Trending Topics:

Israeli Jews ‘will never accept’ giving vote to Palestinians — liberal Zionist leader

on 106 Comments

Talia Sasson is the president of the liberal Zionist group the New Israel Fund (and a lawyer, former longtime government official, and candidate for the Knesset in the Meretz Party). On a podcast for the New Israel Fund four days ago she decried the idea that Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital is a blow to the peace process.

We must continue the peace process, because the two-state solution is the only imaginable political resolution of the conflict, whenever it comes, she said; and Israelis (i.e., Israeli Jews) will never accept a single state with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza having the right to vote for the parliament.

Sasson reasoned:

In my opinion the two state solution is the only solution that there is. So, with more difficulty or less, usually more, and more farther in the future, or whenever it would happen, this is the only solution in my understanding that can be there…. as a separation between the two peoples and different systems of laws.

Because the other way round is one state, and one state–…  maybe there are many people who believe in it in Israel, but I really doubt it, and I believe that it won’t last for the long run in the future. And therefore I believe that if Israel will continue by this situation, the end will be– in that way, or that way– one state, with Palestinians in the West Bank, maybe in the Gaza strip would have the right to vote in the Knesset. Then Israel would change its character and one day won’t be ever more the home nation of the Jewish people. In my opinion Israelis will never accept that. And therefore I believe it’s a matter of price, the two state solution would be. The question is, on what price? As long as the time is running out, the price is higher and higher.

As for people who say Jerusalem recognition is the last blow to peace, Sasson said they are wrong. There must be continuing dialogue, even if it doesn’t lead to a deal:

I don’t think so, because negotiations for peace is an interest of both sides. They both need it, even if they don’t understand that. Therefore I believe that when people would understand, maybe in Israel that peace is crucial for them, then there would be a dialogue for peace… I don’t know if we could end it with a peace agreement, but a dialogue would start.

She also said that Trump’s decision was a mistake because it fostered Palestinian “terror.”

I don’t believe this decision has any changes on the ground, except some ramifications that I would see negatively, that it encouraged terror. I think that we could see already, violence and terror by Palestinians, and of course it became, ‘They are doing this, and Israelis are doing that,’ and this way and that way, and we lose more and more lives, without getting anywhere. We’re not changing the situation by that.

And she said that the left can’t really criticize Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital:

In the left of Israel there is embarrassment. You can’t say Well I don’t accept American recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. We thought Jerusalem is our capital anyhow, with recognition or without. So if America recognizes that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, that’s fine with us of course. But I think that this is not the right moment. And when you make the right decision in the wrong moment, it turns the whole decision to be wrong.

Sasson’s remarks are a reminder of the fact that even the left in Israel deploys a rhetoric of Jerusalem-is-the-capital of the Jewish state, and Palestinian resistance to occupation is “terror”. And leftwing Zionists are opposed to one state because they themselves despair over the end of a Jewish state, or argue that Jewish Israelis will never accept that outcome. Ali Abunimah has said that Jewish Israelis can change their minds on this question the same way that intransigent South African whites changed theirs. For my own part, I’d say that I work in my community, and it’s important to me to see that American Jews abandon the idea of a Jewish state, and support the principles that govern our existence here, and that we have insisted on through many a struggle– separation of church and state; one person, one vote.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

106 Responses

  1. pabelmont on December 17, 2017, 12:35 pm

    She’s right: when people (Israeli-Jews) realize there is a need for peace, then the negotiations will lead to peace. Quite right! absolutely.

    So let’s help them with that realization, shall we? BDS, other actions to enforce international law and agreements, ICC, ban on settlements (land grabs) and settlers (people) in occupied territories. Including Syrian Golan (law is law, even if the land is not Palestinian).

  2. JosephA on December 17, 2017, 1:29 pm

    America is certainly not perfect, but one thing we still have (until it is eroded further by the right wing) is a separation of church and state, enshrined in the constitution.

    I can only hope that one day Israel (/Palestine) or Palestine-Israel can be a secular society (not a quasi-Theocracy) where all citizens have equal civil rights.

  3. Dan From Away on December 17, 2017, 1:47 pm

    I’ve asked this question before…what is it EXACTLY that is ” liberal” about “liberal Zionists”?

    Each time I hear the term I am reminded of the coy Luntzianesque fabrication “intelligent design”, a clever re-branding ploy for creationists who realized their chosen name worked against them in the real world. Same old junk in a shiny new package.

    Continued use of the term “liberal Zionists” is so counterproductive in terms of advancing clarity in the discourse and it demonstrates how easily we are played by the opposition.

    Liberal Zionists can think of Palestinians as “terrorists”, consider Jerusalem the capital of Israel, insist on the viability of the 2SS(!) etc., etc. and yet we are to suppose to think of them (somehow) as “liberal”. Words matter and each time we repeat the phrase “liberal Zionist” we deepen the meme and advance its legitimacy in the discourse. Why do we do that? The correct term, imo, is “political Zionist” and the sooner we make this change the better.

    Sasson is “liberal” in exactly the same way Wasserman Schultz is.

    No thanks.

    liberal |ˈlib(ə)rəl|

    1) open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values
    2) favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms
    3) (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform

    • MHughes976 on December 17, 2017, 3:28 pm

      I think it’s not going to be easy to discard the term ‘liberal Z’, especially on Mondoweiss, where we have more or less canonised it. It has come to mean ‘those who believe in a 2ss’ – I don’t say ‘the 2ss’ because no such thing may exist even in conception – and who claim or suppose that support for 2ss makes them ‘favour the rights’ of the Palestinians. The great majority of non-Jewish Zionists, including almost all the political and religious (at least non-Muslim) leaders of the Western world, are liberal in this sense. You may say it’s not much of a sense, and I’d agree.
      There is another group, close akin, who regard themselves as anti-Z but who think that a 2ss is a pragmatic possibility, which may seriously be doubted – and better than the status quo. I’d agree that if it could happen it would be an improvement, though still screamingly unjust and very illiberal – but could it happen? Annie years ago said here that if were possible it would have happened long since – and I think there’s much truth in that.

      • annie on December 18, 2017, 1:17 am

        thanks for remembering mhughes. yeah, i said that and still believe it.

        i’m not interested in hearing her ideas of “dialogue for peace… I don’t know if we could end it with a peace agreement, but a dialogue would start”. someone should tell her the dialogue already started decades ago and has continually facilitated the ethnic cleansing of palestine.

        she’s too immersed in her own, a jewish-israeli, perspective she can’t hear how jewish centric she sounds, “violence and terror by Palestinians” but not a word of violence and terror by jews (albeit perhaps an allusion to it but nothing so blatant as blurting out “violence and terror by jews” yet that slid so easily from her tongue when referencing israel’s adversaries). “Israelis will never accept” as if reality is necessarily a reflection of what zionists “will accept”, without the same regard for what’s acceptable to palestinians.

        i’m just not interested in hearing her views again. we’ve been hearing them for years. for me, it’s boring and worn out. “liberal”, not liberal, it’s irrelevant. i don’t think she’s an important thinker.

      • echinococcus on December 18, 2017, 1:29 am


        Thank you for the thoughtful remark.

        In a more clownish vein, I suppose that the necessary and sufficient conditions for “a 2ss” are in fact obvious, they may even be a matter of tacit general consensus:

        1. The (perhaps total) fall of the US
        2. Zionist madmen acting rationally when cornered

        We can start assigning the odds of a co-occurrence of these two conditions.

      • Mooser on December 18, 2017, 1:48 pm

        I think that “Jon s” is the person to explain the distinction between Zionists and ‘liberal Zionists’ to us.

    • on December 17, 2017, 8:10 pm

      Dan – I’m with you on this – liberal Zionism is a strange concept to me and one that I believe muddies the water.

