Trending Topics:

Beinart calls anti-Zionists ‘revolutionaries’

US Politics
on 66 Comments

Peter Beinart wrote a column for Haaretz last week in which he characterized anti-Zionists, along with the Black Lives Matter movement, as revolutionaries.

[P]olitically, the reality is this. The activists of Black Lives Matter – like the anti-Zionists with whom they have made common cause – are revolutionaries. And the less legitimate the existing order becomes, the stronger revolutionaries grow. If you want African Americans to believe in the American political system, you must show that that system can address structural racism. If you want Palestinians to accept Israel’s existence, you must show that Israel’s existence does not preclude a viable Palestinian state. All the rest is commentary.

This is an important assertion, and needs to be addressed. Norman Finkelstein made something of the same argument four years ago at the New School, when he challenged anti-Zionists: The two-state solution is now international law, do you understand the damage you are causing by undermining that paradigm? People think that you want to “destroy Israel.” So consider all the bloodshed you in your dreamy chairs in the United States are risking for others, far away.

The problem with this argument is its time and place. As to time, in 2012, Peter Beinart wrote his book The Crisis of Zionism, which was catalyzed by his watching a horrifying 2010 video from the West Bank. And now six years have passed, and: The situation for Palestinians has not changed, it only gets worse, the power balance is as bad as ever.

As Beinart states, maintaining such an injustice undermines the legitimacy of authority. Palestinian conditions are revolutionary material, a bonfire waiting to happen. Anti-Zionists find that status quo not just “unsustainable,” as all the politicians proclaim (protecting their asses) but deplorable; and they have acted, by endorsing a nonviolent program, Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) that would, yes, radically transform Israeli society.

Beinart’s prayer that Israel’s defenders must show that “Israel’s existence does not preclude a viable Palestinian state” is simply that, a prayer, and an empty one. All the evidence over the last 28 years since the Palestinian concession on the two-state solution is that Zionists don’t want a Palestinian state, now less than ever.

That’s a long time of trying things out. As Marilyn Kleinberg Neimark argued in 2013, things only get worse the longer we give Zionism a chance. Zionism’s record after 70 years of power is quite clear: it fosters discrimination, and that discrimination merely increases over time.

Our horizons are formed by our lifespans; and human beings have a right to look on four years of stasis, let alone 28 of them, as a proof of political failure. The Civil War in the United States followed by just six years the collapse of our two-state solution; the 1850 compromise in which slave states and free ones agreed to follow separate laws regarding slavery was set aside by the Congress in 1854 and slave states grabbed even more territory. Abolitionists found that outcome intolerable, and they funded a violent revolutionary, John Brown, who explained to poets and judges and transcendentalists across New England that slavery would only be ended by “verry much blood.” Not even by boycott! And Brown followed through on his belief through the late 1850s, and the civil war soon followed, and 600,000 people died and 4 million slaves were freed. The Algerian liberation struggle began in earnest after World War 2 and in 15 years produced a lot of bloodshed, and independence.

That’s what Beinart is warning about when he says that we are “revolutionaries”: we want to violently upend a system, putting hundreds of thousands of lives not our own at risk.

The answer is that history changes; and revolution doesn’t necessarily mean bloody revolution. The U.S. civil rights struggle of the 1960s, as well as the women’s liberation movement and the gay rights movement, culminating now in same-sex marriage and the rise of the trans movement — these were all revolutions, and they have been effected through nonviolent struggle, marches, boycott, and the ballot box.

But millions of Palestinians in occupied territories cannot vote for the government that rules their lives, even as Jewish settlers living right alongside them can. That system is why we use the word apartheid; and it is a blot on the west that backs Israel and on all the powerful Jewish organizations that support Israel. When Peter Beinart says we have to show that Israel’s existence does not preclude a viable Palestinian state– after 50 years of occupation and governments that grow more rightwing by the year, and the unending theft of water and land, what world is he talking about? There is no reality check here.

And though I know that Beinart finds the occupation distressing, and actually did activism against it last month, it’s not enough to just call for settlement boycott. Not when the entire Israeli government is behind this project.

A friend recently said that Beinart was a few drinks and one late night argument short of endorsing BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions). I don’t believe it. I think the stop on Beinart’s progress is his attachment to Zionism as the liberation of the Jewish people. This idealist in his 40s believes that deliverance story the same way that 75 year old Jews do.

And this is the heart of his anti-revolutionary argument. He doesn’t want a Jewish revolution against Zionism. At J Street a couple of years ago he said that if Zionism fails, the consequences for Jewish life would be calamitous; we would be stumbling through the rubble of this dream for decades to come. And he’s right! It’s a lot like the Shabbatei Zvi messianic Jewish dream of the 1600s, another false prophet unmasked, producing convulsions in Jewish life for generations to come. That’s the revolution Beinart fears as much as any other.

Which brings up the place problem. The place is here. Here is the revolution Beinart has the most power to effect, simply by changing his mind about whether Jewish nationalism (much of it on stolen land) is the answer to our modern condition. More and more American Jews understand that it is hypocritical to live in a liberal democracy and enjoy and defend and expand its freedoms, while advocating for a Jewish state thousands of miles away. As Neimark said so eloquently:

Could it be [that] no matter the potential merits and good will of the founding plan, the effort to establish and sustain the Jewish character of the intended Jewish democracy doomed the democratic character from the start, and it’s been spiraling downward ever since?

Many Jews see an urgency in cultivating this awareness. They understand that Palestinians don’t want to wait any longer, that violent resistance is inevitable and natural. They believe that Palestinians should have equal rights and be able to vote. It’s that simple.

Changing the American Jewish mind is the most important step toward accomplishing this revolution bloodlessly. That mental revolution is not something we are prescribing for others an ocean away, but in this country. Beinart has much more power than we do to bring about that change.

