Brewer, I absolutely agree concerning Morris. I have written about his genocidal advocacies earlier this year https://mondoweiss.net/2019/01/historian-advocacy-cleasning/ , where he reaffirms what he said to Ari Shavit back in 2004. The second link in that piece is to an earlier piece I did in 2016 about his denial of ethnic cleansing, same theme. This is the Morris of the 21st century, there’s no doubt about it. To ascertain in what way the ‘new Morris’ was hiding inside the ‘old Morris’ is probably a complex task. He seems to frame it as a ‘political’ shift: “I tended rightward in the political context, not the historiographic one; I am still a historian and not a politician”. He lays the blame singularly on the Palestinians: “The change I underwent is related to one issue: the Palestinians’ readiness to accept the two-state solution and forgo part of the Land of Israel.” He appears to be subscribing to Ehud Barak’s myths of “generous offer” and “no one to talk to”, but who can expect “Morris the politician” to be as scientifically scrupulous about current affairs as “Morris the historian” is about history? Alas, Morris’s shift has also meant that he has had to contradict the nerve of his earlier work, and make lip-twisting efforts to present himself as a liberal genocider (and God forbid anyone call him that, despite his congratulation of the “annihilation of the Indians” for the sake of the “great American democracy”).
It was indeed a moral consideration, whether to bring all this up again in the context of this current piece. I chose to keep it out for the sake of brevity and focus on what Morris is pointing to.
Yep Annie, we have Lapid’s word for it. He was in the shower and tweeting. But he said he would never do it again. I think he will also never say “state of all its citizens” again. It’s one thing ruining your phone with water and steam – it’s another thing to ruin your credibility as a Zionist.
edthespark: “So j.ofir what was your idea of a “palestine”.Where is the better plan my man.Got some more un “mandate”.There are no coincidences.The deal is on.It will happen.”
My “idea” of a “Palestine” is either a compromise version on 22% of historical Palestine, that is relinquishing the Israeli 1967 occupation fully, a return of Palestinian refugees (or compensation if anyone chooses), and also equal rights to Palestinians in Israel. All this in accordance with international law and democratic norms.
And if Israel refuses, or deems this impossible – a one democratic state on all of historical Palestine, equal rights to all, return of refugees. The latter is the preferred solution, since Israel has proven utterly unwilling as to the first.
None of this will be arrived at through Israeli good will, so international pressure must be a vehicle towards it, through Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions.
Thanks Just, I’ve noticed. I know I’ve already said this in the piece, but it needs to be reemphasized:
The thrust of these protest is NOT to defend democracy, but to defend “Jewish and Democratic” – and that is very different from democracy. It is all about Zionism, and it’s called, in more precise terms a “racial democracy”. As Richard Falk and Virginia Tilley wrote in their excellent UN commissioned report on Israeli Apartheid (2017:
In other words, the main motivator of these protests is racism, although it seems to be about democracy. Therefore, as Naama Katii also noted, it is not surprising that these protests bear the more explicitly racist odor.
Zionists know very well, how much their veil of ‘Democracy’ means. It lets the project continue with a false aura of liberalism. It is only sad, that so many hail this veil as if it was the real thing.
edthespark, it would appear to me that you are once again being ironic – am I right?
“George bisharat is a wonderful person and an inspiration for the down trodden.Just a pity there were not more people like him before 1948”.
But Bisharat wrote:
“Israeli Jews must recognize the equal rights of the Palestinians with whom they cohabit the land to secure a peaceful future. Doing so would certainly come with benefits for Israel, including regional acceptance.”
The problem, as it seems to me, is that there were not enough Zionists before 1948 who believed in that. There seemed to be some who did, but whatever political power they yielded was not enough to curtail the thrust of the eliminationist labor-Zionism of Ben Gurion, not to speak of Behin and Shamir’s Revisionism, and they were taken out of political influence from 1948.
The problem has not really been Palestinians, but Zionism.
Zionism was an is a colonialist enterprize. Whether any version of it could have been workable, I seriously doubt, in as far as I view settler-colonialism as inherently eliminationist.
But there is a way forward. It certainly involves abolishing Zionist Apartheid.
It will involve great belief and sincerity, and the privileged Zionist ironic cynics will be the least of help in this.
Nathan, the fact of projecting ‘final status’ agreements does not mean that international law disappears.
