Trending Topics:

One-state ‘fantasy is very dangerous’ because it cannot tell us what the military looks like — Manekin

Opinion
on 299 Comments

A couple of weeks back, Mikhael Manekin of the liberal Zionist Israeli thinktank Molad spoke to J Street’s Women’s Leadership Forum, whose Nancy Bernstein asked at minute 38, Does Molad have a position on a one state versus a two state solution? Manekin:

Sure. We have a very distinct position which is that we think a one state–I don’t even know if the word solution is relevant– but that a one state fantasy is unbelievably dangerous toward Israelis and towards Palestinians. I think the only thing that it is more than dangerous is not serious.

It’s also an issue of ideology and identity  but it’s also an issue of just practicality and security.  I think the idea of fantasizing out of the box solutions to two peoples who are at this point engaged or at least for the last 100 years are engaged in a very very serious conflict on every level and say let’s play out some alternative narrative, is unbelievably dangerous to Israelis and Palestinians. To add on to that fact that there are virtually no Israelis who are interested in it, at least not in the way that progressives in the world are interested in it, and there are virtually no Palestinians interested in it, at least in the way that you know, post-colonialists in the world are interested in it. I think it’s highly highly dangerous. It’s a highly dangerous solution, and I think the case needs to be made that first and foremost, before we talk about whether this holds up our identity as a Jewish democratic state and all of that– it’s dangerous for both people.

If one doesn’t know–  and I’ve read quite a bit on this whole one-state jazz– I’ve never read one op-ed or policy paper or book which asks what a military will look like in a one-state context. And if one can’t envision how I can be secure with my family or how Palestinians can be secure with their family– so I don’t think it’s fair to even call that a solution. I would just call that a not-well-thought-out idea.

When it starts affecting politics, when it starts affecting, you know, intellectual elites and so on and so forth, then that becomes very dangerous, because that means that minds around the world are wasting their time and wasting our time on trying to be creative instead of trying to focus on what can be better here, for people.

I think that was pretty straightforward!

Peter Beinart made a similar argument at Open Hillel last October:

To support a binational state you have to tell me what the army of Israstine is going to look like, you have to explain to me in a situation of massive land claims. Because after all the land difficulties of a one state solution are significantly greater than a two state solution– you have to tell me that the joint Jewish and Palestinian brigade of Israstine is going to go and evict a Jewish Moroccan family that’s been living in its house since 1953 to replace it with a Palestinian family because they have the right deed, and when the violence breaks out as it surely will, you have to believe that army will hold together because it’s more loyal to Israstine than its members are to being Jews and Palestinians.

How do you answer them?

(P.S. I think it’s a very good question. And my own answer to this is, Tell me what the army of Israel looks like right now? And the answer is that it looks worse than the U.S. army before 1948. Our army was segregated before Truman’s great executive order of 1948, below. The Israeli army is almost entirely Jewish Israeli and Druze. It includes hardly any Palestinians. Yet it claims to serve a country that is 20 percent Palestinian; and is an occupying force over another 4 or 5 million Palestinians who have no right to consent to the government that controls their lives and often brutalizes them by means of that army. This is a constitutional matter of grave import that produces considerable violence and tension and that threatens many people’s security, including mine in the west. And it’s one reason that western intellectuals and others seek out-of-the-box solutions, and other jazz: because we observe power-sharing arrangements in Israel and Palestine that look like Algeria in the ’50s. I don’t seek the Algerian solution; but to equivocate about these conditions by fretting about what, yes, ultimately should be an integrated army seems like a form of conflict management proposed by the topdog. I imagine that segregationists came up with very good reasons not to integrate our army in 1948.)

Truman's executive order in 1948, desegregating the army

Truman’s executive order in 1948, desegregating the army

Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

299 Responses

  1. peterfeld on February 18, 2015, 11:17 am

    Manekin’s and Beinart’s (and other liberal Zionists’) pessimism seems strategic to me. They still want their kids to be able to run around on ethnically pure beaches so integration is held out as impossible — inhumane to try, even. They discount the probability that the secular middle of Palestinians and Jewish Israelis would find common ground and strengthen each other. For precedent you have to look to South Africa and other multiethnic countries that went through decolonialization and independence. It’s not a smooth or perfect record but that doesn’t justify locking in an apartheid system that makes exile permanent.

    • Krauss on February 18, 2015, 3:02 pm

      Manekin’s and Beinart’s (and other liberal Zionists’) pessimism seems strategic to me. They still want their kids to be able to run around on ethnically pure beaches so integration is held out as impossible

      Of course it is about racial privilege, as you point out, and you also talk about Apartheid SA. But this quote piqued my interest:

      I think the idea of fantasizing out of the box solutions to two peoples who are at this point engaged or at least for the last 100 years are engaged in a very very serious conflict on every level and say let’s play out some alternative narrative, is unbelievably dangerous to Israelis and Palestinians.

      I’m thinking about how it is today impossible to think about a war between France and Germany, because of the EU. That is a miracle, but an even greater miracle is that people have to keep reminding themselves that it is one, because it is so normal for most people now, even for the old save for those who went through WWII.

      Manekin talks about a 100 years. How about a 1000 years in the case of the German/French rivalry soaked in blood? Or how about the British colonization of Ireland which lasted 800 years.

      You don’t have to do a lot of digging to find that the soil beneath the liberal Zionist arguments is very thin and feeble.

      • peterfeld on February 18, 2015, 3:51 pm

        yes thanks Krauss and the less rigorous ones will say “these people have hated each other for 2000 years” and such nonsense. This is the basis for calling one-staters “unrealistic” but it’s the two-staters who look pretty unrealistic by now.

    • JeffB on February 18, 2015, 3:37 pm

      @Peter Feld

      For precedent you have to look to South Africa and other multiethnic countries that went through decolonialization and independence

      South African whites were always dependent on black labor. That was the basis of the economy. Even with being heavily outnumbered, losing several wars and tremendous global pressure it took decades for the whites to lose power.

      The Israeli Jews have already walked away from Palestinian labor during the 2nd intifada though there are a few tens of thousands working now. They aren’t heavily outnumbered. Israel has never lost in a serious way a war. And the global pressure movement is still well behind where the anti-Apartheid movement was in 1960.

      So absolutely let’s look at the precedents. And what we see is that Israel looks absolutely nothing like the typical anti-colonialist comparison. What it looks far more like are other mass migrations where the goal was not to use indigenous labor like the European peasant migration to the Americas or the ethnic partition in India / Pakistan.

      • annie on February 19, 2015, 2:59 pm

        The Israeli Jews have already walked away from Palestinian labor during the 2nd intifada –

        After the first intifada in the late 80s and early 90s, Israel started restricting the number of Palestinians seeking work in Israel and introduced a stricter permit system. It made a
        distinction between “green card” ID holders (residents of the West Bank and Gaza) and
        “blue card” ID holders or permanent residents of Jerusalem.

        what we see is that Israel looks absolutely nothing like the typical anti-colonialist comparison.

        that’s sort of irrelevant. as irrelevant as saying israel apartheid doesn’t look like south african apartheid. but as everyone knows, if it fits the definition of the crime of apartheid, then it applies. here’s what colonialism is: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=colonializim

        the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

        and there you have it.

        again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism

        Colonialism is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of colony in one territory by a political power from another territory. It is a set of unequal relationships between the colonial power and the colony and often between the colonists and the indigenous population.

      • peterfeld on February 20, 2015, 12:37 pm

        @Annie Robbins – you’re right with the legal definition, and that apartheid doesn’t have to match SA. To me though @JeffB is making a point about practicality: the forces that ended apartheid so suddenly in SA aren’t matched in Palestine, that the Palestinians don’t have the same kind of leverage (because of their numbers and economic segregation).

        I think the answer is that they have different kind of leverage (because Israel has different vulnerabilities and depends on the West for legitimacy) and we have to strengthen their leverage through protest, boycotts, international sanction, etc.

    • Stephen Shenfield on February 19, 2015, 5:18 am

      The future state could be called Palestine and its citizens, including its Jewish citizens, would then be called Palestinians, as was the generally accepted usage under the British Mandate.

      Manekin and Beinart’s position seems to me contradictory. On the one hand, they complain that the advocates of a 1SS have not worked out their ideas in sufficient depth and detail, implying that if they did do this those ideas might be worthy of consideration (otherwise why go to the trouble?). On the other hand, they know in advance that “trying to be creative” is a waste of time. If all aspects of a 1SS were fully worked out would they then consider it? Of course not.

      My impression is that their claim that “virtually no Palestinians are interested in it” (a 1SS) is now incorrect.

      • JeffB on February 19, 2015, 7:45 am

        @Stephen

        On the one hand, they complain that the advocates of a 1SS have not worked out their ideas in sufficient depth and detail, implying that if they did do this those ideas might be worthy of consideration (otherwise why go to the trouble?). On the other hand, they know in advance that “trying to be creative” is a waste of time. If all aspects of a 1SS were fully worked out would they then consider it? Of course not.

        Of course they would consider it. Everyone would love to hear reasonable solutions to this crisis. They don’t believe it is possible to come up with a creative solution. OTOH if someone were to prove them wrong and propose something that both Jews and Palestinians thought sounded great that would instantly become a topic of conversation and start to drive solutions.

        For example in the 1970s there were terrible political conflicts in LA regarding smog. Then in 1972 the catalytic converter and unleaded gasoline were invented and suddenly this great idea solved the smog problem. The political debates which had been almost unsolvable became easy to solve and there was a huge unified push towards getting leaded gasoline cars off the road quickly.

        My impression is that their claim that “virtually no Palestinians are interested in it” (a 1SS) is now incorrect.

        I think you should talk to Palestinians in Israel then. My impression is that most of them do support a 1SS. However, most of them do not want to live in a western liberal state modeled on Europe. They are, not shockingly, Arabic culturally and want many of the kinds of cultural institutions you find and Arab countries rather than the kinds of institutions you find in Europe. They may support the western BDS movement as putting pressure on Israel, but they don’t support the liberal secularists egalitarian political philosophy of BDS.

        What they want at an individual level is often quite reasonable. The problem is that individual to individual it is wildly different. Palestinians internally have not had the debates themselves about what a solution would look like, they just keep getting told what they are supposed to be fighting for and the distance between the official positions and the position on the ground is stark. One of the big advantages of even semi-functional democracies is that there has to be a higher level of public support for policy and so this sort of thing doesn’t happen.

      • Stephen Shenfield on February 20, 2015, 6:37 am

        I agree that if you take the current state of opinion as a given, as Jeff does, then no solution is possible. That is because at core the conflict is not about how many states there should be, what they should be called, or their cultural orientation. It is about whether the century-long process of dispossession of Palestinians by Zionist Jews should continue, be frozen, or at least partly reversed. Even the most moderate Palestinians insist on partial reversal and most Jews are unwilling to accept that.

        Jeff hides behind majority Jewish opinion as though it were a fixed objective constraint that has to be recognized. In fact, that majority consists of individual Jeffs who are free to change their opinions. If Jeff were to take a clear stand against the majority instead of using it as an excuse then he would be contributing to the needed change.

      • Mooser on February 21, 2015, 11:34 am

        “In fact, that majority consists of individual Jeffs who are free to change their opinions.”

        I’ve been afraid to open up that subject for a while now, thanks, Staephen. My experience, such as it is, convinces me that for an overwhelming majority of American Jews, the support of Zionism is no more than a pretense. Unfortunately, social pretenses in the US can kill people elsewhere.
        When the pretense of being a Zionist begins to cost American Jews something worth more than whatever psychological satisfaction the pretense evinces, they will drop it, in a hurry. Except for, of course, the few, the proud, the nuts.

  2. philweiss on February 18, 2015, 11:22 am

    Thanks Peter, your comment about the secular middle combination reminds me of the strongest argument against partition in the UK: If you cleave off Scotland you get a very rightwing polity. That is what Israel has done. It has cut off Scotland– the Palestinians — and the result is a rightwing authoritarian country that exists to preserve the threatened privileges of the “English”. If it was one polity, we would see that famous left reemerge: your secular middle would comprise many fairminded Paelstinians and Israelis

    • peterfeld on February 18, 2015, 11:29 am

      Exactly, and Israel is also cutting off its “Jewish Scotland” because all the growing exodus is going to come from the liberal secular intelligentsia. If it does get an immigration uptick from Europe it will be the more conservative element. As @billmon1 says:

      What IS clear is that Israeli emigration is very much a “self-sorting” exercise, like people moving from blue to red states & vice versa.
      https://twitter.com/billmon1/status/567045113390829568

      • Laurent Weppe on February 18, 2015, 1:41 pm

        Which also means that Israel will eventually simply cease to have enough intellectuals to administrate the country with a modicum of competence: wealthy dynasts hiding behind religious and ethnic tribalism and sycophantic lackeys do not make very efficient elites.

    • MHughes976 on February 18, 2015, 3:20 pm

      While I don’t much like the idea of secession and regard the underlying idea of ‘self-determination’ as pretty garbled (as I often say here) I have left-wing friends who are as English as I am and hope that Scotland’s breaking away will happen because they think it will revitalise English political life.

    • hophmi on February 18, 2015, 5:37 pm

      Just like the one state of Serbia and Kosovo, eh?

      • hophmi on February 19, 2015, 12:41 am

        I see we’re censoring again.

      • annie on February 19, 2015, 3:41 am

        no we’re just short staffed. watch them start rolling in of you don’t believe me.

      • Mooser on February 19, 2015, 10:29 am

        “I see we’re censoring again.”

        Sure, Hophmi, “censoring”! It’s a regular prior restraint.

        Hophmi, you are ‘moderated’. Please learn the difference, if you intend to pass yourself off as some kind of lawyer.

        Of course, “Hophmi” if Mondo is the only place in the world anybody will let you open your trap, some allowances should be made.

      • amigo on February 19, 2015, 1:22 pm

        Of course, “Hophmi” if Mondo is the only place in the world anybody will let you open your trap, some allowances should be made. ??. Mooser

        Might I suggest the addition of a trap-door .

      • Mooser on February 19, 2015, 3:59 pm

        “Might I suggest the addition of a trap-door .”

        Heaven forfend! Can you imagine how useful, what a boon to scholars, researchers, anthropophagists and yea, verily, the very man in the freeways, Hophmi’s archive will be?
        Why make him stop now?

  3. eljay on February 18, 2015, 11:30 am

    Beinart and Manekin prefer a two-state solution under which Israel:
    – is absolved of most – if not all – of its obligations under international law;
    – is absolved of all – or almost all – accountability for its past and on-going (war) crimes; and
    – continues to exist as a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” – a state primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews – rather than as a secular and democratic Israeli state – a state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, ex-pats and refugees, equally.

    Beinart and Manekin prefer “Zio-supremacism lite”.

  4. just on February 18, 2015, 12:19 pm

    It’s all an excuse. How many times did Manekin say “dangerous”? Seven (7), and he called the one state solution a ‘fantasy’. Reminds me of this, except it’s not funny:

    No 2 state solution, no 1 state solution… just the Zionist’s final solution, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. So much for “liberal” in “liberal Zionist”– it’s a scam, and it’s wearing thin. They get the platforms/venues that the hardcore Zionists don’t. That way, all the bases are covered and the charade can continue. None of them want peace with justice. The status quo is just too lucrative in so many ways.

    • Mooser on February 18, 2015, 1:25 pm

      All they are doing is admitting that without Zionism, there really is no “Israel”. Funny they can’t see that.

      • Pixel on February 19, 2015, 12:03 am

        @Mooser

        Indeed.

  5. amigo on February 18, 2015, 12:48 pm

    Two state solution is very dangerous.We know what the military will look like .

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_BwDCWVd9A

    In any event , what two state is he referring to.Israel is not interested in a two state solution so you are left with a one state.

    • marc b. on February 18, 2015, 4:26 pm

      exactly. the 2-S solution is the fantasy. it’s a fantasy because Israel has no interest in ceding control over the WB and Gaza, which is a holding tank for the surplus population and aggression. and it’s a fantasy because even if the fantastic were to occur, the existence of a Palestinian state aside Israel, Israel cannot function without its minority population, whether it’s Palestinians or its gastarbeiter force. nothing will improve for those non-Israeli, Israelis retained to clean the toilets or peel the onions.

  6. oldgeezer on February 18, 2015, 12:57 pm

    We have a system based on ethnicity/racism/bigotry therefore we must not think of eliminating it.

    I would call it a defeatist attitude except that I suspect that the bigotry is fully supported despite any pretense to the contrary.

    Such a shame. So shortsighted. It will not end well when the system’s underpinnings are rooted in injustice.

  7. pabelmont on February 18, 2015, 1:03 pm

    No 2SS and no 1SS, just a continuation of occupation-cum-apartheid, the continue “as is” solution.

    I greatly preferred (not that my druthers matter much) 2SS based on EU&UNGA forcing Israel to remove all settlers and the wall (and in my dream version, demolishing all settlements — as a parallel to what Israel did in 1948 to Palestinian villages, and also to let them know that this splitting up of things was real and permanent).

    But 1SS must be based on PRoR (and even my 2SS, above, should include PRoR) into Israel for all Palestinian exiles of 1948 and later who wish it.

    This would make the demographics almost half-and-half. How you’d get people to get along together beats me, which is why 2SS looks better. But if 2SS also included PRoR — and shouldn’t it, by rights? — then Israel itself would be almost half-and-half.

    No, not an easy problem. But, here’s a way to think about it: Ask what Israel would look like today if there’d been no expulsion in 1948 or later. Wouldn’t there be, today, a fairly large Palestinian population? And wouldn’t that have been “right”?

    • Laurent Weppe on February 18, 2015, 1:45 pm

      No 2SS and no 1SS, just a continuation of occupation-cum-apartheid, the continue “as is” solution.

      Which is precisely what the “French Algeria Solution” looked like. I don’t think I need to remind people how it ended

    • just on February 18, 2015, 2:01 pm

      +1…………

      • Real Jew on February 19, 2015, 3:43 am

        The world can conjure up as many solutions as they want. But everybody kniws israel isnt interested in any solutiin and has been fighting the world to maintain the status quo. no solution will work unless the israeli govt as well as israeli society transforms themselves, their politics and their national identity. Sounds a bit extreme doesn’t it.

        Since its creation israeli leaders has rallied the jewish world behind a political and national movement to create a jewish homeland in the holy land (zionism ). And since its creation israel has done everything possible to hold on to that land from ethnic cleansing to building walls essentially making an agreeable 2 SS impossible. By some miracle if the world puts enough pressure on the israeli govt to allow a Palestinian state do you think the emboldened rightwing population, especially settlers, will comply? It would be civil war… literally. And no israeli leader would risk that.

        So considering israel isnt planning mass settler expulsion, nationwide infrastructure reconstruction, or risking civil war that leaves the 1 SS. Something the Palestinians have recently embraced out of sheer hopelessness of an actual 2 SS. When i think of the 1 SS i always envision America right after slavery was abolished. Yeah on paper everything seemed right but on the ground society was more divided then ever. Blacks were still second class citizens and were still being hung on public streets. And that conflict was, simply put, over skin color. What would society look like when you mix 2 different warring cultures with so much animosity and institutionalized hatred seperating each other?.

      • Mooser on February 19, 2015, 4:13 pm

        “So considering israel isnt planning mass settler expulsion,”

        Nobody is suggesting ” mass settler expulsion” except you. And by the Israeli government, too.

        Why, if settlers need to be moved, and compensated, can’t the GOI handle it? Don’t the inexorable laws of tribal unity require Israel to do its best for the settlers, and the settlers, in turn, to do their best, be on the best behavior, for Israel, for the Jews! I’m sure there will be no trouble.

  8. MHughes976 on February 18, 2015, 3:13 pm

    The army of Israstine would presumably be committed to defending Israstinian territory and to maintaining the authority of the government, presumably elected without racial prejudice, against anarchists and fascists. The idea of the army being needed to enforce property rights is in a way a vision of a society without peace or justice. The idea that an army enforcing Palestinian rights seems absurd, evil, grotesque while the idea of a huge military barrier between the Palestinians and any property that any of them might consider theirs seems utterly reasonable is an indication of how far from helpful that liberal Zionist mindset is. Mind you, we knew that already.
    The emphasis on what the army would ‘look like’ is interesting in itself, suggesting an absurdity in a shoulder to shoulder relationship between those of different race.

    • JeffB on February 18, 2015, 3:27 pm

      @MHughes976

      Yes it is absurd. The problem in Israel / Palestine is that the Israelis don’t like the Palestinians and don’t want the countrymen and the Palestinians don’t like the Israelis and don’t want them as countrymen. Your solution is to pretend that somehow magically they come to believe they have common interest. If they come to believe that there is no Israel-Palestine problem. And if they come to believe that the Jolly Green Giant is their high God he has commanded them to work for each other and eat their vegetables that also solves the problem. But they are never going to believe in the divinity of the Jolly Green Giant and they are not going to believe in a common interest without one or the other nations being totally defeated.

      Even if you can magically make the state Palestinian, why would the Jews be interested in defending a Palestinian state against foreign invasion? Foreign invasion quite likely would be to their advantage. Jews traditionally support empire over nations for the same reasons that most national minorities do, the same reason that blacks in the USA support a strong federal government and weak states. If they lost their state they resort to type and they are going to want Palestine absorbed by some expansionist power.