Thanks to Stephen Low, who wrote this about Beinart’s article:

It’s extremely troubling to see Beinart characterize BLMers and anti-Zionists as revolutionaries. It’s a loaded charge, semantically justifies Establishment “violence” to overcome and defeat these enemies of order, and is just not true! BLM is working to synchronize police behavior within a legal system that already exists, and anti-Zionists are working to synchronize the Israeli government and its people with human rights principles codified by the international community in which it covets membership and, ironically, also possesses a lot of Jewish DNA.

And he reflects ignorance about the true human rights conditions faced by Israel’s Palestinian minority–again proving what I’ve been saying all the time: continuing to think of the conflict as a simple one one over land and then invoking a false resolution by “ending the Occupation” would strand 20% of Israel’s Palestinians in “Moishe Chicken” Israel just as African Americans were stranded in the Jim Crow South for 100 years after the Civil War forced it to “withdrawal” from slavery.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

66 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    August 16, 2016, 4:23 pm

    Beautiful analysis, Phil!

    Change may (as you suggest) merely be change, not revolution. And a politics seeking to change an existing order in the direction of a greater good and in the direction of already codified norms may escape the designation of “anarchy” or “mindless revolution” or “destruction for destruction’s sake”. Pressure for folks to get with the existing norms is not usually called ‘revolution” by unconcerned onlookers.

    But to Zionists, making Zionism (or Israel) conform to international norms may feel very, very revolutionary indeed. Thus Beinart writing in Haaretz may feel justified to use language that may be read (and will be read) as “loaded language” by Israeli Zionists, whereas strangers to the situation might not think the language “loaded” if they should stumble across it, if to them “revolution” merely means sudden or great change.

    And white folks in USA might find BLM unacceptably “revolutionary” since it aims to shake up the system of white privilege reinforced by police departments and by the economic and the social and the criminal-justice systems — even though BLM merely seeks to align these systems with human-rights norms that most people would support in the abstract.

    So — what’s unacceptably “revolutionary” and beyond the pale depends on one’s viewpoint.

    As it has been said: Where you stand depends on where you sit.

  2. Keith
    Keith
    August 16, 2016, 4:36 pm

    PHIL- “Changing the American Jewish mind is the most important step toward accomplishing this revolution bloodlessly.”

    I think that it would be more accurate to say “changing the American Jewish elite’s support for Zionism and Israel.” Here as elsewhere, it is the elites that chart the course, the faithful followers following faithfully. The problem is that Zionism and Israel has rekindled the Jewish kinship solidarity which has been so helpful to the Jewish elites in their quest for power. And make no mistake, Zionist Jewish elites are Empire Jews. It is all about power. And Israel, Zionism and empire have become so entangled it is difficult to see a way out. Perhaps the end of empire and a more egalitarian society is required. But what is the chance of that happening?

    There is an old Chinese curse that goes “May you live in interesting times.” Guess what? We live in interesting times which are soon going to be a lot more interesting.

  3. jd65
    jd65
    August 16, 2016, 4:56 pm

    The clip Weiss provides above from The New School is interesting. I was there as well and broke up the discussion into 4 parts. If anyone feels it would be easier to view in chunks, you can find them below. The back and forth between Finkelstein and Baltzer in the question/discussion period, after the opening remarks, is key. I remember feeling Finkelstein came off as smart (no surprise there…), and funny (“Zionism is a hairspray…”), but also kinda condescending and a bit rigid. This was the first time I’d felt this way after hearing him speak. And I feel he has only become more so since then. In my mind, he’s a valuable resource and deserves much credit, but he is unable to break from ideas/positions he’s formed over the decades even when they no longer make as much sense as they used to. I haven’t yet finished the above article (just got home from work), but plan to soon…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwvyizx6nTg (Shatz)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgA3Rzy5HaY (Baltzer)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzL0kF53KZI (Finkelstein)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY4HkaQFFh8 (Baltzer/Finkelstein debate-discussion)

  4. yourstruly
    yourstruly
    August 16, 2016, 5:34 pm

    The characterization of BLMers and anti-Zionists as revolutionaries may bother Stephen Low, but if revolution has to do with turning a society upside down, seems to me that the characterization fits the reality of Palestine/Israel. But as Phil notes in his post, not all revolutions are bloody. After all, isn’t the goal of of BDS that of a bloodless transformation of P/I? Where I disagree with Phil in his insistence that changing the American-Jewish mind is the most important step towards bringing about this bloodless revolution. This might be the case if there were no pressure of time. But with time running out the aim of anti-Zionist revolutionaries should be to turn the general public against our government’s unconditional support for Israel. In this effort American Jews can be helpful in that our presence among the revolutionaries will tend to dispel the Zionist charge that anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism, thereby rendering the public more receptive to the specifics of how it is that America’s unfaltering support for Israel has led to so much violence, death and destruction in the Middle East. Open-mindedness being the prerequisite to discovering the truth, once the public realizes that the truth re: P/I is the opposite of what they’ve been taught, the revolution will have begun.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      August 16, 2016, 8:25 pm

      “the aim of anti-Zionist revolutionaries should be to turn the general public against our government’s unconditional support for Israel.”

      That removes the anti-Zionist revolutionary two unnecessary steps from direct action, doesn’t it?

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      August 16, 2016, 10:41 pm

      @ yourstruly
      I agree with your assessment. I think the biggest obstacle to peaceful change is the US mainstream media, especially, the three principle cable tv news/infotainment channels. Another is Hollywood. Americans are indoctrinated with the Holocaust; it’s part of their formative educational content, so much so, it’s as if it actually happened here, in North America. Most Americans have no sense at all of the daily life of Palestinians under the power of Israel, nor do they have any sense at all of how lop-sided our foreign aid is, nor of how many times their government has stood virtually alone at the UN against so many attempts to make Israel minimally accountable to international norms. In general, Americans devote zero time to foreign policy and how that sausage is made at the expense of so many innocents.