      As ejay has said numerous times including in this comments section (which i completely agree with) Zionists are interested in “preserving Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.”

      Hence, zionism is racism. Dropping in the word liberal is disingenuous and smells like clever marketing clarifying nothing. Liberal Zionists or PEPs (love to hear any opinions on whether these terms mean the same thing) are nothing more than racists – racists against Palestinians.

    • philweiss on December 17, 2017, 8:32 pm

      While I agree w you largely and do not share the lz agenda, in fact regard it as an obstacle, I think there is an issue of accepting ppl’s self description/names. Cf Democrats, republicans, social democrats, libertarians,

      • on December 17, 2017, 10:18 pm

        Phil – I understand your point. If they have branded themselves as liberal Zionists they should be addressed, referred to as such. I can of course accept their self description but can never accept their racism.

        But I ask you this, if Naftali Bennett started calling himself a liberal Zionist would you accept his self description?

      • Donald on December 18, 2017, 12:01 am

        It’s a wider problem— even apart from Zionism, a lot of self proclaimed American liberals are not very liberal. For instance, they tend to be indifferent to American atrocities unless those can be blamed solely on a Republican.

        There’s always been tension between liberals and people further to their left. Liberals sometimes take rightwing positions, especially if their own privileges are at stake.

      • echinococcus on December 18, 2017, 12:42 am

        Like there is an issue about knowingly buying and eating rat poison because someone labeled it “Beluga Caviar, Finest Quality”?

        Are you serious?

        Wasn’t there a discussion about the journalist’s responsibility to unmask, somewhere on this site?

      • on December 18, 2017, 1:32 am

        So along that line of thinking then, Phil, if Nazis rebrand themselves the “Jew-loving party” without changing their policies we should accept their new name and use that. Don’t you think something does not stack in what you say??

        The way I see it that we should in principle accept people’s self-description as long it is a fair & understandable reflection of what the organisation is about.

        The so-called liberal Zionists have marketed & sold that label which is an obvious misnomer, and publications like Mondoweiss should acknowledge that & stop using that misnomer. They can still be called “Zionists”, but for heaven’s sake stop supporting them in trying to pretend there is a “friendly” form of Zionism. LHunter rightly states above that “zionism is racism” and “…. Zionists are interested in “preserving Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.” “

      • annie on December 18, 2017, 1:48 am

        phil, here’s her self description:

        I am a Zionist. My family came to Israel 100 years ago, from Russia, young, idealistic pioneers. They dreamed of establishing the Jewish national state here in the land of Israel. They established Kibbutz Kiryat Anavim which, during the siege of Jerusalem, kept the city going.

        Then 30 years later, in front of their eyes, the state of Israel was established. It was a miracle for them, a miracle that cost a lot of blood, but a miracle. That was the education that I got. So I define myself as a Zionist.

      • Sibiriak on December 18, 2017, 4:14 am

        Donald Johnson: ….even apart from Zionism, a lot of self proclaimed American liberals are not very liberal.

        Liberalism has never been very liberal. Liberals backed colonialism. Liberals ran the British Empire. Liberals ran the French Empire. Liberals have run the American Empire. The genocidal Vietnam War was waged by Liberals. Modern imperialism and Liberalism are practically inseparable.

      • Sibiriak on December 18, 2017, 4:29 am

        That’s not to say that imperialism is necessarlily an element in liberalism, but it has dominated in practice, if not in theory.

        See: Jennifer Pitts, “A Turn to Empire: The Rise of Imperial Liberalism in Britain and France”

        A dramatic shift in British and French ideas about empire unfolded in the sixty years straddling the turn of the nineteenth century. As Jennifer Pitts shows in A Turn to Empire, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke [Conservative ], and Jeremy Bentham were among many at the start of this period to criticize European empires as unjust as well as politically and economically disastrous for the conquering nations.

        By the mid-nineteenth century, however, the most prominent British and French liberal thinkers, including John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville, vigorously supported the conquest of non-European peoples. Pitts explains that this reflected a rise in civilizational self-confidence, as theories of human progress became more triumphalist, less nuanced, and less tolerant of cultural difference. At the same time, imperial expansion abroad came to be seen as a political project that might assist the emergence of stable liberal democracies within Europe.

        Pitts shows that liberal thinkers usually celebrated for respecting not only human equality and liberty but also pluralism supported an inegalitarian and decidedly nonhumanitarian international politics.

        Yet such moments represent not a necessary feature of liberal thought but a striking departure from views shared by precisely those late-eighteenth-century thinkers whom Mill and Tocqueville saw as their forebears. [emphasis added]

        So I should have written Liberalism has rarely been very liberal.

      • Donald on December 18, 2017, 7:48 am


        You’re right. Good posts.

      • philweiss on December 18, 2017, 8:39 am

        I know some rich people who are socialists. A contractor friend thinks this is the funniest thing in the world. Yet they believe they are socialists. If someone were to examine the contradictions in my own life/thinking, I don’t think I’d pass a purity test.
        New Israel Fund does work that is entirely liberal inside Israel. I respect a lot of that work.
        But yes they are Zionist too; and this article of mine demonstrates that contradiction.
        Tolerance seems to me one of the highest principles of human interaction. Though it is also true that I am not tolerant of Zionism, a tragic error in social organization, which has produced enormous suffering… And PS convincing others of that truth, esp Jews from adherent families, is a challenge in communication… Vinegar/honey etc

      • Keith on December 18, 2017, 10:07 am

        PHIL- ” If someone were to examine the contradictions in my own life/thinking, I don’t think I’d pass a purity test.”

        It is easy to believe what is convenient to believe, and self-deception is the rule, not the exception.

      • CigarGod on December 18, 2017, 11:09 am

        I see the respectful intention, Phil, but let’s try another example:
        LDS = Mormon’s.
        Latter Day Saints.
        They name themselves Saints and expect us to be polite and call them Saints.

        Because I resist the designation and the pressure to conform…does that make me an Anti-Mormonite?

      • catalan on December 18, 2017, 11:55 am

        “because I resist the designation and the pressure to conform…does that make me an Anti-Mormonite?”
        There is no “pressure to conform”, it is your choice how you call them. Some of them actually happen to be “saints”, i.e. people who make immense contributions to humanity (like doctors who work for free abroad). You are free to call them whatever you want; however, if you have negative feelings towards a group of people (rather than an individual on the basis of his actions), you are sort of a bigot. Most people, incidentally, see themselves as the “good guys”. Which is ironic considering what a mess everything is. Someone must be wrong.

      • Mooser on December 18, 2017, 1:00 pm

        “I am a Zionist…So I define myself as a Zionist.”

        So who, exactly, is calling her a “liberal Zionist”? She doesn’t feel it’s an important enough distinction to mention.

      • Mooser on December 18, 2017, 2:00 pm


        You know it, “Sib”. Authoritarian oligarchy is the only way to go, if you can’t get a monarchy.

      • Maghlawatan on December 18, 2017, 2:22 pm


        Pioneer is a great Zionist term. Say someone came to your community and kicked you out of your home. And they had kids and grandkids. And the thug called himself a pioneer. Because they discovered your community for the first time. Imagine how insane that would be.

      • Keith on December 18, 2017, 2:24 pm

        Good comments highlighting the questionable honesty of the labels we apply to ourselves and others. I can’t help but think that the PR industry has had a negative impact on the discourse, names used for effectiveness rather honest descriptions, “reform” the most abused word in the English language used to project a positive image onto changes which are frequently odious.