      • MHughes976 on February 18, 2015, 4:51 pm

        Well, I said that to regard the enforcement of Palestinian property rights by military means as an absurd fantasy and the negation of Palestinian property rights by those means as perfectly normal is not to show a helpful attitude: it does not express any belief in equality of rights. Your remarks are not in direct contradiction of mine.
        I think you are saying that it is indeed absurd to think that mutual antagonism could in the short term or indeed ever be overcome sufficiently to make a 1ss possible. I wasn’t directly addressing the topic of 1ss, rather the topic of some attitudes brought to the discussion by people who seem to be liberal-minded.
        I don’t know enough about the situation to have a firm opinion about short-term practicalities, though I do think that all current inhabitants of Palestine do have some common interests and could, at least to a small degree, develop a few more pretty quickly. I don’t think that sufficient overcoming of antagonisms for a 1ss, however severe, is absurd (self-contradictory) in the long run or unimaginable in the light of experience. All relevant analogies, including the one Phil draws here, are inexact – but even inexact analogies show how difficult it is to declare anything truly inconceivable.
        ‘Conceivable’ doesn’t imply ‘practical’, I accept. But I don’t think it’s ‘dangerous’, as claimed by some of those quoted by Phil, to discuss ideas that may in truth be impractical, particularly when years and years of discussion and negotiation or pseud-negotiation have failed to start us on any practical path to ‘peace’. The danger and what I called the unhelpfulness, both moral and practical, is in approaching the problem without a basic commitment to equality of rights regardless of race or religion.
        As for practical proposals for ending the dispute and managing any continuing antagonism, let’s hear them. The proposal to ‘negotiate’ as before for another unspecified period is not a proposal for ending anything that is currently troublesome.
        I’m visiting family in far-flung places so may not return to this discussion very quickly.

      • Kris on February 18, 2015, 7:24 pm

        @JeffB: “The problem in Israel / Palestine is that the Israelis don’t like the Palestinians and don’t want the countrymen and the Palestinians don’t like the Israelis and don’t want them as countrymen.”

        Actually, you know that that is not the problem. The problem is that Israeli Jews feel somehow entitled to get away with their massive theft of Palestinian land and resources and all of the rest of their violations of international law.

        It is delusional to insist, on the one hand, that paintings, etc., stolen from Jews by the Nazis, should be restored to the victims’ heirs, and on the other hand, that the Israeli Jews should be entitled to keep all that they have stolen from the Palestinians. And that old men can be accused of being Nazi criminals and tried, while Jewish Israelis who have committed much more recent war crimes should be excused.

      • eljay on February 18, 2015, 7:26 pm

        || Kris: It is delusional … ||

        It is very, very Zio-supremacist.

      • talknic on February 18, 2015, 9:40 pm

        @ JeffB ” Yes it is absurd. The problem in Israel / Palestine is that the Israelis don’t like the Palestinians and don’t want the countrymen and the Palestinians don’t like the Israelis and don’t want them as countrymen”

        What you’re saying is absurd pal. My countrymen in Australia are Australian citizens. Australia doesn’t allow citizens of other nations to settle in Australia unless they become Australian citizens.

        Israeli’s countrymen are Israelis they belong in Israel, not in Palestine. In fact be they Jewish or non-Jewish, Israelis are prohibited for their own protection under the laws of occupation from illegally settling in territory held under occupation by Israel.

        Palestinian countrymen are Palestinians they don’t want to live in Israel and they rightfully resent Israelis living in Palestinian territory as Israelis.

        The problem which you must ignore is, Israel’s continued illegal acquisition of, illegal annexation of, continued illegal settlement of and continued illegal occupation of non-Israeli territory in breach of the UN Charter, International Law, relevant conventions and hundreds of UNSC resolutions reaffirming and emphasizing the aforementioned binding UN Charter, International Law, relevant conventions.

        “Your solution is to pretend that somehow magically they come to believe they have common interest. If they come to believe that there is no Israel-Palestine problem”

        Their common interest even now is peace. More so in a one state situation, whatever that state might be called

        “And if they come to believe that the Jolly Green Giant … “ drivel drivel…

        Peace is not a Jolly Green Giant and peace was achieved by Israel withdrawing from territories sovereign to Egypt. Quite achievable, all Israel needs do is GO LIVE IN ISRAEL!

        “Even if you can magically make the state Palestinian, why would the Jews be interested in defending a Palestinian state against foreign invasion?”

        Because it would be their state too you stupid stupid person, regardless of what it might be called

        ” Foreign invasion quite likely would be to their advantage. “

        Why? Their state would be under attack.

        “Jews traditionally support empire over nations for the same reasons that most national minorities do, the same reason that blacks in the USA support a strong federal government and weak states. If they lost their state they resort to type and they are going to want Palestine absorbed by some expansionist power.”

        Uh? A) They’d still have a state B) your argument goes against the usual Jews are a nation twaddle.

  9. JeffB on February 18, 2015, 3:18 pm

    @Phil

    In 1948 Whits believed that Blacks were Americans and Blacks believed that Blacks were Americans. Blacks and whites had extensive contact with one another. Blacks were fully integrated into the American economy, even if often in subordinate roles.

    That is not at all the case for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Druze it is the case. For many of the Israeli Arabs and Israelis towards the Israeli Arabs it is the case. But once you say look the Gazans, I can probably count on one hand the number of Israelis who consider them Israelis in any sense and those are mostly the older Israelis who remember the Gazans before the 1st intifada. The young more often simply hate them.

    The 1st intifada destroyed the common citizenship in Gaza and the 2nd intifada in the West Bank. That’s not to say it is not fixable but it will take time and care. The south was a society addicted to black labor, Israel in 1937 and then again in the intifada made the choice they would walk away from Palestinians labor.

    On top of that, what you propose for Israel is worse than what the North proposed for the South at the end of the civil war. And after a decade of recuperating from their losses the the Southern regained their pride and nailed the “moderates” (scalawags) you are talking about to trees alive. They drove the carpetbaggers out and established Jim Crow.

    I get that you don’t think that Israelis are a real people or Israel or a real country. But it is, and that country is inhabited by people that would rather die then live under Palestinian rule. What’s going to be required is generation after generation of subjugation to get the Jews to cooperate with your schemes. And those Jews have a top 10 army including lots of nukes. So they aren’t going to be subjugated. They may die in some war to conquer Israel but they won’t be subjugated.

    I’d love to hear a fully mapped out plan for BDS leads to enough pressure on Israel for them to cooperate in their own nation destruction rather than just doing something else to undermine the pressure. I’d love to hear how given the total failure of western nation building in Iraq you expect to pull it off against a vastly more powerful national group.

    The British couldn’t manage the Israeli Jews of the 1930s at reasonable cost. Would the Israelis of the 1930s last 5 minutes today’s IDF?

    • philweiss on February 18, 2015, 3:35 pm

      yes and white politicians talked about the threat of the mongrelization of the white race thru intermarriage. a lot like Israelis about Arabs. Equally uncharming

      • JeffB on February 18, 2015, 3:46 pm

        @Phil

        I agree with you. Those sorts of attitudes are present in both populations. They are even worse in Israel since the Israelis have started severing contact. The southerners at least had a great deal of affection for individual blacks even if they had collective racism. The Israelis (especially the young) don’t have social contacts.

        If the confederacy had won the civil war and the 1936-9 war hadn’t happened (or the 1st intifada hadn’t happened) then a comparison between the south and Israel isn’t totally off base.

        The difference was the South was part of the USA so many blacks migrated north and the North was able and invested enough to force formal equality over and over again n the South. And that required backing off in the 1870s till the generation angry about the humiliation of the civil war and its aftermath died off. And then very ginger steps from the 1920s to the 1960s. And still… 140 years later there is still resistance and problems. Similarly the South was invested enough in the USA to not military rebel again. The 1870s was the last incident of strong anti-North terrorism though there were some limited applications of violent resistance since then.

        Who do you see invested enough to play that role in Israel. How does this analogy play out? I don’t see how the comparison with the South helps you case.

      • Mooser on February 18, 2015, 6:03 pm

        “The southerners at least had a great deal of affection for individual blacks even if they had collective racism.”

        Ah, so that’s why there wasn’t just one Scottsboro boy! That would have been out of character for our dear Southern folks.

      • justicewillprevail on February 18, 2015, 6:23 pm

        Yes, those KKK guys really had affection for the individual blacks they hanged..FFS, if one sentence betrays the simple-minded attempts at denying the reality of Israel and the obvious parallels to other historic racist situations this is it. Satire is dead when it comes to appraising good ole jeffboy’s convoluted, tortured reasoning. Still, so long as it gets the promised land off the hook, eh?

      • Kris on February 18, 2015, 7:35 pm

        @JeffB: “The southerners at least had a great deal of affection for individual blacks even if they had collective racism.”

        As someone who grew up in the Jim Crow south, I can tell you that this is nonsense. Unless you mean the “great deal of affection” white families had for their cleaning ladies, who were sometimes allowed to take home leftovers from the holiday dinners they had cooked and served?

        Sometimes they even got to take home old discarded clothes!!!!! Such affection!

        Where did you get your ideas about this–from Gone with the Wind?

      • Mooser on February 18, 2015, 8:10 pm

        “Where did you get your ideas about this–from Gone with the Wind?”

        Kris, “JeffyB” is writing his own saga right here at Mondoweiss, called “Gone with My Mind”

      • talknic on February 18, 2015, 10:22 pm

        @ JeffB

        “If the confederacy had won the civil war and the 1936-9 war hadn’t happened (or the 1st intifada hadn’t happened) then a comparison between the south and Israel isn’t totally off base”

        One a civil war in a country. Israel and Palestine are not a country, it is not a civil war.

        “The difference was the South was part of the USA so many blacks migrated north etc etc etc
        Who do you see invested enough to play that role in Israel. How does this analogy play out? “

        The West Bank and Gaza are not in Israel.

      • American on February 20, 2015, 11:44 am

        Kris February 18, 2015, 7:35 pm

        @JeffB: “The southerners at least had a great deal of affection for individual blacks even if they had collective racism.”

        As someone who grew up in the Jim Crow south, I can tell you that this is nonsense. ->>>>>

        No, not entirely nonsense. Although I guess that view depends on what kind of southern family or society you grew up in.
        Among mostly the lower class whites there was some fear of blacks, part of their racism in regarding blacks as uncivilized sub humans and the tendency of every class to have to have someone below them to look down on in order to elevate their own selves.
        Among other whites there was some affection for the blacks and a sense of responsibility for the blacks employed by or connected to their family that involved paying for medical care and assisting them in other ways above and beyond that as just an employer.
        This could probably be labeled ‘paternalism’ ….and derided as another example of white snobbery and a way to keep blacks in their place but it was the best many white southerners could do in those times and until discrimination was slowly whittled away by law.

    • just on February 18, 2015, 4:34 pm

      “The young more often simply hate them.”

      Why, JeffB? Why?

      • Kris on February 18, 2015, 7:40 pm

        just: “Why, JeffB? Why?”

        Because their whole society, including the schools, is set up to promote the development of Antisocial Personality Disorder: http://www.sevencounties.org/poc/view_doc.php?id=564

        These people are very sick, and we need to find a way to help them. Obviously, allowing them to continue down the path they have chosen should not be an option.

    • talknic on February 18, 2015, 10:15 pm

      JeffB does nonsense 101

      @ JeffB “In 1948 Whits believed that Blacks were Americans and Blacks believed that Blacks were Americans. Blacks and whites had extensive contact with one another. Blacks were fully integrated into the American economy, even if often in subordinate roles”

      Was the US occupying Africa like Israel now occupies non-Israel territories. American Blacks and Whites were in America

      “That is not at all the case for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza”

      They’re under occupation by Israel. The Occupied Territories are not in Israel.

      “But once you say look the Gazans, I can probably count on one hand the number of Israelis who consider them Israelis in any sense and those are mostly the older Israelis who remember the Gazans before the 1st intifada.”

      Gaza and the West Bank were never a part of modern Israel

      “The 1st intifada destroyed the common citizenship in Gaza and the 2nd intifada in the West Bank”

      You’re babbling. There was no common citizenship between Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank, nor is there today

      ” The south was a society addicted to black labor”

      South, North both were in the one country, America. Gaza and the West Bank and other big chunks of Palestine illegally acquired by war by Israel by 1949 are NOT yet Israeli by any legal agreement.

      “I get that you don’t think that Israelis are a real people or Israel or a real country.”

      You’re fantasizing about what Phil thinks. WOW! That’s clever. Do you fantasize breathing as well?

      ” But it is, and that country is inhabited by people that would rather die then live under Palestinian rule”

      Why would it be ‘Palestinian’ rule in a democracy

      What’s going to be required is generation after generation of subjugation to get the Jews to cooperate with your schemes”

      Subjugation is a key principal of the Jewish state, but that’s not how democracies work.

      “And those Jews have a top 10 army including lots of nukes”

      The army and nukes would belong to the state.

      “I’d love to hear a fully mapped out plan for BDS leads to enough pressure on Israel for them to cooperate in their own nation destruction..”

      Care to quote this alleged BDS plan to destroy Israel.

      “I’d love to hear how given the total failure of western nation building in Iraq you expect to pull it off against a vastly more powerful national group”

      Maybe Netanyahu should have thought of that before encouraging the US to invade Iraq. BTW what’s this “national group” (“Jews traditionally support empire over nations for the same reasons that most national minorities do, the same reason that blacks in the USA support a strong federal government and weak states. If they lost their state they resort to type and they are going to want Palestine absorbed by some expansionist power.” )

      “The British couldn’t manage the Israeli Jews of the 1930s at reasonable cost. Would the Israelis of the 1930s last 5 minutes today’s IDF? “

      There were no Israeli’s in the 1930’s

      • JeffB on February 19, 2015, 7:54 am

        Care to quote this alleged BDS plan to destroy Israel.

        Sure

        1) Flood the country with a hostile foreign population allied with a domestic population which is hostile to the state. (i.e. BDS demand 3 and their interpretation of SC 194)
        2) Enfranchise everyone with the vote equally so minority rule becomes impossible. (BDS demand 1 and 2).

        That’s national destruction.

        There were no Israeli’s in the 1930’s

        Of course there were. They didn’t have a state yet but they had a proto-state. The same way there were Palestinians prior to the establishment of Gaza.

        Finally from above:

        Uh? A) They’d still have a state B) your argument goes against the usual Jews are a nation twaddle.

        Reread the scenario you are responding to. In the scenario the Jewish state is gone. The Jews at best now live in a Palestinian state.

      • Mooser on February 19, 2015, 4:26 pm

        “Blacks were fully integrated into the American economy, even if often in subordinate roles”

        No, “JeffyB” there was an entire network of “Jim Crow Laws” (You might want to Google it, JeffyB) which, beyond and in addition to whatever social bigotry they endure relegated them to a completely different set of laws and enforcement mechanisms then “white people”.

        Heck, there may still have been separate “white” and “colored” political primaries in 1948, unless Thurgood Marshall had brought that to the Supreme Court already. But all the other “Jim Crow Laws” were in place.

      • talknic on February 21, 2015, 1:08 pm

        JeffB goes avoidancing 101

        @ JeffB /// Care to quote this alleged BDS plan to destroy Israel. ///

        “Sure

        1) Flood the country with a hostile foreign population allied with a domestic population which is hostile to the state. (i.e. BDS demand 3 and their interpretation of SC 194)
        2) Enfranchise everyone with the vote equally so minority rule becomes impossible. (BDS demand 1 and 2).

        That’s national destruction.”

        Sorry JeffB but that’s not a quote ! Do you know what a quote is? Never the less let’s look at your drivel

        1) Flood the country with a hostile foreign population allied with a domestic population which is hostile to the state. (i.e. BDS demand 3 and their interpretation of SC 194)”

        A) Only Israelis have RoR to Israel under UNGA res 194.

        B) How can they be a flood? The non-Jewish Israelis who fled the violence were a minority and the majority of that minority are already dead thru natural attrition.The oldest non-Jewish Israeli to flee Israel in 1948-50 and still alive today, was a baby in 1948

        Those who aren’t dead yet will be in the next decade, because unlike Israelis who apparently live for 3,000 years in order to ‘return’, the life expectancy of a Palestinian in 1948-50 was merely 47 yrs today it is 67yrs.

        “Enfranchise everyone with the vote equally so minority rule becomes impossible. “

        See above .. Jews would not be a minority if the minority of non-Jewish Israelis dispossessed in 1948 were to return to Israel of 1948. The majority of Palestinians with RoR have RoR to non-Israeli territories.

        // There were no Israeli’s in the 1930’s //

        “Of course there were. They didn’t have a state yet but they had a proto-state. “

        WOW! What was it called? What was its currency? Is there an example of a passport? Did it have a Nationality Law? Palestine had all those things!

        “The same way there were Palestinians prior to the establishment of Gaza”

        Strange, the UNSC said this of Gaza on 8 January 2009, when it adopted UNSC Res 1860
        Recalling all of its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003) and 1850 (2008),
        Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state,

        I guess bullsh*t is all you have

        “Finally from above:

        // Uh? A) They’d still have a state B) your argument goes against the usual Jews are a nation twaddle. //

        “Reread the scenario you are responding to. In the scenario the Jewish state is gone. The Jews at best now live in a Palestinian state”

        So? They’d still have a state. Same as they had a state under the LoN Mandate for Palestine (Article 7)

      • Sibiriak on February 21, 2015, 2:03 pm

        JeffB: They didn’t have a state yet but they had a proto-state

        That’s accurate. Rashid Khalidi elaborates on that point in his book “The Iron Cage.” He uses the expression “para-state”:

        In order to protect the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine against the opposition of the majority of the population, the British were obliged to keep the reins of central state power in the mandatory administration entirely in their hands, even as they allowed the yishuv virtually total internal autonomy.

        This autonomy included full-fledged representative institutions, internationally recognized diplomatic representation abroad via the Jewish Agency, and control of most of the other apparatuses of internal self-government, amounting to a para-state within, dependent upon, but separate from, the mandatory state.

        ——

        Nor did the Palestinians even have a para-state structure like the Jewish Agency, since the British would only recognize an Arab Agency, as Passfield suggested they might in 1930, on condition that they accepted the terms of the Mandate. We have seen that the Palestinians considered the Mandate to constitute the negation of their national existence as a sovereign people in all of their country. An earlier British proposal, made in 1923, for an Arab Agency to be appointed by the high commissioner (rather than elected as in the Jewish case) was, in the words of Ann Mosely Lesch, “a pale reflection of the Jewish Agency,” without most of its power and functions, without sanction in the Mandate, without independence, and without international standing.

        This latter point is extremely important, for by the terms of the League of Nations Mandate, the Jewish Agency was “recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine.” The resulting recognized international standing of the Jewish Agency meant that the Zionist movement was entitled to diplomatic representation in Geneva before the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission, in London, and elsewhere.

        By contrast, the Palestinians had no international standing whatsoever, and indeed were often dependent on the hostile and unsympathetic British for such unsatisfactory diplomatic representation as they could obtain in Geneva and elsewhere.

        —-

        The significance of the quasi-official diplomatic status accorded to the Jewish Agency by Britain and the League of Nations through the Mandate thus cannot be overemphasized. It gave the Zionist movement an international legitimacy and guaranteed it invaluable access in world capitals, besides providing the framework within which the Zionist para-state that ultimately became Israel could be constructed without hindrance, and indeed with ample British and international support.

        Rashid Khalidi, “The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood”

      • Mooser on February 21, 2015, 3:10 pm

        “Do you know what a quote is?”

        Yes, their relationship with quotes is very odd.

      • eljay on February 21, 2015, 3:29 pm

        || JeffBeee: 1) Flood the country with a hostile foreign population allied with a domestic population which is hostile to the state. ||

        The Zio-supremacist chooses the permanent dispossession of non-Jewish refugees from the geographic region comprising Partition-borders Israel over justice and accountability.

        || JeffBeee: 2) Enfranchise everyone with the vote equally so minority rule becomes impossible. ||

        The Zio-supremacist chooses religion-based, “minority rule” supremacism over equality for all Israelis.

      • talknic on February 21, 2015, 7:42 pm

        @ Mooser ” Yes, their relationship with quotes is very odd”

        Imagine

        “There’s soup on the menu”

        “What kind of soup?”

        “Beef and pickle on rye “

  10. Atlantaiconoclast on February 18, 2015, 3:55 pm

    Isn’t it interesting that so many progressive Jews who normally support open borders, suddenly become very nativist when it comes to Israel? The double standard must end.

  11. LarryDerfner on February 18, 2015, 4:45 pm

    Phil writes: “…to equivocate about these conditions by fretting about what, yes, ultimately should be an integrated army seems like a form of conflict management proposed by the topdog. I imagine that segregationists came up with very good reasons not to integrate our army in 1948.” But the Arabs of Israel would have at least as hard a time serving in the army as the Jews would have with them serving. Even if Israel becomes “Isratine,” on the other side of its borders are still going to be Arab countries, and those are the countries Isratine’s army is going to be training to fight, guarding the borders against, spying on, etc. Would Arabs want to join Jews in an army against such potential enemies? No. Would they want to join Jews in a Shin Bet or Mossad against such potential enemies? No. And because Isratine’s potential enemies would still be Arab countries, would it be fair to draft Arabs into such an army like Jews are drafted? No. And this shows the fundamental incoherence of Israel as a “state of all its citizens” rather than a Jewish state.

    • peterfeld on February 18, 2015, 4:50 pm

      All Arab countries have armies, to say the least it’s not as though they could never fight each other. And a multinational Israel-Palestine isn’t going to have the current kind of hostility with its neighbors.

      • just on February 18, 2015, 5:05 pm
      • LarryDerfner on February 18, 2015, 5:06 pm

        Yeah, but the Arabs of this country will not join the Jews of this country en masse to fight Arabs, and I don’t blame them in the slightest, and it’s wrong to expect them to or, God forbid, to draft them into an army to fight alongside Jews against Arabs. (Has anybody asked Israeli Arabs if they’re in favor of such a deal? I asked Azmi Bishara once, his answer: No comment.) And while it’s possible that a one-state I/P will have less hostility with its neighbors than Israel has, it’s completely unrealistic to think there won’t be any hostility at all, won’t be any wars at all, and what happens if and when the first war breaks out? You can’t build a state that depends for its basic stability on eternally peaceful relations with its neighbors, especially if we’re talking about this country and these neighbors.

      • hjmetro on February 18, 2015, 8:40 pm

        “Isratine” and its neighbors might even become allies, out of necessity, against Da’ish.