  5. inbound39
    inbound39
    August 16, 2016, 6:09 pm

    No sane government should be supporting a regime that moves closer and closer to looking like WW2 Germany every day. Supplying them with Billions of dollars of weaponry with which they use to ethnically cleanse areas outside their declared borders is unacceptable and intolerable nor is it reasonable or justifiable and most definitely not defensible.

    • CigarGod
      CigarGod
      August 19, 2016, 9:43 am

      That is a potent comment packed into few words.
      Going to use it.

  6. jd65
    jd65
    August 16, 2016, 7:10 pm

    Good article, Phil.

    [Finkelstein] challenged anti-Zionists: The two-state solution is now international law, do you understand the damage you are causing in undermining that paradigm by suggesting to people you want to “destroy Israel,” and (implicitly) what bloodshed you in your dreamy chairs in the United States are risking for others, far away.

    Is this a paraphrased quote from NF, and the quotes around “destroy Israel” are a direct quote within the para[hrased quote? It’s a bit confusing. I went to the vid to find it but didn’t want to spend the time right now. Is it when he’s talking about BDS? Or the term Zionism? His spiel of why using the term Zionism should stop is, imo, ridiculous self-serving nonsense. And his back and forth w/ Baltzer on this was the most interesting part of the whole event. Good on Baltzer for not bowing to NF.

    Also: “The two-state solution is now international law…” Is it? I don’t claim to know otherwise, but that seems to me like an overstatement. Maybe a simplistic, self-serving overstatement. But again, I absolutely could be wrong here. And if anyone here can point me to a reference that shows me the international law codifying the two-stae solution, I’d want to see it. Sincere request…

    Beinart’s prayer that Israel’s defenders must show that “Israel’s existence does not preclude a viable Palestinian state” is simply that, a prayer, and an empty one. All the evidence over the last 28 years since the Palestinian concession on the two-state solution is that Zionists don’t want a Palestinian state, now less than ever.

    Good, Phil. I would’ve written “century” instead of your “28 years,” but that’s a quibble…

    A friend recently said that Beinart was a few drinks and one late night argument short of endorsing BDS…

    I think your friend has had too many drinks :)

    At J Street a couple of years ago he said that if Zionism fails, the consequences for Jewish life would be calamitous; we would be stumbling through the rubble of this dream for decades to come. And he’s right!

    If it fails? We’re already “stumbling through the rubble” of Zionism’s dream right now, and it’s unfortunately succeeding. Of course, keep in mind the “rubble” created by Zionism in “Jewish life” is nothing compared the endless rubble of exploded hospitals and bulldozed homes of the Palestinian victims. The “rubble created in Jewish life” by Zionism? Please. By comparison, that’s just truly sickening.

    They believe that Palestinians should have equal rights and be able to vote. It’s that simple.

    Almost that simple. I’d add the right of return and reparations. Maybe you felt that was implied in what you wrote. And that’s cool. For me, that stuff needs to be spelled out as specifically as possible, as often as possible.

    And as far as the navel-gazing over the term “revolution;” Seems to me that “revolution” is now a marketing tool. Ernesto rolls in his grave. Oh well. As ever, specifics specifics specifics…

    • inbound39
      inbound39
      August 17, 2016, 7:53 am

      From my understanding,and I do encourage Talknic to clarify further as he has more expertise than me. I only learnt from him really. But when Israel agreed to and signed agreement to the Partition Plan, the Provisional Government of Israel knew full well its borders and in fact declared them as those defined by the Partition Plan. It is on the UN Record as having agreed. Israeli Jews and Arabs were invited to agree to it. The Arabs rejected it and the Arabs were the majority in Palestine and at the time of signing Jews owned less than ten percent of the land in Palestine. The UN made clear it would hold the land for a Palestinian State in perpetuity so if Palestinian Arabs changed their mind the land was there for them.

      Now comes the tricky bit,some say the Partition Plan is invalid due to the UN not having a mandate to carve up ownership of foreign territory. And I can only wonder how France or England etc would have reacted if half their territory was carved up and handed to someone else when the majority were saying no. However it went ahead. Israel declared its borders and during and before these transactions Jewish settlers were removing Arabs by force from Palestine. Palmach, Irgun and Haganah and Sterngang ,all designated terrorist groups by the British were attacking Palestinians and forcing them out as the British previously had rescinded their Mandate and handed it to the UN to sort out ,hence the Partition Plan. The War of Independence was in fact an Israeli Jewish war of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in an attempt to take ALL Palestine. The Arabs to my knowledge lodged a Declaration of a Defensive War in London to go into Palestine to protect Palestinians who were coming under attack from Jewish Terrorist groups. Under International Law Acquisition of Territory by Force is inadmissible so all the land Israel took outside its declared borders as defined by the Partition Plan is illegal and is actually Palestinian Land. Israel also signed agreement to implement Resolution 194 in exchange for full UN Membership. All territory Occupied by Israel in 1967 IS ILLEGALLY HELD. Israel under the Fourth Geneva Convention is not allowed to transfer it citizens permanently onto Occupied Territory. The legitimacy of Israel as a whole is questionable. What is known is since its inception it has it has never complied with or abided by International Law and that has to stop. Its impunity from International law is a precedent and needs to be terminated and Israel needs to face justice for its criminal actions.

      • jd65
        jd65
        August 17, 2016, 2:16 pm

        Thanks for the response, inbound39. I’ve read your other stuff beneath as well. And talknic’s comment. To me, it all ads up to NF’s statement, “The two-state solution is now international law…,” being, as I initially said, simplistic and self-serving. But some of the “legal” aspects of “partition” are so tortured and tangled (by design…), that I feel I may still may be missing something that makes NF’s statement reasonable. But it seems he now uses the term/concept of “international law” as a bludgeon to beat people with who don’t share his conception of the correct way to proceed w/ a resolution to the conflict. And I still don’t know if Phil Weiss was directly quoting him in the above article. Can’t tell. And that’s kind of a problem, journalistically, methinks.