        In regards to Phil’s frequent assertion of Jewish “liberalism,” his proof usually consists of Jews voting Democratic. Now if Democrats are “liberal” in word but not in actions which are frequently the antithesis of “liberal,” then Jewish voting patterns reflect primarily a deep commitment to the Democratic Party not some phantom liberalism. Also, I suspect that real world liberalism isn’t what it is made out to be, Sibiriak’s reference to liberalism’s loving embrace of imperialism well taken. And with the rise of neoliberalism, liberals no longer have anything to give to their constituency, hence, the reversion to identity politics to distract attention from the ugly reality of trends in the political economy.

      • punterweger on December 18, 2017, 2:48 pm

        1. I tend to agree with Phil. If Naftali Bennet wants to call himself a liberal zionist and the liberal z’s don’t kick him out of the club then it’s their problem, and not ours.
        2. Historically, liberalism meant rights for lords, and the propertied classes and none for the lower orders. Slavery was totally acceptable, as was indentured service. John C. Calhoun, spokesman for the slave South, identified himself as a liberal and democrat, and in fact claimed that slaveholders were the best kinds of democrats.
        3. Liberals more or less totally backed the Cold War and Israel, and one could go on with this list ad nauseam.
        4. If liberals want to claim the positive connotation of their label, they need to own up to all the evil they helped perpetrate.

      • Sibiriak on December 18, 2017, 6:14 pm

        Mooser: Authoritarian oligarchy is the only way to go, if you can’t get a monarchy.

        No, egalitarian democracy would be much preferable.

      • RoHa on December 18, 2017, 6:20 pm

        Now I’m confused. I thought Mormonite was the stuff that made Captain Israel lose his powers. Where does Anti-Mormonite come in?

      • RoHa on December 18, 2017, 7:42 pm

        “if you can’t get a monarchy.”

        I’m right here. You only need to give me a call.

        But if you insist on genuine blue blood, there are plenty of spare princes and princesses around. It’s up to you to pick one.

      • CigarGod on December 18, 2017, 10:10 pm

        No, Catalan,
        It is not bigotry to reject absurd beliefs…of an entire people.
        Yes, there is pressure to address and conform.
        Spend a little time in Utah and you’ll get it.

      • annie on December 18, 2017, 11:01 pm

        if you have negative feelings towards a group of people (rather than an individual on the basis of his actions), you are sort of a bigot.

        in catalan’s world view, you are ‘sort of a bigot’ if you have negative feelings towards the klu klux clan, rather than an individual klan member on the basis of his actions.

        Do you reject all religious beliefs (since they are all “absurd”) or do you just stick to rejecting the Zionist beliefs.

        he asks as if we are to believe zionism, a political structure, is a religion. as if all religious beliefs are absurd. as if it is absurd to love thy neighbor as thyself or do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

        not even worthy of response.

      • catalan on December 18, 2017, 10:29 pm

        “It is not bigotry to reject absurd beliefs” cigargod
        Do you reject all religious beliefs (since they are all “absurd”) or do you just stick to rejecting the Zionist beliefs. Also, who is the arbiter of “absurdity”? Is Communism (the belief in a perfect world without property) “absurd”?

      • CigarGod on December 19, 2017, 9:41 am

        Your reading comprehension is subpar.
        I give Mormonism as an example and you wonder why I only pick on Zionism.
        Annie is correct.

    • Arby on December 18, 2017, 1:18 pm

      Such is language. And human imperfection. I myself will not refer to anti Moslems as Islamaphobes. Or anti Russians as Russophobes, etc.. (Fear, warranted or not, can’t be argued with any more than one’s preference for chocolate over vanilla; if you actually prefer one over the other, then that’s that.) I see your point about the use of the word liberal, but I’m not sure that being political is inherently evil. Jehovah’s Witnesses (I was one once) might say so though. One has to be informed, is all, and pay attention to who is talking and the context. A New York Times article discussing Liberals, Democrats or anything has to be deciphered, for example.

      As for intelligent design, I don’t quite get what you mean. I should know this one, but don’t. But I don’t bother with much that I feel is nonsense. I do believe in an actual creator (Jehovah God). I don’t believe in biological evolution. So, unless we believe that God ‘can’ be stupid, then ‘intelligent’ design doesn’t make sense.

      • Mooser on December 18, 2017, 4:22 pm

        .” So, unless we believe that God ‘can’ be stupid”

        Please don’t limit Jehovah God’s options. Does He not say He is a “jealous” God, and an “angry” God?
        Well, if God can be jealous and angry, I am sure, in my faith, He is quite capable of a divine stupidity, too.

        ” I don’t believe in biological evolution”

        Who does? Very few people are able to imagine their parents having sex, and who can blame them?

      • RoHa on December 18, 2017, 6:32 pm

        Darwinian theory showed that the design of living beings could come about through a combination of natural forces, none of which involved any sort of direction by a conscious mind.

        The creationists who attempt to show that Darwinism is inadequate add “intelligent” to emphasise the necessity of a conscious mind directing the business.

        (I have to add that some bits of the design do seem a bit stupid. If God is responsible, he should have taken a few lessons in engineering from my father.)

      • Talkback on December 19, 2017, 9:39 am

        Mooser: “Does He not say He is a “jealous” God, and an “angry” God?”

        Yes, a truly spiritual role model. Like the “spiritual” teachers that praise him, his anger and his jealousy.

      • Mooser on December 19, 2017, 11:50 am

        “Yes, a truly spiritual role model.”

        God, a “model” for man? That way lies naught but hubris, heresy, and blasphemy! And come to think of it, a lonely old age. Never did find Himself a Goddess to settle down with did He? (People say there was a brief, very inappropriate affair about 20 centuries ago Probably just gossip.)

  4. eljay on December 17, 2017, 1:52 pm

    With Sasson – as with all Zionists, liberal or otherwise – everything boils down to preserving Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.

    Evil is virtue and real virtue – justice, accountability and equality – is evil.

  5. Kaisa of Finland on December 17, 2017, 2:40 pm

    As I see it, to get one state with equal rights right now, is so far away, that I think at the moment it would be wiser to try to get some kind of a “first step solution” for like next 5-10 years, where (f.ex.) IDF and all the illegal settlers(when they moved there, they knew it was illegal) would be pushed to withdraw complitely from the West Bank and the UN peacekeepers to replace the IDF by the boarders (obviously the living circumstances in Gaza should also be normalized).

    Meaning of this “first step solution” would be to show the Zionists that they alone can not anymore dicatate all the terms for the future state/solution and also would it give some time for the Palestinians to recover from their daily experience of oppression, humiliation and bullying and they would also have a better possibility to form a functioning administration for themselves.

    So it could be a “two state practice” for a period of time and after both Israelis and Palestinians have had time to find these new positions on the issue, the real “peace talks” could start from a more equal level. Weather to have one state or two states as a permanent solution, could be negotiated then.

    At the moment I find it most important to get some kind of a fast solution, which makes the daily lives of the ordinary Palestinias easier and mentally more tolerable as soon as possible.

    And if there was someone who tought China would come and support the Zionist’s agenda in any case:

    “China called for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, Xinhua state media reported Thursday.

    “China understands the Islamic countries’ concern about the status of Jerusalem,” a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry said, adding that China “calls for a resolution to the issue in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions and international consensus.”

    China also called for resuming talks between Israelis and Palestinians in the near future in order to provide a chance to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    The remarks come a week after a Chinese high-tech delegation canceled its trip to Israel following U.S. President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.”

    • Kaisa of Finland on December 17, 2017, 2:56 pm

      I know there are many people here who think the Palestinians should alone decide for the future. Obviously thinking about how everything went in the past, that would be fair, but since it is not realistic right now, I wish for the next best thing: End of the occupation and normalization of the lives of the ordinary Palestinians as soon as possible.

