Jarring Israeli Centrists out of their Indifference

-

Bob Wright has a piece on the New York Times‘ Opinionator which should be read in full as he provocatively suggests that we take the earnestness out of the pursuit of a two-state peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians.
His view that the parties can’t get to a two-state arrangement as long as the most radical factions set the terms and temperature in the region rings true to me — and thus he thinks that quiet, complacent centrists need to be stirred.


He writes:

there’s a third possibility that nobody ever talks about. Pursuing a one-state solution could actually lead to a two-state solution. Instead of following the current road map to a Palestinian state, maybe we can get there by detour.
One key to working up enthusiasm for this detour is to get clear on the nature of the roadblock.
It’s common to say that Israel’s intransigence on the settlements issue reflects the growing strength of the right, especially the religious fundamentalists who do much of the settling. But at least as big a problem as the zeal of the radicals is the apathy of the moderates.
A recent Time magazine cover story — “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace” — explained why many Israelis just don’t think a peace deal is all that important: they’ve already got peace. Ever since Israel built its security wall, they’ve been safe from suicide bombers, and homemade rockets from Gaza can’t reach them. They’re prosperous to boot. What’s not to like?
So long as this attitude prevails, the far right will have veto power over policy in the occupied territory. For a peace deal to happen, Israel’s centrists need to get jarred out of their indifference. Someone needs to scare these people.
There’s a way for Palestinians to do that — and not the usual way, with bombs and rockets. Quite the opposite.
If Palestinians want to strike fear into the hearts of Israelis they should (a) give up on violence as a tool of persuasion; (b) give up on the current round of negotiations; and (c) start holding demonstrations in which they ask for only one thing: the right to vote. Their argument would be simple: They live under Israeli rule, and Israel is a democracy, so why aren’t they part of it?
A truly peaceful movement with such elemental aspirations — think of Martin Luther King or Gandhi — would gain immediate international support. In Europe and the United States, leftists would agitate in growing numbers for economic and political pressure on Israel.

Read the rest. Interesting approach.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

125 comments on “Jarring Israeli Centrists out of their Indifference

  1. Kathleen says:

    Illegal Israeli settler hits Palestinian boy in car and drives away. Driver reported to be David Be’eri
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2unZIzIwp0

    Reply

  2. Kathleen says:

    Important watch
    Mearsheimer:

    Reply

  3. Cee says:

    Obama cares about votes in the coming elections. He can only go so far right now.
    I’ll sit down now and wait for the pie to hit me in the face for even saying that.
    We’re trapped.

    Reply

  4. PissedOffAmerican says:

    BTW, when I use terms like “bloodsuckers” to describe the Israeli fascists, I MEAN IT IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD……
    “Corrie

    Reply

  5. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “You don’t have pet peeves

    Reply

  6. DakotabornKansan says:

    PissedOffAmerican,
    You don’t have pet peeves

    Reply

  7. Cee says:

    Carroll,
    The art students were active prior to 9-11 too. Maybe the people who bother me in the mall to sell me sea salt are raising money to help them. Heh.
    Since we keep getting trolled off topic into how Europe might hopefully be encouraged to hate Muslims
    Your comment takes me back to the recent terror alert. The past bombings in the UK had been used to demonize ALL Muslims. Should another bombing occur do the children in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan benefit?

    Reply

  8. Carroll says:

    Since we keep getting trolled off topic into how Europe might hopefully be encouraged to hate Muslims enough to support Israel let me say that if I were some people I would be more worried about entrenched Americans suspicion of Jews and Israelis is in the US.
    Even the good church folks in Utah know about the Israeli Mossad.
    Art sellers or Mossad spies?
    ABC report: Wild speculation after Utah residents claim Israeli ‘art students’ selling paintings asked suspicious questions about national security site
    Ynet Published: 10.02.10, 23:33 / Israel News
    share
    Thousands of young Israelis wander about the US selling products in malls, manning moving trucks, or peddling more or less fake paintings from door to door. But this weekend the ABC television network noted claims that some such Israelis hadn’t gone to the US to make money, but to garner security information as part of their work in the intelligence services. Nothing has been proven, but in Utah, the panic is spreading.
    In Saratoga Springs, in northern Utah, there were complains that these art peddlers were asking strange questions that had nothing to do with their sales pitch. Some residents said they were asked about the new National Security Agency’s data center being built at Camp Williams.
    The sellers claimed they were Israeli art students selling their work to raise money for a gallery. Some even presented legitimate Israeli passports.
    Blogs and even church newsletters were rife with speculation, refuting the assertions of the “art students.” One even claimed that state law enforcement agencies had already begun investigating the students for links to organized crime or terror groups.
    Gail Black from Eagle Mountain bought one of the paintings, knowing the price was too high but “feeling sorry” for the door-to-door seller. He didn’t look like a Mossad agent, she said

    Reply

  9. PissedOffAmerican says:

    And how do these pieces of shit in DC react to Israel shooting THREE American citizens, in the head, over the course of less than three years? By making an issue out of Iran’s treatment of peaceful protesters.
    And the witch Clinton, who promised to end our use of mercenary armies, hands Blackwater another contract.
    And Obama publically insults and demeans the very constituents that put his chickenshit lying posturing ass in office.
    Change you can shove where the sun don’t shine.

    Reply

  10. Carroll says:

    Posted by DonS, Oct 01 2010, 2:08PM – Link
    OT: “U.N. Report finds Israel “summarily executed” U.S. citizen on flotilla”, via Glenn Greenwald.
    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/01/flotilla/index.html
    The one voted against this report, of the 47 member panel of the UNHCR was, unsurprisingly, the US. In the context of the current discussion, at least tangentially, does that make the rest of the world ‘leftist’ for recognizing violent, brutal, illegal use of force by Israeli commandos?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    For anyone who didn’t take advantage of Don’s link.
    Here’s the money paragraph from Glen Greenwald:
    ….” One of the prime duties of a government is to safeguard the welfare of its own citizens. It’s inconceivable for most governments in the world to remain silent in the face of formal findings that a foreign nation “summarily executed” one of its own citizens. One of the reasons Turkey was so emphatic in its condemnation of Israel was because the dead were Turkish citizens; that’s what governments do when a foreign nation kills its own citizens.
    Yet not only does the U.S. Government sit silently, but its prior statements defending Israel were disgustingly cavalier. Virtually the
    entire world — literally — vehemently condemned Israel for what it did here, yet the U.S. refused and continues to refuse to do so, notwithstanding
    these findings that one of its own citizens was essentially murdered”
    And here are some of the main findings:
    –the Gaza “blockade” is both “disproportionate” in its effects on the civilian population of Gaza and is intended to “punish the people of the
    Gaza Strip”, and is therefore “illegal”
    – the entire “closure regime” likewise constitutes “collective punishment”
    and is thus “illegal”
    – Israel remains an “occupying power” with respect to Gaza, and as such its
    conduct remains subject to the provisions of international humanitarian law.
    – the interception of the flotilla “was implemented in support of the
    overall closure regime”, and was thus “illegal”.
    – Israeli forces perpetrated a “series” of “crimes”, including “willful
    killing” and “torture or inhuman treatment”
    The report, basing itself on interviews with 112 witnesses, testimony from officials and forensic evidence, also offers the most authoritative account to date of the events on the flotilla itself. In the process, it exposes the
    narrative promoted in the immediate aftermath of the attack by Israel and its apologists as deceitful propaganda. The full report runs to 56 pages, excluding annexes, and I won’t attempt to summarise it all here. Still, there are a few points that are worth highlighting.
    “Activist aggressors”
    First, on the basis of this report it is quite clear that what happened on
    board the Mavi Marmara was a massacre. Immediately after the attack, in
    which nine civilians were killed and dozens more injured, Israel and its apologists insisted, with typical chutzpah, that it was that activists who
    were the aggressors. The elite IDF special ops forces were portrayed as innocent naifs who, wielding nothing more than “paint-guns” and Buddhist literature, stumbled unawares into a “vicious assault” by “ultra-violent”
    “[c]lub-wielding” “activists aggressors” (to quote the Guardian’s resident ‘critic of Israel’). What actually happened, according to this report, the most authoritative account to date?
    When it became clear that Israeli forces intended to forcibly board the ship, “some individuals grouped together with the intention to defend the
    ship” against the “illegal” attack. There was “little evidence of any unified command to coordinate the defense of the ship”. Some passengers “engaged in last minute efforts to fashion rudimentary weapons shortly prior to interception”.
    Their ‘weaponry’? Some passengers used “electric tools” to saw off bits of metal railing, and metal chains between the railings, to use as weapons. When the ship’s crew discovered this they “confiscated” the tools and locked
    them in the radio room. Other individuals donned “gas masks” to counter the effects of tear-gas; gas masks are part of a ship’s “standard fire-fighting equipment”.
    During the actual fighting, a few passengers used rods, water hoses and “culinary knives” to fend off Israeli soldiers who had already fired upon
    the boat, including with live ammunition. Contrary to Israeli claims, which were “so inconsistent and contradictory” that the commission was forced to dismiss them, there is “no evidence” that any passengers used “firearms” against the soldiers. This bears repeating: Israeli forces fired first, with
    live ammunition, before boarding the boat; and, contrary to Israeli claims, there is no evidence that any activist used a firearm, despite having
    multiple opportunities to do so (activists did succeed in wresting firearms from Israeli soldiers – they then threw them into the sea).
    What did the IDF deploy to thwart the deadly threat of a few activists wielding metal railings, kitchen cutlery and fire-fighting equipment?
    “Soldiers from the ‘Shayetet 13’ special naval forces unit took part in the operation”, and used “live ammunition”, tear-gas and plastic bullets to kill passengers who “posed… [no] threat” to them. They were supported by
    “a number of corvettes and missile boats, helicopters, zodiacs, surveillance aircraft and possibly two submarines.”
    Massacre
    Having boarded the ship, the soldiers proceeded to kill and injure its passengers. The “vast majority” of those on the top deck of the boat were shot, mostly in the head and upper body. Four activists were killed during this period, including the American citizen Furkan Dogan, who was using a video camera and was “not involved in any of the fighting”. Two of them appear to have been “shot at close range while lying on the ground”.
    Soldiers “continued shooting at passengers who had already been wounded”, including with live ammunition. Wounded passengers were also beaten. After taking control of the top deck Israeli soldiers “fired live ammunition” at
    passengers on the decks below. A number of passengers were “killed and injured” while trying to “take refuge”. At least four more were killed,
    including a photographer who was taking photos, “none” of whom “posed any
    threat” to the Israeli forces. After it became clear that “a large number of passengers had become injured”, the President of the IHH used his white shirt to indicate ‘surrender’. This “does not appear to have had any effect” and “live firing continued”.
    In total nine activists were killed. “[A]t least six” of these killings were “extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions”. Overall Israeli actions demonstrated “totally unnecessary and incredible violence” that resulted in
    “the wholly avoidable killing and maiming of a large number of civilian passengers”.
    Dealing with passive resistance
    During the fighting, activists managed to capture three Israeli soldiers.
    These soldiers were protected, given medical treatment and set free.
    Passengers detained by Israeli forces, by contrast, were systematically
    abused, beaten and tortured.
    After the attack, a common line heard from defenders of Israel’s conduct was that ‘the boarding of the other boats in the flotilla took place without incident, because those passengers didn’t resort to violence’. In fact, on three of the other boats, “passive resistance offered by the passengers was met with force”, including the use of smoke and stun grenades, rubber bullets and electroshock weapons, which caused “burns, bruises, hematomas and fractures”. Plastic handcuffs were applied so tightly that circulation was cut off to people’s hands (at least 54 people were injured in this way),
    and many continue to suffer problems months later Detainees were left out in the sun to suffer first-degree burns, denied medical treatment and forced to piss themselves. Dogs were set on the passengers, some of whom were bitten. Some were violently beaten, resulting in one case in a fractured leg.
    Overall, the report concludes, the treatment of passengers on board the Mavi Marmara and on some of the other boats “amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and, insofar as the treatment was additionally applied as a form of punishment, torture”.
    “You are in Israel now; you have no rights.”
    Bad as this is, the passengers’ real ordeal appears to have begun after they disembarked in Israel, where they were “paraded” in front of jeering crowds of Israelis, including school children. They were then subjected to physical
    and verbal abuse if, as almost all did, they refused to sign deportation forms that were in a language most did not understand and included a
    confession on the part of the signer that s/he had entered Israel illegally (as opposed to being illegally abducted to Israel by the Israeli military).
    The example of one Greek national Greek national illustrates what happened to individuals deemed non-cooperative: after refusing to provide his
    fingerprints to the Israeli authorities he was “dragged along the ground for some distance”, “surrounded by a large group of Israeli officials” and “severely beaten”, which resulted in “the deliberate fracture of his leg”.
    The broken leg was not treated until after the passenger had left Israel.
    Activists were also subjected to denial of medical care, deliberate humiliation (e.g. repeated and unnecessary strip and internal cavity searches) and, in one instance, death threats. The general approach was accurately summarised by one Israeli officer, responding to protests from a passenger: “You are in Israel now; you have no rights.”
    The abuse continued right up until the passengers’ deportation from Israel,
    via Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv. Inside the terminal itself, 30 passengers were “kicked and punched” and “beaten to the ground” by a group
    of soldiers wielding batons. In one incident, an
    “Irish passenger was seen being particularly badly beaten around the head and held in a choke position to the point of near suffocation. He identified his attackers as police officers.”
    In another:
    “a passenger was physically attacked by around seventeen officers when he refused to sign deportation paper[s], kicked in the head and threatened at gunpoint.”
    Another:
    “One passenger was seen having his arm twisted behind his back by police to
    the point that the arm broke.”
    In short, “acts of torture were committed by Israeli officials against passengers during their period of detention in Israel”.
    Published at New Left Project
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Probably killing off Israel’s most militant zionistas the same way they kill others would be a good start toward ‘scaring’ the Israelis.

    Reply

  11. nadine says:

    re: the “suicide” of Abu Nidal. According to reports at the time, Abu Nidal shot himself in the head – three times. see
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/20/israel
    But pesky facts never stopped Robert Fisk from reporting a good story yet.