        Either way: Two state solution? Legal? Ethical? Is it following international law? Which two state solution are we referring to? Who wanted what? And when? And why? On and on and on… It’s a testament to the unfortunate success and cunning of the Israeli/Zionist project that now even bringing up the subject of the “two-state solution” turns into a relatively useless navel-gazing session, as NF, ironically, might say…

      • inbound39
        inbound39
        August 17, 2016, 5:29 pm

        jd65….in my view NF is correct. All UN Resolutions are bound in International Law and All Sovereign States agree on joining UN to comply with and abide by their obligations under International Law. The Partition Plan was a signed agreement understood clearly by the Provisional Government of Israel and many months work by UNSCOP went into its formulation of borders of which the Provisional Government of Israel participated. Israel ratified and signed the Fourth Geneva Convention and is bound by International Law to comply. Palestine was a Sovereign State that was carved up to facilitate the creation of Israel so it does not cease being a State because Israel says so. It is bound in International Law.

      • jd65
        jd65
        August 18, 2016, 11:44 am

        Thanks again inbound39.

        jd65….in my view NF is correct. All UN Resolutions are bound in International Law and All Sovereign States agree on joining UN to comply with and abide by their obligations under International Law…

        I hear you. And it’s been a while since I’ve actually read through the resolutions. I’m not a lawyer, and I’m not purporting to be an actual expert. But I have done what I feel is a decent amount of personal research, comparatively, and study on the issue. I’ll go back and check out the resolutions again.

        A few layman thoughts on NF’s statement (still don’t know if it’s a paraphrased quote or what. I guess Phil doesn’t read these comments. I wouldn’t either if I was him…), and the general idea that “The two-state solution is now international law.” Is it possible that what was once international law, can become undone as “law” if, after the fact, circumstances create a situation where the law is unreasonable or unenforceable, or for some other reason invalid? ie: Israel fucking everything up and the U.S. allowing and aiding in this fucking up of the possibility of the international law’s concept of said two-state solution? And if this is the case (the undoing of the possibility of the original law’s conception), does not a new “law” need to be created? And if this new law does need to be created, doesn’t that make NF’s statement “The two-state solution is now international law” simplistic and outdated?

        Sorry if my thoughts are muddled or hard to follow. I will go back over the next few days and do my best to again go through 181, 194, & 242. But at the moment, my thought is that whatever these resolutions/laws, binding or non-binding, delineate about partition, green lines, states, peoples/nations, or occupations, whether 1947, 1948, of 1967, whatever was decided in them cannot possibly make any reasonable sense currently. But I guess you never know…

      • mcohen.
        mcohen.
        August 20, 2016, 4:00 am

        inbound39 says

        “palestine was a sovereign state”

        when was that.what year.what

        who was president or prime minister.any flag.anthem.how about coins.

        tricky tricky inbound.talknic says so

        really!

        https://electronicintifada.net/content/tale-palestinian-sovereignty/5975

      • inbound39
        inbound39
        August 20, 2016, 8:59 am

        Yes Palestine was a State prior to Partition. It is recognised as such under the British Mandate and if you look at Maan News Agencies recent articles there are still towns in Israel with manhole covers made from cast Iron declaring they are the Property of the Palestinian State.

      • talknic
        talknic
        August 20, 2016, 9:00 am

        @ mcohen

        “who was president or prime minister.any flag.anthem.how about coins … “

        A) Irrelevant to the legal status of Israel’s proclaimed and internationally recognized territorial extent as of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf ) and Israel’s continued illegal activities in non-Israeli territories held under military occupation.

        Territories “outside the state of Israel” are quite simply NOT Israeli. https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/b4085a930e0529c98025649d00410973?OpenDocument

        B) Even Israel used the Palestine Pound as its first currency.

      • inbound39
        inbound39
        August 20, 2016, 9:09 am

        You will find their are examples of Palestinian money if you look. They had paper notes like other states do now and they had passports also because when the British Mandate spoke of a home for the Jews in Palestine they also speak of issuing Jews with Palestinian Passports and granting them Palestinian citizenship which the Jews rejected.

  7. xanadou
    xanadou
    August 17, 2016, 12:32 am

    Inbound39: “their declared borders”

    That’s the problem with the slimy slippery Israeli govt PR. By refusing to define/declare the border of Israel, it makes possible the escalating land theft in the quest to create a Greater Israel empire: the zios’ ultimate raison d’être. At least in the zios’ deranged minds. Fanciful myths of a long-gone, grotesquely unkind era as inspiration for grown men in power ruled by antiquated ambitions that are out of sync with the demands and expectations of the modern era’s third millennium.

    • inbound39
      inbound39
      August 17, 2016, 10:50 am

      The surrounding circumstances are as follows. Clark Clifford, White House spokesman, phoned Washington friends advising that the State Department, at noon, May 14, will agree immediate recognition in event request therefor received. After careful consultation here with Ben Cohen and Ginsberg, following letter drafted and sent to the President and Secretary of State:

      My dear Mr. President: I have the honor to notify you that the State of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that the Provisional Government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law.

      The Act of Independence will become effective one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948 Washington time………….http://www.religion-science-peace.org/2014/10/29/the-hidden-documents-that-reveal-the-true-borders-of-israel-and-palestine/

      • inbound39
        inbound39
        August 17, 2016, 10:59 am

        May 22nd 1948 Israeli Government statement

        On May 22, 1948 UNSC S/766 the Provisional Government of Israel answered questions addressed to the “Jewish authorities in Palestine” was transmitted by the acting representative of Israel at the United Nations.

        Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947?

        “In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed.” … ” the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel”

      • inbound39
        inbound39
        August 17, 2016, 11:07 am

        Despite the fact that the League of Nations Covenant Article 20 tells us Palestine was a state with provisional recognition, referenced in the very first line of the League of Nation Mandate for Palestine and in Article 7, one of Israel’s main assertions has been that Palestine has never been a state.