      • Kaisa of Finland on December 17, 2017, 3:33 pm

        And this might become interesting:

        “Turkey’s Response to Trump: Erdogan Vows to Open Embassy in East Jerusalem

        ‘God willing, the day is close when officially, with God’s permission, we will open our embassy there,’ Turkish president says”

        “Arms race” with embassies??

      • echinococcus on December 18, 2017, 1:42 am


        Your wishes do you credit.

        Now think how “realistic” it is to expect the US+Zionist entity to make any concessions when there is absolutely nothing to force them to do so. No armed force, no action, not even a “boo” from other nations, nothing, and any organized leadership in Palestine a Quisling administration.

        Very realistic? A little realistic? More realistic than justice being done?

        My take is that the odds for both are about the same. And what we’re hearing is propaganda to make the Palestinians give up their rights in advance, in exchange for “concessions” by the enemy that will never come, not in a year of Sundays.

      • Kaisa of Finland on December 18, 2017, 2:56 pm


        I know what you mean, but I do have some real argumentation to why there might be more possibilites to push Israel than before. With my limited English I just need more time that I have right now. I try to share my “utopia” later, just to give another point of view on what might be possible now..

    • Kaisa of Finland on December 17, 2017, 5:53 pm

      I noticed that I forgot to mention in my “first step solution” that the illegal settlers should ofcourse leave from the East Jerusalem too.

    • ritzl on December 17, 2017, 8:48 pm

      The problem with 5-10 year interim solutions is that it’s already been 70-50-/ years of interim solutions with no end in sight.

      If only the Palestinians could be reasonable.

  6. ritzl on December 17, 2017, 3:01 pm

    I suppose that Sasson also “cannot imagine” life without Palestinian (i.e. belonging to the/her envisioned sovereign State of Palestine) water to support her Euro-lifestyle in the “desert.” If she sees equal political rights as a non-starter, how does she see the equal water rights situation she is so adamant about?

    Or maybe she closes her eyes and just doesn’t think about it (or clicks her heals together three times, or something…).

    I’m guessing the latter.

    It’s always so amazing how people this opinionated about things they seem to know nothing about (apparently they don’t know what they don’t know) simply refuse to walk a few kilometers and find out what they don’t know (as in live with a Palestinian family for a week, or a day, or a few hours…).

    • ritzl on December 17, 2017, 11:04 pm

      I mean, Israel’s whole history is written in water. From the initial Zionist maps proposing the entire watersheds of the Litani, Dan, and Jordan, to the current occupation of the Golan and veto rights to Jordanian usage.

      Surely Ms. Sasson is aware of this concept/existential NEED/causus belli (as Sharon once called it wrt to Lebanon’s legit use of it’s own water, and then invaded).


      Zionists of any stripe do seem to be so willfully ignorant of so many things.

  7. wondering jew on December 17, 2017, 3:28 pm

    i haven’t watched the video, nor parsed from the words, but it seems that one can assess that jewish israeli refusal to give up on the idea of a jewish majority nation is not going to occur short of some sweeping change and within those bounds her statement is straight forward. since 1948 until today nothing that we have seen in the past almost 70 years will suffice to achieve this sweep.

    the attempt to achieve this sweep through the bds campaign and vagueness seems almost silly. fatah and hamas are devoted to a 2 state solution.
    give me hawiye should be the cry, teudat zehut is hawiye in arabic, no?
    something unvague and clear. give me hawiye.
    without this clarity this movement is not yet born.

    • ritzl on December 17, 2017, 11:14 pm

      I think, yonah, and maybe you/others will correct me, is that there is simply not a way to maintain a Jewish state AND keep 5M Palestinians in perpetual bondage.

      Her statement is straightforward, except for that bit of incongruenxcy.

      Do you not see how bizarre and disconnected these things sound?

      • wondering jew on December 18, 2017, 7:57 am

        ritzl- I am not claiming that all things will stay the same forever. There is a possibility that the impossibility of perpetuity will be proven in the short term rather than the long term. but how can you prove that it will happen sooner rather than later? you can’t. and what kind of a strategy is that? it’s not a strategy, it’s an attitude. I am saying that you guys need a strategy and as of now you don’t have one and pointing out “in perpetual” is not a strategy.

      • Mooser on December 18, 2017, 1:53 pm

        “it’s not a strategy, it’s an attitude.”

        You bet! Like suicidal ideation, used as a social manipulation.
        See you at the Masadadammerung.

      • ritzl on December 19, 2017, 10:41 pm

        yonah, you’re one of most at least modestly reflective Zionist commenters here. But I realize that by merely asking a/the question I inserted a sort of “ritzl-in-the-loop” reflexive disagreement. Oh well. My bad.

        Point taken on inevitability as strategy. But recognizing, deference, and/or embracing inevitably IS a strategy.

        So I guess I’ll just rephrase and reassert my original question. At what point do reasonably introspective Zionists realize that this [bizarre] inconcongrency justfying Israel’s actions become non-explainable?

        Two realities. Only one can be actual reality.’ Rationalizing, or attempting to do so, one of those realities, the demonstrably disprovable one, only hastens “inevitably” of the undesirable outcome you seem to oppose.

      • wondering jew on December 21, 2017, 12:24 am

        Ritzl- It is not rationalization if you see it as survival. The settling of the west bank was not a means to achieve survival, but the existence of Israel is seen as survival for israeli jews.

        it is actually natural to wish to change the borders from june 4 67 to june 11 67 in terms of the west bank, in terms of security, and if i could push back the hands of time i would go back to june 11th and convince eshkol not to allow the return to gush etzion, for it is natural to wish to control that land, but if you settle it, then you have to have everyone having the same vote, and you can’t have gush etzion electing a government that controls the army that rules the life of the man who lives 200 meters away, who has no vote.

        i can imagine a world where jews and arabs live in peace without such a preponderance of guns, unlike what exists today in jerusalem. and i think that imagination is useful. but one must realize the limitations of imagination as well.

        in answer to your question, most israelis view the settler enterprise as a fait accompli and thus the necessity of ruling the west bank becomes the necessity of depriving the west bank palestinian of his right to vote in israeli elections. what will it take to change that? something radical. israel is not a monolith and there is a left, as in those who regret the decision of eshkol in 67, the gush etzion mistake. maybe they have greater insight into what can change in the israeli psyche. but as i said, there are individuals. There are specific young israeli individuals who show that they are thinking about this problem and that gives me a glimmer of hope, but as for the masses. they don’t regret the gush etzion mistake.

      • echinococcus on December 21, 2017, 9:08 am

        Reb Friedman,

        It is not rationalization if you see it as survival

        Who the f[rench] cares what you guys “see”? There are facts and there is international law. Period.

      • Talkback on December 21, 2017, 10:19 am

        Yonah: “It is not rationalization if you see it as survival. … the existence of Israel is seen as survival for israeli jews.”

        Without Israel there would be no “Israeli” Jews. Your logic is circular.

      • ritzl on December 22, 2017, 9:24 pm

        Hi yonah. Yeah sure, it IS seen in Israel (and by Zionists) as a zero-sum version of survival. No doubt.

        I guess that’s the part that few can understand about Israel. Equal rights is simply NOT a question of “survival.” It is a question of morality and equanimity. That is why Israel’s fundamental basis is/is going to fail. It’s irreconcilable with what most people believe, and live in their daily lives.

        Lot of money behind the Israel-concept though. But I think you know that equal rights wins in the end. Just because most people live that way by nature.

      • Maghlawatan on December 22, 2017, 11:06 pm

        To address a problem, you have to understand its size, its shape and its provenance.

        Why is Israel still running the occupation 26 years after the start of the Oslo talks?

        Israeli groupthink runs on trauma.

        Judaism never actually ran violence before Zionism. And you can tell. Just read the mêmes. “There is no place for weakness in the Middle East “. Judaism was overwhelmed. Separating meat and dairy has a logic that is based on decency. Guns don’t.