    Reply

  12. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Rivero pretty well nails it……..
    “Last week President Pussy insisted that the Arab nations withdraw their motion to require Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and submit to IAEA inspections because to make an issue of Israel’s nuclear weapons might “threaten the peace process.”
    “The United Nations Human Rights Council report which concluded that Israel’s attack on the aid flotilla, which included seizure of a US ship and murder of a US citizen, was a “brutal” violation of international law, in defense of a blockade of Gaza which is itself a violation of international law. President Pussy insisted that this report be downplayed because calling attention to Israel’s war crimes might “threaten the peace process.”
    “Well, the peace process is dead, President Pussy.”
    “The Peace Process is dead because Israel murdered it, just as they murdered a 19 year old American with a camcorder with a gunshot to his face as he lay helpless on the deck of the seized aid ship.”
    “Israel murdered the peace process because even as they talk peace Israeli bulldozers bought and paid for by American taxpayers continued to wage war on the ancestral homes of Palestinians.”
    “So what are you going to do now, President Pussy, with the US elections just a month hence?”
    “All Americans know you turned your back on the Americans captured and killed by Israel in international waters last May for the sake of a Peace process that was dead on arrival because it excluded the elected representatives of the people of Gaza. All Americans know you that even as you whine about Iraq and Iran’s non-existent nuclear “threat” you gave the one nation in the Mideast that actually does have nuclear weapons a free pass, for the sake of a Peace process that was dead on arrival because Israel never has wanted peace, but only the appearance of moral rightness as it continues to steal other peoples’ homes with US blessing and support.”
    “With the end of the peace process you used as a shield you stand exposed from now to election day as Israel’s puppet. Every day from now through November 4th that you refuse to confront Israel over her murder of an American citizen in international waters will be a day all America know that you have betrayed your oat of office. Every day from now through November 4th that you refuse to confront Israel over her undeclared nuclear arsenal will be a day all America know that the Democrats have sold their souls to Israel for thirty pieces of silver.”
    “Shame on you, Barack. You are a disgrace as a President, as a Democrat, and as an American. You are the worst President in United States History.”

    Reply

  13. Dan Kervick says:

    “Dan, how is it that you can notice the poverty-creating results of socialism in OTHER countries, but be convinced that socialism and forcible wealth redistribution is the way forward in the United States?”
    I’m a social democrat, not a socialist or a communist. They only look the same to people who are so far over on the right that vast gaps are invisible from the distance.

    Reply

  14. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “But it is misleading to suggest that Yugoslavia or its constituent Republics were in the Soviet Bloc. They really weren’t”
    So what? WTF does that have to do to with Israel’s fascist and illegal treatment of the Palestinians??

    Reply

  15. WigWag says:

    Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Baltic nations, Serbia, Kosovo, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Albania, Bulgaria and Cyprus are all extraordinarily poor by American standards….All of those counties, except for Cyprus, were once in the Soviet bloc.” (Dan Kervick)
    Actually, several of these countries were in the Soviet bloc for only an extremely short period of time, if at all. Serbia, Croatia, Slovena and Bosnia were all republics that were component parts of Yugoslavia; Kosovo (formerly called “Old Serbia”)was a province of Serbia. By 1948, Tito had already begun distancing himself from the Soviets. By the 1960s, the breach between Yugoslavia and Moscow was complete and Yugoslavia was actually one of the founders of the nonaligned movement. Moreover, Yugoslavia was never a member of the Warsaw Pact nations.
    It is true that Yugoslavia practiced state socialism (although its form of socialism was decidedly different than the form practiced in the Soviet Union, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania). It is also true that Yugoslavia was a one party state ruled by Tito with an iron fist.
    But it is misleading to suggest that Yugoslavia or its constituent Republics were in the Soviet Bloc. They really weren’t.

    Reply

  16. PissedOffAmerican says:

    The bullshit you right wingers are spouting about “wealth redistribution” is not supported by the facts. Since Obama instituted his economical “fixes” the statistics show that the rich are still getting richer, and the poor are still getting poorer. “Talking points” are just that, Nadine; “talking points”. Just because you are repetitious in advancing bullshit, does not make it any less bullshit. To an ignorant and ill-informed public the tactic you employ is useful to a degree, as it convinces the minds that are too lazy to research, or even apply thought to what they accept as “truth”. Note this crap that we have heard for months now about a “building moratorium” that doesn’t really exist. Even now, when virtually the entire world knows the “building moratorium” was a fuckin’ lie, we see the phrase used ad nauseum in the media when referencing the charade billed as “direct talks”.
    You might convince the idiots with your repetitious presentations of propaganda. But there are very few idiots here, evidenced by the unpopularity of your arguments, essays, and your prolific use of distorted historical references. In other words, no one here is buying it. I doubt there are many here that watch Fox news, buy into the garbage on Debka or Newsmax, or support AIPAC, yet you mine most of your material from such sources. One wonders, (as you experience such a universal rejection of your propaganda), why you bother.

    Reply

  17. DakotabornKansan says:

    Posted by PissedOffAmerican, Oct 03 2010, 12:42PM:

    Reply

  18. nadine says:

    “”Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Baltic nations, Serbia, Kosovo, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Albania, Bulgaria and Cyprus are all extraordinarily poor by American standards.”
    All of those counties, except for Cyprus, were once in the Soviet bloc. Would you say those countries are actually in decline? Or that after years of backwardness they have not yet caught up to the rest of Europe?” (Dan Kervick)
    Dan, how is it that you can notice the poverty-creating results of socialism in OTHER countries, but be convinced that socialism and forcible wealth redistribution is the way forward in the United States? Please explain this mystery.

    Reply

  19. nadine says:

    “For the Palestinians to sign any type of comprehensive peace treaty with Israel would only shore up, consolidate, and guarantee the existence of Zionism and Zionists in Palestine forever. Why would the Palestinians want to do that? Without approval by the Palestinians in writing, Zionism and Israel in Palestine will collapse” (Francis A. Boyle)
    Yup, Cee, this is what the Palestinians believe. This is why 70% of them (according to a recent 2009 poll) are still gunning for the One State Solution – let Israel collapse, so all Palestine becomes an Arab state.
    Hm, think this attitude just MIGHT have something to why negotiations for a Two State Solution never work out? When you are negotiating for something you don’t actually want, should it be a surprise to anybody that no offer is good enough to tempt you?
    Thank you for posting the true cause of the I/P impasse. Let me mail you a clue: Israel isn’t going to collapse. Israel is a far more successful and vibrant enterprise than any Arab state, including the welfare squat that is the Palestinian territories. But as long as the Palestinians insist on waiting for the great day of Israel’s collapse, there will be no peace.
    Here, maybe you can read fellow lefty Jon Chait’s answer to Bob Wright:
    “I agree that it would be fantastic if Palestinians adopted such [Gandhian] tactics. But to do so, they actually have to want a two-state solution. And the evidence for that proposition is weaker than the evidence that Netanyahu is willing to make sacrifices for peace. A 2009 poll I’ve cited before shows that 71% of Palestinians deem it essential that their state comprise all of Israel and the occupied territories. (Only 17% of Israelis deem it essentially that their state control all that land.) And this isn’t a crazy or inherently hateful view. From the Palestinian perspective, Israel is a colonial state that was suddenly dropped on their head as a result of European crimes. Most Palestinians seem to think, like Helen Thomas said, that the fair solution is for the Jews to go back to Europe.
    I obviously don’t see things that way, but I understand why Palestinians do. And from this perspective, Palestinian political tactics are not an endless series of blunders but a perfectly rational strategy of alternating guerrilla or terrorist attacks on Israel with ceaseless political pressure designed to make Israelis, like the Crusaders, unwilling to pay the price of defending their state over however many decades or centuries it takes. The current West Bank leadership is blessedly moderate — and Israelis are fools not to try to cut a deal with it — but there are real questions about how the leadership could survive striking such a bargain.
    The other problem with Bob’s analysis is that it gets the causality problem wrong. He essentially considers the occupation as a strategic desire by Israel unconnected to any judgment of Palestinian motive — Israel wants to hold on to the West Bank, and Palestinians can pressure them to leave via the correct nonviolent tactics. I think Israel is occupying the West Bank precisely because it fears violent Palestinian tactics. A counterfactual world in which Palestinians adopt non-violent tactics is a world in which Israel wouldn’t be in the West Bank to begin with.”
    http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/78082/why-dont-palestinians-adopt-nonviolence

    Reply

  20. samuelburke says:

    Mr Jerome Slater is a fine example of the real jewish spirit once he
    became enlightened.
    among the national socialists it isn’t so, the spirit of that crowd is
    venomous and vindictive.

    Reply

  21. Cee says:

    More on the gun for hire
    Abu Nidal, notorious Palestinian mercenary, ‘was a US spy’
    Secret papers claim the feared assassin was hired to find links between Saddam and al-Qa’ida. Robert Fisk reports
    Saturday, 25 October 2008
    Iraqi secret police believed that the notorious Palestinian assassin Abu Nidal was working for the Americans as well as Egypt and Kuwait when they interrogated him in Baghdad only months before the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Hitherto secret documents which are now in the hands of The Independent

    Reply

  22. Cee says:

    OBL reminds me of Abu Nidal
    Abu Nidal began his long and bloody career in the PLO, only to become a bitter rival of Yasser Arafat. It was a situation that the Israeli Mossad, in a manner similar to their CIA cousins, would seek to exploit.
    As Middle East expert Patrick Seale writes:
    Israeli penetration of Palestinian organizations was common, but it was clearly not the whole story. Most intelligence sources I consulted agreed that it was standard practice to use penetration agents not simply to neutralize or destroy the enemy but to try to manipulate him so that he did one’s bidding without always being aware of doing
    Whatever jobs [Abu Nidal] might have done for Arab sponsors, and they had been numerous and nasty, he had done many other jobs from which Israel alone appeared to benefit.”
    Confirming Seale’s theory are top Middle East terrorism experts, including intelligence officers in Arab countries, and even within Abu Nidal’s own organization.
    One French terrorism expert stated: “If Abu Nidal himself is not an Israeli agent, then two or three of his senior people most certainly are. Nothing else can explain some of his operations.”
    A former senior Jordanian intelligence officer said: “Scratch around inside Abu
    Nidal’s organization and you will find Mossad.”
    Backing up these reports was a former member of Abu Nidal’s own Justice Committee, who told Seale that Mossad agents captured by Abu Nidal were usually killed very quickly to prevent them from confessing their true motives. Abu Iyad, former chief of PLO Intelligence, added,
    “Every Palestinian who works in intelligence is convinced that Israel has a big hand in Abu Nidal’s affairs.”
    Nidal’s organization has been responsible for some of the most brutal acts of terrorism in the world. According to the State Department, Abu Nidal has carried out more than 100 acts or terrorism that have resulted in the deaths of over 280 people. Some of these attacks include the 1986 grenade and machine-gun assaults on El Al counters at the Rome and Vienna airports, attacks on synagogues, and assassinations of Palestinian moderates.
    He (Iyad) had told me that Abu Nidal’s murdering Palestinian moderates was connected with [former Israeli Prime Minister] Begin’s determination never to negotiate with Palestinians for fear of losing the West Bank. For Begin (who had once called the Palestinians “two-legged animals” worthy of extinction), the moderates, who wanted to negotiate, were the real danger and had to be
    eliminated. If the Israelis had in fact infiltrated Abu Nidal’s organization, perhaps some spymaster in Jerusalem had said, ‘We’ve got someone who can do the job for us.’
    Abu Nidal’s most well-known attack was on a Greek cruise ship in 1988 that left nine people dead and 80 wounded. As Seale points out regarding the attack on the vessel City of Poros, “no conceivable Palestinian or Arab interest was served by such random savagery.”
    In fact, Greece was the European country most sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, its prime minister, Andreas Papandreou, often defending Arabs against Israel’s charges of terrorism. After the attack, Greece was furious with the Palestinians, who had damaged the Greek tourist trade and hastened the fall of the Papandreou regime. (THINK OF THE NEW EU WARNING)
    The motive, as in the Achille Lauro attack, was apparently to cast the Palestinians as heartless murderers.
    Several sources that Seale consulted were convinced the attack was a typical Mossad
    operation.
    What is curious is that Israel has never punished Abu Nidal’s organization.Israel has a long-standing policy of launching immediate and massive retaliation against any terrorist attack. While Israeli forces have bombed, shelled and raided Palestinian and Shi’ite positions in Lebanon, and have sent hit teams to kill Palestinian guerrilla leaders in other countries, they have never attacked
    Abu Nidal. Given Israel’s harsh and unrelenting policy of retribution against terrorist attacks, this seems more than a bit bizarre. As Seale concludes: Abu Nidal is a professional killer who has sold his deadly services certainly to the Arabs and perhaps to the Israelis as well. His genius has been to understand that states will commit any crime in the name of national interest. A criminal
    like Abu Nidal can flourish doing their dirty work. Former DEA agent
    A curious feature of Abu Nidal’s terrorism is that more than 50 percent of it has been directed against Arab and Palestinian rivals. The ANO’s vicious war against the PLO has led to Arab claims that it was secretly manipulated by Israel’s Mossad secret service. According to this seemingly far-fetched hypothesis, the Mossad penetrated Abu Nidal’s organization and has manipulated Abu Nidal to carry out atrocities that would discredit the Palestinian cause.
    The hypothesis is based on four main points:
    1. Abu Nidal killings have damaged the Palestinian cause to Israel’s advantage
    2. the suspicious behavior of some of Abu Nidal’s officials
    3. the lack of attacks on Israel
    4. lack of involvement in the Intifada, and
    5. Israel’s failure to retaliate against Abu Nidal’s groups.
    Another distinctive feature of Abu Nidal’s terrorism is that the ANO has generally not concerned itself with captured ANO members, preferring to abandon them to their fate rather than to attempt to bargain for their release. These traits would seem to suggest that the ANO has been more a product of its leader’s paranoid psychopathology than his ideology

    Reply

  23. WigWag says:

    “As long as European countries continue to enjoy the world’s highest standards of living, which they do, European influence in the world will be assured.” (Dan Kervick)
    I wouldn’t be so quick to associate high living standards with influence in the world; according to the IMF, Luxembourg has the highest per capita GDP in Europe (2009) at $104,512. How much influence does it have? Norway has the second highest per capita GDP in Europe ($79,085); it’s not known for playing a particularly consequential role in world affairs.
    Nor would I be so quick to say that European countries enjoy the highest living standards in the world. Surely the Europeans are prosperous but are their living standards the highest in the world? It depends both on how you count and how you define living standards. Cartographers typically say that there are 48 independent countries on the European continent if you include Iceland and Turkey. Of course there are 50 states in the United States. The American state with the lowest per capita GDP (2009) is Mississippi which comes in at $30,103. In Europe, 27 of the 48 nations have a lower per capita GDP than the per capita GDP of the lowest ranking American state.
    Income distribution is far more skewed in Europe than it is in the United States; that is if you measure it between countries instead of within any particular country. Albania has a per capita GDP of $3,825 while Luxembourg’s per capita GDP exceeds $100,000. In the United States, the range is from Mississippi on the low end ($30,103) to Connecticut on the high end ($54,397)
    If you prefer to just look at some of the major EU nations, Great Britain at $35,334 comes in behind the American state with the 12th highest per capita GDP; Washington ($35,404). Italy ($35,535) would come in eleventh place in the United States (behind Delaware). France at $42,147 comes in at the virtual identical spot as Massachusetts (in 2nd place in the U.S.) at $42,176. Germany at $40,875 comes in just behind the U.S. state with the third highest per capita GDP; New Jersey at $41,626.
    While nations like Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark and Switzerland are all far wealthier than any American state, Europe is chock full of dreadfully poor nations that are far poorer than the poorest American state. Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Baltic nations, Serbia, Kosovo, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Albania, Bulgaria and Cyprus are all extraordinarily poor by American standards. If you count nations that straddle Europe and Asia such as Armenia, Moldavia and the Ukraine then the poverty gets truly horrific.
    So I would respectfully disagree with you on both counts, Dan. Taken as a whole neither Europe nor the EU has the highest living standards in the world nor do high living standards count for much in terms of influence in the world.