        Another of Israel’s arguments is that because the Arabs refused to recognize UNGA res 181, Israel somehow has some extra special right to territories the Israeli Government itself claimed on May 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” and under Israeli military control. I.e., “occupied”

        The arguments are not only nonsense, they’re entirely irrelevant. States cannot simply take what is not their own without the express permission of the legal inhabitants. Since at least 1933 it has been illegal (inadmissible) to “acquire” territory by war, furthermore it is illegal for other states to recognize territories acquired by war. A fact confirmed by Schwebel, Lauterpacht & Herzog, who tell us territory may only be “restored” by war. No Israeli territories have ever been taken. Israel has never had to ‘restore’ any of its territories, it has been “acquiring” territory by war.

        Israel is no different from any other independent state. What lies outside of Israel’s legal sovereign extent, is simply not Israeli. Since Israel’s territories were proclaimed by the Israeli Government in their plea for recognition, no further territories have ever been legally acquired by Israel by any agreement and no state has ever recognized any territories acquired by war as Israeli.

        Israel’s official 31st of August 1949 claim (as a UN Member state) to alleged non-state territories of Palestine shows “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area” except for the Palestinian territories. Israel’s claim was refused BTW, citing the Armistice Agreements……more info here……https://talknic.wordpress.com/

  8. Krauss
    Krauss
    August 17, 2016, 6:23 am

    It is refreshing to see you finally seeing Beinart for the reactionary he is. He is only faking concern. His blurting out a couple of years ago that he would be “fine” with Palestinians not having full citizenship rights should have been the wake-up call for you.

    Better late than never. Beinart will block any progress on the occupation while feigning concern for the Palestinians as long as he can. It’s time these “liberals” are called out on their bigotry and racism.

    As I said many times before and will say again: the true test of one’s liberalism is not what you support when you’re in the minority, but in the majority. Beinart’s politics in America is utterly irrelevent. It’s what he favours in a society where he is in the majority that matters.

  9. Talkback
    Talkback
    August 17, 2016, 8:35 am

    Resolution 194 is as much ‘internatinal law’ as the two state solution. It proves that the UN never envisaged an ethnocratic state.

    • hophmi
      hophmi
      August 17, 2016, 11:34 am

      1. It is not. The two-state solution has its basis in UNSC 242, a Chapter 7 resolution. Resolution 194 is a GA resolution and is non-binding.

      2. Here’s the UN’s partition plan map. The plan envisaged a Jewish state and an Arab state. That’s what the UN envisaged. Two states, one for Jews, and one for Arabs.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#/media/File:UN_Palestine_Partition_Versions_1947.jpg

      • inbound39
        inbound39
        August 17, 2016, 5:36 pm

        The Partition Plan Resolution 181 is the resolution that Israel signed agreeing to two states and its borders. 242 is simply a requirement under International Law which requires Israel to withdraw from territories occupied by Israel in 67.Acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible. Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information and never used by academics wishing to get to the truth. Cameras – org employees have corrupted all information on Israel at Wikipedia….try again Hophmi and stop grasping at Hasbara- like disinformational straws.

      • inbound39
        inbound39
        August 17, 2016, 5:43 pm

        Whether it be UNSC or UNGA documents all are binding if based and drawn up around International Law. When Israel declared Sovereignty and declared its borders as defined by Resolution 181 THEN that was legally binding under International Law Hophmi and those are the only borders it will ever be recognised on Internationally. unless legally changed through International Law which to date it has never done.

      • talknic
        talknic
        August 20, 2016, 9:09 am

        @ hophmi August 17, 2016, 11:34 am

        “Resolution 194 is a GA resolution and is non-binding”

        The Laws, conventions and UN charter as cited, reaffirmed and/or emphasized in ANY UN resolution, are binding.

        “2. Here’s the UN’s partition plan map. The plan envisaged a Jewish state and an Arab state. That’s what the UN envisaged. Two states, one for Jews, and one for Arabs.”

        … and the corpus separatum, which has never been instituted, I.e., Jerusalem has never been legally separated from Palestine, it was not proclaimed by the Israeli Government as Israeli and has never been legally annexed by any agreement to Israel.

      • ClearAndPresentDanger
        ClearAndPresentDanger
        August 20, 2016, 1:22 pm

        @talknic

        “… and the corpus separatum, which has never been instituted, I.e., Jerusalem has never been legally separated from Palestine”

        One would do well to recall that 5-6 Arab neighbors replied with a resounding ‘nyet’ to the entire UN Partition Plan by unilaterally attacking Israel in 1948.

        The Arabs lost in 1948, lost in 1967, now they want a do-over including a return to the 1948 lines that they rejected.

      • talknic
        talknic
        August 20, 2016, 9:57 pm

        @ ClearAndPresentDanger August 20, 2016, 1:22 pm

        “One would do well to recall that 5-6 Arab neighbors replied with a resounding ‘nyet’ to the entire UN Partition Plan”

        So what? It wasn’t binding on anyone who didn’t accept it. Their rejection of the plan is also irrelevant to the fact that territories outside the proclaimed and Internationally recognized boundaries of the State of Israel are quite simply NOT Israeli. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

        Also irrelevant to the illegality of Israeli actions in non-Israeli territories,never legally annexed and illegally acquired by war and; irrelevant to Israel’s illegal activities in territories militarily occupied by Israel.

        “… by unilaterally attacking Israel in 1948”

        A) What Israeli territory was invaded?

        B) No Israeli territory has ever been invaded.

        On May 22, 1948 – UNSC S/766 the Provisional Government of Israel answered questions addressed to the “Jewish authorities in Palestine” was transmitted by the acting representative of Israel at the United Nations.

        Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947?