        The real conflict is in the heads of Israeli Jews. There is no Hillel in there .

    • Mooser on December 18, 2017, 1:08 pm

      ” refusal to give up on the idea of a jewish majority nation”

      “yonah”, there is a peaceful, profitable, and fun way to do that, if it needs must be done.
      I don’t think achieving a “jewish majority nation” by attempting to reduce the Palestinian population to match our own losses is the way to go about it.

      • Maghlawatan on December 22, 2017, 11:08 pm

        Refusal to give up on the idea of a male majority family. And how big is the family?
        A husband and a wife plus a boy and a girl.

  8. Dan From Away on December 18, 2017, 12:27 am


    Self-identifying as a “liberal” Zionist should be understood for what it is: a ploy to manipulate the discourse and make it appear as if “liberal Zionism” is somehow moral and progressive and markedly better then all the other flavors of Zionism.

    It isn’t.

    Zionists, irrespective of faction, party or ideological bent, buy into the foundational principle of Zionism: supremacism. Moreover, all benefit from Zionism’s systemic self-privileging and all are complicit in the repression of the Palestinians.

    The word/term “liberal” has a long-established and positive meaning. If tomorrow Tramp were to start self-identifying as a “humanitarian fascist” we would all laugh b/c we would know that only half the term was correct. We would see right through his game. Same-same for “liberal” Zionists: only half the term is accurate, the Zionist half.

    So why don’t we just drop the “liberal” (since that is the problematic element) and just call people who embrace Zionism…Zionists? We don’t seem to engage in accommodationist usage when talking about other varieties of Zionism why do we do it for the so-called “liberal” kind?

    You said: “… there is an issue of accepting ppl’s self description/names. Cf Democrats, republocans, social democrats, libertarians”. But I don’t see where we allow each of these groups to impose self-aggrandizing adjectives. We don’t say: Mr. So and So who self-identifies as an “upstanding Democrat”, or Senator XYZ who says he is a “selfless Republican”. We don’t speak like that. Instead, we just say that they are “Democrats” or “Republicans”. Right?

    I know you are well-meaning as to your intentions and I am sure you have a solid grasp of the history of the term but it is at the very least, archaic, and should be jettisoned.

    View 119 anti-Zionist posters:

  9. HarryLaw on December 18, 2017, 4:13 am

    As a long time believer in the two state solution, I must be a liberal Zionist. I join Professors Chomsky and Finkelstein in that belief. Unfortunately most Israelis want a one state solution where Israeli sovereignty extends over the whole ‘Land of Israel’ [Judea and Samaria] and beyond [the litani river and the Golan Heights], see also the Likud charter. According to Naftali Bennett the Palestinians will either live in self governing Bantustans [with no representation in the Knesset] or they will be forced to accept that arrangement. Of course Bantustans were set up in South Africa and many black South Africans were induced into accepting them, even though blacks outnumbered whites by ten to one. Many Palestinians could go along with a similar arrangement provided those ‘prisons’ were well carpeted by the US/EU and Saudis.
    Sorry to labour this point, but I think it is so important, when Professor N Finkelstein spoke in Dublin last year he said this of some the Palestinian solidarity movement [I think he had his friend Phil Weiss in mind] said …”If you can’t get half a loaf, why not ask for the whole loaf, if it seems as if the two states is not within reach, well why not ask for one state? I can understand that reasoning , the logic of it, but you would have to convince me of two things, number one, that two states is not within reach, and you would have to convince me that one state is more within reach than two states. I think neither propositions is true, I think the second proposition is positively insane. If Israel will not abandon/give up the West Bank, if that’s true do you think it would be easier for Israel to give up a Jewish State? Does that make any sense? If two states is remote, one state is another time warp”. He also said can you name one country in the world that supports a one state solution? None, so you think you are going to win a cause against the whole world, these are flights of fancy, fantasy as well, they are nothing to do with the real world?
    I agree with Professor Finkelstein, although I am more pessimistic about the future. In another statement Professor Finkelstein said “Israel must suffer a defeat”, did he have those hundreds of thousands of rockets aimed at the postage sized, very vulnerable state of Israel by Hezbollah, Syria and Iran in mind, could be?

    • Donald on December 18, 2017, 7:57 am

      I used to think that way. I have about three minutes, so no long post. One problem is that even if you wanted to push for a 2ss as the practical one, we know what happens. A solution which is completely unfair to Palestinians becomes the maximalist one. Their basic right to live in their own homeland is tossed away— it is not even used as a bargaining chip, as degrading as that is, but tossed into the trash before the negotiations even begin. So w begin with Israel’s right to ethnic cleansing as a foundation for negotiations and then bargain over how much more they can have.

    • punterweger on December 18, 2017, 8:42 pm

      If you still believe in the 2ss solution then you must think that the “pastrami sandwich” Israel created on the West Bank according to Sharon’s recipe can be undone. Despite Finkelstein’s protestations, that is a ludicrous proposition. And then we come to the fact that none of the current power wielders in Israel want to grant anything resembling true sovereignty to a Palestinian state. For one, they insist on maintaining security control over the Jordan valley. So the 2ss is dead unless you believe that bantustans are sovereign states. Secondly, what is most pernicious about Chomsky’s and Finkelstein’s position is that they undercut and misrepresent the most effective instrument that we have in the struggle for justice for Palestinians – BDS.

  10. HarryLaw on December 18, 2017, 4:26 am

    By the way, where is Professor Finkelstein? Last I heard “The Long Island Police came to Norman’s house last night, beat him up mercilessly and then shoved him inside a jail cell. All because he dared challenge the mafiosi duo Michael Chetkof and Allyson Burger. All because he brooks no injustice, and is loath to see the life of a dear friend destroyed before his very eyes.”

  11. Sibiriak on December 18, 2017, 6:27 am

    “Ali Abunimah has said that Jewish Israelis can change their minds on this question the same way that intransigent South African whites changed theirs.


    “Can” and “will” are light-years apart in this case.

    • wondering jew on December 18, 2017, 7:52 am

      Some differences: in south africa the ratio of the population was 10:1 black to white. In israel it is roughly 1:1. (When israel reaches 10:1, then expect a change of minds, until then, not?)
      South african buying habits caused the change of mind. Blacks boycotted white businesses and this is why the change happened. Such a boycott of Israeli Jews by Palestinian Arabs is not yet on the horizon and it is not clear that this will provide the necessary stimulus to change the minds.

      I have yet to see a rationale for what was the thinking of deKlerk. for example: i still hear people saying that de Klerk changed south africa overnight based upon rugby boycotts. If this is true, I can tell you straight up, that it will take a hundred more years, into a world of new minds for a rugby boycott to get Israelis to give up on the idea of a Jewish majority nation. This lack of an understanding of the South African revolution of mind is problematic if one is trying to conclude that it can happen here (in Israel/Palestine) as well.

      With the United Nations vague about the next step in 67, but quite clear that this side of the line is not Israel but occupied territory, the existence of two states as accepted by most of the nations in the world, the idea that Palestinians will be given full citizenship and abandon their united nations recognized right to an independent country, will certainly change the dynamic compared to south africa. All the talk of Palestinian leaders regarding one state is babble when in fact they are dedicated to either their one state on the legal side of the ledger and dedicated to denying the right of the presence of the Jews (as Abbas in his final stage of rejectionism) in any piece of the land, on the rhetorical side of the argument. South africa had an ANC that was asking for something specific: civil rights in South Africa, and Palestine has Fatah and Hamas not asking for this specific thing, how can one compare the two situations.