      • Mooser on February 20, 2015, 11:57 am

        “Yeah, but the Arabs of this country will not join the Jews of this country en masse to fight Arabs,”

        Okay, I get it, I’m supposed to be civil to a guy who thinks the Israeli future is fighting Arabs “en masse”. And of course, Palestinians must be excluded from that bright, productive and certain-victory future? High-hopes you’ve got for Zionism, Derfner.

      • gamal on February 20, 2015, 2:06 pm

        as civility casts her ethereal spell,

        “You can’t build a state that depends for its basic stability on eternally peaceful relations with its neighbors, especially if we’re talking about this country and these neighbors.”

        cats out of the bag then

        “this country”

        “and these neighbours” why Larry, what are you implying?

        “and I don’t blame them in the slightest, and it’s wrong to expect them to or, God forbid, to draft them into an army to fight alongside Jews against Arabs.”

        yes no blame and no equality either, its a trade off.

        (Has anybody asked Israeli Arabs if they’re in favor of such a deal? I asked Azmi Bishara once, his answer: No comment.”) what does no comment mean?

        ” to fight alongside Jews against Arabs.” have you seen American Sniper?

      • Mooser on February 21, 2015, 11:37 am

        “this country” “and these neighbours”

        Right, Gamal, exactly. That’s the guy I’m supposed to be civil to? I can’t do it.

    • annie on February 18, 2015, 5:02 pm

      Even if Israel becomes “Isratine,” on the other side of its borders are still going to be Arab countries, and those are the countries Isratine’s army is going to be training to fight, guarding the borders against, spying on, etc.

      we share a border with mexico and there are lots of mexican americans in our army. even from the beginning the arab countries didn’t fight with israel merely because it’s jewish. it has to do with the way israel acts towards those neighbors and those neighbors lands, and the way israel acts towards palestinians and palestinian land. if israel’s actions changed and it became a country of all it’s citizens it would probably act differently towards it’s neighbors.

      But the Arabs of Israel would have at least as hard a time serving in the army as the Jews would have with them serving.

      for awhile.

      • just on February 18, 2015, 5:06 pm

        Thanks Peter and Annie~ agreed.

        Larry~ you make it sound impossible to resolve, and that the divisions must remain constant and forever. I can see that the Palestinians have much to overcome in order to live free and respected in and on their own lands.

      • LarryDerfner on February 18, 2015, 5:08 pm

        Annie, the U.S. doesn’t fight Mexico – if it did, it would be a real problem for Mexican-Americans in the U.S. Army – and if it wouldn’t be, it should be. About your other point, Perer Feld made it, too, and I answered it above.

      • lysias on February 18, 2015, 5:20 pm

        Blacks and whites now serve together in the South African army. In the last years of apartheid, the South African army did a lot of fighting in places like Angola. Since apartheid ended, there have been, as far as I know, no hostilities between the new South Africa and other African countries.

      • annie on February 19, 2015, 10:18 am

        Annie, the U.S. doesn’t fight Mexico

        not anymore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny#All_Mexico

        All Mexico

        After the election of Polk, but before he took office, Congress approved the annexation of Texas. Polk moved to occupy a portion of Texas which had declared independence from Mexico in 1836, but was still claimed by Mexico. This paved the way for the outbreak of the Mexican-American War on April 24, 1846. With American successes on the battlefield, by the summer of 1847 there were calls for the annexation of “All Mexico”, particularly among Eastern Democrats, who argued that bringing Mexico into the Union was the best way to ensure future peace in the region.[46]

        This was a controversial proposition for two reasons. First, idealistic advocates of manifest destiny like John L. O’Sullivan had always maintained that the laws of the United States should not be imposed on people against their will. The annexation of “All Mexico” would be a violation of this principle. And secondly, the annexation of Mexico was controversial because it would mean extending U.S. citizenship to millions of Mexicans. Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, who had approved of the annexation of Texas, was opposed to the annexation of Mexico, as well as the “mission” aspect of manifest destiny, for racial reasons. He made these views clear in a speech to Congress on January 4, 1848:

        We have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race…. We are anxious to force free government on all; and I see that it has been urged … that it is the mission of this country to spread civil and religious liberty over all the world, and especially over this continent. It is a great mistake.[47]

        This debate brought to the forefront one of the contradictions of manifest destiny: on the one hand, while identitarian ideas inherent in manifest destiny suggested that Mexicans, as non-whites, would present a threat to white racial integrity and thus were not qualified to become Americans, the “mission” component of manifest destiny suggested that Mexicans would be improved (or “regenerated”, as it was then described) by bringing them into American democracy. Identitarianism was used to promote manifest destiny, but, as in the case of Calhoun and the resistance to the “All Mexico” movement, identitarianism was also used to oppose manifest destiny.[48] Conversely, proponents of annexation of “All Mexico” regarded it as an anti-slavery measure.[49]

        The controversy was eventually ended by the Mexican Cession, which added the territories of Alta California and Nuevo México to the United States, both more sparsely populated than the rest of Mexico. Like the All Oregon movement, the All Mexico movement quickly abated.

        Historian Frederick Merk, in Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History: A Reinterpretation (1963), argued that the failure of the All Oregon and All Mexico movements indicates that manifest destiny had not been as popular as historians have traditionally portrayed it to have been. Merk wrote that, while belief in the beneficent mission of democracy was central to American history, aggressive “continentalism” were aberrations supported by only a minority of Americans, All of them Democrats, well it was opposed by Whigs and some Democrats. Thus the Democrats of Louisiana opposed annexation of Mexico,[50] while those in Mississippi supported it.[51]

      • Mooser on February 19, 2015, 10:57 am

        “Annie, the U.S. doesn’t fight Mexico – if it did, it would be a real problem for Mexican-Americans in the U.S. Army – and if it wouldn’t be, it should be. “

        What is hilarious here is Derfner’s assumption that the US “fight” with Mexico would be an unprovoked, genocidal or ethnic-cleansing assault on Mexico and its people.
        Yes, under those circumstances, Americans with ties to Mexico in the US Army might have some problems with it.

        Derfner’s another Witty. Oh he wants peace and resolution, but when any action is suggested which might lead to that, it’s “impossible”, too complicated.
        Another words, he is fine with things as they are. And why not? What really, could go wrong?

      • Walid on February 20, 2015, 10:09 am

        “Would Arabs want to join Jews in an army against such potential enemies? No. Would they want to join Jews in a Shin Bet or Mossad against such potential enemies? No”(Larry)

        “The Israeli army is almost entirely Jewish Israeli and Druze. It includes hardly any Palestinians.” (Phil)

        Neither Larry nor Phil seem aware that Druze that serve in the IDF are at the same time Arab, Moslem and above all else, Palestinian. And yet, they have been serving in the Israeli forces and fighting fellow Palestinian Arabs. The Druze Colonel Ghassan Eilian is the commander of the Golani Brigade that was injured in the 2014 war on Gaza fighting fellow Arabs of Gaza.

        And this is not counting the hundreds of Palestinian and Lebanese Arabs that work as spies for Israel.

    • oldgeezer on February 18, 2015, 5:56 pm

      “Would Arabs want to join Jews in an army against such potential enemies? No. Would they want to join Jews in a Shin Bet or Mossad against such potential enemies? No”

      An interesting point but it raises a lot of issues and questions.

      If Isratine was a state which treated all of it’s citizens with equality and did not endorse segregation why would an Arab not be willing to defend their homeland? Why would they identify more with someone from hundreds of miles away in a different state than their neighbour?

      Is this condition, as you see it, particular only to arabs?

      If so then what is the core deficiency of Arabs that they are unable to build loyalties as the rest of us.

      If not then what should the west do, if there is conflict between the west and Israel, with it`s Jewish population? If there is a conflict of interest between western and Israeli interests is it necessary for the state to question the motives and actions of it’s Jewish citizens?

      If there is a conflict between a western state and, say, Japan should be round up all Japanese and place them in internment camps?

      Or is it simply a matter that you can’t foresee an Isratine state which will ever treat it’s minorities as equals?

      “And because Isratine’s potential enemies would still be Arab countries, would it be fair to draft Arabs into such an army like Jews are drafted? No. ”

      Why not? In a state which treats all citizens equally if a draft is required why shouldn’t all citizens be subject to the same requirements? What is the unfairness of equal benefit and responsibility to all?

      Some of my questions are rhetorical for sure. It seems you believe in tribalism as the overarching structure. Perhaps I’m in the minority in rejecting that.

      • just on February 18, 2015, 6:05 pm

        Thanks, oldgeezer.

      • JeffB on February 18, 2015, 6:33 pm

        @oldgeezer

        Larry is quite right about the loyalty issue. And let me put that to rest with your quite appropriate analogy.

        If not then what should the west do, if there is conflict between the west and Israel, with it`s Jewish population? If there is a conflict of interest between western and Israeli interests is it necessary for the state to question the motives and actions of it’s Jewish citizens?

        Yes they should.

        In the mid 1940s the USA policy was to support the arms boycott. My great uncle abused his ties with the army to help get weapons to Palestine. This wasn’t something he kept secret after the war but is the highpoint of his life in terms of heroism. It is what he is remembered for by neighbors and nephews like me. Jews weren’t powerful enough to do anything about the holocaust. But we were powerful enough to make sure the refugees who survived the camps didn’t die in Palestine and thus help prevent round 2.

        I don’t have ties to the military but I do have ties to telcos. You better believe if Israel needed me and those were helpful I’d use them. I love America but it is hard to imagine any situation where America faced the kind existential threat that an American / Israeli war would represent. Damn right I’d be wanting the USA to lose and if I had a way to do more than want, I would.

        Everything in life is a situation. Sane people don’t put other people in situations like that.

        I can imagine a unified Israeli Army because I can imagine situations where the pan-Arab identity doesn’t mean much anymore. I think that’s faded rapidly in the last 2 generations already. So I’m more optimistic than Larry but I think the spirit of his questions are right.

      • Kris on February 18, 2015, 7:43 pm

        Great post, oldgeezer!

      • hjmetro on February 18, 2015, 8:51 pm

        Thanks for the post, oldgeeser ;)

      • LarryDerfner on February 19, 2015, 5:04 am

        oldgeezer, it’s not just Arabs, it’s anybody, including of course Jews. If any Western country were in contention to fight Israel, I damn sure would not expect that country’s Jews, or certainly not many of them, to join the fight. Do you think you could draft Americans of Irish background to fight Ireland, or Mexican-Americans to fight Mexico, or Palestinian-Americans to fight Palestine? It’s wrong to expect that of any minority, certainly of Arabs in whatever name this country has. Tribal, religious, ethnic ties – all that has a lot to do with nationhood, and I don’t think it’s a good idea to try to violate all those ties and expect such a nation to hold up. And frankly I think it’s pretty obvious that this is fundamental problem with the one-state idea, and I think all one-staters see it because it’s impossible to miss.

      • tree on February 19, 2015, 5:43 am

        Larry,

        Do you think you could draft Americans of Irish background to fight Ireland, or Mexican-Americans to fight Mexico, or Palestinian-Americans to fight Palestine? It’s wrong to expect that of any minority …

        You obviously don’t know American history. In World War II, even while the US was sending many Japanese Americans to internment camps, Japanese Americans were volunteering to serve as soldiers in the war against Germany and Japan, and many of them served valiantly and with great honor.

        Likewise in WWI and II, many German-Americans served nobly in the US armed services. It isn’t all that odd or out of bounds for this to happen. Besides, all of the violence between Israel and its neighbors so far has come because of Israel’s efforts to ethnically cleanse Arabs from land that it covets. If there was equality between Jews and non-Jewish Arabs in one state, then all those efforts would cease, and Israel/Palestine would most likely live peacefully with its neighbors.

        In the US, we don’t expect to be at war with either Mexico or Canada because we aren’t seriously coveting or grabbing their land, and neither are they grabbing ours. That you can’t imagine living in the Middle East without having violent disputes with your neighbors only illustrates your lack of vision rather than a given.

      • mikeo on February 19, 2015, 6:51 am

        Many ethnic Germans fought for the USA against Nazi Germany.

        Anyone claiming persons from a particular ethnic background could not fight against anyone who shared that ethnic background even if they were from another country is revealing more about their own biases and ethnocentrism than anything else…

      • gamal on February 19, 2015, 7:42 am

        So now the immutable ethics of ethnicity dictate there must be a Jewish state in the Levant, because Palestinians will not fight Arabs, what else would a Jewish, itself half or more Arab, state do but fight Arabs for ethnic reasons.

        That Arab will never fight Arab is the lesson of history only confirmed by the present this establishes the need for a Jewish state to fight Arabs?

        there is no place for sectarian states of any kind in the Middle East, the Arabs will eventually defeat all of them, possibly, is there something else we could do with Arabs, other than murder, suppress and rob them? or does ethnicity impose serve impediments to obeying the law, or seeking the consent of your victims for your nefarious ethnic activities. I come from a tribe (of Arabs) but we are not as tribal as you seem to be, we find tribalism limiting and distasteful, perhaps we shouldn’t, you would probably know, better than us how we should feel, however we still feel the way we do irrespective, can we have guns now?

        In a Jewish state at peace with its neighbors who is going to protect Jews from each other, ethnicity, religion, Zionism, a forest of nobel laureates, the enlightement? the Arabs are your only hope.

      • LarryDerfner on February 19, 2015, 8:23 am

        tree, I imagine a key reason why German- and Japanese-Americans volunteered in WWII was that the Germans and Japanese were so obviously the aggressors, and America was so obviously on the right side of that war; it’s hard to see Arabs in this country taking such a view of a war between Arab countries and this one, even in the future. And when you say the U.S. is safe from a war w/Mexico because it isn’t grabbing Mexican land, you’re either being disingenuous about American history, or it’s you who doesn’t know it. And how do you think America lives with Mexico without violent disputes after stealing half its land – by peaceful vision? You’re really presenting America as a model to Israel for living in peace with its neighbors. The ironic thing is that Israel is using America as a model, but now how you suggest – it took the land from the Palestinians like America took it from the Indians and from Mexico, and it plans to hang on to it by force, just like America has.

      • oldgeezer on February 19, 2015, 8:36 am

        @LarryDerfner

        All I can do is repeat what tree has already said about history. Western states can and do make equal requirements upon it’s citizens.

        Anything less would make citizen merely a matter of convenience and not one of loyalty to the state. The Japanese were treated unfairly. Being a very visible minority they were treated unfairly despite their efforts to both volunteer and fight. They did indeed fight though of course. Your position makes every minority’s loyalty suspect, a situation which would quickly bring western states down or create a high level of internecine conflict. It would also make life for every minority both uncomfortable and precarious as they would not be seen as full citizens. The latter is of course the Israeli model which will not be sustainable in the long term.

        It may come as a surprise but western states have survived quite well in that mode and we’re quite stable.

      • oldgeezer on February 19, 2015, 9:14 am

        @LarryDerfner

        “The ironic thing is that Israel is using America as a model, ”

        Well it’s not really fair to call it the American model. It was the western model in the past.

        The same western model which led to centuries of conflict, death and destruction. The same western model which led to two world wars. The same western model which resulted in led to egregious murders and oppression of minorities.

        The big difference is this is 2015 and not the 1800’s (or 1939, not trying to be exact).

        It is the same western model which led to international law being developed outlawing such behaviour.

        It’s also the western model which led to the persecution of Jews throughout history and which leads Israel to view a woman’s womb as being an existential threat.

        One would hope you would see the wrongs that the old western model perpetrated on humanity.

      • Mooser on February 19, 2015, 11:02 am

        “tree, I imagine a key reason why German- and Japanese-Americans volunteered in WWII was that the Germans and Japanese”

        Sorry to bust your bubble, Derf, but WW2 was not fought by volunteer armies, allowed to make ethnic decisions about serving. What kind of a fantasy world do you live in?

      • amigo on February 19, 2015, 11:37 am

        “Do you think you could draft Americans of Irish background to fight Ireland, or Mexican-Americans to fight Mexico, or Palestinian-Americans to fight Palestine?” Lderfner.

        Mr Derfner, your profile states you were raised in the USA.

        1, Were you born there.

        2, Were you educated there and if so did you not pledge allegiance to the USA at least once a week.

        The reason I ask is that you seem to be short on the concept of loyalty and espirit de corp .You seem so comfortable suggesting that citizens of the US should join their enemies and fight against their own nation.That is treasonous.

        You strike me as someone who is shallow and would desert Israel in a flash if TSHTF (it will) and try to get back into the USA.I have my view on how that should be responded to.

        Can,t imagine I would want you on my team under any circumstances but you would be welcome to join my enemy.

      • Walid on February 19, 2015, 12:23 pm

        “If not then what should the west do, if there is conflict between the west and Israel, with it`s Jewish population? (Oldgeezer)

        Oldgeezer, not the West but something out of the Middle East which is an odd exception. In pre-1948 war period when the Arab states were mobilizing, the Jews of Lebanon were actually against the Zionist enterprises and it was reported that they contributed a bit to the war chest. It couldn’t have been that much since the number of soldiers involved in the war was less than 2000, but it was a token gesture in solidarity with the Lebanese government. They were so much against Israel’s Zionism that after the 48 war, the Jewish population increased every year up to just before the civil war of 1975. Of course they didn’t participate in any of the fighting, not many Lebanese did, but they were definitely anti-Israel.

        From Wiki:

        “In the case of Lebanon, Zionism was never received by the Jewish population to an extent to warrant significant riots or anti-Semitic violence (anti-Semitic meaning aimed against the Jews, since the Lebanese are also Semitic). In a letter to Colonel Frederick Kisch, the chairman of the Zionist Executive wrote that prior to 1929 all the Lebanese communities including the Jews “showed no interest in the Palestine question”.[8] Even after the riots of 1929, though Jewish interest in Palestine increased it did so only slightly.[9] Instead of seeing themselves as Jews, Lebanese Jews primarily saw themselves as Lebanese citizens. Even Joseph Farhi, who identified himself as a Lebanese Zionist, had the motto “to be both a good Jew and a good Lebanese citizen”.[10] Amongst the Lebanese Jewry, Judaism was, as Kirsten Shulze writes, “regarded as a religion, not a nationality or an ideology”.[11] Lebanese Jew’s national identity proved much stronger than their willingness to support the cause of Zionism, or at least their willingness to emigrate. Yet, this fact, this idea of a reluctance of Jews to leave their homes was not unique to Lebanon. In fact many Jews of Arab countries felt strong senses of nationalism toward their home countries and had lived with their Muslim brethren peacefully for centuries. What made Lebanon unique was the fact that the Lebanese government understood Lebanese Jews to be anti-Zionist and effectively protected them from anti-Jewish violence.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Migration_from_Lebanon_Post-1948

      • oldgeezer on February 19, 2015, 12:33 pm

        @JeffB

        What can I say Jeff. I would hope that you are not representative of the Jewish community within the US. To be blunt I have no reason to believe you are.

        I am impressed that you have outed yourself as a less than loyal US citizen (if I’m incorrect about your nationality then I will retract that but that is my understanding).

        Of course if you are representative you justify what is considered to be an antisemitic opinion that Jews are less loyal than other citizens. It is considered antisemitic as Jews are considered just as loyal but you insist that is a lie.

        Interesting but not worth any more typing

      • sparrow on February 19, 2015, 12:49 pm

        Zionists never recognize how responsible they are nowadays for the backlash of antisemitic hatred towards all Jews. As long as the Jewish Identity Politics card is ethnocentrically played to prop up Zionist ethno-racist Apartheid and its critics are labeled antisemitic, there will by a growth in real jewish antisemitism, among those deluded by the Zionist claim to represent all Jews.

      • oldgeezer on February 19, 2015, 12:34 pm

        @Walid

        Thanks for that information. I wasn’t aware of that or it’s written in the long ago lost portions of my memory.

        It’s hardly surprising that Jewish people are loyal to their countries and homes.

      • Walid on February 19, 2015, 2:16 pm

        “I wasn’t aware of that or it’s written in the long ago lost portions of my memory. (Oldgeezer)

        Oldgeezer, that’s because of all the lies spread by the Zionists year after year on how ALL the Arabs expelled the Jews when Israel declared its independence. It was written by Kirsten Schulze that a full 3 years after Israel’s creation and the 48 war, that,

        “… “In 1951, during the Passover celebration, the president of the Jewish community Joseph Attie held a reception at Magen Avraham synagogue which was attended by Lebanese Prime Minister Sami as-Solh, Abdallah Yafi, Rachid Beydoun, Joseph Chader, Habib Abi Chahla, Charles Helou, Pierre Gemayel and the Maronite Archbishop of Beirut.” Before the onset of internal strife in Lebanon in 1958, an estimated 14,000 Jews resided in Lebanon.”

      • just on February 19, 2015, 2:38 pm

        Really important history, Walid. Unfortunately, it’s not taught/understood enough. All of it is so vital to understand, including your post @ 1:06 pm. Israel and the Zionists has controlled the narrative for far too long, and twisted and ”disappeared’ the truth.

        Thank you.

      • tree on February 19, 2015, 5:13 pm

        Larry,

        tree, I imagine a key reason why German- and Japanese-Americans volunteered in WWII was that the Germans and Japanese were so obviously the aggressors, and America was so obviously on the right side of that war; it’s hard to see Arabs in this country taking such a view of a war between Arab countries and this one, even in the future.

        An interesting juxtaposition on your part, and one I don’t think you realized when posting it. I don’t agree with your supposition that Japanese-Americans only joined the American war effort because they thought Japan was “so obviously the aggressors and America was obviously on the right side” particularly since the US was interning Japanese Americans simply because of their ethnicity during the war. But lets take your first point as true and then compare it to your second point- that “it’s hard to see Arabs in this country taking such a view of a war between Arab countries and this one, even in the future.”

        In light of your first statement its obvious that you believe that any wars that a combined Israel-Palestine would enter into would be one in which it would be “obviously the aggressor”, rather than its enemy being the aggressor. Otherwise why would Israel (or whatever) be the aggressor against neighboring states that have promised to enter into normal relationships with it once it ends the oppression of the Palestinians?I suspect that your essential problem is that you can’t envision an Israel (or whatever name it went by) that treats Jews and non-Jews equality. If you could you wouldn’t have any problem see how its citizens, of any ethnicity or religion, could support it when it was attacked.