        “In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel , are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed.” … ” the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel

        The Arab states had a legal right under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to inform the UNSC of their intentions and attempt to expel Jewish forces from territories the Israeli Government claimed on 22nd May 1948 “outside the State of Israel” …”in Palestine”

        “The Arabs lost in 1948”

        Strange, they prevented Israel from taking Judea and Samaria and Gaza. Also irrelevant to the illegal acquisition by Israel of territory by war or force

        “… now they want a do-over including a return to the 1948 lines that they rejected”

        That’s not what the Palestinian declaration of statehood tells us. Nor is it what the Arab Peace initiative tells us. You’re full of Ziosh*te

  10. eljay
    eljay
    August 17, 2016, 8:52 am

    … If you want African Americans to believe in the American political system, you must show that that system can address structural racism. If you want Palestinians to accept Israel’s existence, you must show that Israel’s existence does not preclude a viable Palestinian state. …

    And if you want non-Jewish Israelis – including non-Jewish refugees, expats and people up to n generations removed from Partition-borders Israel – to accept the religion-supremacist “Jewish State” nature of Israel, you must show…what?

    Please, Mr. Beinart, tell us how to get non-Jewish Israelis to believe in a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” system.

  11. Elizabeth Block
    Elizabeth Block
    August 17, 2016, 9:53 am

    I quote (from memory) Chris Hedges: A society is in trouble when its political pariahs have at the heart of their demands a return to the rule of law.
    In the case of Israel, it’s not a return to the rule of law. It’s the establishment of the rule of law.

    People ask me if I want to see Israel destroyed. No, I say, I just want to see regime change. Revolutionary? So be it.

  12. hophmi
    hophmi
    August 17, 2016, 11:24 am

    There is nothing loaded about that charge. Kristian David Bailey himself went out of his way to describe BLM as a radical movement on Al Jazeera the other day, and anyone who read the M4BL platform could not possibly say with a straight face that BLM is just about “synchroniz[ing] police behavior within a legal system that already exists.”

    The same is true for the anti-Zionists, who have endorsed the radical M4BL platform.

    • annie
      annie
      August 17, 2016, 11:35 am

      i’m not sure i agree with stephan low that identifying “revolutionaries… semantically justifies Establishment “violence” to overcome and defeat these enemies of order”

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        August 17, 2016, 12:00 pm

        I think the label is silly. I don’t see either group as revolutionary. BLM may have its radical wing, but I don’t think that radical wing has majority support among people who identify with BLM. BDS supporters are not revolutionaries in any sense. They’re often reactionaries, actually.

      • annie
        annie
        August 17, 2016, 12:34 pm

        i think they’re revolutionaries.

      • Mr.T
        Mr.T
        August 17, 2016, 12:46 pm

        “BDS supporters are not revolutionaries in any sense.”

        Good grief, they’re almost the textbook definition of revolutionaries. They’re seeking to overturn the status quo of the current racist order in occupied Palestine and replace it with a moral and non-racist alternative.

      • jd65
        jd65
        August 17, 2016, 4:01 pm

        @ Mr.T:

        they’re almost the textbook definition of revolutionaries.

        There’s a textbook?! I didn’t know they taught revolution at university. What’ll they think of next…

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        August 17, 2016, 9:53 pm

        “There’s a textbook?! I didn’t know they taught revolution at university. ”

        Courses in History, Political Science, and Political Philosophy include revolution and revolutions.

      • gamal
        gamal
        August 17, 2016, 10:47 pm

        “There’s a textbook” many Mao was prolific but this would or could get you on the first step to revolting

        Guerilla warfare Ernesto “Che” Guevara

        https://www.amazon.com/Guerrilla-Warfare-Ernesto-Che-Guevara/dp/149299748X

        but then the other side produce quite a lot of stuff like this which might put you off,

        Major Thomas Eric Miller :Efficacy of Urban Insurgency

        https://books.google.ie/books?id=QSRwCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT179&lpg=PT179&dq=major+thomas+eric+miller+efficacy+of+urban+insurgency&source=bl&ots=icPjaVzO3Y&sig=E4-zLnMbP6M9lM8yF_xn9GN3BWM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYu5Gn-MnOAhWmJ8AKHQPHC1kQ6AEIMzAD#v=onepage&q=major%20thomas%20eric%20miller%20efficacy%20of%20urban%20insurgency&f=false

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        August 18, 2016, 2:01 am

        jd65

        I didn’t know they taught revolution at university

        Looks like you weren’t a university student full of adrenaline around 1968…

      • jd65
        jd65
        August 18, 2016, 2:15 pm

        Hey all,

        My “there’s a textbook” question was essentially a joke. Of course revolutions are studied at university. That’s a given. And judging from some of the responses here, I guess there are textbooks devoted entirely to the history of revolutions designed specifically for college/university study? ie: Textbook? That I didn’t know. I simply wanted to deflate and joke about the parsing of the term “revolutionary” as relates to Beinart’s use, BDS, BLM, etc… As I see it, as related to Palestine, spending time on the fine points of people’s perceptions of the meaning and usage of that term is mainly a distraction from the wrongs being perpetrated upon the Palestinians. A kind of semantics. Much like my memories of my philosophy classes in college. I see a theme here…

    • Mr.T
      Mr.T
      August 17, 2016, 11:41 am

      You’re unthinking and facile conflation of “revolutionary” and “radical” demonstrates that it is a loaded charge. As does your dimwitted swipe at anti-Zionists.

    • eljay
      eljay
      August 17, 2016, 11:46 am

      || hophmi: … Kristian David Bailey himself went out of his way to describe BLM as a radical movement … The same is true for the anti-Zionists, who have endorsed the radical M4BL platform. ||

      All Zio-supremacists endorse Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.

      Not all anti-Zionists have endorsed the M4BL platform.

  13. hophmi
    hophmi
    August 17, 2016, 11:31 am

    Your analogy with the 1850 compromise is an argument against a one-state solution, not a two-state solution. Just as the solution of combining within the same country the slave-owning South and the free North was ultimately unworkable and led to a bloodbath, a one-state solution would combine Israel, a liberal democratic state, and Palestine, a polity that is anything but liberal and democratic, would be unworkable and lead to a bloodbath.