      • HarryLaw on December 18, 2017, 9:58 am

        Yonah, “South africa had an ANC that was asking for something specific: civil rights in South Africa, and Palestine has Fatah and Hamas not asking for this specific thing, how can one compare the two situations”. It is the Israeli leadership which insists its citizens are classed as Israeli Jews or Israeli Arabs, together with its racist ‘right of return’ the state is inherently racist, Minister Leiberman recently said “It is no secret that Lieberman has been trying, for some time now, to change the status quo of Israel’s Arab citizens, to take away their citizenship, and to ‘transfer’ them out of here.”

        Leiberman said last January that he would not support any peace agreement that does not include the exchange of Israeli Arab land and population.
        While it is true that Israeli occupation [should only be temporary] does not legally form the
        basis of a sovereign state in the whole of Palestine, that is what the Israelis want eventually.
        To that end they discriminate, ethnically cleanse and murder Palestinians with impunity. The Bantustans analogy is correct [Apartheid equals separation] this is the Israeli end game in a one state sovereign Israel and a disenfranchised Palestinian series of ‘townships’ dependent on the International Community to survive.

      • Sibiriak on December 18, 2017, 10:02 am

        The BDS movement proclaims three goals, one of which includes ending the occupation of Palestinian territory defined by the 1967 “Green Line” .

        However, an end to the occupation of Palestinian territory –the W.B. and Gaza– is for all intents and purposes incompatible with the creation of a single state.

        Right now Palestine exists as a state de jure .

        As of 14 September 2015, 136 (70.5%) of the 193 member states of the United Nations and two non-member states have recognized the State of Palestine.

        If the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory ended, then there would be little to prevent Palestine from become a de facto state.

        Of course, Palestine could at some later point negotiate with Israel to form a single state, but that would be a remote possibility.

        And, needless to say, the Occupation is not ending any time soon. I’m simply pointing out the contradiction between the goal of ending the Occupation and the goal of a single state. That contradiction was the price that had to be paid in order to allow BDS to claim it is a “rights-based” strategy not committed to either one state or two states.

      • Maghlawatan on December 18, 2017, 2:32 pm

        Try northern Ireland. 1:1
        How Jews can back oppression is beyond me

      • RoHa on December 18, 2017, 7:04 pm

        Who are you, and what have you done with Yonah Fredman? That comment actually makes sense, and has some good points.

        You are right in saying that the SA situation has some important differences from the IP situation. In both sport and trade SA was strongly tied to the Commonwealth. And the Commonwealth could act in pretty unified way. When SA was excluded from the cricket test matches and the Commonwealth rugby matches, this was a severe psychological blow. When people in Britain refused to buy SA fruit and SA sherry, it was an economic blow.

        Israel does not seem to have much sporting reputation to lose, and its customers seem to be more diverse. But BDS is aimed at Israel’s academic and artistic side, as well as the economic side. If the movement keeps growing, it will eventually bite. But how long will that take?

        I think the Palestinians can consistently say ” Either (a) give us a genuinely independent state, or (b) make us full and equal citizens of a unified state”, but I agree with you that they need to clarify their strategy.

      • echinococcus on December 19, 2017, 6:22 am


        Agreed, this is not from the usual Fredman. Style analysis is also off. Good point.

        I think the Palestinians can consistently say ” Either (a) give us a genuinely independent state, or (b) make us full and equal citizens of a unified state”, but I agree with you that they need to clarify their strategy.

        There you lose me. Fredman, or his ghostwriter, wrote all this stuff just to create an illusion that “the Palestinians” are only their Vichy Zionist puppets, and that there are only these two absurd “solutions” in the running –to make you forget the obvious and popular one: “Give the country back!”

  12. Liz on December 18, 2017, 9:53 am

    Re: this discussion of liberalism: Liberals are not left. They think they are as far to the left as one can go, but this is the problem. Since they see their position as far to the left as they can go and consider themselves much more radical than the right, they don’t see their position as needing to change. They uphold the status quo with a shot of self-righteousness. The liberals in the U.S. voted for Hillary; the left voted for Bernie. The liberal Zionists believe they’re good, righteous people (and I’m sure they are), but they’d never take one more step to the left to entertain the idea that Zionism is racism. IMO they’re just as dangerous if not more, than the right.

    • echinococcus on December 18, 2017, 11:50 am

      The liberals in the U.S. voted for Hillary; the left voted for Bernie.

      Interesting: so the liberals voted for an openly fascistic war criminal and defender of war of aggression (well, many of them did, effectively), while the “left” voted for a warmongering mountebank whose lifelong job has been to make US imperialism digestible to the US population. Some “left”.

      What goddam “left”? Where do you think you are? This is the US of A and there has been no “left” of any shape or description for the last 50 years.

      • CigarGod on December 20, 2017, 11:37 am

        “Keep progressing” say the folks who have a autographed poster of Hillary and Henry on display.
        It warms their Progressive hearts every time they walk by it.

        On their ring tone is Hillary: “We came, we saw, he died…hahahaha…..”

        Keep Progressing for Peace….

    • RoHa on December 18, 2017, 7:32 pm

      Many of us need a shot of self-righteousness to help us get through the day. Quells those nagging doubts. And it is a great comfort for those (not me, of course) who are over-opinionated.

  13. Misterioso on December 18, 2017, 11:03 am

    Middle East Eye, Dec. 16/17

    “Israel’s Jerusalem victory looks increasingly hollow”

    “Netanyahu prepared Israel for a historic event with Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as its capital. The result was much less triumphant”

  14. James Canning on December 18, 2017, 1:22 pm

    I too think Israeli Jews would not accept full rights of citizenship for most non-Jews who currently live in the occupied West Bank.

  15. Maghlawatan on December 18, 2017, 2:09 pm

    Israel’s future is non linear. This lady needs a 2 SS but the settlers won. So there will be apartheid. Jews control everything now but the future is not going to be linear . She says no one person one vote but when it spins out of control Jews won’t decide what happens.
    That is the tragedy of Israel. Violence was the wrong answer.

    It doesn’t matter what sou disant liberal jooz want. The only thing that counts is where the system is going.

    You lied. You faked. You cheated

  16. Maghlawatan on December 18, 2017, 3:01 pm

    This poem is about nice middle class people in Northern Ireland. It is also about liberal Zionists. The Yonahs and Jon Ss. Things. Fall. Apart

    The Coasters, 1969

    You coasted along
    To larger houses, gadgets, more machines
    To golf and weekend bungalows,
    Caravans when the children were small,
    the Mediterranean, later, with the wife.

    You did not go to Church often,
    Weddings were special;
    But you kept your name on the books
    Against eventualities;
    And the parson called, or the curate.

    You showed a sense of responsibility,
    With subscriptions to worthwhile causes
    And service in voluntary organisations;
    And, anyhow, this did the business no harm,
    No harm at all.
    Relations were improving. A good
    useful life. You coasted along.

    You even had a friend of two of the other sort,
    Coasting too: your ways ran parallel.
    Their children and yours seldom met, though,
    Being at different schools.
    You visited each other, decent folk with a sense
    Of humour. Introduced, even, to
    One of their clergy. And then you smiled
    In the looking-glass, admiring, a
    Little moved by, your broadmindedness.
    Your father would never have known
    One of them. Come to think of it,
    When you were young, your own home was never
    Visited by one of the other sort.

    Relations were improving. The annual processions
    began to look rather like folk-festivals.

    When that noisy preacher started,
    he seemed old-fashioned, a survival.
    Later you remarked on his vehemence,
    a bit on the rough side.
    But you said, admit, you said in the club,
    ‘You know, there’s something in what he says’.