    Reply

  24. Cee says:

    The Impending Collapse of Israel in Palestine
    by Francis A. Boyle / October 2nd, 2010
    On November 15, 1988 the Palestine National Council (P.N.C.) meeting in Algiers proclaimed the Palestinian Declaration of Independence that created the independent state of Palestine. Today the State of Palestine is bilaterally recognized de jure by about 130 states. Palestine has de facto diplomatic recognition from most of Europe. It was only massive political pressure applied by the U.S. government that prevented European states from according to Palestine de jure diplomatic recognition.
    Palestine is a member state of the League of Arab States and of the Islamic Conference Organization. When the International Court of Justice in The Hague

    Reply

  25. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Once again the staunch zionists here have deflected the debate away from Israel’s current actions. The debate should center on Israel’s purposeful destruction of any hope for constructive dialogue, or progress towards a two state solution.
    Egypt has now joined the Palestinians in publically recognizing the futility of continuing talks as long as Israel continues to steal Palestinian land. And Syria, recognizing the ridiculously biased nature of any mediation on the part of the United States, is advocating for a greater role to be played by Turkey.
    As Israel casts aside what few “allies” it had within the Muslim global community, the United States stands out as the sole major supporter of a racist and murderous zionist regime in Israel that is becoming more and more openly radicalized to the far right. Even those nations and allies that have historically stood with the US in blind subservience to the Israeli agenda are now hardening their stance against Israel and the zionist fascists that have assumed power there.
    Yet here we see the debate shifting to ethereal and irrelevent intellectual natterings about peripheral bullshit that seeks to justify Israeli intransigence by drawing asinine parrallels. And on the global stage, the dead and gone boogie man Bin Laden is once again dragged out of the propaganda bin for a another carefully choreographed red alert (!!!!) charade designed to take our minds and eyes off the unyielding intransigence of the Israelis who are the true spoilers of this round of “talks”, and the foremost factor in the escalating tension in the Middle East.
    So as these fascists in Israel spit in Obama’s eye, and the duplicitous witch Hillary works behind the scenes to buttress the policies of Israel, the global Muslim community is once again covertly demonized by the all too familiar media klaxons sounding the alarm about the Muslim hordes intent on slaying the infidel.
    Fuck this. Are we a nation of idiots?
    BOO!!!!! (American foreign policy in a nutshell.)

    Reply

  26. DonS says:

    Dan K, my reading on Europe is pretty much similar to your, from observation of several trips to various countries. Somehow the social ethos seems to encompass a vast swath of the population. Whereas in America lip service is given to the middle class as representing the power and soul of the nation, in Europe they seem to live the reality. No doubt a good part of their apparent confidence, and Americans apparent paranoia, is a matter of perception. But perception is born out of an underlying condition of how one experiences one’s own life. And, of course, Europe has it’s own version of robber barons (though probably with less favorable tax treatment), but their governments don’t seem so hell bent on devising policy that kowtows to the rich.
    Too many Americans have been too insular for too long. Bashing Europe (they hate us for our freedom fries) has been a sport of Freudian projection, to bolster the image that we, in the US, have the best of all worlds. And it ain’t necessarily true, but ya gotta keep on dancing fast so the natives don’t look around and say, hey, why can’t we have a government that really works for us? No, instead, at least on the right, the conclusion seems to be that the more you eliminate government (as if you could) presto, things will automatically be better.
    Lot’s of generalization, I know. But, like you, I suggest to the skeptical that they take a trip, with open eyes and open mind.

    Reply

  27. DonS says:

    “A large part of our own threatened security is due to our ill-concieved and dangerous policy of protecting Israel from being accountable to its own criminal and inhumane actions.”
    Good point POA. One wonders how different the geopolitical landscape might be if the US did not have the albatross of AIPAC-dictated policy towards Israel around its neck. Not that there aren’t legitimate issues — applying to all nations — that Israel deserves to be supported on since it is one nation among the family of nations.
    But when, for example, the US is the lone negative vote against the UNHCR report finding Israel guilty of executing an American citizen onboard the ill-fated flotilla, there is clearly something very wrong. Other nations, I believe 17 out of the 47 members of the commission, abstained. But the US had to stick out, lone in the world, as a excuser and denier of the indefensible.
    So far from being the slam dunk equation nadine wants to foist on stuporus minds — Islamofacism bad, ergo Israel good — one must really ask exactly whose water is she carrying. It certainly ain’t the US. No sir, slam that door. A vote against John Bolton is a vote against Israel, yada, yada, yada.

    Reply

  28. Neo Controll says:

    “Anybody who is forced to take Islamist terrorism seriously as a threat must come to the conclusion that he is fighting the same enemy as Israel is”
    What a convenient generalization and reading by the jack-booted necon right.
    “Only now, as you see Geert Wilders and other politicians of the right get into power, will you see subject of Islamism and Muslim immigration addressed.”
    There you go again, conflating Islamism with Muslim.
    What’s next? A pogrom? Spare me the details.

    Reply

  29. nadine says:

    “But I offered Israel’s alliance with India not to support any theory about the impact that the alliance might have on Israel’s security concerns, but to suggest that it might serve as a model for what may happen in Europe. The more disdainful India became of Islamic extremism the more it moved away from its historic support of the Palestinians and the closer it cleaved to Israel. If the Indian example is a precedent, the same thing could easily happen in Europe. Only time will tell if it does.” (Wigwag)
    Anybody who is forced to take Islamist terrorism seriously as a threat must come to the conclusion that he is fighting the same enemy as Israel is. This naturally will influence his stance.
    The Europeans, long protected from outside threats by America, have been very slow to face their internal Islamist threat. For many years, their elites declared the whole topic unPC and out of bounds. Only now, as you see Geert Wilders and other politicians of the right get into power, will you see subject of Islamism and Muslim immigration addressed.

    Reply

  30. WigWag says:

    “Yes, but I think the purpose of austerity in Europe is to preserve as much as possible of the social safety net. There is less sentiment over there, as there is in the Republican Party here, to privatize or repudiate huge parts of the welfare state as a matter of principle.” (David Billington)
    I think you’re right. And it’s more than a European allergy to privatization or an unwillingness to repudiate the welfare state; it’s also about tax policy. While Europeans have recently been in a tax cutting mood, the new austerity measures have stopped European tax cutting dead in its tracks. While Republicans see tax cuts as the solution to almost every problem, European conservative parties don’t, for the most part, see it that way.
    “My point is that Europe wants militarily to disengage from Islamic Asia more quickly than America. If it occurs under duress, Western disengagement will be seen as a victory for Israel’s as well as the West’s enemies, which I think would vitiate any sympathy that Europeans might lately be having for Israel vs. the Palestinians.” (David Billington)
    Europe’s desire to disengage militarily from Islamic Asia is in my view, just another symptom of the impending collapse of European influence in the world. The evidence that Europe has begun an inexorable decline is everywhere. Demographically, economically, spiritually, politically, financially (and in my opinion morally) Europe is looking inwardly and within the next 50 years could very well cease to have any meaningful impact on the global community.
    This poses serious challenges for the United States. In fact, one mistake that people like Steve Clemons frequently make is their belief that American commitments that outstrip American capabilities are weakening the United States. This is true in part, but not for the reasons they think. America’s problem is that the trilateral partnership that set the world agenda since the end of World War II is in trouble because America’s Western European and Japanese partners are collapsing; or at least their willingness to devote the resources necessary to being consequential in the world is collapsing. A quick perusal of the demographic realities in both Japan and virtually every Western European nation proves the point. American vitality and its ability to control world affairs will depend, at least in part, in how successful American policy makers are in forging new alliances to bolster if not replace its partnership with Europe and Japan. Of course all of this will have a profound impact on Israel, the Sunni Arab world and the Muslim world in general. America

    Reply

  31. David Billington says:

    “In fact, fiscal austerity is now the approach being adopted in nation
    after nation in Europe. It seems to me that the “social-market political
    economies and welfare systems” are not quite as enthusiastically
    embraced by Europeans as they once were. It’s hard to define this as
    anything other than a move in a right wing direction.” (Wigwag)
    Yes, but I think the purpose of austerity in Europe is to preserve as
    much as possible of the social safety net. There is less sentiment over
    there, as there is in the Republican party here, to privatize or repudiate
    huge parts of the welfare state as a matter of principle.
    “Will the increasing hostility of Europeans to Muslims in their midst
    translate into declining support for the Palestinian cause and greater
    sympathy for Israel? It’s hard to know and only time will tell.”
    I agree. My point is that Europe wants militarily to disengage from
    Islamic Asia more quickly than America. If it occurs under duress,
    Western disengagement will be seen as a victory for Israel’s as well as
    the West’s enemies, which I think would vitiate any sympathy that
    Europeans might lately be having for Israel vs. the Palestinians.
    “During the Cold War, India was contemptuous of Israel and an ally of
    the Palestinian cause. Ever since the rise of radical Islam, India has
    completely changed directions. The Israeli-Indian military partnership is
    bigger than ever; the two countries are developing numerous joint
    weapon systems and the Indians rely on Israel to train its anti-
    insurgency forces.”
    An actual alliance between Israel and India would be a disaster for
    Israel. Unlike India, Israel cannot survive a limited nuclear exchange,
    and aligning more directly and openly with India would make Israel a
    target in any war between Hinduism and Islam. An alliance against
    Sunni Islam would also foreclose the possibility of peace with Israel’s
    Muslim neighbors.
    Iran and India have also drawn closer together, one reason why I think
    the Sunni Arab world is certain to go nuclear if Iran does. But I can’t see
    how any of this enhances Israel’s security. Anything that sharpens
    religious tensions in the wider region can only fuel an explosive
    situation and make peace more remote than it already is.

    Reply

  32. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    Carroll….exactly…the rest of the world, long ago, agreed on the 1967 borders…only Israel does not because it wants all the land and no Palestinians….
    Obama’s approach with Bibi is the same as his with Repugs…hat in hand, tail tucked in…submission…give up everything for little or nothing and call it bi-partisan…wrong tack…
    Three cheers for Norway, Paul.
    On peaceful protest scaring Israelis????
    One word, Rachel Corrie.
    Money tqalks, especially when it walks…sanctions for Israel until it respects the 1967 borders.

    Reply

  33. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Hmmmm. It appears as though “questions” predictions about the results of these “peace talks” were waaaaaaay off base.
    Despite Netanyahu’s purposeful rejection of actions that may have contributed to constructive dialogue, how long do you think it will be before the witch Clinton blames the Palestinians for the failure of these talks????
    Note the AIPAC mailer that is going out, touting the bullshit “self-imposed settlement freeze” that the Palestinians so rudely considered less than a true concession on Israel’s part…..
    “ABBAS PUTS PEACE TALKS ON HOLD”
    “Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will discuss with the Arab League whether or not to continue direct talks with his Israeli counterpart, The Jerusalem Post reported Monday. Abbas has threatened to leave the talks after just one month of negotiations because Israel’s self-imposed construction moratorium expired on Sunday. Israel declared the moratorium 10-months ago in a bold gesture meant to bring Abbas back to the table; however, he did not agree to direct talks until nine months into the freeze. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that he wants the talks to lead to two states -a Jewish state of Israel and a demilitarized Palestinian state. Talks are currently on hold until the Arab League summit on October 5.”
    Yes, its always the Palestinian’s fault, isn’t it? These nazi-like bastards running the show in Israel, and the sugar-mouthed scumbags running the Israeli machine in the United States are truly despicable. Have you ever seen such self flattering, disingenuous, and gratuitous wording? “Self-imposed construction moratorium” MY ASS. The ONLY people that bought this past “moratorium” as sincere or actual are the Americans that are force fed HORSESHIT by our own media and these despicable lying sacks of garbage writing the script in organizations and foreign agencies such as AIPAC.
    Any reasonably informed American, jew or gentile, should be ashamed that our “leaders” and “representatives” actively participate in this charade.

    Reply

  34. DonS says:

    “Will the increasing hostility of Europeans to Muslims in their midst translate into declining support for the Palestinian cause and greater sympathy for Israel?”
    I order to continue to foster Israeli oppression instead of finding an equitable way out of the impasse? What do you want Wig wag? A fair settlement or continued erosion of Israel’s future as a democracy an continued oppression of Palestinians?