    • annie
      annie
      August 17, 2016, 11:38 am

      israel is not a liberal and democratic state and how could any people occupied for decades be liberal and democratic? occupied people don’t get to chose their rulers, obviously. the authority is the occupying gov and forces.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        August 17, 2016, 11:59 am

        OK, Annie. Can you name another state in the region that is either liberal or democratic today? What’s their excuse? Can you name another state in the region where there are comprehensive civil liberties protections, where gay people can live openly without fear, where women are fully integrated into the society and serve as its leaders, etc?

      • annie
        annie
        August 17, 2016, 1:44 pm

        what’s this “in the region” qualifier? you said liberal democracy i said no — it’s not. and half the people the regime rules over have no “civil liberties protections” so please spare us. and what’s this “gay people can live openly without fear” bs when you know damn well gay palestinians are targeted for collaboration because they are gay. how groovy is that? and palestinian women are as fully integrated into palestinian society as jewish women are in israeli society. in fact, i think one of the most famous palestinian women who ever lived is serving in the knesset heavily targeted btw, and another palestinian female politician keeps getting thrown in prison for nothing! seriously, get a grip.

      • Mr.T
        Mr.T
        August 17, 2016, 2:05 pm

        “Can you name another state in the region that is either liberal… today? What’s their excuse?”

        If we define “liberal” as “not adhering to an ideology that results in 8 year olds getting their bikes stolen by agents of the state because they’re of the wrong ethnic background while riding on a race-restricted road” then I could name quite a few states in the region that are liberal and at least one that is not.

      • Marnie
        Marnie
        August 21, 2016, 12:25 am

        “Six people were stabbed at Jerusalem’s annual Gay Pride Parade on Thursday. The suspected attacker was identified as Yishai Schlissel, the same man behind the attack on the 2005 parade, recently released from prison.

        One woman was critically wounded, Magen David Adom emergency services reported, adding that two men were moderately wounded, and another two men and a woman suffered light wounds.”

        16-year-old Shira Banki died as the result of being stabbed by Jewish fanatic Yishai Schlissel. Yishai Schlissel, the ‘same man behidn the attack on the 2005 parade, recently released from prison’.

        hophni – “Can you name another state in the region where there are comprehensive civil liberties protections, where gay people can live openly without fear, where women are fully integrated into the society and serve as its leaders, etc? ”

        You are seriously claiming the borderless state of israel is a place where gay people can live openly without fear (how the f#$% would you know anyway?) and women are fully integrated into the society and serve as its leaders, etc.?

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        August 22, 2016, 11:42 am

        “when you know damn well gay palestinians are targeted for collaboration because they are gay”

        LOL. The only reason they’re able to be targeted is because they face persecution in their own society. Here’s a great idea: advocate civil rights protections in Palestinian society and say you’ll boycott the Palestinians until they institute full gender and sexual equality, and then, at least according to your theory on the effectiveness of boycotts, the Israelis will have no one to target for collaboration.

        “and palestinian women are as fully integrated into palestinian society as jewish women are in israeli society.”

        Based on what? According to the UNDP, in 2012, the female/male labor participation rate in Israel is around 84%, 19th in the world. In Palestine it’s around 23%, good for 107th. http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/labour-force-participation-rate-female-male-ratio

      • Mr.T
        Mr.T
        August 22, 2016, 3:03 pm

        “the Israelis will have no one to target for collaboration.”

        No, those evil suckers will simply find some other people to target.

        “Based on what? According to the UNDP, in 2012, the female/male labor participation rate in Israel is around 84%, 19th in the world. In Palestine it’s around 23%, good for 107th.”

        Palestine is n the midst of one of the longest occupations of modern times (and an almost unimaginably brutal and inhumane occupation at that), I’m guessing that correcting this gender imbalance — in that portion of the Palestinian economy which JSIL hasn’t yet poisoned — is not high on the priority list on the survivors of Israeli atrocities. Things like “making sure your kids don’t get murdered in an Israeli war crime” is likely more important.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        August 22, 2016, 6:23 pm

        You’re blaming the occupation for the failure of Palestinian society to integrate its women? What excuse are you using for the rest of the Middle East?

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        August 22, 2016, 6:31 pm

        Marnie says, bizarrely, that because a nut stabbed people at a gay pride parade – a gay pride parade the that is held every year – Israel isn’t gay-friendly. Great example of how you apply a special standard to Israel. Let me know when that first gay pride parade is held in Mecca. Or Cairo. Or Amman. Or Enable. Heck, let me know when ten gay people have a public meeting in one of these places.

        And Marnie, I do know a number of gay Israelis from across the political spectrum. All feel that Israel is a place where gay people can live freely and openly.

        As non-haters of Israel know, Israel is by far the most gender equal country in the Middle East, and one of the most gender-equal countries in the world.

        Marnie, you’re very full of hate.

    • eljay
      eljay
      August 17, 2016, 11:57 am

      || hophmi: … a one-state solution would combine Israel, a liberal democratic state … ||

      An oppressive, colonialist, (war) criminal and religion-supremacist “Jewish State”.

      || … and Palestine, a polity that is anything but liberal and democratic, would be unworkable and lead to a bloodbath. ||

      That’s why I advocate a two-state solution comprising:
      – Israel, the secular and democratic Israeli state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, expats (incl. people up to n generations removed (n-gens)) and refugees (CIERs), equally; and
      – Palestine (if that is what it is to be called), the secular and democratic Palestinian state of and for all of its Palestinian CIERs and n-gens, equally.

      You likely disagree, because you want Israel to remain a “Jewish State” primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews.

      It would then be up to the CIERs of both states to decide democratically whether they wish their states to remain independent or to merge into one larger secular and democratic state of and for all of its CIERs and n-gens, equally.

      You likely disagree, because you want Israel to continue to exist as a “Jewish State” primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews.

    • Mr.T
      Mr.T
      August 17, 2016, 11:59 am

      “Just as the solution of combining within the same country the slave-owning South and the free North was ultimately unworkable and led to a bloodbath, a one-state solution would combine Israel, a liberal democratic state [sic], and Palestine, [bigoted slander omitted], would be unworkable and lead to a bloodbath.”