As you may know, the Oslo agreements were but an interim agreement, by which Israel would withdraw from occupied territories within 5 years, and a final agreement on outstanding issues would be made. But as you may also know, Israel did not follow through, and when Israel subsequently made its supposed ‘generous offers’ (which were never concessions from what it was entitled to, only from what it coveted), then the Palestinians have been blamed.
So that’s brought many Palestinians to the conclusions, that this talk is really a waste of time. And that’s basically why we have BDS. Because without a shift in power relations through external pressure, all this just gives Israel time for further dispossession.
And that’s really the only game in town. The rest is basically a waste of time.
edthespark: “Palestinian refugees will be naturalized in the countries they reside in.Those countries will receive cash and infrastructure.That is no sellout.That is the solution.Better than the bullshit that was recycled for the last few decades[.]Mondoweiss comments..between you and me,it is all just conjecture,right.”
First, this particular topic admittedly contains some conjecture, as we have not had the plan officially revealed yet, but there have been many indications. This does not suggests that “Mondoweiss comments… is all just conjecture”. A lot of it is reasonable a fact-based discussion which I find worthy and challenging.
Now, concerning refugees: There is ample indication that the Trump team is bent on taking the Palestinian refugee matter “off the table”, just as it was Trump’s idea that he was taking Jerusalem “off the table” by endorsing Israel’s illegal annexation of it.
But that stuff is make believe. To say it’s juvenile is an understatement. It’s like saying “so what, someone stole your stuff? I’m saying it’s ok, and that’s it, it’s off the table”. It doesn’t work like that with international law, you see.
About refugees – the Trump team has defunded UNRWA, and made it pretty clear that it also wants to take that “off the table”, also in not recognizing refugee rights of descendants. That interpretation of international law is Israel-apologia – it suggests that the Palestinian refugees are the only ones in the world where such rights pass on to descendants – and that is a lie.
So now, you’re suggesting that if it’s about paying countries off to naturalize Palestinians (if it is), then this is “no sellout”. But the Palestinian right of return is enshrined in international law, and is a personal right. It’s not for you, or for Trump, to sell it out, as it were (and yes, it would be a sell-out of rights). You see edthespark, if we allow for such bartering, selling out of rights, “taking things off the table” by unilateral actions brazenly violating international law, then we are rendering international law meaningless. If you permit this as ‘practical’, then you essentially permit ethnic cleansing to be perpetrated in the future – no big deal, as it were – at some point someone will come by with cash and make a deal of the century and take the issue off the table…
Edthespark (to me): “Tell me something,how much exactly will the Palestinians be getting in handouts.a billion or a trillion.You don’t know do you, well lets wait and see.”
Well, actually I do know, according to the leak reports that I cite. You could know too, easily, if you but clicked on the first link, to Allison Deger’s coverage. Here it tells you precisely:
‘The deal includes significant financial support from the U.S., Europe and the Gulf states to the new Palestinian state, to a tune of $30 billion over five years, with additional support for specific development projects from Australia, Canada, Japan and South Korea. Most of the funding will come from “oil producing countries,” described as “the main beneficiaries of this agreement.”’
But you seem to be saying rhetorically, that I don’t know what I’m talking about. Maybe I was generalising, so as to drive a point?
But you want the details – because just imagine, if it was a “million dollars for each Palestinian”. Are you now deciding on their behalf that this would be great and fair? Indeed you continue:
“Lets say a million dollars for each person displaced in 1948.would that be ok with you.”
– are we now bartering on behalf of Palestinian refugees? If you had read the same mentioned link, you’d see that Palestinian refugees are completely absent from the document.
So let’s not start selling out Palestinians, you and me, here on Mondoweiss comments. There are enough people trying to do that already.
“Madonna is a not a cruel, uncaring person. Maybe if she knew the extent of Israel’s crimes, she too would care more for a just settlement for Palestine.”
It’s because she trusts Americans for Peace Now to inform her about how ‘peace’ can be achieved. Now look at what Yossi Alpher, who writes weekly security Q&A’s for Americans for Peace Now, expresses himself:
“[A] major Israeli military offensive to reconquer the Gaza Strip and physically eliminate the Islamists there… is undoubtedly feasible. Countless politicians, including Netanyahu, have periodically promised to do precisely this. But then they confront the reality that this scenario would almost certainly involve hundreds of Israeli dead and would leave Israel responsible for the welfare of over two million Gazans under a new occupation.”
When Palestinian civil society urged her to cancel, she ignored it because it had a “political agenda”. I don’t think she’s stupid – I think she picked her side, and that this makes her indeed cruel and uncaring, under the guise of a peacenik.