        And when you say the U.S. is safe from a war w/Mexico because it isn’t grabbing Mexican land, you’re either being disingenuous about American history, or it’s you who doesn’t know it. And how do you think America lives with Mexico without violent disputes after stealing half its land – by peaceful vision?

        I am talking about today when I reference Mexico and Canada, not nearly 200 years ago. We also were at war with Britain and Spain at one point in our past, both of those wars resulting in our grabbing more territory, but that doesn’t mean that our past behavior has to be repeated today, or even “emulated” by other countries. Mexico isn’t holding a grudge against us and neither is Canada or Britain or Spain, and likewise we are not threatening them today. Futures are not pre-ordained to always emulate the past.

        The ironic thing is that Israel is using America as a model, but now how you suggest – it took the land from the Palestinians like America took it from the Indians and from Mexico, and it plans to hang on to it by force, just like America has.

        Again your history is faulty and incomplete. Israel is not using America as a model. Its simply another bit of hasbara to excuse Israeli crimes. The US is far from a perfect country and has engaged in many heinous acts over its history, but if Israel was truly just emulating the US after the Mexican American war, then it wouldn’t have ethnically cleansed the Palestinians but would have instead made them citizens of Israel, as the US did with all the Mexican inhabitants of the newly made American territory. While, shamefully, the US did ethnically cleanse many Native Americans, it did eventually give all Native Americans full citizenship in the early 1930’s and gave those Native Americans who relinquished their tribal identities US citizenship 50 years earlier than that. The US has succumbed to ethnocentrism and chauvinism and jingoism but it never as an entity envisioned any type of pure religious/ethnocentric system as Israel has. And that’s why Vietnamese immigrants have come here and become enthusiastic and loyal US citizens despite the wanton destruction we caused to their country in the more immediate past.

        I suspect that the real problem for those who can’t envision an integrated military is that they can’t even envision Israel as a country that treats all its citizens/subjects as equals. A “two-state” solution is never going to happen. It will be one apartheid state, as it is now. So why continue to act as if you are arguing about the viability of a one state “solution” that already exists at present, and instead think about what kind of one state Israel should be? Why is inequality a given forever and anon? Why not really model Israel after the US and work toward legal equality of all its ethnicities/religions? It sure beats the immoral pickle that Israel is in now.

      • Walid on February 20, 2015, 10:56 am

        “That Arab will never fight Arab…” (Gamal)

        Isn’t that what the PA has been doing with Hamas for 9 years?

        Isn’t that what was done to Gaddafi when Arab air forces joined in the gang bang on Libya?

        Isn’t that what the Gulfies are doing in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen?

        Much easier to fight other Arabs than to fight Zionists to help Palestinians

      • Mooser on February 20, 2015, 11:16 am

        I don’t get this at all. Why do Zionists, most of whom are Jews, think that it will be Jews who determine which ethnicity people are, and who will be loyal to who, and escape all judgement on their own loyalty? Or is that the way history has always been?

        And in addition, why would people who can’t even ensure loyalty in their own ranks be listened to about others.

        I’ve made my mind up: The Zionists are completely, totally cured of Holocaust trauma and fear of anti-Semitism. Isn’t that wonderful? Now, the old Jewish pessimism is gone, and we project a positive attitude!

    • tree on February 20, 2015, 4:34 pm

      Larry, I sincerely do not think your problem with one state is that you can’t imagine what the army would look like. Its that you can not imagine what equality in Israel regardless of religion or ethnicity would look like. Perhaps you think it is impossible. You seem to think that Arab and Jew must forever and always be mutually exclusive when in fact a large portion, if not the majority, of Jewish Israelis are in fact Arab. Granted the powers that be over the decades, the Israeli Ashkenazim, have for the most part successfully pounded that Arab identity out of the Mizrahim, but that does not mean that it is never going to resurface and in a truly integrated Israel or whatever it certainly will resurface.

      Also you seem to believe that Arabs would never fight other Arabs from other countries, as if they are all part of a monolith, when current reality certainly proves otherwise. Its as counter-factual as saying that Europeans would never fight other Europeans.

      I find it revealing that Manekin thinks first about what the army would look like, as if the army is the most important part of Israeli society. Israel as an army with a country, rather than the other way around.

      • lysias on February 20, 2015, 5:11 pm

        Frederick the Great’s minister Friedrich von Schrötter remarked that, “Prussia was not a country with an army, but an army with a country”. (Apparently, he was quoted as saying that by Clausewitz, but I have been unable to find the German.)

  12. LarryDerfner on February 18, 2015, 5:12 pm

    Just, I think the situation can be resolved reasonably well with a (sane) Jewish state next to a Palestinian state. It’s not a perfect solution, but I think it’s a lot less imperfect than one state (and a million times less imperfect than the status quo).

    • just on February 18, 2015, 5:29 pm

      Larry~ that was my dream a long time ago, too. That was the dream of millions of Palestinians, both in and out of the OPT and refugee camps. I don’t know that it’s not too late now~ it certainly seems that Israel has blown the chance with the carving up of lands with that odious and growing wall, the illegal settlements, Jewish only roads and the ongoing Nakba.

      Most egregious is, and has been, Israel’s determined and demonstrated refusal to ever make a just peace with the indigenous Palestinians.

    • Mooser on February 18, 2015, 5:54 pm

      “Just, I think the situation can be resolved reasonably well with a (sane) Jewish state”

      That’s great! Do you happen to have one handy? Look, for what, 60 years now Israel has been telling us how great they are doing, and what a great Jewish State they are building. I don’t think they are insane, they are exactly where everything they have been doing, on purpose and with their eyes open could reasonably be expected to bring them. So if you’ve got some other Israel stashed away, one with a different founding, history, and present, man, don’t hold out on us! Bring it on!

      • just on February 18, 2015, 6:06 pm

        +1!

    • eljay on February 19, 2015, 7:32 am

      || LarryDerfner: … I think the situation can be resolved reasonably well with a (sane) Jewish state next to a Palestinian state. ||

      I think it can be resolved with a secular and democratic (and even “culturally Jewish”) Israeli state next to a secular and democratic Palestinian state.

      “Jewish State” is a religion-supremacist construct, and no state has a right to exist as a supremacist state.

      • Mooser on February 19, 2015, 10:34 am

        Derfner is a great example of the old saying “scratch a Zionist, and you may end up with an infection”

  13. Scott on February 18, 2015, 5:39 pm

    Really one of the most challenging interesting comment threads on mondoweiss. It’s not easy.
    If the two state solution is impossible, because settlements, because Israel isn’t going to fight a civil war to remove settlers, then what? One can imagine that a one state thing would evolve over time–after international pressure on Israel, after a long campaign for Palestinian civil rights (even without voting rights: cf that book by Sari Nusseibeh) eventually with voting rights. Once you get there, an integrated army won’t seem like such a big deal. The last thing in a long process.
    My fear of course is that Israel will see the writing on the wall, and start wars, even nuclear wars, to deflect the pressures outward. (Arno Mayer’s theories of World War I–the capitalist states of Europe risked war to deflect their class conflict, displace it outward. Israel’s internal “contradictions” are much more severe. )
    Perhaps if one changed the scope, pushed towards a federated binational state which had EU membership, helping to dissolve some of the hatreds in a larger entity, that might work.

    • JeffB on February 18, 2015, 5:55 pm

      @Scott

      I think the easiest solution is the Palestinians get assimilated. I think Sari Nusseibeh makes a good solution and is in line with what Bennett is proposing. I like the idea of aiming for:

      1) Something that people can live with for now
      2) Something that is getting better

      I’ve heard lots of Palestinians offer solutions I can live with (and I’m not a liberal Zionists) the only problem is they often don’t agree among themselves and so choose a maximal solution between each individuals “red lines”.

      You are absolutely right that Israel would quickly choose war over dissolving the state.

      As far as EU membership, Europe is Israeli’s equivalent of having sex with the X. I actually think the Arab league makes much more sense. They are local and Israel needs to integrate into the region. They could be much more helpful if they wanted to resolve this situation rather than score rhetorical points.

      • annie on February 19, 2015, 11:32 am

        You are absolutely right that Israel would quickly choose war over dissolving the state.

        ha! scott never said anything about dissolving the state. you know, it’s doesn’t add credence to your opinion by suggesting it was initiated by a respected contributor.

      • eljay on February 19, 2015, 11:45 am

        || JeffBeee: … (and I’m not a liberal Zionists) … ||

        Of course you’re not. You’ve made it abundantly clear that you are a full-on, hard-core Zio-supremacist who advocates for as large as possible a supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine.

      • RoHa on February 19, 2015, 6:28 pm

        “I think the easiest solution is the Palestinians get assimilated.”

        Do you mean all Palestinians become Israeli citizens with equal rights to Jewish Israeli citizens? I’m pretty sure they would accept that. It isn’t on offer.

        Do you mean all Palestinians become Israeli citizens with equal rights to those Palestinians who are currently Israeli citizens. I think they might accept even that as a step in the right direction. Is that being offered?

        Do you mean they should become Jews? That might be a little less acceptable.

      • Mooser on February 20, 2015, 11:08 am

        “You’ve made it abundantly clear that you….”

        are a complete phony? Oh yes, “JeffyB’s” done that.

      • American on February 20, 2015, 12:31 pm

        jeffb says…

        ”Damn right I’d be wanting the USA to lose and if I had a way to do more than want, I would. Everything in life is a situation. Sane people don’t put other people in situations like that’.

        You are absolutely right that Israel would quickly choose war over dissolving the state. – ”’

        Well you obviously arent sane….you’ve declared yourself an enemy of America—thats a war you cant win—just like Israel would choose war over dissolving their state we would destroy you before turning ours over to you if and when it comes to that.
        You are very delusional.

      • Mooser on February 21, 2015, 11:42 am

        “You are very delusional.”

        Delusions I can handle. “JeffyBs” pretensions, tho, are nauseating.

    • just on February 18, 2015, 6:06 pm

      Good comment, Scott. Thank you.

    • philweiss on February 19, 2015, 11:21 am

      I agree Scott. Where are you on your former hope about J Street and its ability to force the US toward active support of 2SS?

      • Scott on February 19, 2015, 6:02 pm

        Phil,
        Since J Street was founded, there have been (at least) three pretty serious attempts by Obama to advance the two state solution, the first with the call for the settlement freeze, another in the news lately when Netanyahu said no in 2011 to whatever was coming from the Peres-Abbas talks, and finally the failure of the Kerry mission. Obama has pretty much said to the Israelis, two state is best for you and everyone else, but I can’t/won’t make you do it. J Street has supported him, given him cover, but not enough to counteract Jewish establishment. So I think it’s probably over. If Labor wins next month, it might confuse the issue, but probably won’t. Israel has freely chosen a future in which most of the West dislikes it, and I don’t think will be very happy with the choice. I do agree with Obama and J Street that the two state thing had to be really tried. But it has been, Obama has put as I thimuch political capital into as he can. He’s willing to put more into Iran deal, seems to me.

  14. JLewisDickerson on February 18, 2015, 6:24 pm

    RE: “And my own answer to this is, Tell me what the army of Israel looks like right now? And the answer is that it looks worse than the U.S. army before 1948. Our army was segregated before Truman’s great executive order of 1948, below. The Israeli army is almost entirely Jewish Israeli and Druze. It includes hardly any Palestinians.” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: Not only that, the IDF is beginning to seriously fracture due to some of the settler elements within the IDF openly saying they will not follow orders in the event they are ordered to take action against a settlement (even an “unauthorized” settlement Israel and/or its courts have deemed “illegal”).

  15. JeffB on February 18, 2015, 8:45 pm

    @Kris

    It is delusional to insist, on the one hand, that paintings, etc., stolen from Jews by the Nazis, should be restored to the victims’ heirs, and on the other hand, that the Israeli Jews should be entitled to keep all that they have stolen from the Palestinians.

    Delusional I don’t know. Hypocritical yes. So feel free to keep the paintings.

    And that old men can be accused of being Nazi criminals and tried, while Jewish Israelis who have committed much more recent war crimes should be excused.

    The total number of people who died in the latest fight in Gaza is roughly equivalent to one Nazi shower. During the entire I/P conflict the number of Palestinians killed is about 1 days worth of a single death camp. There is no comparison between the Nazis and the Israelis. Not remotely.

    ___

    Finally as for the Jim Crow south, while I grew up i the North I had cousins down south and they had relationships that were well over a decade old during the 1970s. The 1960s is not an obscure time.

    • amigo on February 19, 2015, 12:39 pm

      “The total number of people who died in the latest fight in Gaza is roughly equivalent to one Nazi shower. During the entire I/P conflict the number of Palestinians killed is about 1 days worth of a single death camp. There is no comparison between the Nazis and the Israelis. Not remotely. ” Sgt Jeff Northridge , aka Jeff B.

      This is typical Northridge bs For your education jar head jeffy, Judges do not let killers go free based on the numbers killed.You are one twisted individual.Was it caused by the pain inflicted on you having to kill all those Gooks ” during your haydays in Nam.

    • Kris on February 19, 2015, 12:44 pm

      @JeffB: “There is no comparison between the Nazis and the Israelis. Not remotely.”

      The problem with that is that people all over the world are seeing the similarities between Nazis and the Israelis.

      @JeffB: “During the entire I/P conflict the number of Palestinians killed is about 1 days worth of a single death camp.”

      Actually, it’s not about the numbers:

      …any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
      (a) Killing members of the group;
      (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
      (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
      (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
      (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
      — Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention

      @JeffB: “I had cousins down south and they had relationships that were well over a decade old during the 1970s.”

      So? One robin does not make a spring. There are Israelis who have friendly relationships with Palestinians, and who even put themselves in danger by trying to protect Palestinians from Jewish thugs intent on destroying their homes, crops, olive trees, children, etc. Similarly, there were white Americans in the Jim Crow south who were friendly towards blacks. But the goodwill of a small percentage of the society was not enough to make a difference. (You should read “To Kill a Mockingbird.”)

      It was after laws protecting the rights of black Americans were passed and ENFORCED that the attitudes and actions of white racists began to change.

      • Kris on February 19, 2015, 2:39 pm

        But thank you, JeffB, for replying to my posts. I appreciate your replies.

      • JeffB on February 19, 2015, 3:00 pm

        @Kris

        The problem with that is that people all over the world are seeing the similarities between Nazis and the Israelis

        I suspect that comes from not knowing much history and just not having many points of comparison and not knowing much about the Nazis. The things that were unique or interesting about the Nazis the Israelis don’t do. So people may make the analogy but the analogy falls apart rather quickly.

        As for the definition of genocide. There are cutoffs in the common law. Because otherwise killing a single individual is “killing a group in part”… The definition you are quoting does exist but it is never applied as liberally as you are using it. The UN wants genocide to mean something more than the sorts of pedantic war crimes that occur in every conflict.

        The Russell Tribunal which is about as biased a kangaroo court as is imaginable couldn’t find for genocide. What they found for was that:

        a) Serious war crimes
        b) Israel was failing to prevent genocide… i.e. a genocidal atmosphere was developing in Israel.

        (a) and (b) I’d still dispute but they are within the realm of reason. Claims of genocide simply are not defendable. Israel has a long standing consistent pattern of cleaning people from land without killing huge numbers of them. Ethnic cleansing is a reasonable charge, genocide is not.

        I’m sure there is some definition of giraffe poorly written enough that Netanyahu meets the definition. That doesn’t make him a giraffe. Your definition above assumes this being done to a huge percentage of a population so as to make a noticeable and significant in that population’s existence. Otherwise it is just abuse of language.

      • Mooser on February 19, 2015, 5:25 pm

        “It was after laws protecting the rights of black Americans”

        Those laws protect the rights of all Americans. They are valuable for all of us.

      • just on February 19, 2015, 5:42 pm

        Looks like the Revere police are taking this seriously:

        “Video: Massachusetts Muslims Threatened with Murder (CAIR)”

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhi6awLoQgQ&feature=youtu.be

        (h/t Rania Khalek)

      • just on February 19, 2015, 5:44 pm

        Super post, Kris.

    • eljay on February 19, 2015, 12:50 pm

      || JeffBeee: … There is no comparison between the Nazis and the Israelis. Not remotely. ||

      Since you brought it up: Sure there is. Both were/are driven by an ideologies of supremacism and expansionism.

      Also – and contrary to your apologetics – Zio-supremacist Israelis aren’t magically transformed into law-abiding citizens simply because they haven’t managed (yet) to kill as many people as Nazi Germans did.

    • talknic on February 21, 2015, 1:28 pm

      @ JeffB // And that old men can be accused of being Nazi criminals and tried, while Jewish Israelis who have committed much more recent war crimes should be excused//

      “The total number of people who died in the latest fight in Gaza is roughly equivalent to one Nazi shower. During the entire I/P conflict the number of Palestinians killed is about 1 days worth of a single death camp. There is no comparison between the Nazis and the Israelis. Not remotely.”

      Indeed. There’s no comparison over the number of deaths. However that’s not what the poster made reference to.

      Israel is in in fact in breach of Laws, UN Charter articles and conventions adopted in large part because of the treatment of our Jewish fellows under the Nazis. That’s why Israel has hundreds of UNSC resolutions reminding Israel of those laws, articles and conventions and affording Israel hundreds of opportunities to comply with them. Israel has failed, dismally.

  16. Rusty Pipes on February 18, 2015, 8:53 pm

    The bigger question is what would Isratine’s economy look like if it no longer had the excuse for its society to revolve around militarization? The Arab Peace plan, which has been on the table for over a decade, has offered normalized relations with Israel if it reaches a peace settlement with Palestinians and honors the RoR. The hostility Israel encounters from Arab states is mainly from its treatment of Palestinians and its encroachment upon the lands and resources (like water and natural gas) of its neighbors. Among the benefits that Israel gains from being a highly militarized society is its ability to market military and intelligence systems that have been tested upon a captive Palestinian population, as well as the huge influx of goods and cash it receives from the US to maintain a qualitative military edge against its constantly threatening enemies.

    A further question for diehard Liberal Zionists: how do you feel about Israel’s nuclear arsenal being under the control of increasingly right-wing, belligerent Zionist administrations?

  17. just on February 18, 2015, 9:02 pm

    Palestine is a lovely name. Palestinian are a lovely people.

    Why Isratine? I prefer Palreal, or Palestine. Palestinians (Jewish, Muslim and Christian) all lived together in peace awhile ago, you know.

    Historic Palestine was/is a certifiable place. Palestinians were/are a certifiable people.

    Just a ‘nitpick’ to some. Kind of huge, doncha think?

    • RoHa on February 18, 2015, 9:43 pm

      I prefer “The Socialist and Democratic People’s Republic of the Holy Land”.

      (“Palestinians were/are a certifiable people”

      You might want to rephrase that, to avoid misunderstandings.

      Certifiable: adjective.

      1. Able or needing to be officially recorded: ‘encephalitis was a certifiable condition’

      2. Officially recognized as needing treatment for mental disorder: ‘it is possible that he will have to return to hospital, but at the moment he is not certifiable’

      2.1 informal Mad; crazy: ‘the world of fashion is almost entirely insane, the people who work in it mainly certifiable’

      http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/certifiable)

      • just on February 19, 2015, 11:46 am

        oops, how embarrassing! Lesson learned.

        Certified, verifiable, real, actual, genuine.

        ““The Socialist and Democratic People’s Republic of the Holy Land””

        Not bad at all!

    • Pixel on February 19, 2015, 12:33 am

      @ Just

      (Great minds think alike. I hadn’t read your post when I wrote my own.)
      —–

      So, the current default name is “Irastine”?
      Arrogance is always ripe for a challenge.

      Pael
      Palrael
      Pasrael
      Paisrael
      Palisrael
      Palessrael
      Palestinael
      Palestinal
      Palestinel
      Palestinis
      Other?

      Take your pick or create a new one.
      Just can’t be Pisrael.
      That “username” is already taken (in discerning minds.)

      • annie on February 19, 2015, 12:54 pm

        pixel, we had this discussion a long time ago, and i think settled on the name of jerusalem. it works well for everyone.

  18. Pixel on February 19, 2015, 12:44 am

    @Kris @Mooser

    Trivial Pursuit: What’s the last line of the movie, Gone with the Wind?

    Most think it’s Rhett’s infamous line, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”

    In fact, Scarlett has the last word, “After all, tomorrow is another day.”

    • Mooser on February 21, 2015, 11:47 am

      “In fact, Scarlett has the last word, “After all, tomorrow is another day.”

      She didn’t live in coastal Warshington. Here, tomorrow is just another long dusk.

  19. talknic on February 19, 2015, 2:54 am

    1922 the LoN Mandate for Palestine was for a unified state where Jewish folk could immigrate, attain Palestinian citizenship and settle anywhere in the State of Palestine, with freedom of worship and access to the Holy places. It was ruined by the Zionist Federation demanding and eventually getting instead a separate Jewish state, ruining opportunity for Israeli Jews to settle anywhere in the Jewish People’s Historic Homeland in Palestine.

    1948 guess who “the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles , whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law , [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries , and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed .” http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Israels+Foreign+Relations+since+1947/1947-1974/5+Arab+League+declaration+on+the+invasion+of+Pales.htm Say …. that’s the same as the LoN Mandate

  20. LarryDerfner on February 19, 2015, 3:30 am

    Mooser and just: Don’t get me wrong – I have almost zero confidence that the two-state solution is going to come about, because of Israel’s intransigence. I’m not saying forget the one-state because the two-state is going to happen. I don’t think it’s going to happen. I think the worsening status quo is going to go on indefinitely, and the most likely thing to change it is global warming, which will change more than just that, of course. I’m saying the one-state solution is even less likely to happen than the two-state, and unlike the two-state, it doesn’t even work in theory.