    Reply

  35. WigWag says:

    Shifts to the right in Europe have not dismantled social-market political economies and welfare systems… (David Billington)
    I agree with you that enthusiasm for the welfare state is far more vigorous in Western Europe than it is in the United States, but it’s important to remember that conservative political parties or coalitions of moderate and conservative political parties control most of the governments in Europe. France, Great Britain, Italy Germany and now the Netherlands are all controlled by mainstream conservative parties. While it is certainly true that “conservative” European parties are typically less right wing than the American Republican Party, support for the welfare state is clearly diminishing in Europe.
    During the recent catastrophic recession the United States and Great Britain provided virtually all of the fiscal stimulus while most of the nations on the continent refused to engage in Keynesian reflation of their economies. And in Great Britain, the party that advocated expansion suffered a humiliating defeat and was replaced by a coalition devoted to austerity.
    In fact, fiscal austerity is now the approach being adopted in nation after nation in Europe. It seems to me that the “social-market political economies and welfare systems” are not quite as enthusiastically embraced by Europeans as they once were. It’s hard to define this as anything other than a move in a right wing direction.
    Will the increasing hostility of Europeans to Muslims in their midst translate into declining support for the Palestinian cause and greater sympathy for Israel? It’s hard to know and only time will tell. But whether the burqua bans and the new immigration restrictions are supported by Christian Democratic parties or Labor-oriented parties, it is clear that at least on this issue, Europe is moving to the right and there is no evidence that this right wing lurch is abating; in fact, it’s accelerating. It’s hard to believe that this won’t affect the European view of the Israeli-Palestinian debate. Already the former Soviet bloc countries are fervently pro-Israel and barely hide their contempt for the Palestinians. It’s too soon to know if the same thing will happen in “Old Europe.”
    One nation that may be the canary in the coal mine for all of this isn’t European at all. During the Cold War, India was contemptuous of Israel and an ally of the Palestinian cause. Ever since the rise of radical Islam, India has completely changed directions. The Israeli-Indian military partnership is bigger than ever; the two countries are developing numerous joint weapon systems and the Indians rely on Israel to train its anti-insurgency forces. India has recently allowed Israel to test long range cruise missiles capable of being armed with nuclear weapons off its coast in the Indian Ocean.
    As hostility towards Muslim extremism grew in India, the strategic partnership between the Israelis and the Indians deepened into a relationship extremely important to both countries. As hostility towards Muslims increases in Europe, one can’t help but wonder whether the Europeans will come to see the Palestinians in a far less sympathetic light than they do now.
    Recent polls show that in the United States, the Palestinian Authority has an approval level of about 10 percent; the popularity of the Palestinian Government approaches that of the Iranian Government.
    Could the same trend develop in Europe? I wouldn

    Reply

  36. Cee says:

    I’m sorry to keep posting. However…
    Overcoming AIPAC is not enough
    By Lawrence Davidson
    2 October 2010
    Lawrence Davidson outlines a strategy for unshackling the United States from Israel, based on melding the liberation of the US from AIPAC with the revival of American national interests in the broader Middle East and Muslim world, and with the viable future of Palestine.
    Two stories have recently appeared, each discussing a different approach to overcoming the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the pro-Israel lobby that presently has enough clout to substitute its own parochial interests for the US national interest. As John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s 2007 book, The Israel lobby and US foreign policy, demonstrated, there is a direct connection between AIPAC’s level of influence in Congress and the White House and the recent disasters that have befallen the US in the Middle East.
    Indeed, the connection is one of sufficient intensity to have led to the creation in 2008 of a new

    Reply

  37. Cee says:

    JayC,
    I laughed when I heard about the late- Osama tape. Perhaps I shouldn’t have.
    This makes me think about the 9-11 hijackers. I’m sure they’ll recruit some more.
    Israeli spies wooing U.S. Muslims, sources say
    The CIA took an internal poll not long ago about friendly foreign intelligence agencies.
    The question, mostly directed to employees of the clandestine service branch, was: Which are the best allies among friendly spy services, in terms of liaison with the CIA, and which are the worst? In other words, who acts like, well, friends?

    Reply

  38. Cee says:

    As I pointed out before, the non-violent activists have been marginalized, deported and many killed that I’m aware of.
    It makes me understand why Hamas won’t be bamboozled by any longer.
    Another interesting article about a non-violent person:
    After the Canon

    Reply

  39. Carroll says:

    Posted by Dan Kervick, Oct 01 2010, 2:08PM – Link
    “move quickly to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state within the borders recommended by the commission”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I am curious as to why you have finally come to this conclusion.
    A lot of people including Palestines and many of us here on TWN have been promoting this as the best Palestine tactic for the past 3 years.
    Some background:
    After 1967, a number of legal arguments were advanced which dismissed the right of Palestinians to self-determination and statehood. They generally proposed that Palestine was a land void of a legitimate sovereign and supported Israeli claims to the remaining territory of the Palestine Mandate.[98]HYPERLINK \l “cite_note-98″[99] Historian and journalist, Gershom Gorenberg, says that outside of the pro-settlement community in Israel, these positions are considered quirky. He says that, while the Israeli government has used them for PR purposes abroad, it takes entirely different positions when arguing real legal cases before the Israeli Supreme Court. In 2005 Israel decided to dismantle all Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern West Bank. Gorenberg notes, the government’s decision was challenged in the Supreme Court by settlers, and the government won the case by noting the settlements were in territory whose legal status was that of ‘belligerent territory’. The government argued that the settlers should have known the settlements were only temporary.[100]
    Most UN member states questioned the claim that Israel held better title to the land than the inhabitants, and stressed that statehood was an inalienable right of the Palestinian people.[101] Legal experts, like David John Ball, concluded that “the Palestinians, based on the principles of self-determination and the power of the U.N., appear to hold better title to the territory.”[102] The International Court of Justice subsequently reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and the prohibition under customary and conventional international law against acquisition of territory by war.
    The Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, cited a case involving Gaza and said that “The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The legal representative of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation. His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation. The legal meaning of this view is twofold: first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been “annexed” to Israel. Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation.”
    The court said most Israelis do not have ownership of the land on which they built their houses and businesses in the territory “They acquired their rights from the military commander, or from persons acting on his behalf. Neither the military commander nor those acting on his behalf are owners of the property, and they cannot transfer rights better than those they have. To the extent that the Israelis built their homes and assets on land which is not private (‘state land’), that land is not owned by the military commander.
    1988
    The Palestinian Declaration of Independence was approved by the Palestinian National Council (PNC) in Algiers on November 15, 1988, by a vote of 253 in favour 46 against and 10 abstentions. It was read by Yasser Arafat at the closing session of the 19th PNC to a standing ovation
    As a result of the declaration, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) convened, inviting Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO to give an address. An UNGA resolution was adopted “acknowledging the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988,” and it was further decided that “the designation ‘Palestine’ should be used in place of the designation ‘Palestine Liberation Organization’ in the United Nations system.” One hundred and four states voted for this resolution, forty-four abstained, and two

    Reply

  40. Carroll says:

    I neglected to say that Wright is right on one point..the Israelis do need to be scared. Fear is a great motivator.
    What the zionist and Israelis would fear most is losing the US. How would that happen? Probably the same way it has always happened for the Jews.
    The lesson of the Soviet Union and Spain from the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries is that Jewish influence does wax and wane.
    The most reliably recurrent theme observable in Jewish behavior over the ages is their forming of alliances with elites, governments or movements to both protect and enrich themselves. Then when that government,movement or party goes down due to protest and resistance by the majority population, the Jews as subsidiaries of the losing group also go down and lose access to avenues of influence in a new regime or environment.
    So actually Wright is not wrong about how a amplified public movement against Israeli actions could, if directed at the supporters of it within mainly with the US government,change the situation by creating overwhelming political pressure.
    However any protest on Israel and I/P would have to come on very big and in a politically threatening way toward our politicians. Singling out also specific politicans and their past statements for notoriety purposes and whose actions on things like Lebanon and Gaza would offend 90% of the public on human decency grounds alone if put before them. They would be examples used and gone after publicly to attract media coverage to arouse more of the public. Protest would have to go up to but not quite over the edge to have any impact and continuing momentum. Just walking around with signs saying give Palestines a vote won’t do it.
    People are bombarded with examples of injustice every day. To get them on the Palestine injustice bandwagon and set enough people in the US on fire over the issue you would have to connect and arouse some additional anger in them as well. For example.. what ‘they’ are losing personally because of the I/P crimes, how they as Americans are being duped, robbed and humiliated and American’s reputation ruined by Israel intransigence and the betrayals of their own politicians.
    If you want to do it this is how to do it.
    If you aren’t willing to get out there with the whole truth and nothing but and publically confront and name and draw out the people who keep this conflict going so that politicans will be goaded into having to respond to it then don’t waste your time. Anything less agressive will not work in time enough or become big enough to salvage anything of Palestine.

    Reply

  41. Matthew says:

    The reason that Sunni Arab nations are reluctant to keep pumping money into the P.A. is because they are merely offseting the costs of the Israeli Occupation. This is the deceit of the Oslo Process. Instead of ending the occupation, it mas shifted the costs from Israel onto Europe, the EU, the UN, and Arab nations.
    Memo to all posters: Remember this: Whenever a Zionist apologist expresses sympathy for the Palestinians or asks others to support them, it is merely the plea of a thief asking another to compensate his victim.

    Reply

  42. Dan Kervick says:

    Replying to a few people at once here:
    As I have tried to argue in the past, the problem of Palestine needs definition and clarity, the kind of definition and clarity that can best come from official diplomatic recognition of the existence of a Palestinian state within more-or-less well-defined borders. Rather than solving all the problems first, and then declaring the state, declare the state first and then solve the problems

    Reply

  43. JayC says:

    Oh, no, bin Laden (or the ghost of bin Laden) is rallying his troops!
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101001/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_bin_laden_tape
    p.s. With another release of a “tape”, hasn’t he moved up to CDs yet? Is there a Pakistani K-Mart still selling cassettes?

    Reply

  44. David Billington says:

    “Attempting to build a global movement on either the left, right
    or center on behalf of a one-state solution in Palestine,
    especially when this movement is telegraphed in advance by its
    promoters as just an elaborate and insincere head-fake aimed at
    an ultimate two-state solution, strikes me as a highly
    implausible approach.” (Dan Kervick)
    Agreed. Wright’s real point is that complacency is the enemy of
    moderation. I hope there are other ways to make that point.
    “The Palestinians need to form a unity coalition rapidly, and then
    announce the formation of an international advisory committee
    formed of global notables, and charged with determining, on the
    basis of international law and established international
    precedents, the most fitting location for a border between
    Palestine and Israel.”
    I agree that basic questions can no longer be punted to the
    future. However, your proposal to create a Palestinian state that
    recognizes the right of a Jewish majority state to exist alongside
    it assumes that Israel would object. Having come so far, a
    Palestinian decision to accept boundaries that allow Israel to
    exist would I think elicit at the very least an avalanche of
    pressure within Israel to make peace. A Palestinian decision to
    accept a partition of pre-1948 Palestine would change the
    situation for Israel so radically that I can’t see Israel continuing
    unaffected.
    The trouble is that any initiative on the Palestinian side to make
    peace would probably result in a civil war with rejectionists. I
    would expect it to be very hard for Fatah to prevail against the
    opposition of Hamas unless there is first an expression of the
    Palestinian Arab people on whether to seek a two-state
    outcome. It is not the right time now to seek this but at some
    point I think it is inevitable, and when it comes (if the result is
    favorable) it will empower moderates to make peace.
    “A territorial line should be drawn so that, at the very least,
    aggression can be firmly and unequivocally characterized and
    defined as aggression by global capitals, even if the capacity to
    deter that aggression is still lacking.”
    We tried this in Europe with the Locarno Agreements of 1925
    supplemented by the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. I can’t see it
    working in the Middle East today, which still has much in
    common diplomatically with Europe during the 1920s and
    1930s. Where I agree is that we need to take a deeper approach
    to security in the region and stop treating it as a series of
    bilateral or isolated problems. They are all much more
    connected now.

    Reply

  45. David Billington says:

    “What I am pointing out is that Wright’s thesis is delusional. The
    “left” is a spent force that is in the process of collapsing in both
    Europe and the United States. The idea that the rightous rage of
    the left could motivate centrist Israelis or anyone else to do
    anything is preposterous.” (Wigwag)
    Relaxed policies on immigration in Europe and America have
    had as much support from conservative parties as from liberal
    and labor parties in the last thirty years. Changing attitudes on
    immigration really do not mark a specific “collapse of the left” in
    Europe, unless you take the American conservative view that all
    European parties are degrees of left-wing and on this one issue
    may be trending less so.
    The valid question you raise is whether changing attitudes on
    immigration signal a likely change in other attitudes. Shifts to
    the right in Europe have not dismantled social-market political
    economies and welfare systems, though, and parties across the
    spectrum are less enthusiastic about wars in Asia than are
    American conservatives. The evidence of past policy suggests to
    me that differences between Europe and America over Israel
    tend to be continuous through changes of government and
    shifts on other issues. I would expect this to continue.
    As I noted in posts above, the problem with the Wright article is
    its recommendation of scare tactics to motivate Israeli
    moderates. A better way to motivate moderates in Israel is to
    give Palestinians an opportunity to express a view that Israeli
    moderates can support.

    Reply

  46. DonS says:

    “People around the world should be encouraged to stop using terms like

    Reply

  47. MarkL says:

    What percentage of Palestianians and Israelis are interested in a secular one-state solution?
    From the outside, that looks like the logical solution. The Jewish minority could have constitutional protections written in, as has been done in other countries.
    A swiss-chess Palestinian state will not work.

    Reply

  48. DonS says:

    OT: “U.N. Report finds Israel “summarily executed” U.S. citizen on flotilla”, via Glenn Greenwald.
    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/01/flotilla/index.html
    The one voted against this report, of the 47 member panel of the UNHCR was, unsurprisingly, the US. In the context of the current discussion, at least tangentially, does that make the rest of the world ‘leftist’ for recognizing violent, brutal, illegal use of force by Israeli commandos?