      This is gibberish. The American Civil War did not result from an attempt to combine a slave-owning South and a free North. Rather, it resulted from the insistence on a self-proclaimed Chosen People to limit and dictate the political and human rights of another. What led to the blood bath in America was the insistence on an evil system that pretends to be moral yet ascribes to a supremacist system.

      Further, it’s a blood libel of the worst kind. What we have now is a one-state solution in which JSIL dictates to Palestine what freedoms it is permitted. Further, that bloodbath is occurring today, as we speak. Since the creation of the Israeli state, there has been a continuous bloodbath of Palestinian blood.

      So are you calling for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Israeli government officials and settlers behind the green line?? No, because you don’t care when Palestinians are being killed and having their lives destroyed. No. You’re calling for the Palestinians to “know their place” and not get “uppity,” just like your ideological kin in the racist South did before you.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      August 17, 2016, 12:46 pm

      “a one-state solution would combine Israel, a liberal democratic state, and Palestine, a polity that is anything but liberal and democratic, would be unworkable and lead to a bloodbath.”

      I’m sorry “Hophmi”, don’t you mean a “liberal democratic” Jewish “state”?

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      August 17, 2016, 3:27 pm

      “and lead to a bloodbath.”

      And gee, “Hophmi” who are the only people in Palestine with the weapons, organized martial forces, command of the skies, almost unlimited martial resources, and US backing, needed to create a “bloodbath”?

      • inbound39
        inbound39
        August 17, 2016, 7:57 pm

        Precisely Mooser…..what Hophmi and his ilk are failing to see is the State of Israel as it has been known since its inception is about to undergo a major change and its days of impunity are drawing to an end. The groundswell against Israel largely due to its criminality is growing and nothing Hophmi and his ilk can do will stop that inevitable change. The honeymoon is definitely over. Under a One State solution the Jewish State of Israel on the first day would cease to exist with a democratic one person one vote system in place and the One new State likely would be renamed. Two separate States will and is the only viable option Israel has to retain its identity. What form that takes is unknown but surely will involve starting at its 181 declared borders. Any other land it legally negotiates with Palestine will be added by legal annexation in line with International Law. Settlers if anyone will attempt to create a bloodbath. My hunch is America and France and Russia will place troops on the borders of the new States to stop any fighting. Under International Law every Sovereign State has a right to defend itself and so a demilitarized State for Palestinians is unviable not to mention unreasonable as Israel is a definite and clear threat to Palestinian Freedom.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        August 22, 2016, 11:44 am

        The Palestinians have plenty of weapons, which they’ve turned on the Israelis before, and they have plenty of well-armed benefactors in the regions who will willingness give them weapons, like Iran.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        August 22, 2016, 2:32 pm

        “The Palestinians have plenty of weapons…”

        And if you need proof, just ask yourself, ‘have I ever seen a Palestinian kid eating a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich with the crusts still on?’

      • talknic
        talknic
        August 22, 2016, 9:11 pm

        @ hophmi August 22, 2016, 11:44 am

        “The Palestinians have plenty of weapons, which they’ve turned on the Israelis before, and they have plenty of well-armed benefactors in the regions who will willingness give them weapons, like Iran”

        So why do they still use home made rockets?

      • talknic
        talknic
        August 27, 2016, 1:17 am

        So why do they still use home made rockets hophmi ?

        hophmi! You there? Hey! hophmi!

  14. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    August 17, 2016, 12:20 pm

    The most successful 2ss in North American history was surely that of United States vs Canada,the least successful the collection of apparent attempts to leave some territory in First American hands by treaties that were disregarded. If you think of the Missouri Compromise of the 1820s,, revised in 1850, as a 1ss with two entrenched systems marked by very different conceptions of human rights then it would be reasonable to think of the post-Civil War system as a 1ss with a more unified conception of those rights, at least with no formal and universal insistence on disfranchisement on grounds of race.
    It would seem that a 2ss can work only if both sides can assert themselves and there is either no massive disparity of power or else a degree of mutual respect and that a 1ss needs to be based on general enfranchisement. What we have now in Palestine is one sovereign power which disfranchises a vast number of those subject to it. This wifi not work for ever and I think everyone knows it.

  15. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    August 18, 2016, 12:32 pm

    Every once in a while Phil Weiss compares zionism to the shabtai zevi movement. Why? Most people are unfamiliar with the name and those few familiar must scoff at the superficial nature of the comparison. It seems sophomoric, trying to prove Phil knows and cares about Jewish history.

    The shabtai zevi movement was irrational, without cause, focused on a specific human for a specific role. Zionism had two causes: assimilation and antisemitism, was focused on taking the initiative as a group rather than concede the moment to immigration with individualistic motives and designed to defy the passivism of the rabbis. At the center of any accurate story of zionism’s prebirth is the turmoil of europe, the home of the birth of the movement. Nothing in the false messiah hood of zevi had any relation to history that compares to the turmoil of the first half of the 20th century.

    • mcohen.
      mcohen.
      August 20, 2016, 5:10 pm

      yonah says about phil

      sab zevi movement

      it,s more a loss than a prophet
      like a game of billiards
      with no pockets
      no winners or losers in this game
      only the players themselves to blame.

  16. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    August 21, 2016, 1:54 pm

    Check out what Chris Matthews said about Hillary the other night Chris Matthews has admitted out loud a few times how “hawkish” Clinton has been and will continue to be ” I have talked with her (Hillary Clinton) I get the sense she is not really shaken by Vietnam or Iraq”

    Totally spot on. The hundreds of thousands (many reports say into the millions) of people murdered, injured, millions displaced in Iraq, Libya, Syria as a direct consequence of the foreign policy and military decisions by the Bush/Cheney, Obama/Clinton administrations which have destabilized the middle east and caused horrific human outcomes “Does Putin want Trump to be President?” http://www.msnbc.com/hardball

Leave a Reply