanian state or federation on both banks of Jordan? That would be a viable option for those who wish well for Palestinians.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      September 22, 2013, 1:09 pm

      Jordan does not want to annex any part of the West Bank.

    • homingpigeon
      homingpigeon
      September 22, 2013, 4:36 pm

      I encourage people to not think of this as a matter of the Palestinians merely needing a national “state” as though the lack of this treif is their main problem. Just because Zionists thought a national “state” – this cankerous pustulent concept – was the most important thing for the Jews, it does not mean balance will be achieved if the Palestinians get a “state.” This is why we see hasbarists talking about them having 22 “states” to go to, or that Jordan is the Palestinian “state” for a variety of specious reasons, or that justice will be served even better if they get their little “state” on a few parcels of the west bank. The core issue must come back to the fact that there are people who lived continuously in specific places in Palestine for centuries longer than the dominant population of the US have resided in North America. They are and have been systematically being denied their right of residence, their agricultural land, their olive trees, over a seven decade period. A national “state” for the Palestinians – I gag on the concept – does not and would not protect the Bedu of the Negev or protect the olive trees anywhere the Zionist state has control. I’m happy Abunimah titled his book the “One Country Solution.”

  7. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    September 21, 2013, 4:35 pm

    RE: “I am not interested in Lustick’s pro-Israel critics, who continue to delude themselves into thinking that they support a two-state solution, when what they really support is a strong state of Israel controlling a collection of emasculated Palestinian bantustans that they wish to call a state. Their clinging to the two-state illusion is the chief impediment to a viable two-state solution… ~ Haber

    MY COMMENT: Most of these deluded types are fooling themselves as to the viability of the two-state solution by using defense mechanisms to keep the old cognitive dissonance in check! ! ! As Stuart Smalley was wont to say, “denial ain’t just a river in Egypt”.
    If these people were to admit to themselves that the two-state solution is moribund, then they would experience an unacceptable level of cognitive dissonance; thereby possibly forcing them to support a more feasible, realistic solution in an effort to return their cognitive dissonance to a more acceptable level.

    FROM WIKIPEDIA [Defence mechanisms]:

    [EXCERPTS] In Freudian psychoanalytic theory, defense mechanisms (or defense mechanisms) are psychological strategies brought into play by the unconscious mind[1] to manipulate, deny, or distort reality (through processes including, but not limited to, repression, identification, or rationalization),[2] and to maintain a socially acceptable self-image or self-schema [and to minimize cognitive dissonance – J.L.D.].[3]
    Healthy persons normally use different defenses throughout life. An ego defense mechanism becomes pathological only when its persistent use leads to maladaptive behavior such that the physical and/or mental health of the individual is adversely affected. The purpose of ego defense mechanisms is to protect the mind/self/ego from anxiety [i.e., cognitive dissonance – J.L.D.] and/or social sanctions and/or to provide a refuge from a situation with which one cannot currently cope [i.e., a refuge from cognitive dissonance – J.L.D.].[4]
    Defence mechanisms are unconscious coping mechanisms that reduce anxiety generated by threats from unacceptable impulses.[5]
    . . . The list of defence mechanisms is huge and there is no theoretical consensus on the number of defence mechanisms. . .

    Vaillant’s categorization of defence mechanisms

    Level 1: Pathological
    The mechanisms on this level, when predominating, almost always are severely pathological. These six defences, in conjunction, permit one to effectively rearrange external experiences to eliminate the need to cope with reality. . .
    • Delusional Projection: Delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature. . .
    • Denial: Refusal to accept external reality because it is too threatening; arguing against an anxiety-provoking stimulus by stating it doesn’t exist; resolution of emotional conflict and reduction of anxiety by refusing to perceive or consciously acknowledge the more unpleasant aspects of external reality. . .

    Level 2: Immature
    These mechanisms are often present in adults. These mechanisms lessen distress and anxiety provoked by threatening people or by uncomfortable reality. . .
    • Fantasy: Tendency to retreat into fantasy in order to resolve inner and outer conflicts. . .