    Reply

  49. Dan Kervick says:

    Attempting to build a global movement on either the left, right or center on behalf of a one-state solution in Palestine, especially when this movement is telegraphed in advance by its promoters as just an elaborate and insincere head-fake aimed at an ultimate two-state solution, strikes me as a highly implausible approach.
    However, there is still strong global support for a two-state solution. And a vigorous, frank Palestinian diplomatic effort in the international arena on behalf of a classic two-state solution can still succeed. To succeed, however, such an effort needs to break out of the exhausted and dead-end path of endless peace-processism promoted by Washington, with its duplicitous and irresolute strategy based on avoiding firm statements and judgments on the key matters in dispute.
    The Palestinian movement for statehood should instead build on the stated commitments and diplomatic precedents advanced by other powerful global states during the previous four decades. The next stage of the Palestine national movement should seek to leverage international anxiety about declining US power and competence, and demote Washington to bystander status where this issue is concerned. It should attempt to harness the remaining authority of the international community to fix a border between Israel and Palestine as an established international legal fact, even prior to the time when that legal fact has evolved into a concrete and defensible political reality.
    The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is primarily a challenge to the global rule of law and international order, and should be treated as such. The major diplomatic focus of the next-stage Palestinian effort should be to change cognitively dysfunctional and double-thinking global perceptions of the nature of the problem, neutralize the obfuscating

    Reply

  50. GaryG says:

    The Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv (and other sources)reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/975574.html
    Look what Israel does — how they terrorise the Palestinians and for years have driven them from their homes, into a corner and called them “terrorists” for fighting back. Netanyahu called the 9/11 attacks a good thing so as to justify Israels continued campaign for terrorism against the Palestinians as well as their desires for expansion into other parts of the Middle-East.
    Israel is a terrorist state — not just Saudi Arabia.

    Reply

  51. DonS says:

    “The “left” is a spent force that is in the process of collapsing in both Europe and the United States”
    (wigwag)
    If equating “the left” with nonviolence, and attempting to achieve honorable peace is a spent force, God help us. For myself, categories are less important than the thrust for peace. If peace is the baby that gets thrown out with the bath water of ‘the left’, does that mean we are left to the whims of those who advocate only might is right, or more accurately, whatever we say is right? I’m not going to be dragged into the fallacy that because ultranationalists are in the apparent ascendence, at the expense of the so called ‘left’, that every anti-nationalist, anti-peace idea can be invalidated as ‘leftist’ by the noise machine. That may work for Rush, for Palin, for Hannity, for Beck. I don’t choose to live in their aspired for world.

    Reply

  52. Cee says:

    I had to post this. Any person of peace is a threat to Israel.
    From Jewish Voice for Peace
    http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/301/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4861

    Reply

  53. Paul Norheim says:

    Speaking of the Dutch, here is more:
    “Dutch watchdog criticizes Israeli tourism website for blurring
    borders
    The Dutch advertising watchdog says ‘misleading’ information
    on Israel’s tourism website does not show where the border lies
    between Israel and ‘disputed’ areas.
    By The Associated Press
    The Dutch advertising watchdog has criticized Israel for
    publishing “misleading” information on its tourism website that
    blurs the borders between Israel and occupied Arab territories.
    The Advertising Code Committee says in a nonbinding ruling
    that material distributed by the Dutch branch of the Israeli
    National Tourism Board does not “clearly show where the
    border lies between what is internationally recognized as Israeli
    territory and ‘disputed’ areas.”
    Pro-Palestinian activists complained that the maps gave the
    impression that parts of the Palestinian West Bank and East
    Jerusalem are in Israel, as well as the Golan Heights captured
    from Syria.
    The ruling, which can be appealed, has no immediate practical
    effect, and the committee cannot compel the Israeli tourism
    board to withdraw the ads. But it contributes to the
    international criticism of Israel’s occupation at a time when it is
    in peace negotiations with the Palestinians over the future
    status of the territories.
    Earlier this month, a group of mayors from Israel canceled a
    trip to the Netherlands after objections were raised that the
    delegation included mayors of Jewish settlements in the West
    Bank.
    Phon van den Biesen, a lawyer representing the activists, said
    Thursday that Israel should change its advertising material
    based on the ruling. He said the Israeli material was promoting
    towns in occupied territories such as Bethlehem as part of
    Israel.
    “It is like inviting your friends to a party at your home while in
    fact you are inviting them to your neighbor’s home who was
    not involved in the invitation,” Van den Biesen said.
    (…)
    It is not the first time Israel’s attempts to lure tourists has
    fallen foul of advertising standards authorities.
    Last year, a British advertising watchdog said an Israeli tourism
    poster could not be displayed because it suggested the West
    Bank and Gaza Strip are part of Israel.”
    More here:
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/dutch-
    watchdog-criticizes-israeli-tourism-website-for-blurring-
    borders-1.316495

    Reply

  54. WigWag says:

    “Wig wag, the subject here is Israeli centrists, not the Dutch…” (DonS)
    No, DonS, the subject is the Bob Wright essay that appeared in the New York Times that Steve Clemons wrote a post about.
    A central aspect of Wright’s argument is that if the Palestinians would adopt the peaceful approach of Martin Luther King and Gandhi this would inspire the “left” in the United States and Europe to push for a one state solution thus scaring the otherwise laconic Israeli centrists into pushing for a two state solution.
    What I am pointing out is that Wright’s thesis is delusional. The “left” is a spent force that is in the process of collapsing in both Europe and the United States. The idea that the rightous rage of the left could motivate centrist Israelis or anyone else to do anything is preposterous.
    The Dutch coalition agreement, along with what’s happening in France and many other European nations is evidence of how emasculated the “left” has become and thus how dimwitted Wright’s thesis is.

    Reply

  55. Mathew says:

    Always invert. If the Palestinians were leveling houses in Israel and building new settleements there, what would be the reaction in our media?
    But people drunk on Zionism don’t believe that actually taking land away from Palestinians has any effect on the peace process.
    Of course, I can thank God that President Obama appointed Dennis Ross to a high position. His record for obtaining consistent results is unmatched. And can anyone seriously dispute that President Obama’s decision to listen to Dennis Ross has produced one success after another?

    Reply

  56. Paul Norheim says:

    “Israel-bound submarines banned from testing in Norway’s
    waters.
    Oslo decision means German shipbuilder HDW will have to
    carry out deep-water testing of Israeli vessels elsewhere.
    By Anshel Pfeffer
    Israel-bound submarines will no longer be allowed to undergo
    tests in Norwegian territory, as part of the country’s ban on
    security exports to Israel, Norway has informed a German
    shipbuilder. (…)
    In addition to their combat and intelligence gathering missions,
    Dolphin submarines are equipped with nuclear-head cruise
    missiles, according to foreign media reports.
    Four months ago a Dolphin submarine passed southward via
    the Suez Canal in what was seen as an Israeli move to position
    a submarine in Persian Gulf waters.
    HDW shipyards, one of the largest in the world, leases from the
    Norwegian government the Marvika submarine base on
    Norway’s southern shore as a base for testing new submarines.
    During WWII this port served as a base for the German fleet’s
    submarines. (…) Such experiments are necessary to locate
    structural weaknesses in the submarines’ system, and are part
    of every new submarine’s trial process.
    Norway’s foreign ministry advised HDW several weeks ago that
    it will no longer allow it to use its territory for naval
    experiments on submarines intended for the Israeli navy.
    This is not Norway’s first security boycott on Israel. A year ago
    the Norwegian State Pension Fund announced it was dropping
    Elbit Systems due to the manufacturer’s involvement in building
    the West Bank separation fence.
    The Norwegian treasury said the fence was infringing on
    Palestinians’ human rights.
    Israel’s Foreign Ministry declined to comment.
    Norway’s foreign ministry commented that it does not respond
    to specific decisions regarding the export of military equipment
    and services.
    When asked about these developments on Norwegian television
    last week, Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store said,
    “We have extremely rigorous restrictions on exporting security
    goods and services … we don’t export materials or services to
    states at war or in which there is a danger of war.”
    He did not mention Israel directly.
    The German Thyssenkrupp group, which owns the shipyards
    that manufacture the Dolphin submarines, declined to
    comment.”
    More here:
    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-bound-
    submarines-banned-from-testing-in-norway-s-waters-
    1.316518

    Reply

  57. DonS says:

    Wig wag, the subject here is Israeli centrists, not the Dutch. But you obviously think there is some value in distracting attention from Israel and setting up some faux comparison with Europe which has been far more tolerant of Muslims than Israel ever dreamed of. If there is now a European backlash that may well be a subject of interest. But what do you think about the situation in I/P where the Israelis have ghettoized and murdered, humiliated and harassed Palestinians with little restraint, and apparent disregard for world opinion (US govt opinion doesn’t count in this regard since it is virtually identical with the Israeli propaganda)? If you can’t see the difference between banning the burka in certain situations and shooting down Palestinian farmers I pity you.

    Reply

  58. Cee says:

    Wig hates “leftists” because they tell the truth.
    Jewish Fundamentalism
    In the book Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Shahak and co-author Norton Mezvinsky lament the dramatic growth in recent years of Jewish fundamentalism which has manifested itself in opposition to the peace process and played a role in the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the murder of 29 Muslims at prayer by the American-born fundamentalist, Baruch Goldstein.
    They cite, for example, Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh, who wrote a chapter of a book in praise of Goldstein and what he did. An immigrant to Israel from the U.S., Ginsburgh speaks freely of Jews

    Reply

  59. WigWag says:

    Bob Wright thinks “leftists” from the United States and Europe are going to ride in on their white horses and scare the Israelis into accepting a two state solution before these same “leftists” impose a one state solution. I wonder whether he thinks any of those “leftists” will be living in the Netherlands.
    Personally, I tend to doubt it. The Dutch just formed their new government and while Geert Wilders and his fellow PVV party leaders won’t hold any ministerial posts, in effect they control the government. Without their support, the government will collapse and new elections will be called which undoubtedly would result in a Dutch legislative body with even more PVV representation. Interestingly, the PVV is far more popular in the Netherlands than Yisrael Beiteinu is in Israel.
    What price has the PVV extracted in return for its support of the government? Here’s what the official coalition agreement calls for:
    1) A complete ban on burkas and other face-covering veils in public places. The only exception is in Mosques.
    2) A headscarf ban for the police and courts and in elementary schools.
    3) A 50 percent reduction in immigration from non-western nations,
    4) A reduction in immigration for purposes of family reunification. The age for marraige immigration will go from 21 to 24 and the Dutch partner must make at least 120 percent of the minimum wage. If the Euorpean Court of Justice finds this provision illegal, the Government agrees to ignore the Court’s findings. The immigrant must show that they have a greater connection with the Netherlands than any other nation.
    5) The waiting period for a permanent residency permit will be doubled and the fee will be tripled.
    6) Asylum will no longer be granted to Iraqis or Somalis and the asylum seeker will have to ask for a residence permit while still abroad, in order to prevent rejected refugees from immediately reapplying. (By the way, had this provision been in effect when Ayaan Hirsi Al applied for Dutch residency, she probably would have been denied).
    7) Illegal immigration will be criminalized with the penalty being imprisonment for two years.
    8) Foreign criminals will be depoted upon arrest rather than conviction.
    It all sounds rather harsh to me but apparently the Dutch don’t think so; in a recent Maurice de Hond poll these provisions are supported by 75 percent of the Dutch. Support by political party is also interesting; almost 100% of PVV and VVD voters, 80% of CDA (Christian Democrats) voters, and a majority of SP (Socialists) voters abd PvdA (Labor) voters support the provisions. The only major party where most oppose the coalition agreement is the Greens.
    It looks like Bob Wright will have to take the Netherlands off the list of nations he can count on when he’s recruiting the world-wide “left” to scare the hell out of the Israeli centrists.

    Reply

  60. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    That catch-all term, “Islamofascism” says it all…Zionism is okay but Islamism isn’t…ergo, we can wipe Palestine off the map, but not vice-versa…that old goosey/gander thing does not apply.

    Reply

  61. please get a grip says:

    matthew, re-read Steve’s plea, admonition and warning

    Reply

  62. Matthew says:

    No Nadine comments….the plot thickens.

    Reply

  63. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “”””Juan Cole says,

    Reply

  64. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Harrumph……..

    Reply

  65. DakotabornKansan says:

    RE: Post by Steve Clemons, Sep 30 2010, 1:00AM to all commenters

    Reply

  66. DakotabornKansan says:

    The Geneva Conventions forbid occupying states to settle their own citizens in occupied territory. Israel has militarily occupied the Palestinian West Bank in 1967. Since the Oslo peace accords, Israel has flooded the Palestinian West Bank with hundreds of thousands of squatters. Israel keeps the Palestinians as stateless colonial subjects.
    Juan Cole says,

    Reply

  67. Carroll says:

    Posted by The Pessimist, Oct 01 2010, 1:45AM – Link >>>>>>>>>>
    Greed is not a trait of being civilized.
    “We” includes the now uncivilized ‘people’ on WS and in politics.
    I know plenty of people who are not violent and agressive and have survived and thrived very successfully.
    The problem is the scum among the “We” has risen to the top. Most likely because not enough of dwindling civilized “We’s” are violent or agressive enough to have stopped them.
    Viva la revolution.

    Reply

  68. Carroll says:

    Posted by The Pessimist, Oct 01 2010, 1:45AM – Link >>>>>>>>>>
    Greed is not a trait of being civilized.
    “We” includes the now uncivilized ‘people’ on WS and in politics.
    I know plenty of people who are not violent and agressive and have survived and thrived very successfully.
    The problem is the scum among the “We” has risen to the top. Most likely because not enough of dwindling civilized “We’s” are violent or agressive enough to have stopped them.
    Viva la revolution.

    Reply

  69. The Pessimist says:
  70. Carroll says:

    Speaking of violence I was reading thru the archives of Der Spiegel’s articles on WWII.
    My attention was drawn to them because I read that today was the day Germany finally paid off all their WWI debts…92 years Germany has been paying for WWI. And 65 years paying for WWII. That Germany and Russia, both almost totally destroyed and impoverished could rebound to become world powers again is truly admirable.
    I wonder if the US has it in them to come back when our day comes.
    What is interesting is the holocausting so to speak of the German citizens after WWII. France for instance kept it’s German prisoners and made them clean up mine fields,killing 1800 of them in that manner. The Soviets also kept their prisoners and send them to labor camps for a decade and some forever.
    I had read previously in Eisenhowers and Patton’s papers of how US Jews pressured the president to have Germans turned out of their homes and the homes turned over to Jews which both Eisenhower and Patton objected to but had to comply with at the time.
    Poland expelled all it’s German born residents after WWII, made them leave their homes and property and they became refugees. Now there is a political movement in Germany to have these expelled German refugees recognized but Poland is objecting of course.
    Dozens of killing fields where German citizens were executed by Soviet troops and later by roving bands of freed Jews have been discovered and a film of one instance of them being lined up, shot and thrown into pits was found in a Polish film collection.
    There was a bus quartered in our historic district several weeks ago called the prisoner of war bus that had a walk thur tour of various prisoner of war instances and one large poster was of German prisoners held in the US during and after WWII.
    They were certainly treated better here than any where else and were no doubt grateful to be retained in the US than elsewhere.
    Evidently the US has regressed, we were more civilized 6 decades ago.