    • Mooser on February 19, 2015, 10:36 am

      “Mooser and just: Don’t get me wrong –”

      I’m pretty sure I don’t, and frankly, Larry Derfner, you would be the last goddam person on earth to convince me I was. so don’t waste your breath, pal.

      • LarryDerfner on February 19, 2015, 10:53 am

        This is always a problem on Mondoweiss’ comments section – you disagree from a point of view a few degrees to the right of the consensus, and sooner or later somebody starts ragging you personally or calling you a racist or something. It’s a real problem on this site, and if people here don’t want the comments section to be merely a cheering section, if they want to have debates within the left, such as on the subject of one-state vs. two states, which I would think would be something a lot of the folks here would like to debate, somebody is going to have to do something about the personal malice of some of these commenters.

      • Walid on February 19, 2015, 12:47 pm

        “and if people here don’t want the comments section to be merely a cheering section…(Larry D.)

        I certainly don’t enjoy being in a cheering section. I welcome disagreement to bring on good discussions. I don’t believe anything is going to happen, not two states and not one state. Israel will continue stealing more land and will eventualy dump the leftovers on Jordan.

      • annie on February 19, 2015, 1:41 pm

        larry, there are a lot of comments on this thread (too many to count) addressing the topic and some responding directly to you, the most of them do not include ad hominem attacks or personal insults. for the most part i stopped commenting on +972 because the comment section has many overtly hostile insulting posters. it’s been awhile, maybe it’s better now.

        perhaps mooser was put off you didn’t respond to him upthread. his delivery can be off putting but he has a point:

        “Just, I think the situation can be resolved reasonably well with a (sane) Jewish state”

        That’s great! Do you happen to have one handy? Look, for what, 60 years now Israel has been telling us how great they are doing, and what a great Jewish State they are building. I don’t think they are insane, they are exactly where everything they have been doing, on purpose and with their eyes open could reasonably be expected to bring them. So if you’ve got some other Israel stashed away, one with a different founding, history, and present, man, don’t hold out on us! Bring it on!

        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/02/fantasy-dangerous-military/comment-page-1#comment-748432

        yes, of course the situation could be resolved reasonably well with a (sane) Jewish state. but …it’s not that israel or israelis cannot act sane on occasion, it’s that where it matters, for peace, they do not compromise. there’s no indication israel takes the violent settler issue, or the settlement expansion, seriously. it’s not even an issue in the election.

        i think you have a point wrt global warming. but i don’t think waiting around for global warming is a course of action. i understand your ptv, no confidence in 2SS and even less in 1SS. both would be a huge problem ironing out.

        this is why it makes the most sense, because our politicians are not going to force either of these things happen, to just keep demanding equal rights and pressure israel. after decades what’s apparent is that israel won’t agree to anything with carrots. they just don’t scream as much. but we’ve never tried sticks. bds is non violent sticks. it’s the nicest form of sticks there is. and we should try it.

        what can israel do? mow the grass? they wil do that anyway. invade and bomb lebanon? they will do that anyway. build more settlements? they will do that anyway. and as they do all these things they will say the world hates them and go look at syria instead, that we are anti semites.

        but unlike the last century we have the internet now. and in this country the more people who notice israel for what it is (deeply flawed apartheid state) the more difficult it will be for americans to notice our congress does not reflect the will of the people. that is inevitable.

        and then people will ask why. the answer to that question is not pretty. sane jews are not in ascendancy here in the US either, tho i do believe there are more of them. so let’s talk about the extremists. especially the ones in power. what to do with them? starve them out? i have no idea. but global warming won’t wipe them out. as the little people all we can do is keep pressuring israel and let the chips fall where they may. but the result, the backlash, will not be because of anti semitism. the only alternative is to do nothing. let me ask you, if it was reversed and israelis were being mowed down for decades and lived under a brutal occupation with no rights (individuals hauled off in the middle of the night with regularity) and i told you the likely solution would come from global warming or suggesting flipping insane people into sane people, what course of action would you suggest?

        assuming “wait” or “nothing” (or sending a foreign army in to ‘rescue the jews’) is not an option.

      • just on February 19, 2015, 1:48 pm

        So very well said, Annie. Thank you.

        (yes, I am cheering!)

      • philweiss on February 19, 2015, 2:06 pm

        I think the issue Larry’s addressing is the personal attack that makes folks want to not comment, the way that Annie felt uncomfortable at 972. What’s more, Larry is using his real name, so he’s exposed in a way that some others aren’t. Just because we mock a civility standard in the Salaita case, when it was used to censor critical opinion, doesn’t mean that civility can’t be invoked as a virtue

      • Mooser on February 19, 2015, 5:30 pm

        “This is always a problem on Mondoweiss’ comments section”

        Nah, really, the only problem is my temper (now that I read it a day later)! I’m sorry Larry, I let myself get all out of sorts. I might’ve read too much JeffyB or Mayhem before you and blown a gasket.

        Or maybe I’m just missing, well, Yonah. It’s like, I’m Newland Archer, Mondo is May Welland Archer, and Yonah is the Countess Olenska.

      • Mooser on February 19, 2015, 5:44 pm

        I guess I’m just a typical angry anti-Zionist old man. Standing on the front porch yelling at kids: “Get off their lawn”!

      • just on February 19, 2015, 5:54 pm

        ;-0

        There’s plenty to be angry about.

      • Kris on February 19, 2015, 6:28 pm

        @Mooser: “I guess I’m just a typical angry anti-Zionist old man. Standing on the front porch yelling at kids: “Get off their lawn”!”

        This is so funny, Mooser! I read it at least 10 minutes ago, and it is still cracking me up!

      • Mooser on February 19, 2015, 6:32 pm

        “There’s plenty to be angry about.”

        Yes, but it’s still no excuse for me losing my temper. And that’s what I did, and I won’t do it again, if I can help it.

      • annie on February 19, 2015, 7:43 pm

        phil’s right, we should all try to be more civil, more often. i’m sorry you felt uncomfortable larry.

      • DaBakr on February 19, 2015, 8:16 pm

        @lrrydrf

        So, your unfamiliar with how cult members lung to defend their half-baked self-righteous and mediocre ideologies?
        Sure, there are many here who engage in honest debate but many others seem to relish the cheap shot and really bad humour. But is it worse then other i/p blog sites? not really. Jpost is simply insane with pro zionist kooks and while I don’t go on many other anti zionist sites I can’t say it’s any worse then other sites.
        Richard Falk banned all critical commentary and his blog is about as interesting to read now a watching paint dry on a barn door.
        So yes, some of the more ‘passionate’ members here get out of hand with the insults. And others with the high drama eye-rolling conspiracies, but it’s par for the course here if you want to engage. There is a reason they use the name Sabra for some. Get your hackles up man!

      • Mooser on February 20, 2015, 11:23 am

        “phil’s right, we should all try to be more civil, more often.”

        Well, what Phil said was that “civility could be invoked as a virtue” and there’s no denying that, it certainly can!

        So, your unfamiliar with how cult members lung to defend their half-baked self-righteous and mediocre ideologies?

        And look, there’s “Dabakr” to give an example of the civility Zionists endorse. A regular Emily Post, that man is. Oh, wait maybe I’m reading it wrong, it might be an apology.

        Dabakr, “your” is wrong, you want “you’re”, the contraction for “you are”.

      • Mooser on February 20, 2015, 12:08 pm

        “This is always a problem on Mondoweiss’ comments section – you disagree from a point of view a few degrees to the right of the consensus, and sooner or later somebody starts ragging you personally or calling you a racist or something. It’s a real problem on this site, and if people here don’t want the comments section to be merely a cheering section, if they want to have debates within the left, such as on the subject of one-state vs. two states, which I would think would be something a lot of the folks here would like to debate, somebody is going to have to do something about the personal malice of some of these commenters.”

        Larry, I just read the entire thread, that’s a lie and a whine.
        If this is an example of how much opposition it takes to send a Zionist into a tailspin, they should give up on the entire project right now.

    • oldgeezer on February 19, 2015, 11:18 am

      ” I’m not saying forget the one-state because the two-state is going to happen. I don’t think it’s going to happen. ”

      That reduces the purpose of debate to a mere intellectual exercise. Some of us are more interested in doing whatever can be done to actual end what are, objectively, crimes against humanity being perpetrated across multiple generations and disproportionately impacting on women and children.

    • American on February 20, 2015, 12:58 pm

      @ LarryDerfner

      You’ve ‘declared’ neither the 2 state or 1 state is going to happen.

      So exactly what is there to debate with you?
      Are we suppose to capitulate to your declarations or convince you you are wrong?

      My response to zionist is there is no point in ‘debating’ with you, your debate is mostly hasbara and trying to convince people to accept the fate of Palestine decided by Israel.
      You can continue your efforts and we will continue ours…may the right side win.

      • Mooser on February 21, 2015, 3:23 pm

        I find their idea that pending a state of affairs in Palestine that they happen to approve of, the present state of affairs that is, Zionist (Jewish) legal superiority in Israel, the illegal settlements, the war crimes, the manipulation of American foreign affairs and gate-keeping (and worse) in the media, can simply be maintained as long as they please, without any possibility of catastrophe.
        Doesn’t seem like trauma to me. Seems like the confidence borne of sheer numbers (with a rigid disciplinary hold on them, too!), inexhaustible resources and a history of victory on this (Jewish) basis. I think they are out of their minds, but I do gotta say, I can’t see a trace of trauma there. Or any fear of anti-Semitism, except as something which simply needs to be pointed to to make it disappear.

  21. RoHa on February 19, 2015, 3:47 am

    Don’t put your hopes on global warming. Global warming stopped 18 years ago, so I don’t expect it to do anything about the status quo In the ME unless it starts again. At the moment a period of global cooling seems at least as likely as more warming.

    • Mooser on February 19, 2015, 10:38 am

      RoHa, you are right! For years and years I thought it was ‘global warming’ too! Turns out it was just ‘hot flashes’.

  22. just on February 19, 2015, 4:59 am

    Gideon Levy tells us what the IOF “looks like”:

    “And we already have a new national darling: Benny Gantz. He’s charming, modest, honest, fair, moderate, eloquent and even a hunk. …A real sweetie, in a red beret and two pigtails.

    During the national orgy of the transfer of power between the two chiefs of staff, which still includes – believe it or not – distributing a picture of the new chief of staff to every home in Israel under the auspices of a newspaper and insurance company to be hung in every garage, everyone competed in heaping praise on the outgoing army commander.

    Embarrassingly flattering articles, sickly sweet commentaries, no less grotesque, such as only the guild of military correspondents – the regular flock of cheerleaders for the Israel Defense Forces, who for some reason are impersonating journalists – knew how to put out. Of course, no one stood out from the chorus line, the chorus of the red army. They melted: How wonderful it was under Gantz – in the bureau, army and battlefield. Only the right grumbled a bit: Gantz was too gentle in Gaza.

    True, Gantz was a very good man (see how he gave 200 shekels ($50) to a beggar on his last day in the job), who did very bad things – look at what the IDF did under him, what violence and brutality his army demonstrated during his tenure. One day maybe he too will become a “gatekeeper” who will confess his actions and regret them; he has already hinted at the need to reach an agreement with the Palestinians – how moving.

    One day he too will need to be judged for his actions, in Jerusalem or in The Hague. Like the polite rapist, this courteous and charming general is responsible for grave acts – the IDF’s war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank.

    Operation Protective Edge is his, hundreds of innocent dead are notched into his rifle butt. “Black Friday” in Rafah is also Gantz’s black day; all the lies of the most moral army, including the “advance notices,” “warning shots” and “lack of intention” to harm civilians; the bombing of homes with their residents inside, the bombing of UNRWA schools and shelters, and the explicit intention of attacking the homes of Hamas activists, no matter who is there – the general of Protective Edge is responsible, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz.

    Israel will yet be embarrassed some day for this sinful war too, which did not bring about any achievement, and for which it paid a heavy price, even if now its memory had faded and it has been forgotten. In Gaza and the world they will not forget.

    The good and honest man Gantz is also responsible for the behavior of his army in the West Bank. “Operation Brother’s Keeper” is Gantz, and the systematic shooting at demonstrators and rock throwers is Gantz, and the arrests of children is Gantz and the demolition of houses is Gantz. They are not just the gung ho soldiers who fired, they are not just the commanders who commanded and covered up – it is first and foremost Gantz, the supreme commander.

    The army that killed Yusef Shawamreh, a 14-year-old boy who went to pick gundelia plants; or Samir Awad, a 16-year-old youth who was shot in the back while fleeing, is Gantz’s army, the chief of staff who never came out against these killings.

    Gantz is the pretty face of the IDF, the type the Israelis love the most: The type you can wear and still feel naked. With people like him, it is very easy to believe in the farce of the “most moral army in the world.” With such a pretty face it is possible to sleep well at night, without guilt feelings and with a pleasant feeling in your heart.

    This week Gantz’s replacement entered the position of IDF chief of staff to the sound of trumpets. Gadi Eisenkot, too, is painted as a good man, modest, honest and calm. He is the one who patented the horrifying “Dahiya doctrine” [targeting civilian infrastructure as a means of deterrence].”

    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.643089

    I rarely have a quibble with Levy, but when he writes “it is first and foremost Gantz, the supreme commander.”, I have to also assign the responsibility to the Netanyahu/GoI, and the 95% who were cheering the massacre on. The real conundrum is whether and why anyone would want to be part of this ethnic killing machine. It’s not about whether Palestinians would be good soldiers. It’s about Israel’s dogged devotion to killing/erasing Palestinians. No Palestinian will do that. So it is Israel’s “dangerous” practice and policy of ethnic cleansing that makes the ultimate excuse for no 1 state, nor 2 state solution.

    • pabelmont on February 19, 2015, 10:08 am

      Rarely is an armed attack ordered by the army (rather than by the government). Ditto the decision to make it so vast and horrible. All this comes from the government (take note: ICC). However, a soldier can always resign rather than follow an order. Or be fired for refusing (like the IDF chappies who refused to obey orders to remove settlers).

      • Mooser on February 19, 2015, 10:41 am

        “All this comes from the government (take note: ICC). However, a soldier can always resign rather than follow an order.”

        And find out what the Officer’s side-arm is really for? Or have the Lieutenant give a little nod to the guy in the squad that really wants to be promoted? It just takes “a few good men” you know.

  23. talknic on February 19, 2015, 7:01 am

    Also of importance is who would the military serve in a one state eventuality, the state or the people. BTW Who does the IDF ultimately serve now, apart from the illegal settlers?

    • Mooser on February 19, 2015, 10:43 am

      “Who does the IDF ultimately serve now, apart from the illegal settlers?”

      Good question. If the IDF is ever drawn away to meet a serious challenge, what happens to the settlers.

  24. JeffB on February 19, 2015, 8:54 am

    @Tree & oldgoozer

    You are grossly oversimplifying. During WWI there were real problems with both Irish and German loyalty. Both German-American and Irish-American communities were strongly in favor of neutrality not support for the allies. People like Teddy Roosevelt had attacked “hyphenated-Americans” and their communities essentially arguing that the Anglo policy of his ethnic group was American while the minority positions were not. As the situation continued to heat up Wilson appointed George Creel to head a government Committee on Public Information (CPI) to create pro-war propaganda.

    The American Irish community fell in line quickly. The German community not as much. To get compliance there was a ferocious state suppression of almost all German culture in the USA. Wilson adopted Roosevelt’s rhetoric and attacked German Americans as either loyalists (i.e. would follow him) or traitors. Bach, Beethoven were banned. German newspapers were closed, driven out of business. Sauerkraut was renamed “liberty cabbage”, dachshunds were mocked…. There were public book burnings of German books. German language instruction was dropped from most public school systems. There were threats to go further: there was a campaign for the St. Louis mayor “wipe out everything German in this city.”BTW for those people who owned phones speaking German was often illegal so that operators could monitor their conversations. Many Germans changed their last or first names to escape the state organized discrimination. The result of all this was that the German American culture that had existed for generations was almost completely wiped out.

    And it continued after the war. So for example prohibition included beer which was rightly seen as an attack on German culture. So, no, you are selling fake history of what you would have liked to have been true. Real history is a lot messier.

    • Kris on February 19, 2015, 6:45 pm

      @JeffB: Probably you got your info here, http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/immigration/german8.html but the overall meaning of the information does not seem to me to support the spin that you are giving it. It would be so helpful if you would link to your sources from now on. Also, it would help if you’d hit the “reply” button closer to the comments to which you are replying.

      “The coming of World War I brought with it a backlash against German culture in the United States. When the U.S. declared war on Germany in 1917, anti-German sentiment rose across the nation, and German American institutions came under attack. Some discrimination was hateful, but cosmetic: The names of schools, foods, streets, and towns, were often changed, and music written by Wagner and Mendelssohn was removed from concert programs and even weddings. Physical attacks, though rare, were more violent: German American businesses and homes were vandalized, and German Americans accused of being “pro-German” were tarred and feathered, and, in at least once instance, lynched. …

      “President Woodrow Wilson spoke disapprovingly of “hyphenated Americans” whose loyalty he claimed was divided. One government official warned that “Every citizen must declare himself American–or traitor.” Many German Americans struggled with their feelings, realizing that sympathy for their homeland appeared to conflict with loyalty to the U.S.

      “Some German Americans reacted by overtly defending their loyalty to the United States. Others changed the names of their businesses, and sometimes even their own names, in an attempt to conceal German ties and to disappear into mainstream America. Ironically, and contrary to Wilson’s opinion about divided loyalties, thousands of German Americans fought to defend America in World War I, led by German American John J. Pershing, whose family had long before changed their name from Pfoerschin….”

      • JeffB on February 19, 2015, 8:21 pm

        @Kris

        but the overall meaning of the information does not seem to me to support the spin that you are giving it. It would be so helpful if you would link to your sources from now on.

        There isn’t one source. Seems like you hit a source for most of what I was talking about. On prohibition google “Anti-Saloon League”. If you want good background: http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/roots-of-prohibition/

        As far as “spin” I’m not sure what exactly you are arguing. We agree there was a large scale government organized intimidation program against the USA’s German population. I’m assuming you aren’t disagreeing the population was pushing for neutrality in the war. If so any good book on German American history from that period. From online it appears that Leslie V. Tischauser, The Burden of Ethnicity: The German Question in Chicago, 1914-1941 or Bonds of loyalty;: German-Americans and World War I . I learned about it when studying the origins of the German Bund.

        So assuming you are willing agree that the Germans wanted neutrality and Wilson launched state persecution to intimidate them, what’s left for us to disagree about? Most of your quote is just “when the USA did X it was bad”. Which is what government always say when they do bad stuff. I get that the tone is disapproving a “oh we in the USA aren’t like the Russians when it comes to intimidating minorities…” but the reality is they did do precisely that to the Germans. And that was all I was trying to point out. We did it and Wilson had his reasons for doing it.

      • DaBakr on February 19, 2015, 8:27 pm

        Your complaining but then proceeded to basically repeat the same info jb posted. Some people actually know their history and don’t actually have to link to some website to explain what is usually considered common knowledge. I just find it completely ridiculous that anti Zionists here-many who ascribe nazi like traits to Zionists-are arguing that there is ‘no reason in the world’ why Palestinians shouldn’t easily integrate into an Israeli army without creating a fundamental conflict.
        Talk about a severe case of navel gazing….or is it just disingenous hyper-postulation about the defeat of an ideology most objected to while pretending that there are actually more then a handful of fanatics who could see things this way

      • Mooser on February 20, 2015, 12:13 pm

        “‘no reason in the world’ why Palestinians shouldn’t easily integrate into an Israeli army without creating a fundamental conflict.”

        “Dabakr” is right, it would create “a fundamental conflict”. All of the “Jewish Holy War” bullshit would have to be dropped. And it might be harder to get the Army to attack others for purely ethnic reasons. You are quite right.

        But I do have to ask why you are concerned about it, “Dabakr”. Is Israel planning on fighting those 22 Arab countries and billions of Muslims (or however you formulate it)

      • tree on February 20, 2015, 4:05 pm

        Yes, Kris. Thanks for reiterating old geezer’s and my point. JeffB is making a false correlation between the anti-German sentiment in WWI and the loyalty of German Americans, when the reality is that the anti-German sentiment was not the result of, or reaction to, disloyalty among German American but was instead caused by the all too prevalent human and societal tendency to demonize the “enemy”, whomever that might be at a given moment and to stigmatize and overgeneralize about the nationals or descendants of the nationals of the enemy state.

        Dabkr

        Some people actually know their history and don’t actually have to link to some website to explain what is usually considered common knowledge.

        And some people have to link to websites because other people’s “common knowledge” in some cases is incorrect. In this case it was JeffB’s “common knowledge’ that disloyalty among German-Americans was a major problem in WWI, when it wasn’t, or that disloyalty among Japanese Americans during WWII was a major problem. The prejudice against both groups was a major problem, not the disloyalty.

        I suspect that JeffB doesn’t really understand history; he simply collects historical tidbits that he feels he can marshal to support his prejudices, even if it means distorting their meaning in order to do so.

        He used that bit of history to imply that German Americans as a group were disloyal to the US in WWI, when in fact that was not the case. Kris’s post actually was counter to the point JeffB was attempting to imply.

      • lysias on February 20, 2015, 4:10 pm

        JeffB is doing what lawyers habitually do when they attempt to argue from history. They don’t examine the history dispassionately and try, as historians are supposed to do, to determine what really happened (wie es eigentlich gewesen). Rather, they start from a predetermined conclusion, use whatever historical facts or alleged facts can be used to support that conclusion, and ignore everything else.

      • DaBakr on February 23, 2015, 10:25 pm

        @tre lys

        i wouldn’t be too sure either of you is not coming from a place of predetermined bias no matter what you tell yourselves. *

        and as for jB-i didn’t think he “implied” German_American were disloyal during ww2 as much as he implied there was a problem of perception that German-Americans were disloyal-the same way the overwhelming majority of Japanese Americans were loyal but perceived to be not (and in their case suffer even greater punitive action due to their different racial features from the ‘euro’ Germans. Also- we know that many Brits as well as some ‘popular’ and influential Americans were sympathetic to the German reich but not to the axis. Its a very bad analogy-as usual-imho comparing the i/p conflict to either ww1-2.