    And you who seldom had time to read a book,
    what with reports and the colour-supplements,
    denounced censorship.
    And you who never had an adventurous thought
    were positive that the church of the other sort
    vetoes thought.
    And you who simply put up with marriage
    for the children’s sake, deplored
    the attitude of the other sort
    to divorce.
    You coasted along.
    And all the time, though you never noticed,
    The old lies festered;
    the ignorant became more thoroughly infected;
    there were gains, of course;
    you never saw any go barefoot.

    The government permanent, sustained
    by the regular plebiscites of loyalty.
    You always voted but never
    put a sticker on your car;
    a card in the window
    would not have been seen from the street.
    Faces changed on posters, names too, often,
    but the same families, the same class of people.
    A Minister once called you by your first name.
    You coasted along
    and the sores supperated and spread.

    Now the fever is high and raging;
    Who would have guessed it, coasting along?
    The ignorant-sick thresh about in delirium
    And tear at the scabs with dirty finger-nails.
    The cloud of infection hangs over the city,
    A quick change of wind and it
    Might spill over the leafy suburbs.
    You coasted along.

    • HarryLaw on December 19, 2017, 6:33 am

      Maglawatan, Whats fallen apart?
      The similarity between Israel and Ireland until 1999 is significant, the Israeli government ‘claim ‘ sovereignty over the whole Land of Israel, including the West Bank [they call it Judea and Samaria] similarly the Republic of Ireland claimed sovereignty over the whole Island of Ireland and its territorial waters in their 1937 constitution [articles 2 and 3] The Good Friday Agreement [GFA] between the UK and Irish government [including Sinn Fein] recognised that the people of Northern Ireland have the right to self determination when the Republic changed its constitution from a ‘claim’ to an ‘aspiration’, and that there can be no constitutional change in NI without the majority agreeing to it.
      The result of the Irish Republics referendum in 1999 was 94.39 for change to 5.6% no change. This complemented the 1973 border poll in Northern Ireland which was 98.8% to remain part of the UK to 1.2% for a united Ireland. on a 58% turnout [Sinn Fein told their supporters to boycott the poll]. The GFA could not have happened without the Republic and Sinn Fein recognising that the people of Northern Ireland have the right to self determination. When a majority in NI vote for a united Ireland, negotiations between all parties concerned can take place in order to bring it about in an amicable way. All perfectly democratic, with no need for violence.
      The Israeli government do not recognise that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, therein lies the problem, for any peace agreement, the Israelis will need to do as the Irish did when they renounced their claim to the whole Island. I suspect the Israelis will double down and try to either transfer the Palestinians or put them in Bantustans, neither will work of course, unfortunately we will have much more bloodshed.

      • HarryLaw on December 19, 2017, 6:39 am

        Just to add to the above comment, the implication that all middle class people in northern Ireland are Protestant is ridiculous
        A 2011 survey by Northern Ireland Life and Times found that 52% of Northern Irish Catholic respondents favoured union with Great Britain over a united Ireland. This is despite the fact that most Catholics who vote do so for political parties that are Nationalist.
        According to a 2015 opinion poll, 70% expressed a long-term preference of the maintenance of Northern Ireland’s membership of the United Kingdom (either directly ruled or with devolved government), while 14% express a preference for membership of a united Ireland. This discrepancy can be explained by the overwhelming preference among Protestants to remain a part of the UK (93%), while Catholic preferences are spread across a number of solutions to the constitutional question including remaining a part of the UK (47%), a united Ireland (32%), Northern Ireland becoming an independent state (4%), and those who “don’t know” (16%).
        All that is now required is for Jeremy Corbyn to give all the people of Northern Ireland Catholic and Protestant alike [of whatever class] the elementary right to vote for the party that aspires to govern them, otherwise 1.8 million people in NI effectively have no vote.

      • Maghlawatan on December 19, 2017, 8:33 am

        Protestant hegemony fell apart, Harry. Stormont was suspended by the UK govt in the early 70s.
        While a sizeable proportion of catholics may have indicated their preference for the UK in 2011 it is likely to be substantially lower post Brexit.

      • HarryLaw on December 19, 2017, 11:11 am

        Maghlawatan, “Protestant hegemony fell apart, Harry. Stormont was suspended by the UK govt in the early 70s”. And a good thing too, of course the Protestants did not want Stormont in the first place, understanding that it would mean Protestants governing Catholics, they only wanted to be governed like the rest of the UK, unfortunately Westminster in its wisdom insisted on a Stormont parliament which hobbled along until the Province exploded in 1968. One of the largest democratic deficits in Northern Ireland is the fact that the political parties that govern the Province Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem will not challenge the local sectarian parties, all 18 seats are up for grabs, if Corbyn’s Labour Party contested those 18 seats, Prime Minister T May might not have needed the help of the sectarian DUP to prop up her minority government. Just think, the only influence citizens of Northern Ireland have over the Political parties that govern them Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem is when there is a hung parliament, then the knives are out for the likes of the DUP when in fact those parties, particularly the Labour party are more to blame for refusing to give people in Northern Ireland the opportunity to vote for a non sectarian party, and more importantly the opportunity to vote for the party that aspires to govern them the UK Labour Party, what could be more undemocratic? In fact it would be as undemocratic as Israel asserting full sovereignty over the West Bank and refusing Palestinians a much diminished vote in the Knesset. Of course Northern Irish voters can vote at Westminster, unfortunately they only have 18 seats and only very rarely have the opportunity to influence government policy. How much better if Protestant and Catholic working people could infuence Labour Party Policy as Labour Party Members [within labours internal policymaking framework] sounds democractic to me.

      • HarryLaw on December 19, 2017, 12:32 pm

        Correction to my comment above. Where I say Israel asserting full sovereignty over the West Bank ‘and refusing’, should read ‘only allowing’ a much diminished vote in the Knesset.

    • Mooser on December 19, 2017, 12:01 pm

      There always was a heavy dose of social realism in Coaster’s songs, just beneath the humor.

  17. Brewer on December 18, 2017, 5:59 pm

    As I have previously stated, “Liberal Zionist” is a contradiction in terms.
    At one time I used to applaud their efforts but over the years I have come to the realization that they simply do not understand the problem, their thinking reminds me of the post-colonial settler classes in New Zealand before the realities faced by the indigenous peoples fully penetrated their minds. Their “liberal” thinking addresses itself to solutions to present-day “realities on the ground” and ignores the very heart of indigenous grievance.
    I am informed by my own journey from settler/colonist to full integration which only started to progress when I began to understand the History of colonial settlement in Aotearoa New Zealand and realized that, after five generations in this country, I still regarded myself as some sort of British person.
    Integration is essential to a harmonious society. This does not mean fully adopting the belief systems and customs of “the other”, it means according respect to them and acknowledging the circumstances that led to the dominance of an immigrant culture over that of what we in NZ call the Tangatawhenua (People of the Land).
    My own journey began with marriage into Maoridom but that was a very small beginning. A series of subsequent epiphanies were much more significant.
    One such was on an occasion when some disaffected Maori gang-members created a violent incident in our district and a meeting was held in the Town Hall. All sorts of punitive proposals were mooted then one Maori elder stood up and asked what we expected to achieve in this Pakeha (white man) forum. “This meeting should be down on the Marae (meeting place) with those boys present. I propose we adjourn this meeting and hold another there” he said. Cue the sound of a one-armed bandit jackpot. I, for one suddenly realized the significance of this (that a system of dispute resolution had pre-existed and been arrogantly displaced). Suffice to say, what transpired at that Marae meeting was extraordinary. One outcome I recently discovered is that one of the chief offenders (the barely literate Master at arms of the gang) is now a qualified Lawyer, working within the system he once had zero respect for. I like to think that the respect shown to the Marae system, the willingness to debate within his cultural institution and on his terms was essential to that transition.
    I think Matti Peled understood this and passed it on to Miko. So-called “Liberal Zionists” do not. Any form of Zionism is anathema to even the most liberal Palestinian because it is incompatible with universal justice/human rights. Liberal Zionists talk about ” negotiations for peace”. What can a Zionist of any stripe bring to a negotiating table? The conviction that they possess rights that the other party do not by virtue of their cultural identity? A non-negotiable sense of privilege based on a litany of fables that are not only disbelieved by the other party but now increasingly known to be false by Israeli Historians.
    Whatever form Zionism takes it is simply the expression of a nostalgia for a brief period of ancient History when Judaics were victorious in numerous barbaric battles for dominance. It has succeeded inasmuch as it has engendered a cultural return to those times and unless abandoned, will produce the same result.
    Zionists are primitives. Many cultures have long ago learned the difference between (and often incompatible nature of) love and possession.