    Reply

  71. Dan Kervick says:

    Hey Kids,
    It looks like our own President Obama got one of those letters Steve was talking about in his previous post:
    __________________
    Dear Barack,
    We at the Likud Leadership Campaign are delighted to invite you to a 30-minute global conference call to discuss party strategy for 2011. Won

    Reply

  72. JohnH says:

    “The extrapolation from violent Islamic terrorism to Islam in general is a red herring.”
    But portraying ALL Muslims as violent does wonders for “defense” budgets in occupied Jerusalem and Washington. According to Wigwag and much of Israeli and American officialdumb, negotiating peace with inherently violent people (all billion of them) is futile, so you must have perpetual war, take control of their resources and ethnically cleanse them insofar as possible.
    And the ill informed, infinitely gullible majority of Americans believe any nonsense thrown at them.

    Reply

  73. Carroll says:

    Posted by Paul Norheim, Sep 30 2010, 7:07PM – Link >>>>>>>>>>>
    Right, I misread it.
    Aologies to questions.

    Reply

  74. questions says:

    Paul, thanks for the translation! Clearly, you’re good at it!
    Questionsish to English!

    Reply

  75. DonS says:

    I think the point to be taken is that the extrapolation from violent Islamic terrorism to Islam in general is a red herring.
    The other point is that the actual terror wrecked upon Palestinians by Israelis far exceeds the that caused by Palestinians — if you count the bodies. The countervailing argument that the psychological pressure under which Israelis live justifies all lashing out is also a red herring since Israel has done little to seek peace. (disclaimer for all the Zionist finger pointing and dissembling). Why not???

    Reply

  76. Paul Norheim says:

    Sorry: One cannot argue that Islam produces THIS KIND OF
    VIOLENCE (provoked by cartoons), while Judaism doesn’t…etc”

    Reply

  77. Paul Norheim says:

    Carroll, I think you misunderstood the statement from Questions
    that you quoted. Please read it once more:
    “One cannot argue that Islam produces this violence and Judaism
    doesn’t until Jewish people live in a state where instigators are
    encouraged to act in such a manner in response to similar
    provocations.”
    In other words: One cannot argue that Islam is violent but
    Judaism is not – because the conditions to veryfy it are not
    present.

    Reply

  78. Carroll says:

    Posted by questions, Sep 30 2010, 6:30PM – Link
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    If you can’t back it up then don’t make the statement.
    You can’t make a blanket statement that Islam makes Muslims violent while Judaism doesn’t make Jews violent and then go on to try to generalize about violence without someone challenging your prejudice and lack of logic.

    Reply

  79. Carroll says:

    Here is a guy who has seen the light.
    Slater: As a Zionist, I came to believe in tough love for Israel, and then

    Reply

  80. questions says:

    Not at all interested in comparative violence studies to be honest. Not on the terms you offer, especially.
    Violence in general comes out of a wide array of political forces that encourage it, lack of institutions to stop it, some interpersonal psychic and material conflicts, an economy of scarcity, physical outgunning…. Read Hobbes for a nice detailed list of what makes us what we are. And come to think of it, The Republic hits on the degeneration of society into violence and tyranny, too. Indeed, a lot of thinkers have hit on what makes people so nasty.
    EVERY person can be violent, every group of people can be violent, and I’m not picking favorites.
    There are structures that push us towards violence and right now in the US we have a political system that is playing on the fringes of total insanity and our players are having a hard time backing down from the monster they’ve made.
    Beyond that, I’m not gonna take the bait…..

    Reply

  81. Carroll says:

    Posted by questions, Sep 30 2010, 4:28PM – Link
    One cannot argue that Islam produces this violence and Judaism doesn’t until Jewish people live in a state where instigators are encouraged to act in such a manner in response to similar provocations.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Surely you don’t expect anyone to believe this statement?
    But let’s assume Judaism itself doesn’t produce violence in Jews.
    Then we have to ask what does?
    It is indisputable that Jews have been violent thruout their history. They just unfortunately for them, lost most of their battles and became ‘victims’ instead of victors.
    So is Jewish violence spurred by greed or desire for power instead of religion or what?
    Which is more despicable if you want to grade it….violence inspired by religion or by greed, revenge or hubris.
    The Muslims have nothing on the Jews or Gentiles when it comes to violence.
    I just finished reading Solzhenitsyn’s “200 Years Together” about the Jews in Russia and Bolshevism.
    The violence and viciousness of the Jews when they gained any status in Russia was equal to Hitler’s. The Jews of Russia weren’t ‘reacting’ to acts against them,they were carrying out a reign of terror, murder and confiscation of Russian citizens wealth. They were the executioners for Bolshevism.
    There’s too much real history available for you pass off Muslims as violent and Jews as non violent innocents.
    And it’s on going history as well, as exemplified by Israel today.

    Reply

  82. Carroll says:

    Posted by WigWag, Sep 30 2010, 4:18PM – Link
    Disparaging religious beliefs of all sorts is a common feature of human society; a violent reaction in much but not all of the Islamic world is a common response; the same is not true of the Christian or Jewish worlds. This is very reflective of the state of Muslim society including the Palestinian society
    >>>>>>>>>>
    Obviously the difference between Muslim rioting and Jewish and Gentile violence and rioting is one of values.
    Jews respond to insults to Jews with both physical and character assassinations and revenge killings around the world.
    Gentiles respond to any slight with anything from full out war to rioting over a soccer game.
    I dare say more people have been hurt by rioting sports fans and Jewish stealth operations against their insulters than by Muslim cartoon riots.
    Muslims value their religion most highly.
    Jews value Jews most highly.
    Gentiles value their sports teams.

    Reply

  83. questions says:

    oops — CLASH of civilizations…..

    Reply

  84. questions says:

    WW’s underlying suggestion seems to lie somewhere in the realm of the following:
    There’s something about Islam.
    or
    There’s something about Islam that allows certain political moves.
    I think the real issue with the cartoons and all the other violence associated with religious freakouts is that political actors will use whatever means are available to justify whatever violence they desire. Note that Pape thinks that religious difference is a crucial addendum to suicide terror, and I’d add that it works equally in less fraught situations as well.
    That same passion with regard to religious difference and suicide terror can be mustered for violent demonstrations and general mayhem. All an instigator has to do is play on internal loyalty and external wickedness.
    The internal/external dynamic is simply not limited to any one religion, any one region, any one people. It’s everywhere.
    Without very strong governmental institutions in the US we could quite likely engage in similar violence across similar boundaries. And at some level, I would guess that the class of civilizations rhetoric is successful in the US on precisely the same grounds that the cartoons worked abroad.
    When instigators play up fear, threat, insult, dissing, deitific images, and the like, people get really really nasty unless there is some Hobbesian equal and opposite fear to keep them settled.
    One cannot argue that Islam produces this violence and Judaism doesn’t until Jewish people live in a state where instigators are encouraged to act in such a manner in response to similar provocations.
    We know that many Muslim nations have weak dictatorial governments and are in a constant battle to control them while giving them just enough rein that they don’t rebel. It’s always a dance of distraction, permission, crack down. These countries lack stable POLITICAL systems. And it is that very stability that would stop the instigators before they got going.
    There isn’t, then, a good control in the experiment, and the terms of comparison aren’t the same.
    I would guess that there are simply some very human behaviors regarding honor, shame, dissing, power, masculinity, competition, fear, anger, instigation, desire and so on. We, any of us, could be pushed into a crazy direction with sufficient provocation.
    Riots, mayhem, flag burning, rage, lynching, shooting, beating, driving people to suicide, humiliating others, the response to being humiliated –these are pretty universal and are controlled by institutions. They aren’t inherent in one religious text only. They are everywhere.
    What we find most alien in others we likely actually have in ourselves and we would always do well to remember that.
    (Christian extremist militia violence, border violence, seemingly anything Randall Terry gets into (his latest tear-a-Qua’ran quest has gotten a little play), urban violence, declarations of war, torture, police brutality — these are our responses to certain kinds of provocations, and these are all normalized by large segments of our population. There may be a displacement of sorts — as long as the police are beating the shit out of them, I don’t have to… so we might not get the crowds forming, but we do get the violence anyway. And we justify the violence using our very own legal texts and Biblical interpretations.)
    And by the way, the 1980’s censorship quests did result in institutional limitations on speech — the PMRC pushed labeling all music — shame on anyone who doesn’t seek out “explicit” songs for their portable music devices! And the police did not at all like NWA’s “Fuck tha Police” — they didn’t have to have crowds freak out, they just pushed for bans, labeling and the like to let us all know. We have political institutions, we get limitations on speech, we have large retail chains that refuse to carry explicit music and theater chains that don’t screen NC-17 films. No riots needed.

    Reply

  85. Carroll says:

    Terms and Comparisons
    Unless one can come up with a new term for Israel’s behavior we are stuck with using past examples to describe the situtation.
    While apartheid isn’t totally (currently) correct in relation to Palestine no doubt it would be if there was a one state solution.
    And while Israel hasn’t achieved what the Nazis did they have definitely met some Nazi benchmarks.
    Maybe Jim Crow society (becoming fascist even)is more applicable to Israel regarding it’s treatment of it’s Arab citizens and War Crimes or Criminal is most applicable to Israel regarding their actions against Palestine.
    But regardless of what it is called we all know what it is. Quibbling over the accuracy of terms doesn’t change the point.

    Reply

  86. WigWag says:

    “Yes, but don’t you think it’s time to publish a selection of these depictions in Danish, Norwegian, and American newspapers – in the name of freedom of expression and the first amendment
    and all? Don’t you think that would be fair play, as a litmus test of the Jewish DNA? ” (Paul Norheim)
    Sure, Paul, I think its a great idea or at least an interesting experiment. Republish some of the old anti-Semitic cartoons that can be found routinely in Arab newspapers in the New York Times and lets see how many Jews on the Upper West Side start rioting. Publish them in the Jerusalem Post and lets see how many Jews from Tel Aviv, Beersheva or even Hebron start rioting. Publish them in Le Monde and lets see how violent the French Jews become or publish them in the London Times and lets see how violent the British Jews get.
    Disparaging religious beliefs of all sorts is a common feature of human society; a violent reaction in much but not all of the Islamic world is a common response; the same is not true of the Christian or Jewish worlds. This is very reflective of the state of Muslim society including the Palestinian society.
    “That is true of extremists but it is not true that satyagraha is alien to Islam. Abdul Ghaffar Khan was widely admired by his fellow Pashtuns and the civil war in Afghanistan was briefly suspended in 1988 to allow for his burial in
    Jalalabad.(David Billington)
    I think that your point about Abdul Ghaffar Khan is an excellent one. It is true that Ghaffar Khan was a follower of Gandhi and he may have been widely admired in the Pashtun world, but he was also widely reviled in other Muslim communities especially in Pakistan, where despite his stature amongst the Pashtuns, he was arrested and persecuted on many occassions. In fact, like Gandhi himself, Ghaffar Khan was bitterly opposed to partition. Of course, he was a practicing Muslim and a believer in satyagraha, but his reputation was always far better in India than it was in Pakistan or Afghanistan. I’m afraid that this, in itself, says something about the nature of Islamic societies.

    Reply

  87. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag said: “There have been numerous ugly depictions of
    Jews down through the ages published in both the Christian
    and Arab press”.
    Yes, but don’t you think it’s time to publish a selection of these
    depictions in Danish, Norwegian, and American newspapers –
    in the name of freedom of expression and the first amendment
    and all?
    Don’t you think that would be fair play, as a litmus test of the
    Jewish DNA? Let some WASP cartoonist from Brooklyn depict
    Jehova as a settler in Hebron dumping garbage and excrements
    on Arabs, or as a IDF soldier pissing on a pregnant Arab
    woman… let him publish this in The Nation or the New York
    Times and see how long the cartoonist and his editors will
    survive without a lifeguard…
    Please explain, WigWag: what’s wrong with anti-Semitism? Why
    distinguish between Ovadia Yosef or Baruch Goldstein on one
    hand, and Jon Stewart or Yehudi Menuhin on the other hand,
    when you use every opportunity here to question the
    distinction between extremists and moderates within Islam?
    Why gleefully celebrate cartoons humiliating a religion, while
    whining and shouting “anti-Semitism!” every time Steve
    Clemons or others criticize the Israeli government?
    Allow me to express myself in the generalized, bigoted lingo
    that you favor, WigWag: You Jews – moderate or not – are just
    as hyper-sensitive when offended or criticized as Muslims are.

    Reply

  88. David Billington says:

    “Palestine is not South Africa. The facts on the ground are trending toward
    an apartheid outcome, but are not apartheid yet. And that’s because an
    apartheid system is one in which a dominant population confines and
    subordinates another population *inside the same country*.” (Dan Kervick)
    I would remember that South Africa occupied Namibia until 1980. The
    white government in Pretoria withdrew because the Namibian nationalists
    did not make peace conditional upon majority rule in South Africa.
    What differentiates Palestine/Israel from South Africa is the fact that the
    international community is not demanding majority rule in the pre-1948
    territory of Palestine but is still trying to achieve a partition. Apartheid can
    only occur if the Israelis offer the Palestinian Arabs too little territory for a
    state, and in past negotiations the Israelis have been willing to give up
    nearly all of the territory occupied in 1967. They would probably give it all
    up as long as a divided Jerusalem remains barrier-free. To charge the
    Israelis with apartheid because the Palestinian Arabs decline to accept
    territory in exchange for peace is to accuse the United States, the Arab
    League, and the international community of apartheid as well, since all of
    them would accept a return to the 1967 lines.
    I would agree that an impasse will increasingly favor rejectionists on both
    sides who want a one-state solution that does exclude the other side
    altogether. I think we need a more definitive expression of Palestinian Arab
    opinion limited to the single issue of coexistence before we can conclude
    that a two-state solution is no longer practical.