    Level 3: Neurotic
    These mechanisms are considered neurotic, but fairly common in adults. Such defences have short-term advantages in coping, but can often cause long-term problems . . .
    Intellectualization: A form of isolation; concentrating on the intellectual components of a situation so as to distance oneself from the associated anxiety-provoking emotions . . .
    Withdrawal: Withdrawal is a more severe form of defence. It entails removing oneself from events, stimuli, interactions, etc. under the fear of being reminded of painful thoughts and feelings. . .

    Level 4: Mature
    These are commonly found among emotionally healthy adults and are considered mature . . .
    • Thought suppression: The conscious process of pushing thoughts into the preconscious; the conscious decision to delay paying attention to an emotion or need in order to cope with the present reality; making it possible to later access uncomfortable or distressing emotions whilst accepting them. . .

    SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_mechanisms

  8. September 21, 2013, 5:49 pm

    I am demanding that my comments are not edited. I do not allow you to do this. Your editing changes the entire meaning of my comment. It is as if you posted something on my behalf. This is an offense and legal actions can be considered against you. I demand that this is immediately fixed and my comment is posted as it was submitted.

    • bintbiba
      bintbiba
      September 22, 2013, 1:15 pm

      Oh diddums….!!!
      Hostage to the rescue please!

    • annie
      annie
      September 22, 2013, 2:05 pm

      what’s next, demanding we publish your camera links? please take your complaints to the comment policy thread.* you want to spam the site with propaganda/lies about olmert’s ‘offer’ linking to propaganda sites. we’re not required to publish them. this is not a democracy and you have no rights here.

      * we’re not using this thread to debate comment policy.

      • just
        just
        September 22, 2013, 3:14 pm

        Merci beaucoup Annie!

        (how very histrionic & dictatorial fnlevit is– perhaps he/she should hang out where his/her hasbara views are endorsed and loved). His/her threats are opprobious.

      • amigo
        amigo
        September 23, 2013, 9:45 am

        “(how very histrionic & dictatorial fnlevit is– perhaps he/she should hang out where his/her hasbara views are endorsed and loved). His/her threats are opprobious.” just

        He might find the J Post a suitable environment to post his Troll-op without editorial inteference , not withstanding attempts to frame Israel as anything less that the Light unto the Nations and the only Democracy in the ME home to millions of victims at the hands of terrorist 4 year old rock wielding Jew haters.

      • MRW
        MRW
        September 22, 2013, 3:17 pm

        @annie,

        What’s the emoticon for kisses?

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        September 22, 2013, 9:53 pm

        “What’s the emoticon for kisses?”

        We had one back in the days when we used pen and paper to communicate.

        xxx from RoHa

      • eljay
        eljay
        September 23, 2013, 7:39 am

        List of emoticons

        Kiss = :*

        Or, in my case, because I have a good-sized nose: :-*

        :-D

      • annie
        annie
        September 24, 2013, 9:57 am

        ;)

        xxx’s all around!

    • Danaa
      Danaa
      September 22, 2013, 3:59 pm

      Threatening legal actions, now, fnlvit? a tad too aggressive, aren’t we? consider yourself lucky that any part of your mendacious comments even see the light of day here.

      Did you know BTW that you could have your very own blog, to use it to preach and to rant to your heart’s content. You could even import the entire camera/MEMRI data base there (am sure they’ll gladly give you the copyright). And the beauty of it is – on your own blog you can ban us all, should any of us ever care to make the occasional visit (offering tea and cookies might help, you know).

      Here at MW, we all post at the pleasure of the blog owners. they can post the comments, edit them, shorten them, whatever. That’s just life in blogland. May be hasbara central, which directed you here, could explain this to you. I’m sure they have a manual. Oh, and while you are there, could you please put in our collective request for at least one Class A operative? this is getting really tiresome.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        September 22, 2013, 7:44 pm

        fnlvit reminds me of this Israeli that heckled Norman Finkelstein during one of his talks.

        She was trying to interrupt him and he cut her off by saying, ‘No, no, we’re not in the West Bank – you’re not going to get your way.’

        fnlvit is a racist, supremacist fanatic. He’s used to pushing other people (non-Jews) around.

    • Cliff
      Cliff
      September 22, 2013, 4:51 pm

      Zionist Troll #1132429384 said:

      Waahhh wahhhh wahhhh. This is an offense and legal actions can be considered against you.

      LOL

      Oh no, I edited your post! Please don’t take legal action against me, troll!

    • amigo
      amigo
      September 22, 2013, 5:01 pm

      “I am demanding that my comments are not edited. I do not allow you to do this. Your editing changes the entire meaning of my comment.”fnlevit self declared Professor.

      Your comments which are basically traditional troll trollope are without meaning edited or otherwise.

    • thankgodimatheist
      thankgodimatheist
      September 23, 2013, 3:26 am
  9. James Canning
    James Canning
    September 21, 2013, 7:53 pm

    After the June 1967 Arab-Israel war, Britain tried hard to get Israel out of all territories occupied during that war. The US very foolishly failed to back the British effort. (Hint: Israel lobby)

  10. September 22, 2013, 4:55 pm

    OK. Here are details of the Olmert offer without Camera link and a copy of the MAP

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/hand-drawn-map-shows-what-olmert-offered-for-peace/

    OLMERT OFFERED 100% territory of the pre ’67 WB. Of this 93.7% was of the actual pre ’67 WB plus 5.8% land inside ’67 line (with this land swap the total was 99.5%) plus corridor linking Gaza and WB..
    Olmert “accepted the principle” of the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees.

    Abbas told the Washington Post in 2009 that Olmert’s offer was insufficient.

    Here is Olmert interview in The Australian
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/ehud-olmert-still-dreams-of-peace/story-e6frg76f-1225804745744

    From the end of 2006 until the end of 2008 I think I met with Abu Mazen more often than any Israeli leader has ever met any Arab leader. I met him more than 35 times. They were intense, serious negotiations.

    On the 16th of September, 2008, I presented him (Abbas) with a comprehensive plan. It was based on the following principles.

    One, there would be a territorial solution to the conflict on the basis of the 1967 borders with minor modifications on both sides. Israel will claim part of the West Bank where there have been demographic changes over the last 40 years…

    And four, there were security issues. [Olmert says he showed Abbas a map, which embodied all these plans. Abbas wanted to take the map away. Olmert agreed, so long as they both signed the map. It was, from Olmert’s point of view, a final offer, not a basis for future negotiation. But Abbas could not commit. Instead, he said he would come with experts the next day.]

    He (Abbas) promised me the next day his adviser would come. But the next day Saeb Erekat rang my adviser and said we forgot we are going to Amman today, let’s make it next week. I never saw him again. (Nov. 28, 2009)

    Here is Abbas confirmimg this in Washington Post
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html
    In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank — though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert “accepted the principle” of the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees — something no previous Israeli prime minister had done — and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert’s peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it’s almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further.

    Abbas turned it down. “The gaps were wide,” he said.

    Finally here is a very detailed Olmert’s map.
    http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/images/iht_daily/D171209/olmertmap.pdf

    • annie
      annie
      September 22, 2013, 5:09 pm

      there there, now that wasn’t so bad was it. btw, olmert was a lame duck by the time he made that ‘offer’. and i saw him speak at the world affairs council in SF where he literally bragged about dangling the map up from across the table, claimed he couldn’t let abbas actually see (inspect) it because then they’d just use it against israel in future negotiations (and he said this with a big smirk and got a laugh out of it) and then i recall when israel withheld some big tax payoff the next year when abbas made some statement affirming olmert offered in something.

      this is a non story that’s been rehashed over and over. btw, the WAF council hosted the palestinian ambassador a week later, he said the palestinians absolutely delivered a response (via israeli reps) to olmert’s ‘offer’ the next day with 14 (i think it was 14) questions in pursuit of a follow up. they were ignored.

      btw , what a man who is out of office fighting corruption charges in the courts tells some guy for an op ed in the australian is not compelling documentation.

      • annie
        annie
        September 22, 2013, 5:28 pm

        and here is the original haaretz article that accompanied that pdf of the map http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-exclusive-olmert-s-plan-for-peace-with-the-palestinians-1.1970

        Olmert’s office said in response to the disclosure of the plan: “On September 16, 2008, [Olmert] presented Palestinian Authority President Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] a map that had been prepared based upon dozens of conversations that the two held in the course of the intensive negotiations after the Annapolis summit. The map that was presented was designed to solve the problem of the borders between Israel and the future Palestinian state. Giving Abu Mazen the map was conditioned upon signing a comprehensive and final agreement with the Palestinians so it would not be used as an ‘opening position’ in future negotiations the Palestinians sought to conduct. Ultimately, when Abu Mazen did not give his consent to a final and complete agreement, the map was not given to him.

        iow, the map was ‘presented’,but he was not actually allowed to take it with him nor inspect it closely until after he signed an agreement. this is absurd.

    • annie
      annie
      September 22, 2013, 5:15 pm

      Finally here is a very detailed Olmert’s map.
      link to haaretz.co.il

      note the very very fine and tiny font after the asterisks at the base of the map:

      *according to sources who received detailed reports from Olmert’s talks with Abbas

      iow, this is not a copy of the alleged map, this is a rendering of the alleged map based on sources who were not present but whom presumably recieved ‘reports’ (it doesn’t even tell who they received the reports from!) about the talks.

      this is hearsay!

    • amigo
      amigo
      September 22, 2013, 6:10 pm

      fnlevit August 9, 2013 at 7:13 am with 15 replies

      I will probably not be able to diffuse all the hatred you have towards my country and most probably I am wasting time. But I am new to this site so let me try at least on some issues. levit,s first post.

      Now levit is making demands

      It might be best to ignore this troll.He /She/IT will tire of being sidelined as do most zios.

  11. September 22, 2013, 5:56 pm

    Please look at the first link to see the hand drawn map which Abbas drew and shown to his assistants after he returned from meeting with Olmert. But this is immaterial. Point is – Abbas turned the offer down.

    Earlier Barak offered to Arafat in Taba was essentially the same 97% plus land swap.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit

    Barak offered the Palestinians all of Gaza and most of the West Bank, no Israeli control over the border with Jordan or the adjacent Jordan Valley, a small Israeli annexation around three settlement blocs balanced by an equivalent area of Israeli territory that would have been ceded to the Palestinians.
    As chief US negotiator Ambassador Dennis Ross put it in a FoxNews interview:

    … the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous… And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage. (Fox News, April 21, 2002)

    Also refugees were adressed (same link)
    The Israeli side expressed its understanding that the wish to return shall be implemented within the framework of one of the following programs:

    A. Return and repatriation 1. to Israel 2. to Israeli swapped territory 3. to the Palestinian state.

    B. Rehabilitation and relocation 1. Rehabilitation in host country. 2. Relocation to third country.

    Arafat just walked away and started 2nd intifda with all the horrors of the suicide bombings.

    According to Ambassador Ross, Palestinian negotiators working for Arafat wanted him to accept the Taba offer but he refused. In response to Brit Hume’s question as to why Arafat turned these deals down, Ross said:

    Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict.
    ………………………………………………………………………………..
    WHAT I WANT IS THAT THESE FACTS ARE ACKNOWLEDGED ON THIS BLOG AND A MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION IS CONDUCTED. WHY PALESTINIANS WALKED AWAY FROM TWO SUCH OFFERS? WHY DOESN’T THIS CHANGE SOMETHING IN THE WAY PEOPLE JUDGE ISRAEL? ISRAEL TRIED HARD TO REACH PEACE. BARAK WENT TO TABA AFTER ARAFAT INTENSIFIED THE BOMBINGS. OLMERT MADE HIS OFFER 4 years later. PALESTININS WALKED AWAY. THEY ADMIT THEMSELVES. THESE ARE FACTS.

    • annie
      annie
      September 22, 2013, 7:14 pm

      quit screaming. we already know all this.

      http://www.haaretz.com/news/pa-rejects-olmert-s-offer-to-withdraw-from-93-of-west-bank-1.251578

      “The Israeli proposal is not acceptable,” Abbas’s spokesman said. “The Palestinian side will only accept a Palestinian state with territorial continuity, with holy Jerusalem as its capital, without settlements, and on the June 4, 1967 boundaries.”

      He called the Israeli proposal a “waste of time.”

      no jerusalem? you must be crazy. and what numbskull make a real estate deal with the terms set down on paper only after the deal is done? you don’t do that over a corner lot much less the most contentious real estate on the planet. as as everyone knows, olmert was finished as PM. he did this for his ‘legacy’, he did it for you, so you could use it for your hasbara. it’s as worthless today as it was then.

      tell me, as a jew, would you agree to a 2ss with no jerusalem for israel? would you? obviously not, so why do you think palestinians should? we all know why, because you think jews deserve all of jerusalem.

      maybe if i scream that w/a paragraph of capital letters you’ll think my logic makes much more sense, but i doubt it! you’re so full of yourself. you act like your thoughts are original and we have not heard them ad nauseum from team israel for the last few years. you may be a professor but nothing you say is compelling, it’s just rehashed hasbara imho.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      September 23, 2013, 9:12 am

      “WHAT I WANT IS THAT THESE FACTS ARE ACKNOWLEDGED ON THIS BLOG AND A MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION IS CONDUCTED.”

      First, you are in no position to demand anything. I would have banned you long ago, if it were up to me. Second, we’ve discussed these evil israel demands that the Palestinians agree to israeli crimes many times.

      ” WHY PALESTINIANS WALKED AWAY FROM TWO SUCH OFFERS? ”

      Because they’re criminal offers. They steal all of al Quds, and key real estate in Palestine, in exchange for worthless desert and put the Palestinian State forever under the boot of the israeli fascist state.

    • amigo
      amigo
      September 23, 2013, 9:37 am

      “Earlier Barak offered to Arafat in Taba was essentially the same 97% plus land swap.
      link to en.wikipedia.org” levit

      Pure lies as evidenced by Shlomo ben ami in “Scars of War, Wounds of peace.Page 250/251.

      “Tactical shortcomings were not of course,a Palestinian monolopy,Barak and his team were full of them.For example, the Prime Minister was too slow to grasp the centrality of the issue of Jerusalem at this conference and was therefore unprepared for the far reaching concessions that were required. Nor were Barak,s bargaining positions on the territorial issue reasonable enough to be seen by the Palestinians as credible.To start as he did with a proposal of a Palestinian State of 66% of the West Bank in order to offer later at Camp David 87 % and not reject out of hand Clinton,s proposal at the Summit of 91 per cent,was an indication to the Palestinians that he did not really have red lines. Barak,s negotiating tactics were a standing invitation to the Palestinians to keep the pressure on the Israelis and never say yes to what Barak used to refer to as , “his generous proposals,”.

      Do your research prof.

      Real Research, not fantasies weaned for zio blogs and hasbara central.

      • September 24, 2013, 4:16 am

        Do you read what you are posting? This simply confirms my post. Barak tries and tries (with wrong negotiating tactics as it turns out) and Palestinains “never say yes”. And in this piece Shlomo Ben Ami (who was a Foreign Minister at that time if I am not mistaken) is talking about Camp David. I went directly to final Barak fiasco – at Taba where he made his 95% offer, no Jordan valley control and land swap and got another “no” from Arafat.

      • annie
        annie
        September 24, 2013, 8:59 am

        I went directly to final Barak fiasco – at Taba where he made his 95% offer, no Jordan valley control and land swap and got another “no” from Arafat.

        the israelis walked out @ taba, did they not?

      • September 24, 2013, 10:12 am

        At Taba, Yasser Arafat hoped to lock the new Bush administration into the same set of proposals that had been put forth under Clinton, proposals that Arafat hoped would be a floor under any new negotiations with the Israelis. At the same time, Barak was hoping for some breakthrough that would bolster his election chances in the few weeks remaining of his term as Prime Minister.
        http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_alaqsa_taba.php

        The talks revealed that Palestinian positions had hardened since Camp David and that gaps between the two sides were larger than before. In fact, on January 28, 2001, the day after Israel made a last ditch effort to save the Peace Process by making major concessions in Taba, Yasser Arafat spoke at the Davos World Economic Forum where he delivered an anti-Israel diatribe full of misinformation, so hostile and vitriolic — calling Barak’s Israel “fascist” — that it left the international attendees stunned. Although a joint statement at the conclusion of the Taba talks said, “the sides declare that they never been closer to reaching an agreement”, no such agreement was forthcoming.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        September 24, 2013, 11:40 am

        “and Palestinains ‘never say yes’.”

        Because the israeli “offers” are nothing more than dividing the swimming pool horizontally, with the “generous” israelis giving the Palestinians free reign to swim in 90% – 95% – 97% of the pool, just so long as they stay out of the measly portion on the top of the water that is to remain exclusively in the hands of the israelis.

        You want a “yes”? Withdraw all of your people and your uniformed terrorists behind the 1967 line and call that your permanent border. No % hold backs, none of your terrorists in the Jordan Valley, no swapping key land for wortheless dessert, and none of the other thieving tricks you people try to pull.

      • amigo
        amigo
        September 24, 2013, 12:00 pm

        “Do you read what you are posting? ” levit.

        Yeah I read what I,m posting unlike you who cut,s and pastes “95%” from your hasbara manual.

        “A normal state is not supposed to settle beyond its legitimate borders. We have created a state, we have been admitted to the UN, we strive to have orderly relations with the international community, yet we still continue to behave as if we are a Yishuv. “bem ami.

        Israel is not interested in peace and anyone who believes otherwise is either a fool or a brainwashed sap.

        Easy to see which one you are.

  12. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    September 23, 2013, 4:00 pm

    What’s dead, again? Perhaps — at most — WIDESPREAD BELIEF (IN THE WEST) IN A TWO-STATE SOLUTION “is dead”, but the death of a belief is quite different from the death of a possibility.

    (This is not to say that the work to effect a separation for 2SS would not be monumental for Israel, now that Israel has integrated the settlements so thoroughly into pre-67 Israel. It is just to say that effecting 2SS is still as possible as ever, just harder for Israel today than in, say, 1980, and thus demanding an even greater “push” from somewhere in order for it to happen.)

    The problem in all these discussions is that they have confounded the GOAL (the PROPOSED OUTCOME) with the MEANS TO GET THERE.

    I contend that there are, today, NO mechanisms likely to spring into action to alter Israel’s old friend, STATUS QUO, which I call an apartheid-style undemocratic single state in all of Mandatory Palestine. So, considered from the viewpoint of ready-to-march-troops-for-change, ALL alternatives are “dead” including 2SS, 1SS(democratic non-discriminatory-version), and any other.

    HOWEVER, if one cares to imagine (“posit”) a mechanism for bringing about change (for example, a sea-change in USA, UNSC action (requires a changed USA), or major INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS against Israel until some slice of reality be changed, then one sees (in one’s imagination, natch) that Israel is not all-powerful (and Israel itself will have to see the same thing, of course, if it is to work), and then some change becomes possible.

    My “druthers” as to the purpose of sanctions is for EU sanctions (with hopes that most nations join in) whose purpose and goal are to require Israel to comply with international law to the extent of removal of all settlers and destruction (“dismantlement”) of all settlement buildings and the wall. THESE ARE NOT THE GOALS OF BDS, which also wants a non-discriminatory Israel and return for Palestinian refugees of 1948 and 1967.

    But it would be a hell of a thing if it were tried. It might even work. Shake things up anyhow (“intifada”).

    The alternative to any international force brought to bear on Israel is to wait until some internal pressure builds up within Israel for reasons unrelated to the outside world, and I have no reason to think such pressure is [a] likely to occur at all, or [b] likely to make things better for Palestinians.

Leave a Reply