    • Maghlawatan on December 19, 2017, 8:20 am

      Tremendous comment, Brewer.
      Zionism is low rent psychology. Cheap superiority enforced by superior weaponry.
      The groupthink doesn’t stand up to the light.
      They are afraid to educate their children. the IDF needs conscripts.

      I think they are pathetic

      • Brewer on December 19, 2017, 1:02 pm

        Danon: “You can call me paranoid but I think I am realistic”

        134 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 2,167 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000.

      • Maghlawatan on December 19, 2017, 10:01 pm

        The Peleds are different. Nurit Peled Elhanan wrote a book on Israeli indoctrination via the education system. Israel is where ANZ was in maybe 1860 ..

    • eljay on December 19, 2017, 9:21 am

      || Brewer @ December 18, 2017, 5:59 pm ||

      +1 to Maghlawatan’s praise for your post.

      Liberal Zionists are just “kinder, gentler” supremacists. They beat their breasts and speak conciliatory-sounding words like “peace” but like their harder-core co-collectivists they believe in:
      – Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine; and
      – absolution of responsibility and accountability (for past and on-going (war) crimes committed) and of obligations (under international law).

      • Brewer on December 19, 2017, 2:34 pm

        Aw shucks, thanks guys.
        You can always tell a “Liberal Zionist” at the negotiating table. He is the friendly looking guy humming the theme from Exodus.
        ……this land….is mine…..God gave this land to me…..

  18. Nathan on December 18, 2017, 9:25 pm

    “…and it’s important to me to see that American Jews abandon the idea of a Jewish state…”

    It’s hard to understand why the point of view of the American Jews would be so important. The Jewish state exists because the Jews living in Israel insist that there be a Jewish state. There have always been American Jews who objected to the establishment of a Jewish state, but their objection has had no real impact on the outcome of events. Jews in America can sit around the Friday evening table and speak in favor of or in opposition to Jewish statehood. Speaking in favor or speaking in opposition has had about an equal influence: Somewhere between entirely negligible and nothing at all.

    Every so often, one reads an article in the internet about the lessening of support for Israel among the American Jews. It’s a mystery why anyone would take an interest in the statistics. The approval rate of those who don’t participate in the making of Israeli society is not really a factor.

    It’s not possible to convince the American Jews to abandon the idea of a Jewish state. And, surely, the concept of “the separation of church and state” is not the argument that is going to capture the imagination of the Jewish public in America (a VERY irreligious community, indeed). The idea of the Jewish state is not about the Jewish religion. It’s about the Jewish people – and the debate about Israel in the American Jewish community is simply a means for expressing Jewish identity in America as a peoplehood identity, both for the pro-Israel and the anti-Israel audiences.

    • Brewer on December 19, 2017, 1:51 am

      What is it you mean by “A Jewish State” and how do you establish who is and is not a Jew?

      • Talkback on December 19, 2017, 9:26 am

        Brewer: “Nathan.
        What is it you mean by “A Jewish State” … ”

        Well Brewer, that’s easy. He can’t just say state. He has to put a exclusive adjective in front of the word to make sure that everybody understands that this is a “racist state”, because Jews are not a even a constitutive people, but only a group of Israeli citizens who want to dominate over Nonjews through genuine inequality and violating the rights of the latter. Like keeping them expelled and denationalized so that Zionists ensure that they win every election of this fake democracy.

        Brewer”… and how do you establish who is and is not a Jew?”

        That’s the catch-22 of his beloved Apartheid Junta. Those who have the right to immigrate under the “law of return”.

    • echinococcus on December 19, 2017, 6:07 am

      The Propaganda Division peón droning again:

      It’s hard to understand why the point of view of the American Jews would be so important

      Soooo hard to understand:

      They feed you criminal parasites, protect you from your well-deserved fate, cover you in international institutions, subvert the US Constitution to attack their own country, send the more stupid among their kids to be soldiers with your foreign criminal army, so of course they own your a$$ to your last toenail. And, before I forget, the real government of Zionism isn’t stupid enough to live in your shitty statelet; come meet them in Westchester County.

    • Maghlawatan on December 19, 2017, 7:44 am

      The Palestinians share the land with the bots and they want a state but they can’t have one. So Jewish hegemony is about weapons, Nathan. Weapons, torture and the US veto. Let’s see how long it lasts.

      The trouble with Israel is that it takes up too many evenings.

    • eljay on December 19, 2017, 7:46 am

      || Nathan: … The Jewish state … a Jewish state. … a Jewish state … Jewish statehood … a Jewish state … the Jewish public … the Jewish state … the Jewish religion … the Jewish people … the American Jewish community … Jewish identity … ||

      Dude, that is one serious bout of special grammar in order to refrain from saying “Jews”, apparently for fear of defining the Jews as a collective entity! You need to get help.

    • Talkback on December 19, 2017, 9:11 am

      Nathan: “The Jewish state exists because the Jews living in Israel insist that there be a Jewish state. ”

      And by “insisting” you mean acquiring territory through war and terrorism and massacring, expelling, dispossessing, disenfranchizing and denationalizing Nonjews. And of course you believe that Jews have right to do all of this.

    • eljay on December 19, 2017, 9:34 am

      || Nathan: … The Jewish state exists because the Jews living in Israel insist that there be a Jewish state. … ||

      The White State exists because the Whites living in the United States of America insist that there be a White State. Fuck the non-Jewish Israelis and non-White Americans.

      Thank you for so clearly underscoring the supremacist nature of “Jewish State”.

    • Mooser on December 19, 2017, 12:15 pm

      “It’s not possible to convince the American Jews to abandon the idea of a Jewish state.” “Nathan”

      “A lot of pro-Israel American Jews like to call themselves “Zionists”. They like to take pride in Israel’s success and to pretend that they’re part of it. However, aliyah is the criterion of commitment, not pro-Israel advocacy.” “Nathan”

      Don’t worry, “Nathan” you are doing a fine job at encouraging us.

  19. dvered on December 19, 2017, 2:13 am

    There is no such thing as a “Liberal zionist”. Zionism is colonialism and racism.There are people in Israel who think that the occupation can be “enlightened” but these people also want an exclusive Jewish state,They are for a Palestinian state not because it is the the right of the Palestinian to have a state in their own land but because they do not want the Palestinians to be citizens of the “Jewish State” thus creating a “Demographic” crisis that may lead to a situation where Palestinian Arabs will have the majority and Israel will lose its “Jewish Exclusiveness”
    (where have we seen this argument before???)

    • Mooser on December 19, 2017, 4:56 pm

      “want the Palestinians to be citizens of the “Jewish State” thus creating a “Demographic” crisis that may lead to a situation where Palestinian Arabs will have the majority and Israel will lose its “Jewish Exclusiveness”

      That’s why no 2-state agreement can, or should prevent Israel from shrinking to its natural size, a size commensurate with maintaining Jewish exclusiveness.

  20. Talkback on December 19, 2017, 9:56 am

    “Liberal Zionism” is code for covert Apartheid.

Leave a Reply