    Reply

  89. David Billington says:

    “By the way, in case it hasn’t occurred to Wright, Satyagraha is a Sanskrit
    word and the philosophy is deeply rooted in the Hindu tradition. Islamists,
    like those in Hamas hate Hindus and the Hindu religion even more than
    they hate Jews and Christians.” (Wigwag)
    That is true of extremists but it is not true that satyagraha is alien to Islam.
    Abdul Ghaffar Khan was widely admired by his fellow Pashtuns and the civil
    war in Afghanistan was briefly suspended in 1988 to allow for his burial in
    Jalalabad.
    The problem with the Wright article is that it conflates two goals, a one-
    state solution and a two-state solution, with a single strategy, nonviolent
    civil disobedience. There is no reason to believe that satyagraha directly in
    pursuit of a two-state solution (without the initial stage of seeking a one-
    state one) would be any less possible. Any effect on Israeli public opinion
    would depend on the goal, not on tactics, and stronger evidence of
    Palestinian support for a two-state solution could motivate Israeli
    moderates more than threatening them.
    A better way to express a willingness to coexist is to give the Palestinian
    Arabs an orderly referendum (separate from elections) on whether to have
    a sovereign state alongside 1967 Israel. My understanding is that Abbas
    tried to hold a referendum in 2006 but Hamas opposed it and the Lebanon
    war followed. A referendum may remain unworkable as long as Gaza
    remains under Hamas control. But a credible referendum would be a more
    persuasive expression of Palestinian Arab opinion than civil unrest.

    Reply

  90. WigWag says:

    As you know, Paul, there have been numerous ugly depictions of Jews down through the ages published in both the Christian and Arab press; these depictions have never resulted in the level of ugly violence that Muslims exhibited after the Danish cartoons were published. In fact, the depiction of Jewish history from “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” that is specifically incorporated in the Hamas Charter is every bit as ugly as the depiction of the Prophet in the Danish cartoons; in fact it is more so. Nevertheless, the Jewish world has not responded by participating in worldwide riots.
    As for Christians, Jesus is pictured in unflattering contexts all the time. Think Andrew Serrano’s “Piss Christ” or the numerous artistic renderings of the desecration of the host or Martin Scorcese’s “Last Temptation of Christ” or Monty Python’s “Life of Brian.”
    While these depictions of the Christian deity surely were extraordinarily offensive to many Christians, those Christians limited their response to participating in peaceful demonstrations and writing letters to the editor; no one was killed or injured in Christian rioting.
    It’s the Muslim world that specializes in responding to perceived affronts to their spiritual values by engaging in riots.
    They were cartoons, Paul; if that’s enough to drive the Muslim world into paroxysms of crazy rioting than that world is desperately in need of reform or even a reformation. And let

    Reply

  91. Paul Norheim says:

    “Speaking of Hamas and Islamic extremism, today is the 5 year
    anniversary of the publication in a Danish Newspaper of the
    famous cartoons depicting the Prophet in what some thought
    was a less than flattering manner.”
    What do you say, WigWag? Wouldn’t it make sense to celebrate
    this anniversary by extending the project to other groups, like
    Hindus or Jews?
    What about some provocative cartoons of Jehovah? Say, one
    where he opens fire on unarmed Arabs inside the Mosque of
    Abraham?
    Or what do you say about Jehovah portrayed as a Jewish settler
    in Hebron, throwing garbage and excrements on Arabs from
    his second floor window?
    What about Jehova throwing stones at old Arab men?
    Jehova pissing on pregnant Arab women?
    Wouldn’t that be a nice way to celebrate Western freedoms, and
    a test of the real character of the Jewish people?
    And if some orthodox Jews got pissed off and reacted very
    violently, wouldn’t that be a revealing symptom of the bad DNA
    inherent in everything Jewish?
    Now, where do you think those cartoons of Jehova should be
    posted – on the front page of the Washington Post and the LA
    Times, perhaps? Le Monde? Der Spiegel? Wouldn’t that be a nice
    way to demonstrate our precious values?

    Reply

  92. Paul Norheim says:

    “Posted by Carroll, Sep 30 2010, 1:03PM – Link”
    Over at Steve Walt’s blog, “Volksweden said:
    It’s like being in a completely one-sided relationship.
    Israel is Anna Nicole Smith and the US is an 89 year old
    billionaire on his death bed who just wedded her and
    made her the principal beneficiary on his will.
    However, it’s difficult to verify this story. Here is the latest
    from Haaretz:
    “Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath said on Thursday that
    U.S. special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell has
    denied that President Barack Obama offered to support an
    Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley following the founding
    of a Palestinian state in exchange for Israel extending a
    freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank for
    another two months.
    In an interview on Nazareth’s A-Shams radio station,
    Shaath said that Mitchell made the denial during a meeting
    on Thursday with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud
    Abbas in Ramallah.”

    Reply

  93. WigWag says:

    Speaking of Hamas and Islamic extremism, today is the 5 year anniversary of the publication in a Danish Newspaper of the famous cartoons depicting the Prophet in what some thought was a less than flattering manner. The publication caused rioting throughout the Islamic world and the artist who drew the cartoons lives under constant police guard because his life is under continuous threat. In fact Turkish, Norwegian and American Muslims have all been arrested in separate plots to assassinate the publisher of the cartoons. Violent demonstrations against the publication of the cartoons took place in both Gaza and the West Bank.
    In a show of solidarity, the cartoons were published in many newspapers throughout Europe but most American newspapers including the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times refused to publish them. In an act of craven cowardice the Yale University Press, which published an academic treatise on the controversy actually redacted photographs of the cartoons from its own book. Later we learned that Yale University Press was acting on the advice of amongst others, Fareed Zakaria.
    It is hard to imagine a better metaphor for the dysfunctionality of the Muslim world than the reaction to the publication of the cartoons. And it’s hard to imagine a better metaphor for the cowardice of the progressive world than its reaction to the cartoon controversy which has mostly been silence.
    When the publication of the “Satanic Verses” resulted in a fatwa calling for the murder of Salmon Rushdie, the progressive world rallied to his defense. Less than 25 years later, in the face of murder attempts against the publisher of a cartoon, the actual killing of a filmmaker, Theo van Gogh, and constant threats to “heretics” like Ayaan Hirsi Ali all the “progressive” community can do is work overtime to come up with excuses for the extremists and terrorists.
    It’s actually difficult to know who is worse, the murdering thugs that control so much of the Muslim World including Gaza or the “leftists” in the West like Robert Wright who enable them.
    For those who would like to view the cartoons, they can be found here,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png

    Reply

  94. Carroll says:

    Published 13:32 30.09.10
    Latest update 13:32 30.09.10
    Obama in personal appeal to Netanyahu: Extend settlement freeze for two months
    Netanyahu inclined to reject Obama’s offer, which includes string of security incentives, citing lack of political support.
    By Barak Ravid
    Tags: Barack Obama Benjamin Netanyahu settlement building Israel settlements settlement freeze Israel news
    U.S. President Barack Obama offered to support the presence of Israel Defense Force soldiers in the Jordan Valley even after the establishment of a Palestinian state, if Israel would agree to a two month settlement building freeze, in a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu.
    Netanyahu is inclined to reject the offer and has not replied to the letter as of yet, though the Prime Minister’s office has refused to answer questions regarding the issue.
    Prime Minister Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House, September 1, 2010.
    Photo by: Reuters
    The contents of the American president’s letter and the Israeli prime minister’s response were revealed by David Mokovsky, a researcher with ties to Dennis Ross, Barack Obama’s chief advisor on the Middle East.
    Makovsky published the story in an article on the website for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. In it, he states that President Obama’s letter is a result of talks between senior U.S. administration officials and Israeli Defense Minister Barak and chief negotiator Yitzhak Molcho.
    Obama’s letter is reported to include a long list of American favors in exchange for an extension of the settlement building freeze, which ended this week. Most of these favors are critical to Israel’s strategic security needs that Netanyahu has been demanding for years.
    President Obama’s advisors met with Jewish senators and congressman on Wednesday in Washington, informing them of the contents of the letter. Ross told the lawmakers that Netanyahu would not agree to the deal because it did not meet all his demands, and because he did not have the political support to extend the building freeze.
    Other commitments that Obama offered Netanyahu in the letter include an agreement not to ask for any more building freeze extensions, an agreement to veto any anti-Israel UN Security Council resolution in the next year, and an agreement that the future fate of the settlements be dealt with only as part of a final status agreement with the Palestinians.
    Obama’s letter included additional commitments, including a series of guarantees to prevent the smuggling of weapons and missiles into a Palestinian state, a lengthy period of interim security arrangements in the Jordan Valley and a comprehensive regional defense pact for protection from Iran to follow the establishment of the Palestinian state.
    The American President also vowed to upgrade Israel’s security capabilities and increase the three billion dollar security aid package that Israel receives annually. The letter included commitments to advanced weapons and early warning systems, including satellites.’>>>>>>>>>>>>
    We all realize of course that Obama is doing this because the dems depend on Jewish money for 60% of their campaign funds. Taxpayer money for Israel = Jewish donations for politicians.
    I’d like to fast forward and see how all this ends. I think we have a better chance of turning the tea baggers into American firsters than we have of turning our politicians into representatives for America.

    Reply

  95. Carroll says:

    I still find this idea ridiculous.
    I haven’t seen any sign that Palestine non violence or protest and boycotts around the world have gotten the Palestines anything but a lot of bullets, bulldozers and tear gas cannisters.
    How does Wright think stirring the centrist and lefties is going to force Israel to give Palestines in the occupied territories a vote much less give a vote to the other Palestines?
    Nothing has yet gotten Israel to even abide by international laws and the Palestines have already had their votes set aside by the US and Israel once in an election. Every day Israel is bulldozing Arab homes even within Israel..and anyone believes Israel would ever give votes to Palestines?
    This as a non violent protest movement would never ‘strike fear’ in the Israelis because they know it would never happen. Ask the Israelis to vote on whether or not to give the Palestines a vote and see what you get. No matter what kind or how large a protest movement for a vote does anyone seriously think any Israeli president would even suggest it to the Israelis?
    To say nothing of the fact that they are ‘occupied territories, not part of Israel…what basis or precedent in any law could be cited to support this?
    Why do we have these never ending pie in the sky solutions? Is 60 years not long enough to prove the facts, are there not enough decades of evidence that Israel is not going to cease their actions in Palestine or give up their Greater Israel delusions?
    In my opinion sugestions of this type do more harm than good. They play right into Israel’s hands and just encourage the ‘stall’ game and eternal peace talks and solutions bizness while Israel goes right on eating up Palestine.
    The ONLY suggestion of any merit that has ever been made is one to put international forces on a boarder between Israel and Palestine to prevent Israel incursions and their going into Palestine and creating more facts on the ground and visa versa.
    I have never an issue like this where people who are suppose to be intelligence are in such deep denial, into such an avoidence of what has to be done to end this as they are where it concerns Israel and I/P.

    Reply

  96. DonS says:

    “Perhaps Wright could explain to us how anyone, let alone the Israelis, are going to be convinced that a one state option is a viable alternative in the absence of a two state option between Israelis and Palestinians when a one state option isn’t even viable between Hamas and Fatah.” (wigwag)
    This seemingly rational statement ignores the nefarious impetus that spawns it: Israel is neither interested in a one state or a two state solution. Israel is interested in continuing to stall any meaningful potential solution while it expands and consolidates its expansion. Blame the radical Palestinians for their tactics too, if you will. But The upper hand is and has always been Israels’ for decades, and the strategy has worked to the advantage of the Israeli right wing.
    Ultimately, it looks like some phony two state solution may eventually evolve, even be promoted by Israel, after it has decimated potential Palestinian state territory into little islands, unable to coalesce into an viable state. But no one should fool themselves into seeing behind the curtain; any such ultimate phony two state solution approved by Israel will simply be a diversion from the reality that Israel has crafted one state, divided and unequal, and will never acknowledge equal rights for the supressed minority.
    The increasing prominence of the affairs of Israel of the settlers, the ultra orthodox, and the thuggish immigrants from Russia and the Eastern bloc virtually guarantees this trajectory. Only strong external pressure can alter it, and that means a serious change in US policy as well. I don’t think it’s likely to happen.

    Reply

  97. JohnH says:

    To paraphrase Wig, “The form of Judaism that they practice is predicated on violence; in fact it extols violence. It promises that violence will be rewarded by the deity in the afterlife. Surely not all or even most Jews share that view, but members of the [settler movement] do and so do the penumbras and emanations shooting off from that movement like Likud.”
    Wright says that extremists from both sides must be marginalized. Wigwag and Nadine want to pretend that there is only one kind of extremist–those who oppose them. To them, Zionist theft of land, ethnic cleansing and massacres of civilians do not count as extremism. Instead, they believe their side is entitled to behave that way.

    Reply

  98. Don Bacon says:

    WigWag: “The form of Islam that they practice is predicated on violence; in fact it extols violence. It promises that violence will be rewarded by the deity in the afterlife.”
    I don’t find that at all unusual for any religion that I’m familiar with. A better life in the hereafter is quite often a major selling point, particularly if one might be considered heroic in getting there. (I’m reminded of the joke about the atheist laid out in finery in his coffin — all dressed up and no place to go.)
    from The Duncan Banner (extracts)
    DUNCAN

    Reply

  99. Fox says:

    Wig, you have completely obliterated Bob Wright’s article. I salute you.