        *lys fancy yourself an ‘intellectual’ of sorts? read robert burton On Being Certain and how people use so-called ‘logic’ to convince themselves they are right and others are wrong.

  25. NickJOCW on February 19, 2015, 9:42 am

    If one state included an autonomous region for those Jews who for whatever reasons prefer to live in isolation then the remaining mix would probably work itself together in time. But if that is unacceptable to Israelis then they should simply withdraw behind their borders, and the right of return and treatment of their Palestinian citizens can be dealt with piecemeal later. Finding the ‘right’ solution doesn’t seem to me the issue, the issue is that the Israeli occupation, exacerbated by their actions, is illegal and flouts International Law in much the way Netanyahu flouts diplomatic norms. The BDS movement is not concerned with one state or two but with getting Israelis back behind their designated borders. In effect they are squatters and the fact that many have put down roots is no one’s fault but their own. The only thing that calls for negotiation is the time scale for withdrawal and other practical matters of an humanitarian and logistical nature, and that planning should start urgently under international supervision since just because they drove people from their homes at gun point doesn’t justify doing the same to them. Indeed the more sympathetically their upheaval can be handled the better its legacy will be. But no further time should be wasted dancing around the issue.

    By the way, the Spiegal interview with Isaac Herzog (referenced by Phil) shows perfectly clearly that Israel will never accept international norms whatever the forthcoming electoral result. In fact he comes across more insidious, and therefore more dangerous, than Netanyahu. A real snake in the grass. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-israeli-prime-minister-candidate-isaac-herzog-a-1018502.html#ref=nl-international

  26. pabelmont on February 19, 2015, 10:14 am

    In all discussions of “what happens next”, the questions of land ownership should occur. Looking only at West Bank, is there any argument for continuing Jewish ownership (as at present) of what are today called settlements? And what about Palestinian land ownership if and when there is a PRoR into Israel-48? On the second point, UNGA seemed to call for payments for land confiscated, although maybe they called for payments ONLY if the refugee elected not to return (did return mean to the country or to the country and also to the originally-owned land, buildings, etc.?

    • Mooser on February 19, 2015, 10:48 am

      ” is there any argument for continuing Jewish ownership (as at present) of what are today called settlements?”

      Ummm, didn’t the “Jewish ownership” buy that land? If their ownership is declared null, if their title is fraudulent, who will pay them back? Will the monies it come out of the ‘tribal unity fund’? Or will Israel expect Palestine to buy the land back?

      So I guess it’ll be time to go the ‘arson-to-collect-insurance’ route.
      A Zionist “bust-out”

      • NickJOCW on February 19, 2015, 11:31 am

        An Israeli could well have bought land, but wouldn’t whether he or she could live on it be a matter of residential qualification?

      • Walid on February 19, 2015, 1:06 pm

        “An Israeli could well have bought land, but wouldn’t whether he or she could live on it be a matter of residential qualification?

        This question is going to be a very hot topic in 2025 when Israelis that purchased some properties in downtown Jerusalem may be evicted outright, and by Palestinians of all people. Those were built on leased land from the Greek Orthodox Church under emphyteutic leases set to expire in 2025. Similar leases with the church cover the Knesset building, the Museum and the Prime Minister’s residence. Israel has been trying to pull dirty tricks in connivance with the Greek Orthodox Patriarch to have the leases renewed for a few hundred years after it was caught falsifying renewal documents about 2 or 3 years back. The Greek Orthodox parishioners in Jerusalem are watching both the Patriarch and the Israeli Government like a hawk.

        Who would have thought that Israel would try to get away with it with counterfeit documents?

      • NickJOCW on February 19, 2015, 4:04 pm

        Walid, Owning property and living in it are quite separate; it’s perfectly possible to own real estate in some country other than your own; it can be an investment and you are even free to rent it out so long as you pay the appropriate taxes. Were I Abbas, I would start the drafting of a Palestinian constitution, inviting the widest contributions from all over. What a challenge for the human intellect. And what an Israeli thing to do, divert the debate to a totally different subject. Maybe a Palestinian constitution could achieve what we all hoped post-war Israel would do, provide the world with a blueprint for a coherent, peaceful future.

      • Mooser on February 19, 2015, 6:38 pm

        “An Israeli could well have bought land, but wouldn’t whether he or she could live on it be a matter of residential qualification?”

        My point exactly. Hopefully, the settlers will be generously compensated, and gently moved, by Israel, of course.

        Or, as you say, be absentee owners/landlords.

      • Walid on February 19, 2015, 10:48 pm

        “Were I Abbas, I would start the drafting of a Palestinian constitution, inviting the widest contributions from all over. ”

        This is an unsurmountable task to be asking of a man that after all these years of posturing and huffing and puffing of taking Israel to the ICC has admitted his dossiers on Israel’s crimes are yet to be compiled. Everybody under the sun has a list a mile long it could submit to the ICC, but not Abbas.

        As to the “Owning property and living in it are quite separate” you mentioned, this has nothing to do with the situation that will crystallize in 2025. Israel has sold land it did not own and given title to it and when 2025 rolls around, people livng, renting or owning them will have to vacate them because use of the land and any structures erected on them will resort back to the Greek Orthdox religious endowment, unless of course Israel succeeds in pulling a rabbit out of the hat. I read somewhere that people that had rented or purchased apartments or shops on these leased lands in downtown Jerusalem were not told about 2025. This is only 10 years away.

    • talknic on February 19, 2015, 2:14 pm

      @ pabelmont “In all discussions of “what happens next”, the questions of land ownership should occur.”

      1st, land is real estate or property. Not to be confused with the ‘territory’ in which real estate or property exists.

      Territory belongs to all its legitimate inhabitants (sans illegal settlers), whether they own real estate, rent or lease real estate, or are homeless bums with no property living under a bridge. They do not need a deed or keys or any proof of ownership of territory other than being legitimate inhabitants

      Israeli citizens are not legitimate inhabitants of any territories Israel has acquired by war since Israel’s borders became effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

      “And what about Palestinian land ownership if and when there is a PRoR into Israel-48?”

      It should be clear. They’re Israelis who have RoR to Israel ’48. If they did return, as Israeli citizens they could likely in due course individually or in class actions sue the state for wrongful dispossession, years of hardship, etc etc etc and compensation for properties. Why do you think Israel doesn’t want to grant RoR or adhere to the law? The costs of dispossessing people and for 67 years of illegal facts on the ground are astronomical

      “On the second point, UNGA seemed to call for payments for land confiscated, although maybe they called for payments ONLY if the refugee elected not to return (did return mean to the country or to the country and also to the originally-owned land, buildings, etc.?”

      A) Payment was if a refugee decided not to return.

      B) At the time it was expected that return would be as called for. At the earliest opportunity and; as Israel was at the time applying for UN Membership and had obliged itself to adhere to the law, that the law would be observed. As such it would have been expected for people to return to the same properties they left.

      C) Israel lied

      • Kris on February 19, 2015, 2:37 pm

        Thanks, talknic.

      • Mooser on February 19, 2015, 6:42 pm

        “If they did return, as Israeli citizens they could likely in due course individually or in class actions sue the state for wrongful dispossession, years of hardship, etc etc etc and compensation for properties. Why do you think Israel doesn’t want to grant RoR or adhere to the law? The costs of dispossessing people and for 67 years of illegal facts on the ground are astronomical”

        Thank you, Talknic.

      • Walid on February 19, 2015, 11:12 pm

        “The costs of dispossessing people and for 67 years of illegal facts on the ground are astronomical… Israel Lied”

        RoR has become a cruel mythical concept. The PA in negotiations has conceded that it’s no longer an issue having taken their aspirations down to a mere 5 or 10,000 token returnees that would return over a period of 5 or 10 years (Palestine Papers). The US has more or less enshrined the non-return in a Bush I Congressional Resolution and even the Arabs in their floated peace agreement of 2002 and refloated in 2004 gives Israel an out on ROR by asserting that this issue would be resolved in subsequent years down the road in numbers of returnees to be agreed upon by Israel.

        There are a couple of million refugees currently living in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon that none of these countries are capable of absorbing, even if they all get fat compensation cheques fom Israel, the US, EU and the oil Arabs. Meanwhile refugee population keeps swelling and everyone (Arabs, Jews, East and West) have their heads burried in the sand about it.

      • talknic on February 20, 2015, 6:27 pm

        @ Walid “The PA in negotiations has conceded that it’s no longer an issue having taken their aspirations down to a mere 5 or 10,000 token returnees that would return over a period of 5 or 10 years (Palestine Papers)”

        “Palestine papers” can misunderstand as well as any other ‘papers’.

        One must first ask to where exactly would these mere 5 or 10,000 token return?

        To Israel as it was proclaimed and recognized 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time), which is the substance of UNGA res 194 or;
        does it include return to Israel and the non-Israeli territories illegally acquired by war by 1949 or;
        include Israel and all territories illegally acquired by war by 1967, or;
        does it include all the above and the extra non-Israeli territories Israel now demands in swaps?

        The Palestinian push for RoR is under UNGA res 194. It was written in 1948 and was only inclusive of Israel as it was proclaimed and recognized (ibid) ( UNGA Res 194 had nothing to do with UNRWA of 1949)

        “The US has more or less enshrined the non-return in a Bush I Congressional Resolution”

        Has no legal basis yet in International Law. It would take the majority of the worlds countries to adopt a similar legal custom before it would pass into and carry the weight of Customary International Law.

        “and even the Arabs in their floated peace agreement of 2002 and refloated in 2004 gives Israel an out on ROR by asserting that this issue would be resolved in subsequent years down the road in numbers of returnees to be agreed upon by Israel”

        It’s quite rational. A demand for RoR to a territory can’t be made until the final sovereign over that territory is determined and the final sovereign will not be determined until negotiations are over.

        Currently Israel prevents return for non-Jewish Israeli citizens to Israeli territory and; it prevents RoR of Palestinians to non-Israeli territories held under occupation because; it wants those territories too and; it wants them as free of non-Jews as possible.

        If an agreement eventuates however, the Palestinians will not have to ask Israel to allow RoR of Palestinians to territories that are finally sovereign to Palestine. Negotiations only mean one thing. Palestine forgoing legal rights in order to let Israel circumvent its legal obligations and the possible consequences of its failure to adhere to the law for 67 years. Unfortunately negotiations will also mean many refugees will still be at the mercy of Israel.

        “There are a couple of million refugees currently living in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon that none of these countries are capable of absorbing, even if they all get fat compensation cheques fom Israel, the US, EU and the oil Arabs.”

        The host countries are A) not required to absorb them and B) the Palestinians don’t want to take citizenship in a country other than that of return because they’d forgo refugee status and rights.

        It’s the very same reason the Israelis have a seething hatred for the Palestinian determination to maintain their refugee status and therefore their rights. Israel foolishly encouraged refugees from the Arab states to take up Israeli citizenship whereby they lost refugee status and are not covered by the UNHCR statute. There are no claims by Jews from the Arab states against the Arab states because they’d simply fail. Zionists really do f*ck up bigtime, missing opportunity after opportunity

      • oldgeezer on February 20, 2015, 8:05 pm

        67 years of appeasing Israel’s illegal actions have not brought any end to their crimes and theft. The theft will continue as long as we continue to appease them.

      • Walid on February 22, 2015, 11:50 am

        ““Palestine papers” can misunderstand as well as any other ‘papers’.”(Talknic)

        Talknic, my understanding of the Palestine Papers that fell into al-Jazeera’s hands were not the editorializing of events by al-Jazeera but rather the actual transcripts of ongoing negotiations between the dynamic team of Palestinian negotiators and the Israelis. Maybe I’m the one that misunderstood.

        As to the Congressional Resolution, it’s already established that it’s non-binding even as far as the US is concerned and much less so outside of the US, of course, But in the words of the Israeli barracuda, Dov Weisglas, obtaining this non-binding resolution was very important for Israel as morally, no other Congress would attempt to overrule it and this is ALL that Israel ever wanted in the first place. It enshrined that Israel is never to go back to pre-67 borders, that existing major settlements on the wrong side of the green line would never be dismantled and that the Palestinians’ Right of Return was no longer of any consequence.

  27. sparrow on February 19, 2015, 12:20 pm

    The changes to the South African Armed Services post-Apartheid can provide direction. See:

    Ethnicity, Integration adn the South African Armed Forces
    http://www.issafrica.org/Pubs/ASR/SADR12/Mills.html

  28. American on February 19, 2015, 12:23 pm

    I have never been too in favor of One State and Manekin and Beinart are perfect examples of why I havent.

    Zionist are intrinsically incapable of having or even imagining a loyalty to any *common cause, principle or country except what they regard as the Jewish People’s Cause/Country. If Israel was not a Jewish state they would have no more loyalty to it than they have to Ireland.

    Because of this a One State would then literally become a true Apartheid state as they tried to maintain Jewish rule/domination in the One state.
    It would be another decades long struggle for Palestines and likely more violence for them to ever gain equality or normal rights.

    I think the closest thing to justice is to force Isr back into its original UN Res 181 borders and then for the world to wash its hands of any protection or aid to it. Let it survive on its own or not.

    • Mooser on February 19, 2015, 6:51 pm

      “Zionist are intrinsically incapable of having or even imagining a loyalty to any *common cause, principle or country except what they regard as the Jewish People’s Cause/Count”

      Well, you could say that Zionists who cannot live in an Israel (or whatever name, I like good old Palestine) which includes all people as it’s citizens equally are certainly free to leave. Nobody will tie them up and keep them there. And wouldn’t most of those people be dual-passport, too?

      • amigo on February 20, 2015, 8:32 am

        “Well, you could say that Zionists who cannot live in an Israel (or whatever name, I like good old Palestine) which includes all people as it’s citizens equally ” Mooser

        There is another upside to that suggestion!!.

        It would put an end to the use of the derogatory term–“Palis”.

        Unless of course , the usual suspects can somehow devise a term that denotes the difference between Jewish Palestinians and Palestinian ,” Palis”.

        Why not call it a nation where everyone is a Pal.

    • RoHa on February 19, 2015, 7:04 pm

      “Zionist are intrinsically incapable of having or even imagining a loyalty to any *common cause, principle or country except what they regard as the Jewish People’s Cause/Country. ”

      I agree. This is an aspect being the enemies of mankind.

      But are Zionists doomed to be Zionists to the end of their days? Will all their children be Zionists?

      People and institutions can and do change their ideas and practices. I have seen it in my lifetime. And, even though they reject humanity, Zionists are human.

      So although I do not anticipate a sudden enlightenment of Zionists in the next twenty minutes or so, it is possible that the road to equal rights for Palestinians in a single state would not be as hard as you imagine.

      By formally setting up a single state, and acknowledging the Palestinians as citizens, the Israeli government would be rejecting Zionism, and that would have an influence on people.

      And, as Mooser says, a lot of the hard-liners would leave and come to whine at the rest of us.

      • Mooser on February 20, 2015, 11:31 am

        It is absolutely amazing to me that self-interest, the idea of getting something for nothing, or for very little, figures so little in Zionist actions or ideology.
        I mean, the sacrifices Zionist are willing to make in order to carry out G-d’s plan for the Jews and the Jewish people are simply staggering!

        And all for no material gain. Why, one of the most impressive examples of self-abnegation ever seen.

      • Mooser on February 20, 2015, 5:55 pm

        I don’t know, maybe I’m just a low, nasty kind of guy, but if I was able to take advantage of a colonial power vacuum (inability of Brits to control Palestine) and use a bunch of people who could be convinced to help me steal the country, I would probably say that God wanted it that way.
        I’ve never seen anything like it. There isn’t a single Zionist argument which couldn’t or shouldn’t be answered with :”But you would say that, you are trying to hi-jack and country and get it for free”

      • hophmi on February 21, 2015, 12:31 pm

        “I agree. This is an aspect being the enemies of mankind.”

        The enemies of mankind? I see we’ve adopted Nazi rhetoric here.

      • Mooser on February 22, 2015, 11:37 am

        “The enemies of mankind? I see we’ve adopted Nazi rhetoric here.”

        Hophmi, why do you have trouble distinguishing between “Nazi rhetoric”, and anti-Nazi rhetoric?

      • RoHa on February 22, 2015, 9:15 pm

        Let’s have a look at the Zionists.

        “The practice of Zionism inevitably erodes character because it rests on a foundation of dishonesty and injustice.” (Thomas Rutherford.)

        Zionists say that Jews have a right to establish a state for Jews. (Variously, for protection, a cure for their neuroses, to resolve their existential crises, and so forth. But always and only for the betterment of Jews.)

        In creating this state they are guilty of injustice, racism, aggression, grand larceny, murder, ethnic cleansing and war crimes, and a host of other transgressions against humanity.

        They say that the rights of Palestinians, the needs of Palestinians, the interests of Palestinians, and the desires of Palestinians must all be secondary to the wishes of Jews. First the Jews must get what they want. The Palestinians can have the leftovers.

        They say that the real suffering of Palestinians is not as important as the possible (but not actually happening) suffering of Jews.

        But it is not just the Palestinians that they discount. The basic opposition is not Jewish settler vs Arab indigene in Palestine, but Jew vs gentile everywhere. Palestinians just happened to be the ones on the land they wanted. Anyone else, anywhere, who opposes Zionism will, if the Zionists can manage it, get the same treatment.

        Zionists say to the world “We matter and you don’t.”

        So, yes, I think we can fairly say the Zionists (not the Jews) are enemies of mankind.

  29. MSeveral on February 19, 2015, 2:29 pm

    I absolutely agree with Manekin’s observation. Phillip, your response is a non-response. However, I agree with your suggestion that the IDF should include Palestinian citizens of Israel. I think Israel should draft them. However, how do you think the Palestinian citizens would react? Would they welcome serving in the IDF? When ever I have raised this with pro-Palestinian people, they beg off and say the Israeli Palestinians can’t serve and shouldn’t serve. And I argue that if the Israeli Palestinians clammered to join the IDF, or even passively accepted being drafted into the IDF, they would show what an army in a one-state solution would look like. And after having demonstrated that it can be done, Israel could then annex the West Bank, transform all the Palestinians into citizens of Israel, give them the vote, draft them into the army, and voila, the issue is resolved. Unfortunately, this is just another fantasy because the first step won’t be taken: Israeli Palestinians won’t be drafted, and are happy they are not.

    • annie on February 19, 2015, 3:20 pm

      I absolutely agree with Manekin’s observation.

      i don’t. and this is silly:

      I’ve never read one op-ed or policy paper or book which asks what a military will look like in a one-state context. And if one can’t envision how I can be secure with my family or how Palestinians can be secure with their family– so I don’t think it’s fair to even call that a solution. –

      just because Manekin has not read one book on it doesn’t mean it can’t be envisioned. i can envision it very well.

      I agree with your suggestion that the IDF should include Palestinian citizens of Israel. I think Israel should draft them. However, how do you think the Palestinian citizens would react? Would they welcome serving in the IDF? When ever I have raised this with pro-Palestinian people, they beg off and say the Israeli Palestinians can’t serve and shouldn’t serve

      oh really, you’re buttressing your opinion by allegations pro palestinian people agree with you. well, i am pro palestinian, don’t i count? I think in a free state with equal rights the military should include Palestinian citizens at the very top level. in fact i can well imagine if 1/2 the top brass of the military were filled with palestinian heroes, people like marwan barghouti, you’d see an influx of palestinians signing up.

      and if those leaders just disciplined or kicked out of the military any underlings that displayed animosity or worse toward those they were serving with, regardless of whether they were palestinians or jews, things would stabilize fairly quickly. as for how palestinian citizens would react, it would be a damn site better than what they deal with now, an all jewish army. i think it’s the jews you’d have to worry about. they are so used to their privilege they don’t want to give it up. but you can’t cater to the bully. just throw them in jail. israel knows all about that, they do it to palestinians all the time. they’re very proficient at it. heck, start dragging away the little jewish children in the middle of the night* and their parents would snap to sooner than you’d imagine. israel knows how that works, as i stated they’re very proficient at it.

      although i wouldn’t advise torturing the kids. not nice.

      and if any of those settlers start using the settlements as a base of operation, just go in and solve it the israeli way, mow the grass.**

      * not serious
      ** not serious

    • flyod on February 20, 2015, 8:03 am

      by law veterans of the idf are given preferential treatment in areas of employment, higher education, and land purchase. this is an important tool for discrimination

  30. Vera Gottlieb on February 19, 2015, 4:31 pm

    A one-state will never work because there is too much hatred.

    • Kris on February 19, 2015, 8:29 pm

      Vera, when I was a child in the Jim Crow U.S. south, whites there were convinced that integration with blacks would never work because there was too much hatred.

      What the whites meant by “too much hatred” was that they were afraid that their black victims would seek revenge on them. Actually, the “hatred” was coming from the white community, not the victimized black community. This was true in South Africa, as well.

      Israeli Jews who can’t accept living in one state will have to move somewhere else. Without justice, there will be no peace. And it is not justice to let Jewish Israelis keep what they have stolen from the Palestinians.

      Something is horribly wrong with Israeli Jewish culture, but that doesn’t mean that we should continue to tolerate their deviant actions.

  31. mcohen. on February 19, 2015, 5:13 pm

    LarryDerfner February 19, 2015, 10:53 am says

    “This is always a problem on Mondoweiss’ comments ……”

    thats because the owners of this site are scared of losing control of their perceived image

    stinkin cowards

    lets continue this conversation the first week in june

    • just on February 19, 2015, 7:02 pm

      I believe that you are incorrect.

      Just a question: what brought you here if you feel that way?

    • Mooser on February 19, 2015, 7:02 pm

      “thats because the owners of this site are scared of losing control of their perceived image”

      You bet they are “mccohen”!! Remember what happened to Genie!

      ” lets continue this conversation the first week in june “

      What’s that all about? What’s this ominous “first week in june” you are too cowardly to mention?

      • Mooser on February 20, 2015, 12:17 pm

        Oh, of course “first week in June” is when you have to start the yardwork, mowing the lawn, etc?

    • justicewillprevail on February 19, 2015, 7:32 pm

      How do you ‘lose control of your perceived image’? if it is ‘perceived’ then you don’t have control over it. Yep, they must be terrified of that. Quaking at the prospect. I mean, imagine that, people are free to make up their own minds about the articles here. No wonder you consider it your public duty to put a stop to such nonsense. And by June, you say? Oh, the suspense.

      • Mooser on February 21, 2015, 11:56 am

        “How do you ‘lose control of your perceived image’?”

        Don’t you watch “I dream of Genie”? Remember how much trouble Genie and Tony had because Genie’s can’t be captured on film? At their wedding, with all the photographers? That’s a perfect example of “losing control of your perceived image”.

  32. wondering jew on February 19, 2015, 6:30 pm

    Buenos dias muchachos,

    Israel was established out of the need (or perceived need) for Jews to have an army. This perception was based upon the European experience, in particular the Eastern European experience, the choice of a territory was in a way secondary. One need only read Jabotinsky’s Iron wall to realize how key the use of violence, which he called bayonets, was to the acquisition of a territory. So the army needs a territory and the territory needs an army.

    Fast forward 80 years or so, the countries surrounding Israel all have distinct elements of self definition as Islamic countries. (Not all. Lebanon’s self definition is evolving.) Particularly during a time of Islamic turmoil, which is certainly the case in all the countries surrounding Israel, for Israel to all of a sudden endorse an identity that is similar to America circa 2015 is to imagine radical change rather than plan feasible change. No it is natural for Israel vis a vis its army to define itself as a Jewish state.

    (the evolution of the United States of the holy land, as in a federation that is served by a unified army of Jews and Palestinians, is certainly a worthwhile thought experiment, a way to stretch and exercise our imaginations. That such imagination is accompanied by a total disdain for dialogue makes your imagination even further removed from reality, imho.)

    • DaBakr on February 19, 2015, 8:38 pm

      @yf
      Reality? What reality? Tibet is free. Hawaii is it’s own nation. Kashmiri is at peace with india/pakistan and integrating into the army as are the Tamals having no problem serving in the Sri armed forces. And Syria…..oh forget it. Start with Israel, everyone knows it’s the worst.

      • annie on February 20, 2015, 1:01 am

        Start with Israel, everyone knows it’s the worst.

        maybe not presently, but chronologically it’s the first, so why not start there? currently it’s the longest running hostile occupation on the planet. it makes all the sense in the world to end it. you’re just throwing whataboutery into the mix for hasbara/distraction.

        and that’s reality.

      • Mooser on February 20, 2015, 11:04 am

        Yonah is back! Hooray! I was so sad about Yonah leaving I was suicidal.

        I had decided that if Yonah didn’t come back, I was going to put my new Nissan Leaf in the garage, close the door, and start the engine…..

      • Mayhem on February 21, 2015, 9:42 pm

        it’s the longest running hostile occupation on the planet

        @annie, can you switch sides just for a minute and see that from the other perspective that perhaps the deadlock remains because there is an unwillingness from the Palestinians and their Arab brethren right across the Middle East to let go, to truly resolve the conflict, to lay to rest fundamental enmities that were born and bred in Islam, to permit has ve halila a Jewish sovereign presence in their midst.

      • annie on February 21, 2015, 9:44 pm

        zzzzzzz

      • eljay on February 21, 2015, 10:13 pm

        || Mayhemeee: … perhaps the deadlock remains because there is an unwillingness from the Palestinians and their Arab brethren right across the Middle East to let go, to truly resolve the conflict, to lay to rest fundamental enmities that were born and bred in Islam, to permit has ve halila a Jewish sovereign presence in their midst. ||

        Israel was conceived as a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine. It was realized and established by means of Jewish terrorism and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes and lands. For over 60 years and with impunity, Israel has been stealing, occupying and colonizing Palestinian land and oppressing, torturing and killing Palestinians. It refuses to end its occupation and colonization of Palestine. It refuses honour its obligations under international law. It refuses to accept responsibility and accountability for its past and ON-GOING (war) crimes. And it refuses to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.

        But “the Palestinians and their Arab brethren” are to blame. Un.Freakin’.Believeable.

        Aggressor-victimhood is a tough gig, but Zio-supremacists won’t be deterred! :-(

        || Mayhemeee: … to permit … a Jewish sovereign presence in their midst. ||

        “Jewish State” is, fundamentally, a religion-supremacist construct. No state has a right to exist as a supremacist state, and no-one should be expected or required to recognize or accept any state as a supremacist state.

      • Mooser on February 22, 2015, 11:41 am

        ” to permit has ve halila a Jewish sovereign presence in their midst.”

        But Mayhem, Muslims have always permitted a Jewish presence in their…. Oh, I see, you said “Jewish sovereign presence”. I see, that changes everything!

      • DaBakr on February 23, 2015, 10:53 pm

        @an

        chronologically the first? lol. don’t get me started on ancient land disputes that still seethe. And we (along with a gazillion others) will just have to disagree on the illigitimacy of what you call ‘aboutism’ . MW commentators make analogies to all sorts of wide ranging political conflicts when it suits their purposes but want to shut down any Zionist attempt to draw parallels. On this site I will respect that line of reasoning but it would never wash in the real world where people are free to analogize to their hearts content. . And “reality” is what you believe. I wouldn’t say outside the realm of the European and east/west coast US left-wing and the Arab/Muslim world there is any great urge to solve the Palestinian conflict BEFORE other regional conflicts. You think Mexican country folk care about the i/p before they care about solving the problem with narco-cartels running their lives? 100s of heads in ditches, burned bodies and guess what? Not a religious extremist in sight. But the US press is all IS all the time. As if Islamic extremists that chop heads and burn people deserve more attention then Mexican drug gangs. But-I agree-with you that fro some-its better to focus on one issue for sanity.

    • eljay on February 19, 2015, 8:58 pm

      || y.f.: … it is natural for Israel vis a vis its army to define itself as a Jewish state. ||

      It is natural for Israel to define itself as an Israeli state – a state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, ex-pats and refugees, equally.

      It is religion-supremacist for Israel to define itself as a “Jewish State” – a state primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews.

    • Mooser on February 20, 2015, 11:05 am

      “Buenos dias muchachos,”

      And people say Modern Hebrew doesn’t evolve or change! Ha! You show them, Yonah!

    • Mooser on February 20, 2015, 11:42 am

      “Fast forward 80 years or so,” Yonah Fredman

      “Reality? What reality?” “Dabakr”

      Whew! Everything is back to normal. Honey, you can take the Nissan Leaf to work if you want, I won’t be needing it.

    • Mooser on February 20, 2015, 6:01 pm

      “Israel was established out of the need (or perceived need) for Jews to have an army”

      And a floor wax! And a desert topping! So you are dropping the whole “we came in peace to Palestine” nonsense, Yonah? You ready to admit the Zionists came to Palestine to kick ass, take names, and get lascivious?

      Tell us Yonah, is there any reason in the world why Israel was not established? I mean since you’ve offered so many reasons why it was.

      • wondering jew on February 20, 2015, 6:53 pm

        Mooser, I can understand why the US state department and the indigenous Palestinians were opposed to the Zionist project.

        Let me ask you this: there are six letters in your “name”. are there also 5.9 letters in your name?

      • Philemon on February 20, 2015, 8:30 pm

        “Mooser, I can understand why the US state department and the indigenous Palestinians were opposed to the Zionist project.

        “Let me ask you this: there are six letters in your ‘name’. are there also 5.9 letters in your name?”

        Yonah, can you understand why any person with an active conscience might find the Zionist ways and means objectionable?

        And you can cut the crap about Mooser’s name. That and a nickel won’t get you a cup of coffee.

      • Mooser on February 21, 2015, 12:00 pm

        “And you can cut the crap about Mooser’s name. That and a nickel won’t get you a cup of coffee”

        “Are there 5.9 letters” in my name? What on earth? It’s too many for me. But here’s Yonah again, fresh as a daisy in springtime, come to exhibit his pathological suggestibility.

        “and the indigenous Palestinians” ah, the indigenous Palestinians! Why, Yonah, is there some other kind? Face it Yonah, you can’t write a comment without including both “48 and ’67, and now you are saying “Palestinians” (although, for some Kaballahistic reason I can’t fathom, prefacing it with “indigenous”.
        You are almost done, Yonah, cooked, finished off with a swirl of meringue and a cherry, drizzled with chocolate sauce, and served up for an anti-Zionist.

    • RoHa on February 20, 2015, 9:17 pm

      “Israel was established out of the need (or perceived need) for Jews to have an army”

      Whether real or perceived, that need does not necessarily outweigh the rights of non-Jews.

      • Mooser on February 21, 2015, 12:10 pm

        ““Israel was established out of the need (or perceived need) for Jews to have an army”

        Which, of course, Yonah never joined. He just sleeps better because he knows it’s there? That must be it.

      • wondering jew on February 21, 2015, 1:46 pm

        Mooser has proved that he can be a liar/comedian without being uncivil. bravo, moose. keep up the good work.

        i come from four grandparents. my paternal grandfather’s immediate family emerged from the hitler genocide unscathed. my paternal grandmother only lost a mother. my maternal grandfather only lost a brother. my maternal grandmother lost her entire family. (careless, huh?)

        my maternal grandfather’s four siblings who survived the war only did so because of Zionism. Any temptation i have to wish Zionism had never been born includes wishing these cousins dead. I will not do that. (for simplicity sake i keep this comment on the topic of close relations, but zionism did not only save my cousins, they are but an example. Zionism saved hundreds of thousands and their offspring in the millions.)

        besides new york where i have spent a majority of my life and chicago (7 years) and winnipeg (8 years) i have spent time in Israel (about 8 years). Israelis consider me a foreigner, but my second language is Hebrew.

        It would be difficult for me to imagine my life without Israel, without my 8 years in Israel, without my four siblings and their kids living in israel, without my parents retiring to israel, but i really would be perfectly willing to imagine it out of existence and imagine all those siblings, nieces, nephews and parents living in the states. but whereas this imagination would result only in a major change for these relatives, the antizionist imagination that you concoct for me would condemn my cousins to death. this i will not do.

        but go ahead. you now have some material to make fun of. let’s see if you can do it and remain civil at the same time.

      • Mooser on February 22, 2015, 11:44 am

        “but go ahead. you now have some material to make fun of.”

        Sorry, Yonah, TLDR. Maybe next time. What makes you think your family history is any different from anybody else’s?

  33. JeffB on February 20, 2015, 9:54 am

    @Annie

    That’s a terrible definition of colonialism. It fundamentally is so broad that almost every country on the planet and government that has ever existed would be colonial. A far better one is: establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of colony in one territory by a political power from another territory

    There is such a term as “settler colonialism” which is just mass migration. But there is no reason to link settler colonialism / mass migration which does not have external state support with systems that do have an external state support. The goal of colonialism is to extract resources from a territory usually as cheaply as possible. The goal of mass migration is to inhabit a territory, and while that means extracting resources it almost means long term cultural developments.

    The early Zionists when they drained swamps at tremendous human cost to create farmland were investing in the territory not trying to extract from it. Very much like the investment Palestinians talk about with olive trees. Neither of them is colonizers both are inhabitants.

    • annie on February 20, 2015, 9:49 pm

      there is no reason to link settler colonialism / mass migration which does not have external state support with systems that do have an external state support.

      the definition you liked didn’t say anything about “external state support with systems…etc”, it said “by a political power from another territory” (which btw does have “external state support” from the US). the political power from another territory is represented by american zionists from brooklyn, and other places like that.

      early Zionists draining swamps is not as relevant to israel colonial theft today as early Zionists diverting water from the jordan river at the sea of galilee and ripping off palestinina riparian rights.

      • wondering jew on February 20, 2015, 10:33 pm

        The external political power which established Israel was not represented by Brooklyn settlers. If you wish to cite external political powers you might be valid citing (Lord Balfour or) those who pressured Lord Balfour to publish his declaration and to take that declaration seriously when the powers found themselves in Versailles dividing up the territory seized from Turkish/Ottoman rule. If you wish to cite those who contributed to Truman’s election campaign in 48, that might be valid as well. To cite an anachronism (post 6 day war settlers confused with the establishment of the state) is to confuse the issue. Maybe you just like citing Brooklyn as so many anti Zionists like to mention Brooklyn in their scorn. The primary current tense (post 67) pressure on American foreign policy comes from those who contribute to senatorial, congressional and presidential campaigns, not from the settlers. To confuse the two is to confuse the issue. Those settlers don’t represent the external political power, they represent the most visible element on the West Bank. The immigration to Israel that established Israel in 48 did not come from Brooklyn, it came from Eastern Europe and Germany. The immigration from 48 to 67 came from the Arab world. Only in the post 67 period, particularly in regards to the West Bank that immigration of Brooklyn Jews played a role, but the real power is finances from US Jews who do not live in Brooklyn. But you are merely throwing red meat to the Jew haters who love to hear Brooklyn Jews getting put in their place.

      • annie on February 20, 2015, 10:49 pm

        that was actually a bit of a joke, probably in poor taste. and i didn’t mean to imply that all or even most brooklyn’s jews were responsible for the settlements. of course adelson&cohorts that fill the coffers of congresspeople. i shouldn’t have been flippant.

        i cited brooklyn because chabad is located there and so many of the homes being stolen from palestinians are being filled with brooklynites fresh off the plane. when i was there as a witness to people getting thrown out of there home and living on the sidewalk the group of jews w/a gaggle of kids occupying the palestinians home were all from brooklyn, they had been flown in just days before. vetted for the job i am sure, and probably well compensated.

      • Mooser on February 21, 2015, 12:18 pm

        “The external political power which established Israel was not represented by Brooklyn settlers.”

        And Yonah throws the settlers under the bus!! Oh boy, ’67, ’48, and now the settlers are not an example of the best Zionism has to offer, by fusing religious sensibility with great political deeds?

        Yup, Yonah, you are right, let’s throw the settlers to the wolves, they have no great outside power representing them. And no IDF defending them, and they are not outside any possible legal border of “Israel”. And since all the settlers arrived in the last few minutes, can we really say that “Israel” has decided on a policy toward them?

        And of course, Yonah, very nice of you to acknowledge that in the light of today’s reality, those British and French Colonial agreements and initiatives have very little meaning. You are right, it’s absurd to refer to them.

  34. JeffB on February 20, 2015, 10:00 am

    @Walid

    There are a couple of million refugees currently living in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon that none of these countries are capable of absorbing, even if they all get fat compensation cheques fom Israel, the US, EU and the oil Arabs.

    Jordan has absorbed the refugees in its territory. The population of Syria has increased by almost 20m since 1948. The population of Iraq by almost 30m. Why can’t they absorb the refugees? Right now we have a government in ISIS that is desperate for more Sunnis and while it isn’t USA policy to support them, they certainly would take the Palestinians Refugee Muslim population if it were offered. Lebanon I agree has a problem though they might want the Christians. If not Israel might very well be OK with a return limited to Christians.

    • annie on February 20, 2015, 9:30 pm

      jeff, the population of lebanon is only about 5 million people, right now they have over 1 million syrian refugees. they are an amazingly generous people, the lebanese.

      Lebanon I agree has a problem though they might want the Christians.

      facepalm.

    • Walid on February 20, 2015, 11:04 pm

      “Lebanon I agree has a problem though they might want the Christians. ” (Jeff)

      Within the current population of Lebanon, as Annie noted, there are over a million Syrian refugees. The actual number of Syrians officially registered as refugees is 1,173,552 with an estimated 300,000 unregistered refugees and another 300,000 Syrian labourers for a total Syrian population of about 1,800,000. To that number, add the 600,000 Palestinian refugees for a grand total of 2,4 million aliens on a total population of 5 million. That’s 48% of Lebanon’s population being refugees.

      To help put that number of refugees in Lebanon in perspective, imagine the US being flooded with 150 million Mexicans and how taxing that would be on an already weak economy. This is what Lebanon is going through at this point.

      As to the Christian segment of the Palistinian refugee population, Lebanon has already naturalized 100,000 of them, for purely self-interest reasons to balance out the demographic imbalance created by the civil war and the mass exodus of Lebanese Christians, and there are now hardly any Christians left among the refugees.

      • oldgeezer on February 21, 2015, 12:25 am

        “To help put that number of refugees in Lebanon in perspective, imagine the US being flooded with 150 million Mexicans and how taxing that would be on an already weak economy. This is what Lebanon is going through at this point.”

        Well that’s part of the story. You also need to imagine being occupied for all those years and the many times Israel gleefully bombed civilian infrastructure to rubble. Living without that infrastructure, rebuilding it and then having start all over yet again.

        Israel maintains it’s superiority in the region by ensuring that others are kept on the back foot. Then the racist zionists like to crow about their accomplishments while pointing to the disarray in their neighbours.

    • talknic on February 23, 2015, 10:05 pm

      JeffB “Jordan has absorbed the refugees in its territory”

      Fertile imagination there JeffB. http://www.unrwa.org/where-we-work Do you get a refill of Ziopoop every day? Jordan allows full citizenship rights on a temporary basis only and it is swift to withdraw even that.

      “The population of Syria has increased by almost 20m since 1948. The population of Iraq by almost 30m. Why can’t they absorb the refugees? “

      Countries have no legal obligation to absorb refugees. Those who’ve signed the conventions have a duty to allow RoR for their own citizens and to offer other refugees protection and asylum while they are refugees. Palestine refugees would rather return, that’s why the majority maintain their refugee status by not taking permanent citizenship elsewhere.

      Our fellow Jews from Arab states on the other hand, encouraged by the Israeli Government, lost their refugee status when they became Israeli citizens or took citizenship in countries other than that of return

      Israel meanwhile, has a legal obligation to allow A) Non-Jewish ISRAELIS return to Israel (to the recognized extent of Israel’s actual territories) and; B) an obligation to allow Palestinian refugees return to occupied Palestine. Currently Israel allows no RoR of non-Jews to any territories.

      • Kris on February 24, 2015, 12:34 am

        @talknic: “Currently Israel allows no RoR of non-Jews to any territories. ”

        But don’t forget that Israel is looking for bogus “lost tribes” in other countries (most recently India), in order to quickly convert them, and then park these pantomime “Jews” out on Palestinian land as human shields for Israel’s ethnic cleansing.

  35. Mooser on February 20, 2015, 11:37 am

    Yo-nah!
    How I love ya,
    How I love ya’
    My Dear Old Yonah!

    It means the world to me,
    That you’re back home at
    M-o-n-d-o- we missed you!

    You know we’ve all,
    been waiting for you
    (praying for you)
    Down here at Mondo!

    The folks in schul, will
    See you no more,
    At Mondo you will stay for sure!

    Well, how’s that for civility?

    • amigo on February 20, 2015, 12:26 pm

      Mooserico class-ico.

    • wondering jew on February 20, 2015, 2:55 pm

      I suppose to be greeted by whoopie cushions is preferable to the other alternatives.

      Those who are interested in dialogue are present in the comments section. those who are uninterested in dialogue are also present here.

      • amigo on February 20, 2015, 9:16 pm

        When I was young , I used to be.
        As fine a zionist as ever you,d see.
        The king of the Jews , he said to me ,
        Come and join the zionist army.
        Tooraloo, toraloo, ther,e looking for monkeys up in the zoo,
        Since when have I had a face like you ,
        I would join the Zionist army.

        Rule zionistan , marmalade and Jam,
        Singing five zionist crackers up your bum,
        Going , bang, bang bang.bang,bang.

      • Walid on February 20, 2015, 11:27 pm

        “Those who are interested in dialogue are present in the comments section. Those who are uninterested in dialogue are also present here. ” (Yonah)

        Welcome back, Yonah, There’s a difference between dialogue and getting worn-out hasbara talking points thrown at time after time. Those that don’t appear interested are simply tired of refuting Zionist propaganda.

      • wondering jew on February 21, 2015, 12:43 am

        walid, I am not familiar enough with JeffB and ivri and mayhem and jon s. and hophmi to testify how often they are merely going through the motions and on the other hand how often they are in fact dealing with issues head on.

        but i am familiar enough with myself to know that the anti-dialogue i experience here is not something that should be easily dismissed.

        after 9/11, a half a year later, with the launch of operation defensive shield (sharon’s military reaction to the intifadeh) the demonstrations followed in the US and union square in new york became a place where a “free Palestine” demonstration became a set piece near the park every Saturday. And there were idiots on the Palestinian side and there were once in a while sensitive and intelligent people on the Palestinian side. And making excuses for the idiots, just cause they are on your side, is a waste of your breath and my time.

        to be specific: if someone makes the atmosphere here toxic, i don’t see how that helps. unless you get your jollies from watching verbal toxicity being spread by your colleagues here. if so, fess up and say, i enjoy cruelty when flung against my enemies.

      • Mooser on February 21, 2015, 12:26 pm

        “Those that don’t appear interested are simply tired of refuting Zionist propaganda.”

        Actually, if the truth be told, I keep on trying to divert with humor so I don’t have to feel so goddam ashamed. I keep on hoping they will get a clue.

      • Walid on February 22, 2015, 11:13 am

        “to be specific: if someone makes the atmosphere here toxic, i don’t see how that helps. unless you get your jollies from watching verbal toxicity being spread by your colleagues here. if so, fess up and say, i enjoy cruelty when flung against my enemies. “(Yonah)

        No I don’t, Yonah, actually there are times when I feel so sorry for the amateurish guys on the other side, that I l almost want to jump in and provide them with valid arguments for their side, just to balance things out because they are so overwhelmed here. I’ve had great debates elsewhere with savy Zionists and none of them ever trotted out garbage stuff like “5 armies attacked poor little Israel” or wasted any time bringing up the 2000 years of being oppressed. There are smart Zionists of course, but they seldom come here and when they do, as Derfner did, instead of welcoming him, the circling of the wagons begins, so we get stuck having to discuss with the likes of mayhem and his buddies.

    • talknic on February 20, 2015, 8:21 pm

      Who’s the leader of the club
      That’s made for you Jews and me

      B-I-B-I N-E-T-A-N-Y-A-H-U

      Hey! there, Hi! there, Ho! there
      You’re as welcome as can be
      B-I-B-I N-E-T-A-N-Y-A-H-U

      Netanyahu!

      Netanyahu!

      Forever let us hold our DoubleStandards
      High! High! High! High!

      Come along and sing a song
      And join the jamboree!
      B-I-B-I N-E-T-A-N-Y-A-H-U

      • Mooser on February 21, 2015, 12:34 pm

        “I am the very model of a Modern Right Wing Zionist!
        My information’s faulty and my ethics are just henious.
        My history is nonsense and my bigotry is obvious.
        And purported incivilities will e’re cause me to make a fuss!

        I’m very well acquainted too, with matters mathematical
        I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical
        But when it comes to Algebra, I don’t know what to do with that!
        Cause it might say precisely where Israel’s located at!”

        So there you go, Yonah! Not just “dialogue” you get lyrics, too. I don’t see what the heck you are complaining about.

      • just on February 21, 2015, 12:42 pm

        Brilliant~ Bravo!!

        (now that tune is gonna run through my head on a loop all day!)

      • Mooser on February 21, 2015, 3:34 pm

        I was showing my wife the festival of song here, and she liked them all, but liked “Talknics” parody mit links) the best!

      • just on February 21, 2015, 3:40 pm

        Talknic’s is also Bravo- worthy. So clever!

        (say hi to Mrs. Mooser)

      • Mooser on February 21, 2015, 4:06 pm

        Thanks, I will! Like Amigo’s, too. (Yonah’s gonna go, you just watch, but he’s gonna go kicking and screaming the whole way.)

  36. LarryDerfner on February 20, 2015, 4:59 pm

    Phil and Annie, thank you very much for your responses. Annie, I’m really sorry about your reception at +972, I imagine it was from the right-wing hecklers who comment there, I just got one of them banned for slagging off Kayla Mueller (!), and if it was strictly up to me I would ban a couple more right-wing spitball artists from the comments section.

    • Mooser on February 21, 2015, 3:37 pm

      ” I imagine it was from the right-wing hecklers who comment there,”

      Ixnay on blaming right-wing Zionists, already! I don’t like people seeing the cracks in tribal unity. As soon as they get the idea we aren’t all-for-one-and-one-for-all, we’ve had it!

      • LarryDerfner on February 21, 2015, 4:27 pm

        Mooser, you are a goddamn fucking idiot, and you should get run over by a bus.

      • just on February 21, 2015, 4:31 pm

        ???????

      • eljay on February 21, 2015, 4:41 pm

        || LarryDerfner: Mooser, you are a goddamn fucking idiot … ||

        That may be true, but I’d take a world full of Moosers who advocate justice, accountability and equality over a world full of hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists any day. :-)

      • wondering jew on February 21, 2015, 4:49 pm

        thumbs up. one like

      • Mooser on February 21, 2015, 6:34 pm

        “Mooser, you are a goddamn fucking idiot, and you should get run over by a bus.”

        Larry Derfner, if you think there should be fewer Jews, that some of us need to be liquidated, just say so. Or am I the only one who needs to go?

        And remember, Derfner, no matter what you think of me, I am A-1 breeding stock! Should I bank up some type J+ sperm before the Greyhound does me in?

        (C’mon Ferfner, shape up, pal. T friggin U, man!. People find out we aren’t the three musketeers and we’ve had it. So smile and be nice, you know, civil.)

      • gamal on February 21, 2015, 7:09 pm

        Surely its “g-ddamn”

      • Kris on February 21, 2015, 7:20 pm

        @LarryDerfner: “Mooser, you are a goddamn fucking idiot, and you should get run over by a bus.”

        This comment is not only stupid, it is extremely offensive. I guess it was allowed through moderation in order to demonstrate, once again, how nasty and hateful Zionists are.

      • annie on February 21, 2015, 9:33 pm

        larry said mooser should get run over by a bus! LOL, fantastical crazy!

      • Kris on February 21, 2015, 10:28 pm

        annie, maybe Derfner is having some kind of breakdown; this seemed to come out of nowhere: one minute Derfner seemed fine, and then suddenly he erupted: “Mooser, you are a goddamn fucking idiot, and you should get run over by a bus.”

        I don’t think it’s funny, especially since Derfner lives in Israel, where (as we know from many incidents in the past few years) Zionist Jews think it’s okay to drive vehicles into people they don’t like.

      • Mooser on February 22, 2015, 11:56 am

        “larry said mooser should get run over by a bus! LOL, fantastical crazy!”

        Annie, he didn’t mean it. Tribal unity still reigns supreme, and don’t you go forgetting it!

        Besides, me getting run over by a bus is as fantastical as my being sentenced to be shot at sunrise. I never get up that early, and (to my shame) I hardly ever take public transportation.

      • Mooser on February 22, 2015, 12:08 pm

        “thumbs up. one like” Yonah

        My Dad told me: “Sonila, a schlemiel is a guy, he goes walking through the forest, he thinks he can make the trees fall down! And a schlimazel is the guy who follows him, and he’s the one the trees fall on.

        Thank you, Larry and Yonah, for oh-so-perfectly illustrating those definitions.

      • Mooser on February 22, 2015, 12:40 pm

        “Mooser, you are a goddamn fucking idiot, and you should get run over by a bus”

        Shalom, Shalom!, you’ll find Shalom!,
        The nicest greeting you know!
        It mean Salut, Bonjour and Skoal,
        And twice as much as Hello!

        It means a million lovely things,
        Like “Peace be yours, welcome home”
        And even when you say “Goodbye”
        You say “Goodbye” with Shalom

      • just on February 22, 2015, 12:47 pm

        Reminds me of this from ‘Laverne and Shirley’, Mooser:

        Shalom!

        (thank you!)

      • Keith on February 22, 2015, 4:54 pm

        LARRYDERFNER- “Mooser, you are a goddamn fucking idiot, and you should get run over by a bus.”

        Larry, apparently you are unaware of the paucity of bus service on the Kitsap peninsula. Would you be willing to settle for a bicycle instead?

      • oldgeezer on February 23, 2015, 2:18 am

        Getting running over is the favourite m.o. in Israel these days.

        I used to respect you,your articles and opinions. Even when I disagreed.

        I think those days are gone.

        Apparently the left wing in Israel occupies roughly the same space as historical left wing authoritarians.

        So sad, too bad.

        On those accomplishments Larry the best you can claim is that you slowed the rate of land theft which is an utterly specious argument. Be prepared to pick your hat up off the floor a lot if you try to hang it on that argument.

      • Walid on February 23, 2015, 4:35 am

        Oldgeezer, while Derfner’s comment about throwing Mooser under a bus is way out of line and out in orbit, you have to account for the anger in the air at the time the comment was made. Mooser to his credit apologized at one point but I don’t believe that we should discount Derfner for his one bad moment. I have been reading Derfner for a while and found in them much more compassion in regards to the plight of the Palestinians and his aversion to the Israeli occupation. I suggest you don’t give up on him. I found it refreshing getting another point of view from Derfner even if I didn’t agree with some of it, and hope to see more of him here.

      • annie on February 23, 2015, 5:57 am

        i agree walid, and i don’t think larry meant it literally just because settlers rammed their cars into so many palestinian children last year.

      • Mooser on April 12, 2017, 7:20 pm

        “larry said mooser should get run over by a bus! LOL, fantastical crazy!”

        “Fantastical”? No, sadly enough, all too real.

    • tree on February 21, 2015, 6:13 pm

      Mooser, you are a goddamn fucking idiot, and you should get run over by a bus.

      As yes, the cry for civility and reasoned debate followed by the personal attack, including a wish for bodily harm! You haven’t responded recently to numerous commenters engaging you in debate, but you do respond with a particularly nasty comment yourself. My suspicions that you complained about civility merely as a device to avoid debate are confirmed. Mooser’s humor can be biting, but it appears he has you pegged.

      • just on February 21, 2015, 6:19 pm

        Seems that he just popped in to shoot and scoot.

        That is hardly ‘civil’. Ah, well.

      • LarryDerfner on February 22, 2015, 2:23 am

        No, no, not the cry for civility and reasoned debate followed by the personal attack – the civility and reasoned debate followed by the personal attacks by one or more who can’t tolerate any dissent whatsoever from the doctrine – in this case, that Zionism even in the most minimal form is absolute evil – and followed only then by the personal attack, with interest. It’s like this – you don’t give respect, you don’t get respect.

      • justicewillprevail on February 22, 2015, 11:51 am

        What on earth did Mooser say that you had to immediately throw your toys out of the pram? He made a point, with humour. If that upsets you so much, and you can’t respond civilly, it undermines your plea for respect somewhat. Mooser seems to have the gift of revealing the cracks in a lot of people’s assumptions. Apparently they don’t like it, and don’t know how to respond, which I guess makes them mad. I had to look up ‘Ixnay’ though. What a useful word.

      • annie on February 22, 2015, 11:57 am

        you had to look up ixnay? you don’t speak pig latin? it’s the only foreign language i can follow.

      • just on February 22, 2015, 12:00 pm

        lol, Annie!!!

        ;-o

      • Mooser on February 22, 2015, 12:03 pm

        Larry, your ideas and rhetoric were subject to derision, but how were you “personally” attacked?

        Do you really think people are going to sit here and listen to you talk about “neighbors like those” and that stuff about the IDF (whew).

        “more who can’t tolerate any dissent whatsoever from the doctrine”

        The “doctrine”? See the “about” page, Larry.

      • Mooser on February 22, 2015, 12:29 pm

        ” in this case, that Zionism even in the most minimal form is absolute evil”

        Yup, cause when I think of “Zionism even in the most minimal form” I think of an all-Jewish Zionist IDF! (Yes, yes, Druze and stuff) I mean, how could you get any less Zionist than that?

        But I’m fascinated, Larry, tell me about this “minimal form” of Zionism you endorse! Of what does it consist?

      • justicewillprevail on February 22, 2015, 12:35 pm

        Duh, I ‘m going to have to look up ‘pig latin’ now. I’m not on the right wavelength here, I might get under that bus with Mooser.

      • annie on February 22, 2015, 2:47 pm

        http://www.wikihow.com/Speak-Pig-Latin

        it’s been around forever and probably most popularly used by parents talking to eachother in earshot of the little kids. (like: ets-ley uch-fay, or where did you put the oclate-chey? or is there enough ice-nay eam-cray for the ids-kay?) there are several variations. i’m not that proficient but it doesn’t take long to figure it out. and once the older kids understand the parents talk to them in ‘secret code’ in front of the younger kids. my dad specialized in it, always with a wink-nod.

      • Kris on February 22, 2015, 3:23 pm

        @LarryDerfner: “personal attacks by one or more who can’t tolerate any dissent whatsoever from the doctrine – in this case, that Zionism even in the most minimal form is absolute evil.”

        If you want to make it clear how you were “personally attacked,” maybe you could put the offending words in ALL-CAPS; so far, I don’t get it. But Annie seems to want us to move on, so:

        Please, would you explain how Zionism “even in the most minimal form” is not “absolute evil”?

        From my POV, Zionism is about ethnic/racial/religious privilege for Jews in Israel, at the expense of the rights of the Palestinians. How does “minimal Zionism” work, and how is it not evil in its effect? Thanks for your help with this.

      • RoHa on February 22, 2015, 9:58 pm

        Iyay oughtthay eway allyay ouldcay eakspay igpay atinlay ybay adegray ourfay.
        Eway ouldcay inyay ymay oolschay.

      • justicewillprevail on February 25, 2015, 9:12 am

        Thanks, Annie for that explanation. i had never heard of it, but plan to practise it and use it at the first available opportunity. Probably in the pub, maybe no-one will notice.

      • annie on February 25, 2015, 9:37 am

        oh they’ll notice. ;) they might try responding in drunken pg!

  37. just on February 20, 2015, 6:25 pm

    “Exclusive: UNIFIL suspects Israel deliberately killed peacekeeper

    BEIRUT: A Spanish UNIFIL peacekeeper killed three weeks ago by an Israel artillery shell following Hezbollah’s missile attack on an Israeli army convoy appears to have fallen victim to the Hannibal Protocol – the controversial Israeli policy of preventing the kidnapping of a soldier even at the expense of his life. The deadly incident has left some UNIFIL officers convinced that Israel deliberately targeted one of their positions to “punish” the peacekeepers for not taking greater action against Hezbollah’s activities in the southern border district.
    ….
    Andrea Tenenti, UNIFIL’s spokesman, said the investigation into Toledo’s death was ongoing and that the results would soon be handed to the Lebanese and Israeli authorities as well as the U.N. in New York.
    …..
    UNIFIL has a long history of suffering casualties at the hands of Israeli artillery and airpower. Four U.N. observers were killed in an Israeli air attack on their post in Khiam in the 2006 war. A French U.N. observer was killed in 2005 beside the Shebaa Farms by an Israeli tank round. The most notorious incident was in April 1996 when Israeli artillery shells hit the Fijian battalion headquarters in Qana, killing 107 civilians. A U.N. investigation subsequently concluded that it was “unlikely” the Qana shelling was a mistake.”

    – See more at: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2015/Feb-19/287981-unifil-suspects-israel-deliberately-killed-peacekeeper.ashx#sthash.s9o1CFCe.f4KDp4pP.dpuf

    (via Dan Cohen)

  38. talknic on February 20, 2015, 7:56 pm

    Say … how about Israel simply lives up to its self imposed obligations to the UN Charter and International law and the relevant conventions all of which are binding, withdraws from all non-Israeli territories as required by law, takes all its citizens back to Israel, leaves its neighbours in peace for once and knuckles down for the next 70 or 80 years to pay off the astronomical compensations it owes everyone.

    Germany was not rewarded by being given half of Poland or France. There is no real reason legal or moral, why any rogue state should expect or be allowed to get away with what Israel has done over the last 67 years!

    Furthermore there is no legal or moral reason to be polite or politically correct over the matter. Thus far the Jewish state has been a f*cking disaster!

    • eljay on February 21, 2015, 3:34 pm

      ||talknic @ February 20, 2015, 7:56 pm ||

      It really is quite amazing that Zio-supremacists cannot:
      – content themselves with a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” within Israel’s (Partition) borders;
      – refrain from stealing, occupying and colonizing land outside of Israel’s (Partition) borders;
      – refrain from oppressing, torturing and killing Palestinians outside of Israel’s (Partition) borders;
      – bring themselves to engage in sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.

      Their desire to continue committing (war) crimes seems just as insatiable as their desire for Jewish supremacism in Israel.

  39. LarryDerfner on February 22, 2015, 1:37 pm

    Mooser, it’s interesting that you don’t see where you made personal attacks against me, and that you merely “derided” my ideas – you didn’t deride them, you distorted them beyond recognition, you portrayed them as racist. Here’s what you wrote before I said a word against you, when I addressed you with respect.

    Mooser: “Derfner is a great example of the old saying ‘scratch a Zionist, and you may end up with an infection.'”

    Derfner: “Mooser and just: Don’t get me wrong –”
    Mooser: I’m pretty sure I don’t, and frankly, Larry Derfner, you would be the last goddam person on earth to convince me I was. so don’t waste your breath, pal.

    Mooser: (In response to my complaint about personal attacks) “Larry, I just read the entire thread, that’s a lie and a whine.”

    Derfner (to Annie): ” I imagine it was from the right-wing hecklers who comment there,”
    Mooser: Ixnay on blaming right-wing Zionists, already! I don’t like people seeing the cracks in tribal unity. As soon as they get the idea we aren’t all-for-one-and-one-for-all, we’ve had it!

    One last thing: The two-staters you and some of your fellow left-wing hecklers (not Annie, not some others) despise as racists include Uri Avneri, Shulamith Aloni, Yossi Sarid, Gideon Levy and crowds of other Israeli Jews who have done more for justice in this place than all of you put together times a billion. You’re an arrogant bunch with no right to be, to say the least.

    • LarryDerfner on February 22, 2015, 1:50 pm

      I forgot one important name in that list: Mikhael Manekin.

      • Mooser on February 22, 2015, 2:36 pm

        “I forgot one important name in that list: Mikhael Manekin.”

        Gee, Larry, you have “you” and “some of your fellow left-wing hecklers” and “not Annie” (smart fellow!) and “not some others”. I don’t see where you left anybody out!

    • Mooser on February 22, 2015, 2:00 pm

      “You’re an arrogant bunch with no right to be, to say the least.”

      And no doubt you have plans to do something about it. Will it be the first week in June? Another Zionist said we would get ours the first week in June. You know anything about that, Derfie?

      And let me make one thing clear to you, Derfner. If I do get run down by a bus, it’ll be an emissions-free, cantilevered bus with special wheelchair ramp, which provides free service for all in the downtown area! And a bicycle rack! With lite-rail links to the airport and other transportation hubs!
      With a “Stop Israeli Apartheid” ad on the side, too!

      I’d be proud to be run down by a bus like that, instead of your segregated Israeli bus lines.

    • Mooser on February 22, 2015, 2:13 pm

      “and crowds of other Israeli Jews “

      And the funny part is, he can’t just call them “Israelis”.

      • annie on February 22, 2015, 2:39 pm

        boys, can we stop this please? mooser, let it go.

      • Mooser on February 22, 2015, 5:40 pm

        ” mooser, let it go.”

        Gone. And I am ( because I didn’t realize til this morning) thoroughly ashamed of myself for arguing with an Israeli.

    • Kris on February 22, 2015, 3:06 pm

      @LarryDerfner: “The two-staters you and some of your fellow left-wing hecklers) despise as racists include Uri Avneri, Shulamith Aloni, Yossi Sarid, Gideon Levy and crowds of other Israeli Jews who have done more for justice in this place than all of you put together times a billion.”

      What makes it possible for Israeli Jews to look at the history of Israel and the 70+ decades (and counting!) of the lethal misery they have inflicted on the Palestinians and imagine that they have done anything worth praising “for justice in this place?” It’s like tossing a bottle in the recycling and congratulating yourself for the effort. Not impressive.

      What is impressive is the Israeli Jews who vote with their feet, and leave because they don’t want to buy their own comfort and happiness at the cost of Palestinian suffering.

      • Sibiriak on February 22, 2015, 11:28 pm

        Kris: What makes it possible for Israeli Jews to look at the history of Israel and the 70+ decades (and counting!) of the lethal misery they have inflicted on the Palestinians and imagine that they have done anything worth praising “for justice in this place?”

        “Israeli Jews” are individuals. None is personally responsible for the entire “history of Israel”. Each can only be judged by their own actions in their own lives. Uri Avnery, Gideon Levy et al. have led exemplary moral lives–their actions speak for themselves.

  40. JeffB on February 22, 2015, 9:36 pm

    @Talknic

    Sorry JeffB but that’s not a quote ! Do you know what a quote is?

    When I directly refer to the BDS points by number those are the direct quotes. The part you were citing was the explanation of how the quote imply the effects I attributed to them.

    <blockquoteL 1) Flood the country with a hostile foreign population allied with a domestic population which is hostile to the state. (i.e. BDS demand 3 and their interpretation of SC 194)”

    A) Only Israelis have RoR to Israel under UNGA res 194.

    194 applies to non-Israeli refugees. Palestinians and many Arabs believe it applies to their descendants often 3-4 generations removed from those who ever lived in territory now called Israel.

    How can they be a flood? The non-Jewish Israelis who fled the violence were a minority and the majority of that minority are already dead thru natural attrition.The oldest non-Jewish Israeli to flee Israel in 1948-50 and still alive today, was a baby in 1948

    I think Israel would accept an RoR limited to only direct refugees from 1948 in a second. There are mostly dead and those that aren’t soon will be. They aren’t the issue it is their grandchildren and great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren that are the issue. The BDS movement uses an incredibly liberal definition of refugee. I think they are wrong but we are talking their opinion of who would return not your’s or mine. The rest of your counter is dependent on RoR not being a flood of 5-10 million

    <blockquoteL // There were no Israeli’s in the 1930’s //

    “Of course there were. They didn’t have a state yet but they had a proto-state. “

    WOW! What was it called? What was its currency? Is there an example of a passport? Did it have a Nationality Law? Palestine had all those things!

    I think you may want to look at the distinction between a proto-state and a state. As for all those things Palestine as a British colony certainly existed as a state but not one tied to the nation that inhabited it.

    <blockquoteL “The same way there were Palestinians prior to the establishment of Gaza”

    Strange, the UNSC said this of Gaza on 8 January 2009, when it adopted UNSC Res 1860
    Recalling all of its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003) and 1850 (2008),
    Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state,

    What does that have to do with anything? That’s a total non sequitur.

    // Uh? A) They’d still have a state B) your argument goes against the usual Jews are a nation twaddle. //

    “Reread the scenario you are responding to. In the scenario the Jewish state is gone. The Jews at best now live in a Palestinian state”

    So? They’d still have a state. Same as they had a state under the LoN Mandate for Palestine (Article 7)

    No they do not have a state. This is not complicated. For the Jews to have a state they have to have
    a) A government which acts in the interests of the Jewish people and / or the Jewish people in Israel.
    b) The army that controls the territory loyal to that government.

    If there is a government which doesn’t act in the interests of Jews it is no longer a Jewish state. Once the Romans took Judaea, Judaea ceased to be Jewish.

  41. JeffB on February 22, 2015, 9:43 pm

    @ justicewillprevail

    <blockquoteL Yes, those KKK guys really had affection for the individual blacks they hanged.

    I say Southerners about Blacks in general and you make it KKKers and the Blacks they specific lynched. Were trying to be dishonest in your response or are you unable to see the distinction between the two much broader groups and the specific cases? That would be like me talking about driving in America and you responding that no one can get anywhere because every car trip ends in a fatality.

Leave a Reply