    Reply

  100. WigWag says:

    Wright’s delusions are at their height when he fantasizes that a spontaneous nonviolent Palestinian peace movement could actually be formed. Where would it be incubated; in Khalid Mashaal hiding place in Damascus? Where would it be gestated; in Ismail Haniyah’s rat hole in Gaza?
    Perhaps Wright could explain to us how anyone, let alone the Israelis, are going to be convinced that a one state option is a viable alternative in the absence of a two state option between Israelis and Palestinians when a one state option isn’t even viable between Hamas and Fatah.
    The fundamental mistake that people like Wright, Clemons and the other members of the

    Reply

  101. Cee says:

    Also worth reading.
    These groups fear that a peace agreement and Palestinian statehood would turn Israel overnight into an insignificant Middle Eastern state, one that would soon be starved of its enormous US subsidies. In addition, Israel would be forced to right a historic wrong and redirect the region

    Reply

  102. Cee says:

    See how Netanyahu (and those who support him)really feel about us.
    http://redactednews.blogspot.com/2010/09/tricky-bibi-netanyahu-america-wont-get.html

    Reply

  103. Steve Clemons says:

    Commenters All — I have just banned a couple of commenters, at least for a period of time, for violating rules I have established for this blog. I will republish them tomorrow.
    Ad hominem attacks against me here – on my dime – are not acceptable. If you want to ferociously challenge me on policy…great. No problem. I have demonstrated for many years an interest and acceptance of that.
    But go over the line into mischaracterizations that are basically ad hominem slurs and you are out of here. Get your own blogs to do that sort of thing.
    WARNING to any other commenters — no matter how regular or self-important you may feel blogging here. DO NOT TAUNT anyone’s absence or degrade or question the motives of any other commenters.
    I am ticked off by a number of people who have gone into the gutter and chosen slime over reason.
    Absolutely unacceptable — but if others even flirt with taunting those I have temporarily and/or permanently removed, you will also be removed without warning or explanation. I will not tolerate it.
    This is an issues and ideas blog – get over yourselves and the taunting that happens here too often. I have been too lax as you folks go after each other and seem to thrive on the emotional rather than reasoned responses. But when it involves attacks on my character or person, you are out of here if you are not on the plateau of reasoned, civil discussion.
    End of story. No debate. Follow these rules or you are automatically cut off. I have zero patience for the time and effort that drama in the comment section creates.
    So, farewell to those who even dare to cross my lines at this point. And glad to have those who decide to be mature and sensible.
    Steve Clemons

    Reply

  104. Don Bacon says:

    Apparently Fayyad and Abbas are selling out their own people.
    MJ Rosenberg:
    “So Fayyad and Abbas have decided that if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. Under the tutelage of the American Task Force On Palestine, they have decided to join up with the Jewish far right in this country.
    “Specifically, the ATFP is hooking up with The Israel Project, a fringe organization well to the right of AIPAC. The love affair began months ago but culminated at a dinner in New York during the recent visit which Fayyad, ATFP, and The Israel Project treated as their “coming out” party.
    “The new alliance is bad news because, as insignificant as ATFP is among Palestinians, in Washington it sends a message that even Palestinians accept the Israeli narrative.”
    http://tinyurl.com/3542foc

    Reply

  105. Carroll says:

    “and thus he thinks that quiet, complacent centrists need to be stirred.”
    Who exactly are the complacent centrist in Israel?
    Are they the same as the complacent centrist citizens in Germany during Hitler’s reign?
    Sounds like the same to me..possibly worse…after all Hitler’s crime’s in the camps weren’t reported in the news every day for public viewing or common knowledge, whereas the Jewish Israelis are exposed to what they are doing to Palestinians every day. If they haven’t come forward by now they’re never going to.
    After all if they are ‘complacent” then they are pretty much happy with the way things are aren’t they?

    Reply

  106. Don Bacon says:

    Indifference?
    from B’TSELM, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories
    “Some half a million Israelis are now living over the Green Line: more than 300,000 in 121 settlements and about one hundred outposts, which control 42 percent of the land area of the West Bank, and the rest in twelve neighborhoods that Israel established on land it annexed to the Jerusalem Municipality.
    “The settlement enterprise has been characterized, since its inception, by an instrumental, cynical, and even criminal approach to international law, local legislation, Israeli military orders, and Israeli law, which has enabled the continuous pilfering of land from Palestinians in the West Bank.
    “The principal means Israel used for this purpose was declaration of

    Reply

  107. Neo Controll says:

    Wigwag’s new strategy: be as outrageous as possible in the cause of Zionist extremism. Push the limits of civility as far as possible without getting writ out of TWN. Then retreat into the dark for a while. Hopefully sooner than later.
    I say we ignore the scourge.

    Reply

  108. WigWag says:

    One section from Wright’s op-ed that was particularly revealing is when he said,
    “A recent Time magazine cover story

    Reply

  109. Dan Kervick says:

    WigWag is right. Wright’s proposal is incredibly far-fetched.
    The proposal effectively calls for a re-unified Palestinian national movement to petition Israel for annexation of Gaza and the entire West Bank into Israel, and anticipates a popular and broad-based mass global movement in support of this aim, a movement that can mobilize sufficient economic and government pressure world-wide to either make this annexation a reality, or else terrify Israeli “centrists” into extracting Israeli colonists from West Bank.
    I find it hard to imagine such a movement taking shape. And even if one does take shape, I find it hard to imagine it having any more impact that previous left wing student movements.
    The likely Israeli response would be to chuckle and continue along doing what they are already doing. They can count on the fact that uppity campus radicals or no uppity campus radicals, they are not likely to face any very stringent global pressure to cease their techniques of gradual expansion. Israel can continue dispossessing and relocating Palestinians for decades, one dunam at a time.
    And let’s remember that the Israelis don’t want all of the West Bank. They only want Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and full control of the western bank of the Jordan River. So a second step, in the unlikely event that Wright’s global student movement develops legs, would be for Israel to unilaterally declare a circumscribing border around those few cities and towns in central Palestine that they don’t avidly covet, and where Palestinian populations are effectively concentrated, declare that landlocked township “the Palestinian State”, and wash their hands of the whole business.
    One can safely bet that the response in the US to such an eventuality, especially in the US government and media, will be, “Hosanna! The Palestinian State has arrived! We knew the Israelis would come through! What a relief!”
    Now maybe Wright would be satisfied with that. Who knows?
    Let’s also remember that most Palestinians don’t want to live in Israel, not even a made-over Israel with lots of Palestinian Arabs in it. They want to live in their own country of Palestine. So I find it difficult to conceive of the kind of unified, pan-Palestinian one state solution movement that Wright envisions taking shape.
    Palestine is not South Africa. The facts on the ground are trending toward an apartheid outcome, but are not apartheid yet. And that’s because an apartheid system is one in which a dominant population confines and subordinates another population *inside the same country*. Unlike the case in South Africa, we are not talking here about a single state of Israel confining a second-class population to homelands inside what everyone recognizes to be Israel. Rather we have one official and declared state with fuzzy and expanding borders, and another unofficial and undeclared state with fuzzy, contracting borders. Gaza is not imprisoned in an Israeli homeland. The Gazans are imprisoned inside their own country by a foreign power. The Palestinians who live there and in the West Bank want to be liberated, not absorbed. And they want the rest of the world to help them get the colonists and occupiers out of their country.

    Reply

  110. Cee says:

    Put a sock in it Wig.
    You’re another vile Goldstein.
    After the Oslo agreement–and the 1994 massacre carried out by Baruch Goldstein in Hebron–Hamas embraced suicide bombings as the means of sabotaging diplomacy.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/329fvswo.asp?page=15

    Reply

  111. WigWag says:

    Is it the Israeli centrists who need to be jarred out of their indifference or is it the progressives and progressive realists who need to be jarred out of their inebriated stupor?
    How does Bob Wright suggest that Israel be threatened with a one state solution if it doesn’t surrender to Palestinian terms for a two state solution? Laughably he suggests that progressive forces in the world are going to ride in on their white horses and scare the Israelis centrists to death. Specifically Wright says,
    “A truly peaceful movement with such elemental aspirations

    Reply

  112. Cee says:

    think of Martin Luther King or Gandhi
    Yeah. The Zionists have deported hundreds of them. Violence serves them well.
    I agree with POA.
    Mubarak Awad is a Palestinian-American psychologist and an advocate of nonviolent resistance. Awad, a Christian, was born in 1943 in Jerusalem when it was under the British Mandate. Mubarak’s father was killed in 1948 during the fighting between Zionists and Arabs. As his house was left in occupied “no man’s land” he became a refugee in the Old City of Jerusalem. He was given the right to Israeli citizenship in 1967, but refused and kept his Jordanian citizenship.[1] After graduation from high school Awad traveled to the USA to complete higher education. His activities became very supportive of children’s rights around the world, and he helped create programs for troubled and abused children in the USA.
    In 1985, Awad returned to Israel on a tourist visa, where he established the Palestinian Centre for the Study of Nonviolence. Prior to the intifada, Awad published papers and lectured on nonviolence as a technique for resisting the Israeli occupation. He wrote that nonviolence could be used as a means of resistance. The Centre also sponsored a number of nonviolent actions during the early months on the first intifada. Among the tactics employed was the planting of olive trees on proposed Israeli settlements, asking people not to pay taxes and encouraging people to eat and drink Palestinian products. In the Middle East he is called the Arab Gandhi because he was teaching the power of nonviolence similar to Mahatma Gandhi in India during the British Raj. He believed these tactics could be used to resist the Israeli military occupation. He also drew upon the methodologies of Gene Sharp’s trilogy, The Politics of Non-Violence. Using this knowledge and his experience, Awad prepared his own “12-page blueprint for passive resistance in the territories,” eventually published in the Journal of Palestine Studies.[2]
    Israel deported Awad in 1988, after refusing to review his tourist visa.

    Reply

  113. JohnH says:

    Well, Nadine, you have demonstrated that you have plenty of “imagination to invent your own insults.”
    Problem is, your imagination uses Israel’s historical actions and today’s facts on the ground as your basis for imagining what Palestinians will do. That plus whatever bravado you manage to dig up from delusional Palestinian activists.
    Face it, Nadine, you can’t pin the blame on the Palestinian side, when Israel’s historical record provides a long and shameful list of atrocities and war crimes.

    Reply

  114. DonsBlog says:

    Every time Hamas signs a truce Israel starts a campaign of targeted assassinations until Hamas starts fighting again. I don’t think any peaceful demonstrations would ever be noticed.
    I think the only broadcast show that tries to regularly invite Palestinian and Arab officials is Charlie Rose. His program is also the first one to openly talk about Israel’s nuclear program, although Charlie was looking extremely nervous.
    Until Palestine has a voice, Israel will be able to do whatever they like.

    Reply

  115. JohnH says:

    As usual, Nadine attacks the Palestinians, but actually articulates the Zionist reality: “The Zionist movement is founded and based in violence because its primary purpose is destroying Palestine. That’s why Netanyahu has a following but Peace Now [has little following], tolerated for the sake of getting Western donations. If outside donations stopped, he’d] be gone in an instant. And yet Netanyahu is the one we are supposed to celebrate because only NOW he [‘peace talks’]! Well the struggle has been going on for 80 years…what was preventing them before?”
    Thanks, Nadine. If you substitute a few words, you get reality.

    Reply

  116. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    The long and winding road back to square one…the shortest path to a peaceful two state solution is straight through the wallet….the US, the UN, others needs to tell Israel to honor the 1967 borders or forego further aid and have some hefty-assed sanctions.
    This from Stanley Heller http://www.youtube.com/watch?V=qGhbhCykMTc

    Reply

  117. Carroll says:

    Gawd!…what is this?…plan number one hundred and two?
    Does anyone at the NYT or any of the very serious opinionators on I/P have an IQ above 86?
    Read my lips as the man said….Israel will NOT ever give up their take over of Palestine land and resources. Israel will not ever give Arab residents in any kind of Israel the same rights as Jews. Will not happen. UNTIL and UNLESS some greater force ‘makes’ them.
    Jesus Christ on a stick!.. do we have to spend another 60 years trying to entice a bunch of midget nazis into giving up their war crimes?
    Just send the fricking Marines to clean the I/P house and be done with it.

    Reply

  118. JohnH says:

    It’s not just radical groups who block peace. Powerful economic and military interests are also threatened by peace.
    “The ranks of Israel

    Reply

  119. DakotabornKansan says:

    We have come a long ways from the Balfour Declaration in which the British government declared that it viewed with favor the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine so long as it does not prejudice the rights of the indigenous inhabitants.
    Look where Palestinians now find themselves. The current situation is truly depressing.
    Palestinians are not allowed to exercise their right of self-determination because it is incompatible with Israeli security. Instead Israel dictates the conditions under which Palestinians will live.
    Andrew Bacevich writes that the United States is

    Reply

  120. Kathleen says:

    Did anyone take notice of O

    Reply

  121. DonS says:

    via JWN “23% of Israelis Ready to Leave Country at Any Hint of Problems”
    http://justworldnews.org/archives/004090.html
    “But the bottom line in this phenomenon of Israelis being ready to leave so easily– if Iran even gets, let alone shows any sign of moving towards using nuclear weapons– seems to be that actually, the Zionist project of building Israel as the last, safest haven for Jewish people worldwide seems not to be terribly successful.”
    And since Israli politics seems firmly in the grasp of the right and ultra-right, why should we expect much from the remaining ‘sensible’ Israelis? Traditionally, when the heat is turned up, the centrists rally round the warmongers.

    Reply

  122. Don Bacon says:

    Palestinian demonstrations are going to scare Israelis? That’s amusing. I can tell you from personal experience it wouldn’t work. I’ve personally been involved with several anti-war demonstrations in past years with thousands of others and it didn’t strike fear into anybody’s heart. There was absolutely no recognition from a government bent on conquest. The government-aligned media doesn’t cover it, that’s important. So like others I don’t march any more. It’s self-fulfilling but a waste of time.

    Reply

  123. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “If Palestinians want to strike fear into the hearts of Israelis they should (a) give up on violence as a tool of persuasion; (b) give up on the current round of negotiations; and (c) start holding demonstrations in which they ask for only one thing: the right to vote. Their argument would be simple: They live under Israeli rule, and Israel is a democracy, so why aren’t they part of it?”
    Any approach is a lost cause for the Palestinians. Peaceful protest is met with violence and arrest. Our media does not accurately report Israeli abuses against protest. What, you think all the sudden peaceful protest will bear fruit for the Palestinians?
    Horseshit.
    Its obvious whats happening. Israel doesn’t want peace, they want ALL the land, and they want the Palestinans GONE, or at the very least, permanently consigned to ghettos and interment camps, powerless, unarmed, and without a voice.
    Its time to cut the money off to these fuckin’ bloodsuckers. But that will never happen because the scum in Washington DC no longer has a working moral barometer, and they are owned, blackmailed, intimidated, and bought off by the Israeli machine.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *