Really?? Leading Israelis Say 2-State Solution Only Way Forward & Ties with USA Never Better

-

This is a guest note by National Security Network Deputy Director Joel Rubin who is blogging this week from the famed Herziliya Conference on behalf of Democracy Arsenal, Huffington Post and The Washington Note. Rubin can also be followed on Twitter @JoelMartinRubin.
netanyahu speaking.jpgThe Two State Solution is Coming, Whether You Like it Or Not
If there was one consistent theme that dominated the Herzliya Conference today, it was the argument, made time and again by Israeli political and military leaders to a largely cautious audience, that a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in Israel’s interest.
“Israel must be part of the pragmatic camp” in the Middle East said leader of the opposition Tzipi Livni.
“We have to have a real plan to implement the two state solution” said former Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz.
“80% of Israelis support a two state solution…” and “…we must implement both a bottoms-up and top-down approach (to the conflict) now” said Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor.
Not surprisingly, these strong pronouncements did not inspire the crowd to jump to its feet.
Of course, there is much more on the agenda here, as Israel’s top political-military leaders, thinkers, strategists, and officials networked with a diverse set of American, European, Asian, and Arab leaders. Discussions about the global economy, climate change, Israel’s public image, and the waning influence of the U.S. dominated. Permeating through almost every discussion was the backdrop of the looming danger posed by Iran, creating a sense of seriousness and concern.
And everyone made sure to make nice about the Obama administration.
The most powerful speaker, for my money, was Tzipi Livni. She delivered a forceful keynote early in the morning, barely looking at her notes and armed with a honed, strategic analysis. Critical of the current Israeli government, yet mindful of the need to be diplomatic, she demonstrated big league skills.
Dan Meridor too looked like a calm, reasonable voice. Sober and intelligent, he spoke of the broader strategic challenges, even bluntly stating that Israel made a mistake by not making more of an effort with Syria.
And the Americans showed their best, with Dan Kurtzer and Elliott Abrams engaging in a vigorous debate about the peace process. Abrams argued that the only year in the last 20 that didn’t have Israeli-Palestinian negotiations was the past one, implying that Obama has failed at peacemaking and that seeking a political deal for a state was the wrong approach.
Abrams also argued that the Palestinians should focus instead on creating the trappings of a state now, and wait for a political deal for an actual state later. Kurtzer countered that yes, 20 years of negotiations had failed to produce a state, either on the ground or at the political level, but instead spoke about how it was time to be more aggressive, not less. He also reminded the audience that Abrams’ recommendation of a bottoms-up only approach had been tried many times before, producing neither an improvement on the ground nor an actual state.
Interestingly, an early morning panel with Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations Executive Vice Chairman Malcolm Hoenlein, American Ambassador to Israel Jim Cunningham, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, and former U.S. Ambassador Alfred Moses entitled “Still Special: US-Israel Relations?” was nearly unanimous in its declarations that the relationship has never been better. Of course, it only took a few questions to notice that several of the panelists had real concerns, but they were all at great pains to show that relations are in top shape, handing a symbolic victory to President Obama after a tough year.
So overall, the strategic clarity expressed by the Israelis about the need for a Palestinian state — none of whom declared this for sentimental reasons — was striking.
Approaches on how to get there differed widely. The rationale was often based on cold calculation related to consolidating relations with the Arabs against Iran. No one seemed particularly optimistic about the prospects of this goal even being achieved. But it was clear that this was a message that met the audience head-on, knocking them off balance.
There may not yet either be peace, or even a clear way to get there, but this day may well have granted Obama a subtle victory, as the broad political recognition in Israel of the importance of a two-state solution was made urgently clear.
I can’t wait to hear Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak discuss this issue together tomorrow night.
— Joel Rubin

Comments

135 comments on “Really?? Leading Israelis Say 2-State Solution Only Way Forward & Ties with USA Never Better

  1. Sweetness says:

    From Wiki: “Sherman’s March to the Sea followed his successful
    Atlanta Campaign of May to September 1864. He and U.S. Army
    commander, Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, believed that the Civil War
    would end only if the Confederacy’s strategic, economic, and
    psychological capacity for warfare were decisively broken.”
    I think the problem here is that the wars Wig mentions were
    conducted between militaries…militaries that could surrender.
    You don’t have that kind of situation, as far as I can tell, with IP.
    You have a hugely asymmetrical situation in which the
    Palestinians don’t have a regular army. And they–at least
    Fatah–are not formally at war with Israel. Hamas is so weak
    militarily relative to Israel, there’s almost no point in
    surrendering. What would they surrender? Their pistols?
    Similarly, AQ is never going to “surrender.” What would be the
    point? They made fade out, or lose popular support, but there is
    never going to be an Appomattox ceremony with either of these
    conflicts. The Taliban aren’t going to surrender either.

    Reply

  2. Paul Norheim says:

    Fortunately, the Hutus in Rwanda were familiar with their eternal parables and had the
    guts to face reality in 1994. Unfortunately, though, that fool Paul Kagame stopped them
    before they managed to finish the job. And by not exterminating the hutus in an act of
    revenge, the tutsi leader Kagame and his men just prolongs the suffering of both parts for
    decades: no clear losers, no clear winners, due to his scruples and leftwing fantasies!
    And one can only regret that the Brits and the white South Africans didn’t apply Sherman
    on the Irish population and the black African population respectively back in the days.
    Deluded cowards from la-la land, believing in alternative solutions! What solutions?
    Inquiring minds can’t wait to hear.

    Reply

  3. questions says:

    WigWag,
    Sorry not be clearer. I was replying to a little POA/Paul team-taunting further upstream. They were making fun of complexity (me), so I borrowed you. Sorry.
    But, no, I’m not convinced that out and out destruction of the Palestinians is necessary. I’m actually pretty sure that courting immorality is far more wrong than dying from immorality. Today’s outrage over the returned Iraq vet who “waterboarded” his 4-year old to get her to say the ABCs was a little much for me. You normalize wickedness and you get wickedness. I don’t want firebombing normalized.
    I know Hamas seems intransigent (like so many Republican senators, they put their own power over the good of the people), but punishing the people collectively for the failure of the leadership is pretty unacceptable in my view.
    I understand the “cruel to be kind” logic. But I remain unconvinced even as I can cite all sorts of people who seem to support it.
    I’m in the middle of Richard III. He can be read as cruel to be kind (establishing order between the Yorks and Lancasters) — but the (fictional) guy kills two brothers and wants to marry the sister, he kills a king, he deposes, disposes, murders and marries — all for what? Not even his hired murderers have as little conscience as he does.
    So, no, I’m not really with you even though I can understand the basic position. I don’t think every ethnic conflict need be solved by utter defeat and destruction. I think attitudes can change.
    See if David Laitin’s book, Nations, States, and Violence (is that the title) is on Kindle and read it. It is a little more hopeful about ethnic violence than you are.

    Reply

  4. Sweetness says:

    But Wig…
    If we are facing reality, shouldn’t we also face the reality that, for
    whatever reasons, Israel, in its 60 years of existence, has not
    taken your recommended course of action–and yet could have?
    They’ve never really lacked the means. And they have withdrawn
    from land (see Lebanon) when they weren’t “defeated,” but found
    the cost of maintaining their presence their too high, along one
    scale or another.
    Is this not also a durable reality?
    What gives us any hope that the Israelis will suddenly kill or
    expel all the Palestinians in the WB and Gaza until such time as
    they sue for peace?
    You and I have two different pieces of advice for Israel: I say
    pursue a negotiated peace and real two-state solution. You say
    scorched earth. History would show that Israelis are more
    inclined to pursue my solution than yours.
    Sure, we have Cast Lead, but Israel was NOT willing to reoccupy
    Gaza the way the allies occupied Germany and Japan after the
    war (a piece of the puzzle you leave out). And if the Hamas
    military is half children, as Nadine seems to imply, they don’t
    seem willing to kill all the children (as we were those aged and
    under-age Berlin defenders) to achieve total victory.
    What do those facts say to you as a realist?
    While there is the reality you speak of, there are also other
    realities. For example, it appears that Sadat sought a bargain
    for a small part of the Sinai and was rebuffed by the Israelis,
    ultimately resulting in 1973. Had Israel been willing to bargain,
    they might have been able to keep a large chunk of the Sinai and
    also, more importantly, wouldn’t have lost several thousand of
    its citizens in 1973.
    Nadine, I think Israel needs to put a clear two-state offer on the
    table–without any of the obvious flaws that have been pointed
    out time and again–and leave it there. Door’s always open.
    Until then, Israel will meet aggression, even puny rockets, with
    certain counterattacks. If Hamas chooses to use children as
    soldiers or to retrieve rocket launchers, that’s on them.
    Marcus, I think we have to replace questions about whether
    there is a Palestinian “people” with…were their people there who
    had been living there a good long time?

    Reply

  5. WigWag says:

    “Clearly, we don’t need to change incentives or make deals or figure or find or something else that begins with ‘f’ just to keep the alliteration going. We just need a simple, POA-acceptable or WigWag-approved course of action.” (Questions)
    It’s not about what’s simple, it’s about what there’s historical precedent for. Wars between nations simply don’t conclude in the gentlemanly, collegial manner that we all wish they did. They end with a victor and a loser.
    It’s a unique delusion of western leftists that the world doesn’t work this way any more. Actually, it’s a delusion pretty much limited to the United States and ten or fifteen nations in the Western part of Europe. A significant, but not necessarily majority portion of the Israeli population cleaves towards this point of view because they have roots in and aspire to be part of the liberal west.
    But a large portion of the Israeli public views this in the same way as most of the Arab world, the Asian world and the Eastern European world. They have no pretensions that history has taken a sharp left turn or that there are new ways to resolve conflicts. They also realize that arguments about which side is right and which side is wrong represent nothing more than a tactical methodology designed to advance the ultimate goal; winning.
    If you have evidence to the contrary, Questions, you should tell us what it is. Otherwise you’ve given us nothing but a fantasy about the way you wish things were.
    That won’t end the conflict in the Middle East.
    I can’t read your mind Questions, nor can I read Paul’s mind. Nonetheless, I have a sneaking suspicion that you have a sickening feeling in the pit of your stomach because you know I’m right.
    But don’t feel too bad; it’s called “facing reality.”

    Reply

  6. questions says:

    But Paul,
    Re your interchange w/ POA on the topmost thread or so….
    WigWag’s plan is so simple, it’s beautiful. Firebomb and voila! Instant peace!
    And since it’s simple, it must be correct, mustn’t it? Because thinking there’s complexity is clearly a sign of stupidity? N’est-ce pas?
    Clearly, we don’t need to change incentives or make deals or figure or find or something else that begins with ‘f’ just to keep the alliteration going. We just need a simple, POA-acceptable or WigWag-approved course of action.
    Simple is easy!
    (By the way, Kant does indeed mention a certain inn-keeper’s sign that shows an outline of a cemetery and is captioned with “Perpetual Peace” — firebombing would do that…. Though, in fact, this is precisely the image for which Kant would like a substitute.)

    Reply

  7. MarkL says:

    Nadine,
    I know it pains you that the Palestinians have an identity. Don’t look at me—it wasn’t my doing.
    Neither you or I get to say who is or who is not a people.
    I think there is some analogy with black people.
    In Africa, it would be absurd to say that being “black” is some sort of identity; in the US, it is. Saying that the black people of the US came from different tribes, so we dont’ have to recognize their identity, won’t cut it.
    About the Jews’ land claim: according to Marcus’ and Wigwag’s professed ideology, it’s worthless: the Jews lost, and they should have gotten over it 2000 years ago.
    Look, Israel is a mostly successful state. Good for them. Israel also is a state formed by armed invasion and terrorism. Bad for them—and lots of people remember! You can’t make people forget how Israel was created, especially when Israel continues to torture captives by the thousands, shoot unarmed children, bomb apartment buildings, steal land.
    You, Marcus and Wigwag don’t even think Palestinians are human; what kind of values are you showing? They are not the Jewish values I’ve known in my Jewish friends.

    Reply

  8. nadine says:

    “But even if Hamas is using
    children to retrieve the rocket, Israel has a much more
    defensible case by responding in a pinpointed manner, rather
    than invading and mass killing. Plus, if they have a concrete,
    clear, two-state proposal in hand, with borders laid out, they
    have both the stick and the carrot.”
    Sweetness, you haven’t been paying attention. The NGOs call it deliberate killing of children no matter what the circumstances, just as they did after Gaza, where most of the “children” were, if you look closer and the casualty lists, 16 and 17 year old Hamas militants. Hamas takes them from 16 up and uses younger boys as runners and shields.
    Both Ehud Barak at Taba and Ehud Olmert offered clear concrete two-state proposals that were refused without any counter-offer. Please understand: the two-state solution is not something the Palestinian leadership desires, but a shameful defeat they wish to avoid. All the more so, as no Palestinian leader since Arafat could accept it and survive, and Arafat didn’t think he could either.

    Reply

  9. nadine says:

    “Marcus,
    you can’t change the boundaries.
    Get it through your head that there was no country of Israel for about 2000 years. Whether any Jews lived there is as immaterial as whether any Aztecs live in Mexico now.”
    MarkL, Don’t look now, but there was never a country of Palestine either. Never. There was never a Palestinian people either. The inhabitants of Palestine were mostly Arabs. Before the creation of the Mandate, if you asked them what country they lived in, they would have answered “Syria”. They identified themselves by tribe and city more than country. They didn’t even use the regional name “Filistin” before the 19th century; they picked it up from the British.
    So you’ll have to explain why on the one hand, it’s quite all right to create a new country called “Palestine” for a newly defined people called “Palestinians”, but not all right to create a country called “Israel” for a people 3000 years old whose ancestral homeland it is?
    Seems to me this is a game called “Everybody on earth is entitled to autonomy in their native homeland; except the Jews; they don’t get any.”

    Reply

  10. WigWag says:

    As to the existence of the State of Israel, I support it – for historical reasons much closer in time than the Biblical epochs. But they should make a deal so that the Palestinians could get a state too. (Paul Norheim)
    Of course that presupposes the fact that the Palestinians want a deal. The evidence says otherwise. The Palestinians like the Israelis have shown no inclination to make a deal, and the evidence suggests that Nadine may be right; the Palestinians may want a deal even less than the Israelis do.
    Of course, both sides want a deal on their terms, but that is obviously not going to happen.
    So I’m afraid, Paul, that your point of view about the situation is completely untenable. In light of the Palestinians unwillingness to make a deal (and the Israelis as well) and in light of the fact that a deal will never be imposed by the United States, Europe or anyone else, what do you propose?
    Of course there is only one other way for the conflict to end but you don’t support Israel pursuing a military victory either.
    So what’s the Paul Norheim answer to all of this?
    Inquiring minds can’t wait to hear.

    Reply

  11. Paul Norheim says:

    “…but I DO KNOW that when I visited ISRAEL, it felt like I was stepping into my
    backyard”
    That’s certainly strange, Marcus, because that’s the same feeling I had when I first
    visited Italy. And ten years ago, I had exactly the same feeling when I visited
    Ethiopia. My own backyard!
    Now, the latter probably has an explanation: I spent most of my childhood there, so you
    could say that it literally was my backyard.
    Not so with Italy. Perhaps I should occupy it, and expel those degoses who live in my
    own backyard?
    You know Marcus, the problem is that if you go far back in time – hundreds, thousands
    of years – many people on every continent have more or less legitimate claims to most
    areas of the planet. If the one who was there first has the right to be there, there
    would be no end to arguments between different people in the world. Some would be well
    documented, some not so well documented. But sure, many will have excellent documents
    that are in conflict with each other. And I promise you, Marcus, if you followed that
    principle, there would be wars everywhere and all the time on our planet. Perpetual
    war! It is simply not workable.
    As to your question: “if an imperialist/arab army burns down a church or a synagogue
    and builds a mosque on the ruins,does the land underneath it remain muslim forever?”
    If no one else claimed the land, it could be theirs, couldn’t it? But your question is
    not on the same level as the conflict: The problem is that several religious groups
    have burned down or occupied such places through different epochs, and they all claim
    that it’s theirs. So how do we solve that? That’s the real challenge.
    As to the existence of the State of Israel, I support it – for historical reasons much
    closer in time than the Biblical epochs. But they should make a deal so that the
    Palestinians could get a state too.

    Reply

  12. Sweetness says:

    Since I hate this captcha so much, I’ll try to respond to Wig,
    Nadine, and Paul in one post:
    Wig, needless to say, you assert, but do not support, the
    assertion that firebombing the POPULATION was one of the
    events that convinced the German High Command to give up. In
    any event, there were military targets there, which could and
    should have been the target of the bombing. Dresden bombing,
    even at the time, was HIGHLY controversial and no doubt
    unessential to winning the war. Certainly not the firebombing of
    civilians, which is what we’re discussing (I think).
    Just look at the Wiki entry…
    Even you say that the Germans had seen “all hope for victory
    evaporate” BEFORE the bombing. So how essential was it, really?
    And how essential were all those civilian deaths. As I recall
    dimly, Sherman’s goal was to deprive the Confederate army of all
    provisions–food among other things–and thereby prevent it
    from going on. Unfortunately, that also meant no food for the
    people, too. The atom bomb showed the Japanese high
    command the power to destroy possessed by the allies–it was
    the display of power that convinced; it wasn’t that the Japanese
    people became demoralized and turned against the war.
    Howard Berkowitz used to cite evidence to support the
    ineffectiveness of scorched earth attempts to break the morale
    of the people–but I don’t have that at my finger tips.
    I have to say, even the comparison between Hamas and its
    pathetic rockets and Germany and Japan in WWII is so far-
    fetched as to be laughable. Where is the proportion? Germany
    and Japan had armies, airforces, and navies, and industrial
    complexes waging war–the Palestinians aren’t even close.
    Nadine, I can’t give you the particulars about this particular
    weaponry. But I believe the weapon senses the launch of the
    rocket and responds in that instant. But even if Hamas is using
    children to retrieve the rocket, Israel has a much more
    defensible case by responding in a pinpointed manner, rather
    than invading and mass killing. Plus, if they have a concrete,
    clear, two-state proposal in hand, with borders laid out, they
    have both the stick and the carrot.
    Paul–the longer these conflicts go on, the more polarized the
    sides become. I think that must be a law or something. I’m
    sorry things have turned so sour. The IP conflict seems to have
    that effect on people, which is interesting, in part, because it
    isn’t the costliest conflict in the world in terms of human loss.
    In terms of Wig’s grand theory, I do think there is sort of a
    wandering Jew idea lurking in the Jewish psyche. And that is,
    the Jews, at least the Jews of Europe, have been thrown out of so
    many countries on such a large scale, and still thrived, they may
    not feel ever completely “at home” anywhere (down deep) and
    that getting thrown out of one’s homeland isn’t the worst thing
    that can happen to you. The Madagascar solution would have
    been much better than Auschwitz, I have to admit. Israel was/is
    an attempt to break that cycle of homelessness.
    Anyway, the whole thing is a fucking mess.

    Reply

  13. Marcus says:

    “ZIONISTS ENtered a foreign land” you must be joking or, simply trying to be provocitive
    My family has been in canada for120 years before that 70 years in england before that350- 400 years in romania before that we think spain and before that we dont know, but I DO KNOW that when I visited ISRAEL, it felt like I was stepping into my backyard

    Reply

  14. marcus says:

    For you information ; it doesnt matter to jews if their black or white european looking or arab looking red head or chinese there is still a recognition among themselves that they are of the same heritage/ancestry/bloodlines
    probably hard for you to understand ? but DNA testing proves it.

    Reply

  15. marcus says:

    3500 years of continuous occupation that is the jewish claim to israel and there are records to prove it the jews write everything down,so even though, in every generation, people like you try to erase the history of the jews
    ITs not possible, it has never been done, even though their have been liars (like you) crusaders,pogroms etc. the jews not only endured,but they have LIBERATED their ancestral lands
    A spectacular epic story of justice finally being restored (in some but not yet complete measure)

    Reply

  16. MarkL says:

    Marcus,
    you can’t change the boundaries.
    Get it through your head that there was no country of Israel for about 2000 years. Whether any Jews lived there is as immaterial as whether any Aztecs live in Mexico now.
    Jews were a defeated people. By your own arguments, they had no right to any of their former lands.
    Whatever Jews were living there after Israel was crushed by the Romans were irrelevant: the Zionists were Europeans, bringing European ideas of nationalism, for better or worse.

    Reply

  17. MarkL says:

    Fine,
    The Zionists were armed settlers. Does that really improve matters? The fact of the matter is that Zionists entered a foreign land with the express purpose of taking it over. It doesn’t take a genius to predict the outcome of that enterprise. And yes, Palestine was a foreign land to those European Jews. They had no more claim to that land than a Romany has to a slice of India.
    And in your first sentence you’re trying to argue—again–that Palestinians are not people.
    That dog won’t hunt.

    Reply

  18. MarkL says:

    Marcus,
    The Jews came from European countries. I dont’ know the precise breakdown. I feel you may be trying to make some other, insane point—such as asserting the existence of the country of Israel which they were returning to. If so, then you are a dangerous lunatic. If not, you may only be a lunatic.
    P.S., if there’s a legitimate home area for the Jews, it is obviously Baghdad, where until recently they had lived continuously for 2600 years.

    Reply

  19. MarkL says:

    Zionism was an aggressive colonial enterprise to the people who lost their land to Jewish settlers, however “liberating” it was to the Jews who moved there.
    And my point about morality has to do with perceptions. 100 years ago, no one would have batted an eyelash if Israel killed 10,000 Palestinians and expelled the rest.
    Times have changed.
    It’s so tragically funny to see you talking about how the Indians will never forget, and the Jews never forgot. Aren’t you forgetting a certain group of dispossessed people? Contrary to Golda Meir’s dictum, they do exist, and they haven’t forgotten.

    Reply

  20. marcus says:

    Zionism/Israel is immesaruablly more legitemate than the USA/Americans All of you pointing a finger at the jews/israel
    YOU GOT ALOT OF NERVE the lot of you

    Reply

  21. MarkL says:

    Wigwag,
    I wonder if you are just trying to move the Overton window on the Isreal-Pal. conflict.
    It’s not working, IMO.
    If I take your suggestion at face value, it’s hard to find a larger contrast between the US bombing of Dresden to win a just, necessary, defensive war, with Israel slaughtering 10% or so of the Palestinians to secure total victory.
    What would be the consequences?
    Israel would suffer total boycotts from a sizeable portion of the world; it would lose all US aid; it’s economy would collapse.
    Its neighbors would get huge amounts of military aid from Russia, if not other countries. Regional war would be very likely.
    Israel is an immoral aggressor attempting to cement territorial gains. You want it to use ultimate force. The fact your reasoning leads you to such options shows the underlying desperation of your position: you already know Israel is deeply immoral; hence, why not go the last step just to get that final victory.
    You’re chasing an illusion, Wig.

    Reply

  22. nadine says:

    “There was a very smart guy over at TPM Cafe, named Howard
    Berkowitz, who was/is a military expert. One of the things he
    proposed for Israel was a kind of smart weaponry that could
    sense incoming rockets and immediately respond, destroying
    those who had launched the rocket.” (sweetness)
    They can reply very quickly now. But since it takes time for the rocket to fly, no reply can be instant. I don’t see how it would disable Hamas’ current defensive technique, which is to have grown men launch the rocket, but have young boys retrieve the launcher.
    That way, you see, they win whether the launcher is hit or not. If it’s not hit, they get the launcher back; if it is hit, they have some dead children for the NGOs to bemoan as innocent civilian casualties of Israel’s overly aggressive techniques. Either way, it’s a win for them.
    No one is more indifferent to Muslim suffering than the supporters of radical Islam. No one.

    Reply

  23. Paul Norheim says:

    Now, what do you say, Sweetness? See what I mean?
    Don’t you agree that things have changed a bit on the pro-Israel side of TWN as well
    since you left the blog a year ago? Doesn’t it feel a bit weird to suddenly end up
    arguing rationally, pro et contra, whether it would be wise to exterminate large parts
    of the Palestinian population? At least it does to me.
    Questions is basically the same as before: a moderate and ambivalent voice with a lot
    of…well…questions. Then there is Nadine, who arrived here six or nine months ago
    and never left again… a devoted militant propagandist for Netanyahu and the Israeli
    rightwing hawks, who has dismissed the suffering of the Palestinians at the Gaza strip
    from her very first post until today: “since these Arabs don’t have the means to
    exterminate the Jews in the foreseeable future, they’re just whining and crying for
    welfare money from the international community”. And then there is WigWag, who realizes
    that nuking the Palestinians would be horribly wrong, due to the proximity to the
    Jewish settlers and the rest of the Israelis, but who suggests a solution à la Dresden
    instead of Hiroshima. And as you’ve seen, Sweetness, it’s not a question of rare senior
    moments, because there is some sort of system, coherence, and intelligence behind her
    lunatic suggestions to commit crimes on a grand scale against women, children, and old
    people. In addition to the eternal parables…
    All in all, this is polarizing an already polarized climate on the blog. Now, the
    question is: how do you respond to a biased Zionist (Nadine) who always defends the
    policies of Netanyahu and the conduct of the IDF, regardless of the arguments or facts?
    Personally, I’ve stopped arguing with her – I can’t see the point. How do you respond
    to WigWag who wants to exterminate large parts of the Palestinian population because
    that’s the only way these ungrateful and dumb people will realize that surrender is
    their only option?
    Have you ever seen such brilliant ambassadors for Israel!
    And how do you respond to Carroll in those moments when she is unable to control
    herself? Or Outraged American, who just an hour ago on a more recent thread suggested
    to give the Israelis three months to leave and then nuke the whole place – if they
    attacked Iran? Perhaps she was joking? Yeah, sure, but not really. Because the Jews are
    somehow behind most of the evil events in the Universe, one way or another, according
    to OA and Carroll. The same world view is shared by a certain samuelburke, who seems so
    fixated on the “Jewish problem” that I have personally recommended a visit to a madras
    in Afghanistan or Pakistan, just to broaden his horizon a bit.
    No, Questions hasn’t changed. And POA hasn’t changed much (a bit milder now). And so
    with DonS, Dan Kervick and many others, basically. You may like them or not, but they
    are all somehow on the sane side. But the provocations from WigWag (Dresden), Nadine
    (God bless Netanyahu and the settlers), and OA (the Jews and the Zionists control us
    and are preparing for WW3), and the rest of these extreme voices get a lot of
    attention. Nadine writes here 24/7, and a dozen of her strongest opponents argue
    against her 24/7 as well, as if not only she, but also her opponents were paid to fight
    each other. Which of course makes the debate not only polarized, but also extremely
    narrow and uninteresting.
    Well, that’s my take right now. I don’t see much point in this eternal back and forth,
    and when things actually do change a bit, it’s always to the worse.

    Reply

  24. WigWag says:

    “Seems to me that I read that the Dresden bombing was NOT very effective at ending the war. That is, that it’s hard to break the will of the people with a scorched earth policy and a much
    better policy to break the will of the military leadership. In that regard, Israel’s would be much better served by ensuring that all humanitarian needs in Gaza are fully met, while concentrating its military response solely on Hamas’s military.” (Sweetness)
    Actually that’s not true; the bombing of Dresden along with the bombing of Berlin was one of the events that finally convinced Germany, which had already seen all hope for victory evaporate, to surrender.
    The Dresden Campaign took place on February 13-15, 1945. There was a deliberate decision made by Roosevelt and Churchill and backed up by Eisenhower to target the civilian population of Germany. In fact the bombing of Dresden and Berlin represented the first time that the allies deliberately targeted civilians instead of targets with military utiliy. This was a path that Great Britain (which had survived the terrible bombing of London)had been advocating for some time. Churchill believed that a decision to deliberately target civilians would end the war sooner.
    During the bombing of Dresden between 25 thousand and 40 thousand German civilians, the majority of whom were woman, children and old men, were incinerated and the city was destroyed. Germany surrendered on April 29, 1945, a mere 73 days after the bombing of Dresden.
    By the way, the decision of the Allies to bomb Dresden back to the stoneage was not unprecedented. Berlin was bombed at least 50 times in 1945 and over the course of the war 50 thousand Berliners were killed by Allied bombing raids. Many people forget that Hamburg was also the target of massive allied attacks directed against civilians; in July, 1943, 50 thousand Germans were killed in one bombing run led by the RAF.
    And lets not forget that Japan wasn’t spared. In addition to the 240 thousand people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, during the conventional bombing of Toyko, 100 thousand Japanese died.
    The Palestinians should be grateful that they have an adversary less committed to their total destruction than the Allies were to the destruction of Germany and Japan in World War II.
    On the other hand, Israel’s reluctance to treat its enemies the way all other nations involved in war treat their enemies, prolongs the conflict and ultimately doesn’t serve the interests of Israelis or Palestinians.
    Remember, the Palestinians have an alternative to accepting dreadful casualties and continuous violence.
    They can surrender.

    Reply

  25. Sweetness says:

    There was a very smart guy over at TPM Cafe, named Howard
    Berkowitz, who was/is a military expert. One of the things he
    proposed for Israel was a kind of smart weaponry that could
    sense incoming rockets and immediately respond, destroying
    those who had launched the rocket.
    This weaponry would have the advantage of destroying those
    who attacked Israel, but largely sparing the civilian population. I
    don’t know the name of this weaponry, but Howard said it was
    actual and very accurate.
    This would essentially nullify Hamas attacks and leave Israel the
    option of proposing borders and a final state solution. The ball
    would be in the Palestinians’ court to accept or not.
    Seems to me that I read that the Dresden bombing was NOT
    very effective at ending the war. That is, that it’s hard to break
    the will of the people with a scorched earth policy and a much
    better policy to break the will of the military leadership. In that
    regard, Israel’s would be much better served by ensuring that all
    humanitarian needs in Gaza are fully met, while concentrating its
    military response solely on Hamas’s military.

    Reply

  26. nadine says:

    Well, Paul, glad to see you are such a world-class expert on what the proper number of civilians to kill is, when fighting urban warfare against an enemy that wears no uniforms, uses mosques as ammo dumps, hospitals as headquarters, ambulances as troop carriers, apartment buildings as rocket launching sites, schools as firing posts, and openly boasts of using women and children as human shields. Pray, how did you acquire such expertise?
    Any approach remotely approaching Sherman’s would have resulted not in 1000 dead, but 50 or 100 thousand, which Israel could have done in a couple of days of bombing. They could have reduced Gaza to rubble, like Port au Prince, and nearly as quickly as the earthquake. If they had, Gaza’s casualties would resemble those of Port au Prince too.
    BTW, Hamas claims that only 300 of the dead were militants; but Israel points out that over 700 of the dead are lauded on Hamas’ own websites as fallen fighters. Goldstone might have noted that, had he bothered to read any documents before he wrote his report.

    Reply

  27. Paul Norheim says:

    The IDF certainly didn’t fully implement Sherman’s strategy during the attacks on Gaza
    – the way the allied did in Dresden, or USA in Hiroshima. Operation Cast Lead was
    Sherman Light.
    Sherman (in)famously said: “The proper strategy consists in inflicting as telling blows
    as possible on the enemy’s army, and then in using the inhabitants so much suffering
    that they must long for peace, and force the government to demand it. The people must
    be left nothing but their eyes to weep with over the war.”
    In other words: Targeting the civilian population is an integrated part of the
    strategy.
    What I call Sherman Light often goes under the name of “unproportional force”. Perhaps
    “intended side effects” would be a more appropriate term? In some cases, however, what
    seems to be side effects, or collateral damage, are the actual targets, while hitting
    military buildings, equipment, or soldiers serve as a pretext and almost a bonus.
    Obviously, inflicting pain, death and destruction on the civilian population was an
    integrated part of the Israeli strategy in Gaza (and in Lebanon in 2006) as well.
    However, the basic strategy was – with some notable exceptions – to target the
    civilians in a way that made it look like a regrettable but unavoidable side effect of
    destroying “the real target”. In it’s simplest form: If you need 6 bullets to hit enemy
    combatant X in a crowded area, you throw in 6 hand grenades instead, intentionally
    killing the enemy combatant AND a handful of civilians. Although this is done
    intentionally, you defend the action by claiming that the target was enemy combatant X.
    By fully endorsing Sherman’s strategy, you cross not only the line, but also the gray
    area distinguishing between combatants and civilians, and thus clearly become an
    advocate of terrorism as a crucial component of your strategy. Of course, anyone
    advocating such a strategy also loses the moral high ground with regard to accusing the
    enemy of terrorism. I would assume that Israel will hesitate to employ Sherman’s
    strategy to it’s full extent in their next attack. But they may think that they
    miscalculated during Operation Cast Lead, and decide to inflict even more pain on the
    civilian population. To use the former example: instead of using 6 hand grenades to hit
    combatant X, they may use 36, or wait until he is surrounded by a larger crowd – but
    within the same framework.
    From a moral perspective, there is no principal difference between
    A) targeting only the civilians, or
    B) Sherman’ s strategy, or
    C) Sherman light.
    When targeting the general population is a crucial and integrated part of your
    strategy, you’ve crossed the line. And as we’ve seen in the I/P conflict over the
    years, Sherman Light has caused ten times as many (intentional) dead civilians as the
    pure terrorist tactics employed by Hamas.

    Reply

  28. nadine says:

    Wigwag, Barry Rubin has a good post discussing the nature of victory, and why the IP conflict won’t ever have a peace treaty but may have a de facto solution:
    Defining “Victory” and “Peace”: How the U.S. and Israel Reject General Sherman’s Solution and Get Blamed Any Way
    “…Israel can never “win” the conflict with the Palestinians or with the neighboring Arabs or Muslims for that matter. “Win” here means to gain such a triumph that the conflict will come to an end. But Israel can “win” by reducing the cost of the conflict to itself, going on with its national life, and reducing conflict to a minimum in terms of disruptions and casualties.”
    “Equally, the radicals can gain international sympathy and criticisms of Israel but that will never bring them actual victory, only allow them to extend the conflict indefinitely. And so, there is no peace but Israel remains the closest thing to a winner, as long as it is willing to pay a certain price, while trying to reduce that price to the lowest possible level.”
    Read the whole thing. http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-does-victory-mean-and-what-does.html

    Reply

  29. nadine says:

    “The modern State of Israel is a colonial construct of the Allies after WWII. That colonial construct, however, did not, like the American colonies, have to fight for its independence. It was colonized as an independent state. ” (david)
    OMG. You have no idea what you are talking about. This is not what happened AT All.
    First of all, by the 1930s the Zionists were already there and already organized as a state within the British Mandate, which had been in place since the end of the Ottoman Empire in 1918. By 1947, there were 650,000 Jews in the Yishuv and that was before any post WWII immigration was allowed. The partition proposals (The Peel Commission in 1937 which was rejected, the UN Partition Vote in 1947) were to ratify a Jewish homeland that already existed, not to create a new colony from scratch. In each case the Arabs refused to accept it.
    You think Israel didn’t have to fight for its independence? Seriously, you haven’t heard of the Israeli war of Independence in 1947-49? Five Arab armies invaded, vowing to drive the Jews into the sea. The Israelis lost 6,000 killed 1% of their total population.
    Please. Go read a history book. A real one.

    Reply

  30. Sweetness says:

    Wig…Paul…I really should have READ before I responded to you
    guys here. The whole thread puts a lot into context. This place is
    jiggy!

    Reply

  31. David says:

    nadine,
    The modern State of Israel is a colonial construct of the Allies after WWII. That colonial construct, however, did not, like the American colonies, have to fight for its independence. It was colonized as an independent state. It then set about to do exactly what our American forbears did, which was to set a course we refer to as Manifest Destiny. The State of Israel, of course, has this sectarian text accepted by American Judaeo-Christians which explicity delineates their notion of Manifest Destiny, for some sectarian and for others in Likud secular, the two perhaps being indistinguishable at this point. What do you think the settlements are about, besides creating facts on the ground in their patchwork colonizing of the Occupied Territories.
    Of course I recognize the flawed Palestinian leadership. I am not aware, however, of the Palestinians creating settlements in Israel, or of their quest for Israeli water.
    Unless anyone – you, me, whoever – is willing to look unblinkingly at all the facts, the full reality, insight is not possible, only positioning and the marshalling of arguments for one’s own held beliefs.
    POA is one of the most relentless pursuers of unfettered honesty in viewing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One might not like his style, but he does his homework, and he demonstrates no ideological blinders. You seem to me to come from a self-centered belief system for which you marshall whatever facts support your position.
    America has frequently done the same, especially in our foreign policy. It is one of the things anyone who wants to get at larger truths has to recognize and wrestle with in his or her quest for actual understanding of anything. For me regarding the Viet Nam War, that meant first recognizing that we were not the good guys wearing the white hats, regardless of the nobility of individual soldiers. And that meant redefining for myself the meaning of patriotism and impelled me to learn as much as I could about the actualities of US foreign policy, including the reasons. That meant understanding what “vital US interests” meant.
    A simple example of a moment of insight came when I was appalled by Reagan bombing Tripoli. I was trying to figure out what crime Libya was guilty of. The bullshit about “We have a right to bomb you if you declare a zone of the Mediterranean off limits to foreign warships” did not wash. Read a State Department bulletin on Libya which said that Libya had nationalized their oil reserves, the direct result of which was that Libyans went from among the poorest North Africans to a median income of $6,000. Nationalized the oil, did he? And was setting an example of successful socialism, at least for the average Libyan? We’ll have not of that shit if we can stop it. It will be wrapped in all sorts of crap, but somewhere at the core of it there will be a fairly simply explanation.
    I was in the process of learning all of our military adventurism of the 20th century, which was quite disconcerting because my notion of the US in the world was shaped by having been born in 1942 and having a father who served in WWII, and having shared the gratitude of all the adults I knew for the fact that the Allies won against an adversary capable of pretty heinous atrocities. It was not easy to digest the larger picture of the US in the 20th century, especially the realities of the Cold War. Had to do it, however. Intellectual honesty demanded it. Incomplete pictures are just that, and can result in some awfully wrongheaded conclusions.

    Reply

  32. MarkL says:

    Sweetness,that’s a good point;however, I’ve read that more recent studies of Iraq show that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapons program until after the bombing of Osirak.
    Surely Israel’s status as a nuclear power is not irrelevant to regional politics.
    Thanks for the response. I only threw out that idea because I don’t see how any Palestinian-Israeli negotiations have a chance now, especially with such a weak President here in the US>

    Reply

  33. Sweetness says:

    “The largely unspoken reason that Iran is (probably) pursuing
    nuclear weapons is that Israel is armed to the teeth with atomic
    warheads and makes regular threats to bomb Iran.”
    This point, frequently made, makes little sense to me. Israel has
    had the bomb since the late 60s. It didn’t set off an arms in the
    70s, 80s, or 90s. Now, suddenly, it’s claimed that Israel’s
    possession of nuclear weapons threatens its neighbors when, in
    fact, its neighbors were never threatened before.
    Saudi Arabia has tons of money. Iran had tons of money. Egypt
    is pretty well off. Yet none of them, until now, have used this
    excuse.
    So is the chicken the egg here, or vice versa? Do the Israelis
    threaten to bomb Iran because it has acted menacingly toward
    Israel, or vice versa?

    Reply

  34. MarkL says:

    Ok, how about a different tack towards the Isreali conflict.
    The largely unspoken reason that Iran is (probably) pursuing nuclear weapons is that Israel is armed to the teeth with atomic warheads and makes regular threats to bomb Iran. Who wouldn’t feel nervous living in a neighborhood like that!
    Instead of pressuring Isreal on the Palestinian problem directly, what about a campaign to isolate them for being a rogue nuclear state?
    Unlikely, sure, but maybe more sensible.

    Reply

  35. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag,
    I don’t know what to say to your last comment to me (Feb 07 2010, 3:31PM). You are familiar
    with my position, and if I should go into detail, I’m afraid I would just repeat myself
    (which I’ve done too many times here anyway, like most of us).
    I agree with a lot of what Sweetness, MarkL, and Questions have said in the last day or
    two, and will wait to comment until I feel I have more to say.

    Reply

  36. Sweetness says:

    Hey Wig,
    I see your points and they have validity. Sometimes the bad guys
    do win and eventually, mostly, things work out, although
    sometimes things continue to simmer and brew in an unsettled
    state, even the though the conflict is over.
    We could go through examples, but that’s not my aim here. I
    guess you could say that Mexico is sloshing back on shore and
    Prussia’s win didn’t result in a terribly stable situation that was
    good for everyone. Change is constant, as you say yourself.
    And much of it isn’t the for the good. The Holocaust defeated
    the Jews and settled quite a few things, but it’s hard to argue
    that the Jews, as a group, are better off for it–is it?
    But as to this…
    “I don’t see any prospect that the Palestinians, who foolishly
    refuse to sue for peace, have any prospects for success at all.
    The west, and in particular western leftists, do everything they
    can to convince the Palestinians that there is another way out for
    them; there isn’t.” (Wig)
    That might be an interesting move; to sue for peace. I haven’t
    thought about that. But as to leftists suggesting this or that, I
    can’t speak for others, but I’m suggesting that ISRAEL, not the
    Palestinians, DO something. They have agency. I don’t think it’s
    hard to see that, in moral terms, they owe the Palestinians
    “something” for the land they were relieved of. In some ways, at
    least conceptually, this is simple.
    Now, now, the argument is made that Israel concessions are only
    pocketed and become the foundation for further demands. Or
    even further terrorist action. I think it would be easy to short
    circuit these points, if the Israelis put forward a credible final
    status proposal that included some obviously important
    Palestinian demands, such as a capital in EJ, and a clear
    deadline. One counter demand could be the complete cessation
    of all rockets and the stipulation that ANY rockets will be met
    with overwhelming and deadly force. Water and sewage would
    also be arranged for. And some other things.
    Now this would be hard for Israel politically, but still it’s clearly
    doable–and that’s what I’m suggesting. It’s odd, in my view, to
    put pressure on Israel to conduct a scorched earth campaign and
    somehow reframe from putting pressure on Israel, or advising
    Israel, to do the above which has so much more to recommend
    it. After all, they can always do the scorched earth thing any
    time they decide it’s their only option.
    One reason Israel may not have done what you recommend is
    that they thought or were fighting “the Arabs,” not “the
    Palestinians.” They won the wars with the Arabs and now are
    left with the Palestinians whom they didn’t count on remaining
    opponents.

    Reply

  37. MarkL says:

    The guy who listed a bunch of Jews, including Paul Krugman, to show the Zionist takeover of the Obama administration (what position does Krugman have, btw?) was another classic anti-Semite.

    Reply

  38. MarkL says:

    Sweetness,
    Your brief history of the Israel dilemma was well put.
    WigWag,
    I don’t see how you can think that Israel could wipe out Hamas and Fatah and just walk away the victor.
    You think they can keep US funding after an action like that?
    Your comment about the need to “win” wars is one I have heard echoed by many people in recent years. I”ve talked to cultivated Europeans who will suggest hair-curling levels of atrocity SHOULD have been used by the US against Iraq, for similar reasons.
    Of course, in actuality, the US DID decimate Iraq, causing over 1 million deaths as well as catastrophic destruction. The amount of bombs dumped by the US on Iraq must now dwarf by orders of magnitude the entire ordnance dropped in WWII.
    What more could we have done? Should we have rounded up all males between 15 and 50 and shot them, or shot a certain percentage? Should there have been more rape?
    If you envision wiping out Hamas and Fatah with a miilitary act, then be prepared to kill the able-bodied youth as well.
    I think you could turn your observation about the Palestinian’s slow learning curve on its head, applying it to Israel instead.
    There’s no military solution to the Palestinian problem. Furthermore, the need to maintain a majority Jewish state is the roadblock towards assimilating the Palestinians—something past conquerors would have done long ago, by the way.
    I do with the US would get out of the Israel business, though. All that money props up the expanionist settlement policies; without it, Israel would probably have to stop stealing land, and maybe even pull back.

    Reply

  39. questions says:

    I think the wish is that, indeed, wars ought to be a little bit different now because we are all more informed and enlightened and we should be above power struggles — just enough above that we no longer look for overarching defeat.
    We know that daily life for Gazans is immiserated. We feel we can see from here that there are less harsh ways for Israel to behave such that Gaza can work out its own internal political solution.
    Some here feel that Israel is either an illegitimate project or a project of limited worth, or a project that gets far more support than its worth would demand. For those who think little of the Israeli project, its harsh treatment of the Gazans is intolerable because the payoff is vanishingly small.
    For many who value the Israeli project, there is a sense that the project could continue with a lot less cruelty. And this brings us to the WigWag divide. Is utter crushing military defeat and humiliation a necessary step in the establishment of a new state of whatever dimension? Or, can the conflict be managed at a significantly lower level while the world waits for Gazan political development to work its ways?
    I don’t think we have much of an answer for this fundamental question, though WigWag feels pretty strongly that we do have the answer. Israel is not thrilled with backing off even a fraction of an inch because of domestic political concerns. Hamas, equally, doesn’t want to back down. But all out carpet bombing war in a small densely populated space does seem like it isn’t really a humane solution.
    Note that Machiavelli does indeed talk about the basic morality of cruelty well-used. Political order’s always being better than disorder, a little cruelty at the front is far better than kindness that leads to disorder. But I’m not sure I like this argument. And I’m not sure it’s entirely correct either.

    Reply

  40. WigWag says:

    “At least in the case of Atlanta, Dresden, and Hiroshima, the defeated parties were the initial aggressors and their aggression had no moral basis. Sure, one can make arguments for the South and the Germans and the Japanese, and even talk about how history would have been written had they won, but…I think we can all agree they were on the wrong side of history, both morally and in terms of the current of events.” (Sweetness)
    That is certainly true, but my argument still holds true if you substitute conflicts where the moral position of the parties is far more equal than the moral positions of the combatants in World War II or the American Civil War.
    What about the Mexican American War; the United States was clearly the aggressor; it utterly defeated the Mexicans and it helped itself to the former Mexican territories of Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and California. You might almost say that in that war the “bad guys” won. Nevertheless, a significant percentage of the people reading this blog live on that stolen territory. Would you prefer it if the Mexicans still had aspirations to win back what is now the Southwestern portion of the United States? Would the Mexicans be better off if they still harbored the delusion that they could? Would the Californians or Arizonans be better off?
    Let’s try another example; what about the Franco Prussian War of the 19th Century. Prussia crushed France; but which side to the conflict had the moral high ground? Was one side morally superior to the other? After Prussia defeated and humiliated the French army and threatened to invade Paris, the French had no choice but to sue for peace; they did, and as a result paid significant war reparations and lost a substantial amount of territory.
    Wars are terrible; it is better for them to end. They rarely end with anything other than the total defeat of one of the belligerent parties. Bemoan it if you like, but bemoaning it doesn’t change anything.
    Unless you have evidence that at long last, wars don’t work the way they have throughout human history, or unless you have evidence that after more than a decade of trying, the Israelis and Palestinians are likely to work out their disagreement peacefully, then there really is only one choice; victory for one party; defeat for the other.
    I don’t see any prospect that the Palestinians, who foolishly refuse to sue for peace, have any prospects for success at all. The west, and in particular western leftists, do everything they can to convince the Palestinians that there is another way out for them; there isn’t.
    The sooner they are defeated; the sooner they can rebuild their lives. Who knows, maybe in a century or two, they will even win the next war.
    Actually, I blame the Israelis for alot of this. If they had any guts, they would tell the Americans and Europeans to stick it; they would march into Gaza and the West Bank and destroy Hamas and Fatah. Would civilians be killed in the process? Of course. Don’t you think civilians are being killed in Pakistan and Afghanistan by the Americans? Don’t you think civilians are being killed in Chechnya by the Russians? Don’t you think civilians are being killed in Tibet by the Chinese? Don’t you think Kurdish civilians have been killed by the Turks?
    War is awful and civilians die; the conflict between Israel and Palestine isn’t any better or any worse than all the other wars that confront mankind. Actually, the Israelis are far more attentive to preventing civilian casualties than most nations are; the United States has killed far more Iraqi, Afghan and Pakistani civilians and goodness knows the Russians have killed many times as many Chechnyans.
    Israel is doing just fine; the Palestinians are not. Ironically, the people doing the Palestinians the most harm are the very people who claim to sympathize with them.
    Defeat is their only salvation. Once their defeat is complete, their rehabilitation can begin.
    If there is another realistic solution, I would love to hear it. But contemplating unrealistic solutions based on impossible scenarios (like the United States or Europe forcing a solution on Israel that Israel objects to) is just a waste of time.

    Reply

  41. Sweetness says:

    POA says: “…..open anti-Semitism on TWN (Carroll is not
    alone)…….”
    “One knows that you claim to consider Carroll’s comments as
    anti-semitic. It is the “Carrol is not alone” assertion you need to
    address. Sorry, Sweetness, but you failed to fulfill my request.”
    Well, POA, here is what you said, in full: “Provide us with AN
    example of your allegation of “open anti-semitism”. You didn’t
    actually ask for more than one, so I gave you one.
    Moreover, it is NOT simply a matter of “considering” her remarks
    to be anti-Semitic; they are, by any measure. Just read through
    them…
    Here we have Mencken, often praised by libertarians: “The Jews
    could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race
    ever heard of. As commonly encountered they lack any of the
    qualities that mark the civilized man: courage, dignity,
    incorruptibility, ease, confidence.”
    Here we have George Washington: “They (the Jews) work more
    effectively against us, than the enemy’s armies. They are a
    hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great
    cause we are engaged in… It is much to be lamented that each
    state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society
    and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America.”
    Here we have Kaiser Wilhelm: “WILHELM II. German Kaiser.
    “A Jew cannot be a true patriot. He is something different, like a
    bad insect. He must be kept apart, out of a place where he can
    do mischief – even by pogroms, if necessary.”
    Now, whether these quotes are truly quoted, Carroll clearly
    thinks they are true and worth spreading. That’s why she
    spreads them. The fact that you are basing your objection to me
    on “Carroll is not alone” suggests that you are willing cede that
    Carroll is one person who DOES spread anti-Semitic garbage,
    which, in fact, she does. You’re just looking for the OTHER
    people to which Nadine refers. I’ll leave that to her.

    Reply

  42. Sweetness says:

    Okay, but…
    I think you have a few things confused, such as agency and the
    morality of various actions.
    • At least in the case of Atlanta, Dresden, and Hiroshima, the
    defeated parties were the initial aggressors and their aggression
    had no moral basis. Sure, one can make arguments for the
    South and the Germans and the Japanese, and even talk about
    how history would have been written had they won, but…I think
    we can all agree they were on the wrong side of history, both
    morally and in terms of the current of events.
    • I don’t think you can make the same case, quite, for the
    Palestinians. They were largely just sitting there when the Jews
    arrived. (Short interlude: I’m not anti-Zionist, and don’t mean to
    put forward the anti-colonial blah, blah.) But regardless of the
    merits of the Zionist enterprise–and I think there were and are
    merits–there’s no question that the Palestinians got the raw
    end of the stick through no real fault of their own.
    • Sure, the Palestinians made strategic errors and committed
    crimes. But they are in no way parallel to peoples who were
    perpetuating slavery, enslaving the Pacific, and murdering Jews,
    Slavs, and homosexuals. I think THAT much is clear. If not, stop
    me here.
    • So then, you come to the question of agency–how is this
    total defeat supposed to come about and what are its
    consequences? I understood from one of your quotes that you
    thought Israel should engage, or should have engaged, in a
    scorched earth policy to defeat the Palestinians beyond rising. If
    I understand you correctly, you seem to be advocating the death
    of quite a few people, most of whom are innocent, most of
    whom aren’t supporting an immoral cause as were the Japanese,
    Southerners, or Germans. That’s immoral, even if, quite a few
    years later, their descendants would be “happier.”
    You seem to be saying that the road to happiness leads through
    the vail of death–and the death of other people. That’s an
    immoral position, IMO.
    • The other piece of the agency puzzle is this: Is Israel’s only
    option to engage in a scorched policy to defeat the Palestinians?
    Politically, she’s bound up as a matter of fact. But in actuality,
    she has other options. For example, she could declare victory
    and set out terms: the border between two sovereign states.
    Israel doesn’t really have to wait for the US, or anyone else, to
    intercede; she could simply decide, as she did with Gaza, and
    propose a border which is more or less known and simply wait
    for the response from the Palestinians to negotiate with them.
    If she did something like this, then any moral case that Hamas
    might have would evaporate. Everyone understands that the
    Palestinians have, for all intents and purposes, been defeated.
    Now it’s time to set the boundaries.
    • Now, as a factual matter, the chances for a negotiated
    settlement look dim–you’re right. As a third party observer,
    you are right. But this doesn’t mean that Israel should have
    engaged in an immoral scorched earth policy to “defeat” an
    already defeated people. She could; but a lot of innocent people
    would die unnecessarily. She could also decide that it’s time for
    two states. You seem willing to give Israel advice, but I think it’s
    the wrong advice.

    Reply

  43. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “…..open anti-Semitism on TWN (Carroll is not alone)…….”
    One knows that you claim to consider Carroll’s comments as anti-semitic. It is the “Carrol is not alone” assertion you need to address.
    Sorry, Sweetness, but you failed to fulfill my request.
    But you knew that.
    However, I appreciate your opining that we need to wade through a bunch of bigoted garbage posted by Wig-Wag. I couldn’t agree more.

    Reply

  44. WigWag says:

    Sorry, Paul (and Sweetness), I’m afraid that it’s your position that is anti-Palestinian; not mine. The Palestinians will never be able to rebuild their lives; their homes and their culture until their ultimate defeat (which is inevitable) finally arrives. Once the current conflict, which has proven completely immune from a negotiated settlement, is over the Palestinians can rebuild just like the Germans, Japanese, French, Jews and so many other defeated people have.
    By maintaining the illusion that some party will intercede on behalf of the Palestinians, the world is deluding Palestinians into thinking that they will get more in a settlement than they ever are likely to achieve; that postpones the day when a settlement to the conflict arrives and pushes the achievement of at least a portion of Palestinian aspirations ever further off into the future.
    Wars rarely end with anything but one side defeating the other. You can live in a dream world and believe otherwise, but don’t deceive yourselves into thinking that your position is more moral or decent; in fact, it’s less moral and less decent.
    Wars end, when the side fated to lose gives up all delusions that it will ever be victorious. That’s what Sherman understood; that’s what the Allies understood when they destroyed Dresden; it’s what the Sri Lankans understood in their war with the Tamil Tigers.
    Maintaining the current charade does no one any good, especially the Palestinians. It’s time to put an end to this conflict and that can occur only one way; total defeat of one side or the other. You may not like it, but we all understand perfectly well which side that is going to be.
    That’s almost always the way wars end. Pretending otherwise isn’t moral and it isn’t smart; it’s dumb and frankly indecent.
    I have no doubt that your desire for a fair and just settlement is genuine; but the strategy that you endorse will insure that a settlement never arrives. There is simply very little precedent (I can think of only one or two) for a non-military conflict like the one between Israelis and Palestinians being solved in anything other than a violent way.
    By the way, Paul, Sherman, put the South through an awful experience. His approach has been recapitulated by warring parties throughout history. But the story had a happy ending. As Sweetness can attest, the South is doing just fine today. Virginia (which is where I think Sweetness lives) is peaceful and prosperous; Atlanta, the city he burned to the ground, is doing great and even the states in the Deep South are doing okay.
    Like the citizens of the American South; the Palestinians can get a state of their own, albeit smaller and less autonomous than they might like, and they can enjoy a prosperous future.
    Of course, there is one prerequisite; they need to stop relying on voices like yours for advice.

    Reply

  45. Sweetness says:

    Ha! That’s easy. Take a look at Carroll up thread. She’s proudly
    displaying almost every single racial slur contra les Jews that’s ever
    been uttered. And less you think she doesn’t believe them, take a
    look at her final send off…
    “You really think everyone is stupid enough to believe the zionistas
    totally innocent jewish victim shick..LOL”
    I think it goes back to her childhood in racist Dixie and that time
    she asked a Jewish boy to a party and he turned her debutant ass
    down. Right then and there, she knew there was something about
    them Jews…
    Anyway, you asked for “an” example…and Carroll has obliged with
    a boatload.

    Reply

  46. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Truthfully, judging from the amount of open anti-Semitism on TWN (Carroll is not alone), that will happen soon and nobody will mind much”
    Provide us with an example of your allegation of “open anti-semitism”.

    Reply

  47. nadine says:

    sweetness, as I pointed out, some of Carroll’s quotes were never said by the heavy hitters to whom they were ascribed, but were Nazi-era forgeries.
    Others were snippets taken out of context, e.g. Mark Twain’s came from an essay where he puzzles over the roots of anti-Semitism, and comes to the final conclusion that it is rooted in envy of Jews’ abilities.
    In Churchill’s case, he respected Jews and he especially respected the political abilities of Russian Jews, which had no outlet in the politics of their own country. This led him to MUCH prefer they take up Zionism rather than Communism; it was one of his chief motives for being the biggest promoter of Zionism in the British government.
    As you say, there is not much difference between this and “recommending the Protocols of Zion
    because a book with that kind of staying power has to have SOME truth to it, dontcha think? ”
    Truthfully, judging from the amount of open anti-Semitism on TWN (Carroll is not alone), that will happen soon and nobody will mind much.

    Reply

  48. Sweetness says:

    Paul writes: “I know it sounds incredible, but anti-Semitic
    statements are actually far from the most problematic
    statements expressed at TWN at the moment. FYI.”
    Paul, I have been away a long time and certainly wasn’t doing
    anything more than a cursory scan. Some longer posts, I
    skipped. Some names that were familiar, I focused on a bit
    more. I read some Wig and Questions upstream…and read some
    Carroll and you downstream.
    Whether anti-Semitism is up or down vis a vis anti-Arab feelings
    in these comments is something I can’t comment on. I thought
    Carroll’s comment was as I said it was and it connected for me
    with many other things she had written in the past when I was
    reading. So I commented.
    But all that said, I wasn’t making any sort of comprehensive
    review, just giving my impressions based on a quick read and, of
    course, memory. Naturally, anti-Semitism sticks out for me
    because it’s a dagger pointed at my heart and my family.
    Anyway, maybe I’ll take a read, but probably won’t comment. I’d
    forgotten how irritating the captcha system here is.

    Reply

  49. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “”an indirrerence to muslim suffering,that I call racist” well yout not allowed to call that racism BECAUSE ITS NOT”
    Granted. However, it IS a telling indicator of a racist mindset.

    Reply

  50. Paul Norheim says:

    “Then again, maybe he [WigWag] was out of his mind when he wrote this. I don’t know. Obviously, I think it’s wrong. If he
    truly hates Arabs, that’s too bad.”
    I don’t know anything about WigWag’ s motives, Sweetness. I can only relate to her statements. And the sad thing is that this
    is pretty consistent with many other statements by WigWag during the last months. When Nadine started posting here (I don’t
    know if you’re familiar with here views), I, like most posters, thought that she was much more extreme than WigWag. But
    judging from WigWag’s posts on I/P during the last months, it’s clear that she is currently far more extreme than Nadine. So
    one could say that there have been some changes (for the worse) while you’ve been away…
    As you know, I’ve reacted several times when I’ve seen anti-Semtisim here. I’ve also done so a couple of times while you’ve
    been away. I don’t want to go on a witch hunt. My simple point is that if one has the capability to get shocked, there are
    plenty of quite extreme and shocking statements coming from both sides right now.
    I appreciate your frank reply, and who knows – perhaps you’d even agree with me that some of the statements i quoted above
    are not less extreme than the most rabid anti-Semitism? This is a sad and rather ugly development, especially since I
    appreciate many of WigWag’s qualities, and have enjoyed many of the discussions I’ve had with her during the last couple of
    years. On the thread below this one, there is a rather interesting (I think) discussion between WigWag and me, that is quite
    illuminating with regard to the view of history that somehow serves to explain, and also justify, why Wigwag don’t mind the
    thought of treating the Palestinian population in ways similar to how the allies treated the population of Dresden and
    Hamburg during WW2. If you have the time, I think it’s quite interesting for other reasons too.
    I know it sounds incredible, but anti-Semitic statements are actually far from the most problematic statements expressed at
    TWN at the moment. FYI.

    Reply

  51. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “You call israel supporters racists all day long,so find me one post that proves your claim”
    I don’t need to defend my comments to you, nor “prove” on damned thing to you. And it is not “Israel supoporters” that I cal “racist” or “bigoted”. It is those posters such as Wig-wag and Nadine, who have openly expressed an indifference to Muslim suffering, that I call racist. And you don’t need to do much of a search to find examples of the indifference I refer to.
    I consider the members and administrators of organizations such as “Peace Now” and “Americans for Peace Now” as being “Israel supporters”, Care to show me where I call them racist or bigoted?
    If people like you or Nadine are “Israel supporters”, the old adage comes to mind…
    “With friends like that….”

    Reply

  52. Sweetness says:

    Well, you know, Paul, Wigwag and I do not agree on all things.
    He takes a much harder line on Israel than I do. Wig also, as I
    recall, from time to time made, as Swift did, “modest proposals”
    meant to shock and provoke and epater la bourgeoisie. I warned
    him about this on more than one occasion and he listened to me
    once.
    Now that you tell me that he is the author of these quotes, it’s
    possible this is one of those statements. I’d have to go back and
    read the context, the back and forth, etc. If he’s serious, then,
    IMO, he’s out of his mind. Frankly, Paul, this site is so
    relentlessly anti-Israel and, at times, anti-Semitic I simply got
    tired of wading through the same posts day after day. Perhaps
    this is Wig’s way of relieving the tedium in a one-sided
    harangue–er, discussion.
    Then again, maybe he was out of his mind when he wrote this. I
    don’t know. Obviously, I think it’s wrong. If he truly hates
    Arabs, that’s too bad. I play dumbek, so I know a lot of Arabs
    and Iranians and think they are fine people. I speak more Arabic
    and Farsi than Hebrew, for what it’s worth.
    Carroll, whom I’ve read on this subject for a couple of years, is
    quite serious in what she says. Hard to know what her trip is.
    She at one time claimed to be simply concerned with Israel’s
    wrongdoings…to being outraged at the presence of Zionists and
    neocons in the government and Israel’s influence here…to quite
    liking the possibility that anti-Semitism was a figment (largely,
    but not exclusively) of Jews’ imagination…to flirting, perhaps
    enviously, with arthur’s vibrant anti-Semitism…to now
    suggesting that these overtly anti-Semitic remarks have a basis
    in fact because they were uttered by heavy hitters.
    A few years back when Carroll was fond of quoting Churchill on
    the Jews, I showed that, just because Winnie said it didn’t make
    it so. In fact, anti-Semitism among the British is quite well
    known and well-documented and even portrayed in films for the
    masses. So it’s entirely possible that Winnie had the disease.
    Bess Truman didn’t like Jews in her house. That’s been
    documented. Nixon wasn’t crazy about them, either. Many
    Popes hated them. Martin Luther didn’t care for them at all.
    This is all well known, except to Carroll, who remains benighted.
    So here she is again. She’s not countering offensive statements
    about Arabs with “that’s not correct” or “that’s bigoted.” She’s
    countering them by displaying her personal collection of anti-
    Semitic rants. And, once again, she’s saying they’re probably
    true because of all the famous and important people who said
    them. Pretty soon, she’ll be recommending the Protocols of Zion
    because a book with that kind of staying power has to have
    SOME truth to it, dontcha think?
    Whatever. This is largely why I am-scrayed a year or so ago.

    Reply

  53. Marcus says:

    POA- I wish you and other israel/bashers would draw a distiction between cultural bias/preference/prejudice and ethnic/racial bigotry
    Every time a supporter of israel points out their preference(and their percieved superiorty of same) for jewish/israeli culture over arab/muslim culture you and your ilk accuse them of racial bigotry.j
    I am not a reg. poster here but I defy you to find one post where an israel supporter has claimed that jews are genetically superior to arabs, just one
    If you cannot then you should dig deeper into your well of insults for something more accurate
    You call israel supporters racists all day long,so find me one post that proves your claim.

    Reply

  54. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “That garbage is all over the Net, and I
    have to wade through it, just like everyone else”
    “But as I say, I’m not shocked by her–bigotry abounds”
    Comical.
    Sweetness just pointed out that Wig-wag’s comments are bigoted garbage, that need to be “waded through”.

    Reply

  55. Paul Norheim says:

    Well, to me, WigWag sounds more extreme than usual (when discussing the I/P conflict) in the
    “shermanesque” quotes I provided.
    I often enjoy discussing other subjects with her, however.
    BTW, my question was not intended as a trap.

    Reply

  56. Sweetness says:

    Shocked? No, not at all. That garbage is all over the Net, and I
    have to wade through it, just like everyone else.
    (Sorry for not falling into such an obvious trap.)
    As to your little old lady from Florida commenting back in 2009,
    well, I haven’t read the comments here for well over a year.
    But as I say, I’m not shocked by her–bigotry abounds.
    I only remarked upon Carroll because she is someone whom I read
    over a long period of time–so the change in her was pretty clear.

    Reply

  57. Paul Norheim says:

    Just to give you a clue, Sweetness – here’s a couple of quotes from the linked page (all written by the same old lady from
    Florida, mentioned above):
    “With the Palestinian Authority finally out of the way, perhaps Israel will be able to mount its Shermanesque “March to the
    Sea.”
    William Tecumseh Sherman is considered to be the first modern general. His scorched earth policy was very reminiscent of
    the isolation of Gaza that Israel is mounting with assistance from the United States, Europe and Egypt.
    (…)
    General Sherman’s tactics, while harsh, are universally respected by military historians and studied intently by military
    strategists. Sherman’s strategy was recapitulated by the British in the Boer War, by the Americans and British in Dresden
    and Hamburg; by the Vietnamese at Dien Bien Phu, by the Russians in Chechnya and by the Americans in Fallujah to site
    just a few examples.
    The question is whether Sherman’s tactics and success suggest an interesting precedent for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
    —————————–
    I am a bit curious, Sweetness: do you agree with the lady in Florida, that the tactics employed in places like Dresden,
    Hamburg, Dien Bien Phu, and Chechnya suggest “an interesting precedent” for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Or do you
    actually get “shocked initially” while reading comments like that?

    Reply

  58. Paul Norheim says:

    “Paul, who was shocked initially by arthur’s very own words, found it in his heart to live and let live.”
    I’m not so sure about that, Sweetness. I never get quite used to that stuff. Besides, anti-Semitism is far from the only shocking
    phenomenon in the world today, nor at the Washington Note. Personally I find it “a bit odd” that Carroll’s post apparently is the
    only one you regard as provoking on this thread.
    Now, let’s see… What about the following sentences, written by a charming and intelligent old lady residing in Florida, who
    regrets that the IDF had too many scruples during the bombardment of the Gaza strip last year?
    Quote:
    “If Israel had any guts, they would go into the West Bank and Gaza and finish off Hamas and Fatah once and for all. The Israelis
    are reticent to do it because unlike the rest of the world they do actually have a few scruples when they fight wars but even more
    importantly, the Israelis are too cowardly to take the terrible outcry in world opinion they would undoubtedly be victimized by.
    But putting an end to the charade is really the most decent thing Israel could do. Once the inevitable Palestinian defeat is evident
    to all and once Palestinian institutions are utterly destroyed and once Palestinians have been robbed of all delusions then they
    can start to rebuild their lives and their nation.”
    You do understand the implications of those statements, don’t you, Sweetness?
    If in doubt, I suggest that you click on the following link and do a search for the word “Sherman”:
    http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/11/on_us_middle_ea/

    Reply

  59. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Don’t worry Sweetness, not only is everyone at the Washington Note in the same place they were a year ago”
    Not so, posters susch as Kervick have lost their faith in Obama’s posturing towards peace, and the Goldstone Report has cemented the opinions of many here that were on the fence.
    And Steve has become far more willing to post critically of Israel, and make us aware of efforts and websites seeking to more honestly inform the public about what Israel is doing, such as “The Palestine Note”, and the recent pro-Arab Pac he steered us to.
    I think you bigots need to realize that you are your own worst enemies. And Nadine’s racist and dishonest spew does very little to advance your cause. Wig-wag’s support for Nadine’s bullshit has also increased the awareness of where Wig-wag stands, and underscored the fact that while once posing as a moderate, Wig-wag is very much the bigot and fanatic that Nadine is.
    It is actually quite comical seeing the troll “Sweetness” casting the accusation of “anti-semitism” at regular commentors here, when posters such as Nadine have been so willing to expose themselves as blatant bigots who consider the Palestinians, and “arabs” in general, as being inferior beings whose suffering and deaths are easily discounted by false narratives and open lies.
    I realize you shameless zionist bigots would like to believe that the dynamic isn’t changing, but unfortunately for you it IS changing, and people are beginning to see the zionist movement for what it is; a racist murderous monopoly of bigots and religious fanatics, whose tactics and practices would do the nazis proud.
    If “Sweetness” had any brains or common sense, she’d tell Nadine to just STFU, realizing what a detriment Nadine is to garnering any sympathies for the Jewish people, Israel, or the zionist movement. However, I imagine Sweetness celebrates Nadine’s racist spew, and that too is counterproductive to what Nadine, Wig-wag, or Nadine hope to accomplish on Israel’s behalf.

    Reply

  60. WigWag says:

    “Wow. I guess nothing keeps on giving like the IP debate. Everyone seems to be firmly in the same place they were in a year or so ago.” (Sweetness)
    Don’t worry Sweetness, not only is everyone at the Washington Note in the same place they were a year ago; everyone in Israel and Palestine is in the same place.
    Guess what; 20 years from now, if you return for a visit everyone will still be in the same place, especially the Israelis and Palestinians.
    Same as it ever was!

    Reply

  61. Sweetness says:

    Wow. I guess nothing keeps on giving like the IP debate.
    Everyone seems to be firmly in the same place they were in a
    year or so ago.
    That said, Carroll does seem a bit more uncloseted as an anti-
    Semite, however, using the old if-you-say-this-about-the-
    Arabs-I’ll-quote-even-more-credible–AND OF COURSE
    BELIEVABLE–sources-that-tell-THE TRUTH-about-Jews
    gambit.
    She always did dig that creep from Canada–what was his fake
    name?–arthurdecco-anti-Semite-of-the-North? Maybe she
    envied his freedom to let his true feelings out.
    I always found it odd that the one VERIFIABLE anti-Semite on
    TWN found a cozy place here, especially as everyone was so
    quick to affirm that their beef was with zeyeohnism, not
    joodayism. Even Kathleen put aside her qualms to cuddle up
    with arthur. Paul, who was shocked initially by arthur’s very own
    words, found it in his heart to live and let live.
    Wig, you have amazing fortitude to keep at this ridiculous game.

    Reply

  62. marcus says:

    nadine HI, I understand better now ,I thought for a moment that your young president had maybe elicited a transformational shift in the arabs mentality.
    This new book “The Empathic Civilization”(it sounds good) maybe it will get translated into arabic,(they might sell a dozen….fourteen copies that way.
    ( a link ? No I don”t)

    Reply

  63. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Gazans Denied Justice as Rights Take a Beating
    by Mel Frykberg, February 05, 2010
    RAMALLAH — Gazans hoping for a modicum of justice following Israel’s indiscriminate military assault on the coastal territory during December 2008 and January 2009 — which left 1,400 Palestinians, mostly civilians, dead — could be waiting in vain.
    The Israeli government has taken the offensive in the propaganda battle and attacked United Nations-appointed Justice Richard Goldstone’s report into war crimes committed during the war. The report alleges that Israel was responsible for the lion’s share of human rights abuses.
    Following international censure and U.N. calls for independent inquiries to be carried out by both the Israeli government and Gaza’s de facto Hamas government, Israel submitted a counter-report to the U.N. last weekend.
    Specific incidents during which Goldstone says civilians and civilian infrastructure were deliberately targeted were either justified or denied outright by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
    However, two senior Israeli officers were brought before a disciplinary committee after they authorized the use of phosphorous on a U.N. facility sheltering 700 civilians. The IDF, however, refused to divulge what action was taken against the officers.
    continues…
    http://original.antiwar.com/frykberg/2010/02/04/gazans-denied-justice-as-rights-take-a-beating/
    “The IDF, however, refused to divulge what action was taken against the officers”
    Whats the Israeli equivalent of the Medal of Honor??? In Israel, the only good General is a war criminal, and the only good Muslim is a dead one.

    Reply

  64. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Report: Israel Stole $2B from Palestinian Workers
    by Jonathan Cook, February 05, 2010
    Over the past four decades Israel has defrauded Palestinians working inside Israel of more than $2 billion by deducting from their salaries contributions for welfare benefits to which they were never entitled, Israeli economists have revealed.
    A new report, “State Robbery”, to be published later this month, says the “theft” continued even after the Palestinian Authority was established in 1994 and part of the money was supposed to be transferred to a special fund on behalf of the workers.
    According to information supplied by Israeli officials, most of the deductions from the workers’ pay were invested in infrastructure projects in the Palestinian territories — a presumed reference to the massive state subsidies accorded to the settlements.
    Nearly 50,000 Palestinians from the West Bank are working in Israel — following the easing of restrictions on entering Israel under the “economic peace” promised by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister — and continue to have such contributions docked from their pay.
    Complicit in the deception, the report adds, is the Histadrut, the Israeli labor federation, which levies a monthly fee on Palestinian workers, even though they are not entitled to membership and are not represented in labor disputes.
    “This is a clear-cut case of theft from Palestinian workers on a grand scale,” said Shir Hever, a Jerusalem-based economist and one of the authors of the report. “There are no reasons for Israel to delay in returning this money either to the workers or to their beneficiaries.”
    continues….
    http://original.antiwar.com/cook/2010/02/04/report-israel-stole-2b-from-palestinian-workers/
    Maddoff musta taken lessons in Israel.
    But what the hell, why not? Who needs money after you’ve been roasted in white phosphorous?

    Reply

  65. PissedOffAmerican says:

    The….
    ….ISRAELI….(a few)…
    ….nazis and bigots…..
    ….attempting to maintain the status quo and dictate what……
    …..AMERICAN AMERICAN AMERICAN AMERICAN AMERICAN AMERICAN AMERICAN AMERICAN AMERICAN AMERICAN AMERICAN AMERICAN AMERICAN AMERICAN AMERICAN AMERICAN……(many)….
    …..college students get to hear…..
    http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=167725
    Hillel at odds over J Street’s ‘pro-Israel pro-peace’ prog.
    BY E.B. SOLOMONT
    03/02/2010 23:23
    Controversial group aims to push online support base into community meetings, activism.
    Talkbacks (14) NEW YORK – As J Street puts the finishing touches on plans to fan out into more than 20 communities with new local chapters, detractors in Philadelphia are crying foul over a kick-off event that the “pro-Israel, pro-peace” movement has planned for Thursday night.
    Striking at the heart of a debate over whether J Street’s policies place it among mainstream Jewish organizations, critics are upset that Hillel at the University of Pennsylvania agreed to rent its space to J Street. The organization is set to officially launch its local network on February 4, when J Street Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami’s speech in Philadelphia will be Web cast to simultaneous launch events in cities including Baltimore, Chicago, New York and San Francisco.
    “I vehemently disagreed with the decision to rent to J Street in the Hillel building,” said Lori Lowenthal Marcus, a Hillel board member who founded a right-leaning group, Z Street, and plans to hold a competing event on Thursday night in the same building.
    “I disagree with just about every policy J Street has with respect to the Middle East,” she said, calling it a “big mistake” for Hillel to rent the space. Acknowledging J Street’s first amendment right to free speech and gathering, she said Hillel was sending the wrong message by allowing the kick-off to take place in its building.
    “Although it is only rented space, and not a Hillel-sponsored event, I believe it will be known and remembered as the J Street event at Hillel and that is handing the keys to J Street into the mainstream Jewish organization club. And I don’t think it’s a mainstream Jewish organization,” she said.
    Hillel has defended its decision, however, and in a statement released January 24, Hillel Director Jeremy Brochin said the board applied routine criteria to the query: that J Street accept Hillel’s support of Israel as a Jewish state with secure borders; that it did not advocate harm to Israel, including sanctions; and that it present its views with civility.
    Stating clearly that Hillel was not officially sponsoring the event, the statement read: “We believe it is important that all voices that abide by our principles regarding Israel’s right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish People have an opportunity to express their opinions in our building as long as they commit to maintaining civility in their presentations.”
    The statement emphasized a diverse group of speakers that visited the campus in recent months, including Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky, the professor Daniel Pipes and the activist and writer Nonie Darwish.
    “It is important to emphasize that, as with all of our speakers, J Street’s use of our facility does not constitute an endorsement by Hillel of the policies of the group or of the opinions expressed during its meeting,” the statement said.
    J Street’s national leaders say the local movement is an effort to push its online support base into community meetings and activism. The co-chair of J Street’s Philadelphia branch, Jon Grabelle Herrmann, said that after Ben-Ami’s speech, attendees would break into working groups to plot their next steps.
    “We’re excited because the event is our first opportunity to convene various people we know are interested in the pro-Israel, pro-peace agenda, as well as attracting new people to the agenda,” he said.
    Herrmann said J Street organizers sought space for their event in the Hillel building because it has a public façade and Jewish character.
    “University campuses have a really broad sort of spirit of openness and debate, and our thought was that this location for the event, other than being convenient for people to get to, is a center for public discussion about issues of importance to the Jewish community,” he said.
    Adding that it is Hillel’s job to define what is appropriate use of its facilities, Herrmann said his understanding was that Hillel can rent space to a range of groups that fall within the “pro-Israel tent.” Still, similar questions about the use of Hillel’s space has led Hillel of Greater Philadelphia to develop a policy, or set of criteria, to be applied to groups and speakers seeking a platform at a Hillel building. The local Hillel board was set to meet on Wednesday to finalize language for a policy fueled, at least in part, by controversy that erupted over three speakers at Temple University last year.
    “Given that conflagration, Hillel began to think of whether or not there should be some guidelines in place so that it’s not an off-the-cuff, last-minute decision that may have unanticipated repercussions,” Marcus said.
    While J Street is a different issue, in that it is not a student-sponsored event, it is not unrelated.
    “None of us had thought about renting space,” Marcus said, “That’s typically not a policy issue, it’s a commercial transaction, but it does have political implications.”
    She alleged that some members of J Street’s Philadelphia local advocate policies she thinks are harmful to Israel, or would deny Israel’s right to self-defense.
    But J Street organizers in Philadelphia vehemently defended their pro-Israel stance. Herrmann, who is married to a rabbi and is the grandson of a Holocaust survivor, said to “suggest that I’m not pro-Israel doesn’t ring true on any level.”
    “I think the best way to support Israel is to make sure that as many American Jews as possible are engaged in the debate about what’s going on in Israel,” he said. Steve Masters, who served as national president of Brit Tzedek v’Shalom and is involved in organizing J Street’s local presence in Philadelphia, told The Jewish Exponent: “J Street is a completely pro-Israel organization – and there are so many different ways to be pro-Israel.”
    Herrmann, a Penn alum, became active in J Street after attending the policy conference last year.
    “The reason I got involved was because from my perspective, it’s hard to have a debate about what’s best for Israel in the American Jewish community,” he said. “The party line in America seems to be that you support whatever the government of Israel does, no matter what, and that’s the only way to be pro-Israel.”
    J Street brings new voices to the table, he said.
    “We think the best way to have vigorous support of Israel in the American Jewish community is to have a vigorous debate. It’s part of democracy,” he said.

    Reply

  66. nadine says:

    Hi Marcus, I think I found what you talking about. From the Jpost:
    “A paper prepared by Chief Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat on the status of the peace talks with Israel recommends that the Palestinians consider the possibility of abandoning the two-state solution in favor of a one-state solution if the peace process does not move forward.”
    “Another option that the Palestinians should consider, according to Erekat, is the re-evaluation of the Oslo Accords and “declaring them null and void, partially or completely, or applying them selectively in a manner consistent with Palestinian interests.”
    “The paper recommends that the Palestinians link cooperation on issues that matter to Israel, such as security cooperation, with Israel upholding its obligations [to the peace process].”
    http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=167735
    Paragraph 1 and 3 would seem to contradict each other. Israel only has obligations to the peace process under the Oslo Accords; if they are declared void, then Israel has no obligations.
    Doubtless Erekat means that only Palestinian obligations should be declared void; while all Israeli obligations should remain intact. Notice the part about “applying them selectively in a manner consistent with Palestinian interests.” So what else is new? The Palestinians have been doing this all along. They’re just trying to see if they can get their usual habits officially certified by the usual chorus of their supporters. They want to make it official and UN-certified: no matter what they sign, only Israel is under any obligations.(As the only grown-ups in the room, someone at TWN will doubtless inform me, though they will couch it in more PC language)
    The only point is to keep up a steady pressure of official Palestinian grievances. It’s one of their best weapons, so they can’t let it slack off even when events on the ground (on the West Bank at least) are quite positive.

    Reply

  67. nadine says:

    MarkL, I have no idea what “philosophy” you are assigning to me, or why it should have destroyed the Jewish people at any point in history (you think they never fought wars back then?). I am just pointing out certain realities of Palestinian politics, while the rest of TWN tries assiduously to ignore them. I don’t have any solution. It seems to me that Palestinians have chosen not to chose. So there will be no solution.
    marcus, is this another round of “If you don’t hand over all our demands right away, it will be too late for a two-state solution”? The Palestinians have made this threat several times before. It never comes with any offer of a deal if their demands should be met, however, so it doesn’t mean much. Have you got a link?

    Reply

  68. Outraged American says:

    Actually Wig, the National Enquirer has been sued so many times it
    tends to vet everything it publishes that might lead it to be sued.
    Trust me, back in my childhood I worked in gossip for a paper you
    can find anywhere, including Mars or Florida
    And “The Nation” is run by limited hang-out members of the tribe,
    who are even more dangerous than Nadine and her soul boy
    Marcus.

    Reply

  69. marcus says:

    I just read that the pals are now proposing to abandon the ridiculous idea of a pal country and throw their lot in with israel, to dissolve the palestien authority and become a province of israel or a part of israel well its about time .I guess they know which side their bread is buttered on.
    This is very good news WOW a undivided Israel from the river to the sea WILD
    As most people have always figured (israel bashers and israel lovers) israel was never going to give up judea and samaria its what Ive always said ,now it looks like the arabs living there have figured out that its actually a win win scenario.
    I live in quebec its very distinct from the rest of the country very distinct In quebec we call ourselves a nation within a nation it could be a very useful model for over there. we are much more than just a province but much less than a soverign nation (NO ARMY and all the big money things are handeled by the Feds-it works just fine) win win
    Im just a little worried about some of the bloggers here ( IF it works out- your”e going to have to get a life)

    Reply

  70. marcus says:

    To anyone – If an islamist, imperialist army,once a long time,burns a synagague or a church to the ground – then builds a mosgue on top of the ruins – does the land underneath it remain islamic FOREVER ?
    If you answer YES then you are some kind of bloody crusader, imperialist/colonialist/occupior,religous fundementalist, etc. (all the things israelis are accused of.
    If you answer NO that opens up a whole new realm of possible outcomes,does it not? (including the jewish liberation of all of arab/imperialist, occupied territory in Judea and samaria

    Reply

  71. MarkL says:

    Oh please.
    If the Jews took the philosophy of Nadine and Marcus to heart they would have died out as a people 2600 years ago.
    And then 2000 years ago, and then again and again after that.

    Reply

  72. WigWag says:

    “I have to disagree with you there, Wigwag. The Palestinians do think they have a choice: and it’s the one they have chosen, which is never to make a deal. Oh yes, and to whine about how ill-used they are to get third-party protection. So in this sense they are not defeated. Defeated peoples understand they are defeated; that they must take the best they can get now because if they refuse it will be even worse. You could argue that this is true for the Palestinians as well, but they don’t believe it. They don’t feel any pressure to make the deal. If they felt any pressure they would want to negotiate. But as we see, they don’t want to negotiate at all. They feel they will do better by refusing to negotiate. That way they can tell their people, see, we are not defeated – a not insignificant political advantage.” (Nadine)
    Of course, you are right about this. The Palestinians can’t come to terms with their defeat or their powerlessness because leading members of the world community, especially the Europeans and until recently, Obama, keep suggesting to them that they are on their side and that the world stands ready to assist them to achieve their aspirations. The Palestinians kept being told; “don’t feel powerless” the world is ready to help you.”
    Of course, it’s a cruel joke. More than anything else, it reminds me of the promises George H.W, Bush made to the Shia and Kurds in Iraq when he suggested that if they rebelled against Saddam, he would back them up. He didn’t.
    And the world will never serve as interlocutors for the Palestinians; it will continue to pay them lip service but never do anything more than that.
    It’s as if the Americans and the Europeans were drug pushers, dispensing narcotics to a pathetic addict; they pretend to be the addict’s friend but anyone with half a brain knows better.
    In a certain sense the Israelis are to blame too. If Israel had any guts, they would go into the West Bank and Gaza and finish off Hamas and Fatah once and for all. The Israelis are reticent to do it because unlike the rest of the world they do actually have a few scruples when they fight wars but even more importantly, the Israelis are too cowardly to take the terrible outcry in world opinion they would undoubtedly be victimized by.
    But putting an end to the charade is really the most decent thing Israel could do. Once the inevitable Palestinian defeat is evident to all and once Palestinian institutions are utterly destroyed and once Palestinians have been robbed of all delusions then they can start to rebuild their lives and their nation.
    In short, the best thing for everyone including the Palestinians is for the Israelis to put an end to this longstanding war once and for all.
    Because the Palestinians are waiting for someone else to do their negotiations for them, there is unlikely to be a peaceful settlement. That leaves exactly one alternative.
    The Palestinians are a talented and entrepreneurial people. Like the Germans, the Japanese, the French, the Jews, the Turks, the Austrians, etc, once they have gotten over the shock and dismay of their humiliating defeat they will surely rise again like the Phoenix.

    Reply

  73. nadine says:

    Palestinian PM Fayyad just made a speech at the Hirziliya conference. The gist was a long list of demands on Israel: stop construction in Jerusalem, withdraw from the West Bank, lift the siege on Gaza, etc.
    PM Fayyad said his aim was to convince the international community to make Israel give the concessions. The PA would give nothing whatsoever in exchange: no treaty, no end of conflict, no security agreement, no refugee agreement, no end to the continual incitement to kill Jews on PA TV *, nothing. The official PA position on negotiations is: we make demands, you make concessions.
    Mind you, PM Fayyad is the most moderate guy in the PA. But he’s a figurehead kept in power only to the collect the aid money.
    Wigwag, these guys don’t feel defeated at all. They feel very well protected indeed. They think time is on their side and that the Europeans will actually deliver for them. But they have miscalculated before.
    * This is a direct quote from the sermon of the Imam of Nablus (an official PA appointment) as broadcast on PA TV last Friday. PM Fayyad’s speech was aimed at the West; this is what the PA aims at its own people. Does this sound like the PA plans to accept a two state solution?
    “Preacher: “Palestine was subjected to a loathsome occupation of its land and holy places by these neo-Mongols, who perpetrated, on this holy, blessed, and pure land, acts of killing, assassination, destruction, expropriation, Judaization, harassment, and the fragmentation of the homeland.
    “This is clear evidence of the hatred they harbor, and of their unparalleled racism. This is the Nazism of the 20th [sic] century.
    “The Jews are the enemies of Allah and His messenger. They are the enemies of Allah and His messenger, the enemies of humanity in general, and of the Palestinians in particular. They are fighting us with all types of crime, and even the mosques have not been spared their racism.
    “For the people who laid traps for the prophets of Allah – arrested them, killed them, and deceived them – it is a thousand times easier to lay traps for the followers of these prophets. Our mutual enmity with the Jews is a matter of faith more than an issue pertaining to occupation and land. […]
    “Jews will always be Jews. Even if donkeys cease to bray, dogs cease to bark, wolves cease to howl, and snakes cease to bite, the Jews will not cease to be hostile to the Muslims.”
    http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3946.htm

    Reply

  74. nadine says:

    “Like the Germans and the Japanese, as the losers, the Palestinians have little choice but to accept terms they consider humiliating; that is unless they can defeat Israel militarily. But accepting those terms doesn’t mean they can’t have a nation of their own; it just means that their nation will be smaller and have somewhat less autonomy than they would like.” (wigwag)
    I have to disagree with you there, Wigwag. The Palestinians do think they have a choice: and it’s the one they have chosen, which is never to make a deal. Oh yes, and to whine about how ill-used they are to get third-party protection.
    So in this sense they are not defeated. Defeated peoples understand they are defeated; that they must take the best they can get now because if they refuse it will be even worse.
    You could argue that this is true for the Palestinians as well, but they don’t believe it. They don’t feel any pressure to make the deal. If they felt any pressure they would want to negotiate. But as we see, they don’t want to negotiate at all. They feel they will do better by refusing to negotiate. That way they can tell their people, “see, we are not defeated” – a not insignificant political advantage.

    Reply

  75. nadine says:

    “nadine, hope the weather is good in your alternate universe. Sorry, but you quite simply make no sense in the face of any comprehensive consideration of Israeli colonialism. Gee, I wonder why Palestinians might react the way they do. No excuses for some of their failed leadership, but no excuses for Israeli manifest destiny, either.” (david)
    David, I suppose I should thank your for at least mentioning there is such a thing as Palestinian leadership, for on TWN all you have to do to be called bad names these days is mention that political power in the West Bank resides in the hands of the Fatah Central Committee, whose existence everybody would rather ignore, the better to get on with schemes where outsiders force a settlement on Israel and the Palestinians never have to agree to anything.
    As for “Israeli manifest destiny”, ever heard of the Oslo Accords? or the withdrawal from Gaza? Area A, Area B, are these terms familiar? What remote sense is it to speak as if all the negotiations, all the withdrawals of the last 16 years never happened? Israel is not occupying all of the West Bank and Gaza, okay? Are you capable of recognizing this plain fact of this universe?
    As for your complaints of Israeli colonialism, Israel is not a colony. There is no mother country to withdraw to. They are not like the British in India. Two peoples are fighting for rights to live in what used to be the Mandate of Palestine. The stronger is willing to share but the weaker is not; this has created a stalemate. (For of course, if it were the stronger who was not willing to share, the weaker would have been evicted already.)

    Reply

  76. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag,
    I KNEW you would love that article!
    I appreciate your warnings, but I think comparing Siegman to “fringe nutcases (like Tony
    Judt or Steve Walt and (…) possibly Flynt Leverett)” might be perceived as a strong
    recommendation by many readers of the Washington Note.
    And so will the unfortunate fact that Siegman’s views are “at odds with the vast
    majority of Americans”, and “virtually all American politicians.” Unfortunately, the
    majority of Americans and American politicians got it all wrong before the invasion of
    Iraq too, so that doesn’t tell us much about whose judgement we should trust, does it?
    In any case, we both live in free societies, WigWag, so no one can deny you the right to
    express your preference for the eternal parables and clear thoughts of fellow commenters
    “Marcus”, (who generously shares his suggestions to solve the Israel/Palestine conflict
    in the comment above yours), Nadine, and Kotzabasis; nor my admitted preference for
    dimwitted nutcases like Henry Siegman and Stephen Walt.
    But thanks for your warnings!
    P.S.
    I almost forgot to mention how much I enjoyed reading your apt comparison of Israel’s
    treatment of the Palestinians with Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women; Turkey’s, Iran’s,
    and Iraq’s (under Saddam Hussein) treatment of their Kurdish population; and China’s
    treatment of the Tibetans – in your heroic attempt to refute the dimwitted nutcase Henry
    Siegman’s claim that Israel’s version of democracy has failed.

    Reply

  77. marcus says:

    If an islamic/colonialist army burns down a synagogue or a church and builds a mosque on the ruins-does the land underneath it remain islamic forever ?
    what is the claim the arab has over judea and samaria ? is it the length of their occupation that gives it credence ?
    It is a land where the jewish kings and prophets are buried the length of the arab occupation cannot ever erase this fact.
    the arguement that is pesistently fowarded is that the jews of today are not the decendants of the hebrews of yesteryear,that they are a mongrel people (we all know the ones who perfected this libel-so please no pretenders))and are therefore not entitled to re-claim their ancestral land, is that what the debate boils down too ? A racist rant.
    To those who claim solidarity with the arabs because of their suffering,why the singular attachment to one people ,one conflict, hey theirs plenty of suffering to go around.
    On the other-hand it has been my personal experience that people of all faiths have a great admiration and respect for the jewish people and that given the good example of their leaders, will rally behind israel and its people,or at least not go on and on about jew this or israel that,so I am actually very confident for israels future.
    Perhaps it is an inherent colonialist bent in the white man that they cannot stop interfering in oher peoples fights,which brings me to internationalism.
    I believe that it is in americas best interest to stay allied with israel,but if that changes I also belive Israel will do fine without her . In fact I see no real compelling reason why the US needs more allies than Israel(or not israel)) canada and Mexico I know the person that rules/runs this blog is an internationalist and IM sure he has many like-minded readers so what does the US gain from the world that it could not replace right here in North America (apart from canapes in copenhagen)
    I am a canadian we have only ONE importent international relationship thats with America, we really do not need any others,I think its in americas best interest to shrink its global imprint, its most often just alot of trouble ,the mideast trouble ,china,russia europe africa the whole bunch a lot of trouble,money,blood.
    Meanwhile your new internationalist president has Im sure lots of new adventures in mind.
    It is a facinating spectacle from up here in the great white north.

    Reply

  78. WigWag says:

    Paul, I’m worried about you; you have to stop reading the “Nation” or your mind could easily turn to mush!
    The magazine actually has a great and noble pedigree but its deterioration is so pronounced that the articles it now publishes are rarely more sophisticated than the fare you can expect to find in the National Enquirer (in case your unfamiliar with it, the National Enquirer is a racy tabloid that typically features articles like “Michelle Obama kidnapped by Martians”).
    The article by Henry Siegman is so vacuous that it’s hard to know where to begin. In case you’re unaware of Siegman’s stature, he’s now mostly relegated to the sidelines like the rest of the fringe nutcases (like Tony Judt or Steve Walt and I hate to say it but possibly Flynt Leverett). Siegman isn’t taken seriously by anyone with any influence and his views are at odds with the vast majority of Americans and virtually all American politicians.
    Let me just mention a few areas where Siegman’s essay is dimwitted.
    1) Siegman claims that it “is now widely recognized in most Israeli circles–although denied by Israel’s government–that the settlements have become so widespread and so deeply implanted in the West Bank as to rule out the possibility of their removal.”
    But just a few paragraphs before this he mentions that Ehud Olmert “ridiculed Israeli defense strategists who, he said, had learned nothing from past experiences and were stuck in the mindset of the 1948 war of independence. With them, it is all about tanks and land and controlling territories and controlled territories and this hilltop and that hilltop. All these things are worthless. Who thinks seriously that if we sit on another hilltop, on another hundred meters, that this is what will make the difference for the State of Israel’s basic security?”
    Olmert stepped down as Prime Minister less than 18 months ago; he offered to return to Palestinians at least 95 percent of the land in the West Bank and make relevant land swaps. How is it that Siegman expects us to believe that removal of settlements is now impossible when he acknowledges that Olmert when Prime Minister just 18 months ago offered to do exactly that?
    It’s pretty obvious that Siegman isn’t even coherent.
    2) Siegman complains that “Prime Minister Netanyahu’s conditions for Palestinian statehood would leave under Israel’s control Palestine’s international borders and airspace, as well as the entire Jordan Valley; would leave most of the settlers in place; and would fragment the contiguity of the territory remaining for such a state.”
    Yes that is Netanyahu’s opening position but he has agreed to bargain about all of it. Even more importantly, Siegman fails to understand that there are consequences to losing wars. Yes the Palestinian state will have to be demilitarized and yes their borders and airspace will have to be monitored. I’m sure the Palestinians will find all of that to be humiliating. I’m sure the Japanese found it humiliating when their surrender resulted in the dismantling of their military and severe restrictions imposed on the growth of their army and navy in the future. I’m sure that they weren’t thrilled with their new Constitution being authored by Douglas MacArthur. I’m sure they weren’t pleased when their Emperor whom they considered divine was humiliated and turned into little more than a figurehead.
    As for the Germans, it can’t have been pleasant to have to pay war reparations after World War I or to lose Alsace or Danzig (Gdansk). At the time, I doubt that they liked the permanent stationing of American troops on their soil or restrictions that were placed on their borders or on the growth of their military.
    Like the Germans and the Japanese, as the losers, the Palestinians have little choice but to accept terms they consider humiliating; that is unless they can defeat Israel militarily. But accepting those terms doesn’t mean they can’t have a nation of their own; it just means that their nation will be smaller and have somewhat less autonomy than they would like.
    3) Siegman believes that Israel’s position on East Jerusalem robs the Palestinians of a right to their own nation; this is obviously ridiculous. This is what Siegman says, “his conditions would also deny Palestinians even those parts of East Jerusalem that Israel unilaterally annexed to the city immediately following the 1967 war–land that had never been part of Jerusalem before the war.”
    But banishing Palestinian aspirations for Jerusalem as their national capitol doesn’t rob them of their right to have a nation. Just last year, the EU and the United States effectively dismembered Serbia by removing Kosovo (called “Old Serbia” by the Serbs) from that nation’s patrimony. Kosovo is to Serbia what Jerusalem is to Israel and to the Palestinians. The fact that Kosovo is no longer part of Serbia is undoubtedly very unpleasant for the Serbians, but it doesn’t mean that they don’t exercise self-determination within their own nation; it just means that there is a piece of territory that they love, cherish and lust for that they no longer have. Mexico is still a free nation despite the fact that it lost California, New Mexico and Arizona to the United States. Germany is still an autonomous nation despite losing parts of Jutland to the Danes.
    4) Perhaps the most entertaining part of Siegman’s screed is his discussion about how Israel has become an apartheid state. It always makes me smile to contemplate how desperately pathetic this argument is. Leftists, wildly nostalgic for the days when the fight against apartheid made them relevant and self-righteous, yearn for the opportunity to return to those glorious times; but those days are gone forever. Even if a two-state solution was never achieved and even if Palestinians in the West Bank were never permitted to vote and even if those same Palestinians were brutally oppressed forever, the analogy with apartheid is only for the simpleminded. Kurds in Turkey are not allowed to speak their own language in public places and all of their representatives in the Turkish Parliament have been expelled from office. Virtually all of the Kurdish political parties have been declared illegal; does that make Turkey an apartheid state? Women in Saudi Arabia are universally excluded from suffrage; does that make Saudi Arabia an apartheid state? The Kurds in Iran are brutalized by the state exclusively because of their national heritage and they experience terrible religious oppression because they are mostly secular Sunni; does that make Iran an apartheid state? Saddam Hussein excluded Shia and Kurds from political power in Iraq; Saddam may have been many things but I never heard anyone accuse him of being a perpetrator of apartheid. Political rights, including the right to vote are absent for Tibetans and the Han Chinese imported into Tibet are showered with privileges denied to Tibetans; China may be many things, but is it an apartheid state?
    The answers to my questions are obvious. Those who find an analogy between Israeli behavior towards the Palestinians and South Africa’s behavior towards blacks are merely engaging in a narcissistic delusion. That would include Henry Siegman.
    5) Siegman insists that the world will eventually impose a settlement and Israel won’t like it. He says, “if these fears are realized and the international community abandons a moribund peace process in favor of determined third-party initiatives, a two-state outcome may yet be possible. A recent proposal by the Swedish presidency of the European Union is perhaps the first indication of the international community’s determination to react more meaningfully to Netanyahu’s intransigence.”
    With this statement we have the final evidence that Mr. Siegman has deep-ended and now belongs squarely in the school for nutcases occupied by those who think Israel and/or the United States caused the Haiti earthquake with a secret death ray, those who think the 9/11 attack was a secret CIA or Mossad plot or those who think Christopher Marlowe actually wrote the plays of William Shakespeare.
    Who exactly does Siegman think is going to impose a settlement; the Swedes or the Norwegians? Prime Minister Berlusconi or President Sarkozy? The new British Prime Minister David Cameron? The President of Poland or the Czech Republic? The United States has the most sympathetic President the Palestinians are likely to see in the next 50 years; does Mr. Siegman think President Obama is going to impose a settlement on the Israelis?
    Does he think that a China, focused on its own economic growth and its own restive Muslim populations is going to impose a settlement on the Israelis? Does he think the Indians, who are increasingly tied to the Israelis militarily and who experience constant attacks from Islamic extremists are going to force a settlement on the Israelis?
    I understand why those who want justice for the Palestinians would prefer someone in the world to serve as an interlocutor for them. Most people recognize that the Palestinians are pathetically weak and thus don’t have the strength to get a great deal for themselves. The fact is that there won’t be any interlocutors and deluding the Palestinians into thinking there will be will does nothing but prolong their suffering.
    Either the Palestinians are going to make the best deal they can get for themselves or their suffering will extend far into the future.
    The bottom line is that Henry Siegman is truly dimwitted. None of his arguments hold up to scrutiny and only the gullible will find his essay compelling.
    As I said, Paul, put away the Nation; it’s for dummies.

    Reply

  79. Marcus says:

    Heres my solution to this two-state debate FORGETABOUTIT- What I would like to see happen is that Israels neighbors pay her war reparations for sixty years of aggression (if they will not pay-up europes ever docile taxpayers will ) this money would be used to re-settle the arabs in the “west Bank” to the countries from which they came iraq syria jordan etc. the bulk of these people after-all have very shallow roots in the jordan valley 120 years or less. Many will gladly take the money to better their lives elsewhere,(polls have shown this to be a popular idea) in western countries or with their kinfolk in neighboring countries.Those who chosse freely to stay could stay as long as they swear a loyalty oath to israel (poll after poll has shown that israeli arabs prefer to live under israeli soverienty than an arab government,e.jewrusalem arabs in particular) Israel then formally annexes the “west bank” win-win
    Gaza (whose people have alot more family connections in egypt) should be annexed by egypt therby re-establishing a relationship thats thousands of years old. the idea that gaza and the west bank form a country is ridiculous.
    if anyone thinks demographics worries israel your wrong,not only is the jewish birthrate higher in judea and samaria the arab poulation there has been grossly overstated.
    everybody is happy EXCEPT of course Israels main protaginists, the islamists who dream of an unified empire it is they who have driven this conflict from the begining but I say that just because an islamic imperialist/colonialist army ONCE a ;ong time ago,burnt down a synagague or a church and built a mosque on the ruins – does not mean that the land underneath it remains islamic forever.

    Reply

  80. David says:

    Thank you for an extremely cogent post, Paul. More than worth the read.
    nadine, hope the weather is good in your alternate universe. Sorry, but you quite simply make no sense in the face of any comprehensive consideration of Israeli colonialism. Gee, I wonder why Palestinians might react the way they do. No excuses for some of their failed leadership, but no excuses for Israeli manifest destiny, either.

    Reply

  81. nadine says:

    Once again I have to ask why there is an obsessive focus on Israeli politics and a virtual taboo on discussing Palestinian politics? “The last thing many in the international community want is a resumption of predictably meaningless negotiations between Netanyahu and Abbas. Instead, they are focusing on forceful third-party intervention, a concept that is no longer taboo.”
    Abbas is a figurehead. He’s weak, so Seigman’s conclusion is that third parties have to negotiate FOR the Palestinians.
    Wait a minute, I thought you wanted to encourage Palestinian independence? How do you encourage their independence by treating them as colonial subjects in this way? Don’t they get a say in what happens?
    It’s only when you figure out that Palestinian statehood is not the name of the game, only bashing Israel into making concessions, that you understand why the Palestinians have no objection to being treated like children. They see that there is no danger of their being asked to sign any sort of a deal; all the concessions will come from the Israeli side. So it’s fine with them.

    Reply

  82. Paul Norheim says:

    With reference to our discussion on another thread below, WigWag, about, among other
    things, whether nationalism is a progressive or a regressive ideology, I assume that it
    would be problematic to characterize the actual Israeli strategies as progressive. Yes,
    there are strong regressive tendencies in the Arab world, but also at the core of the
    Israeli experiment. I found an interesting recent article by Henry Siegman (former Director
    of the American Jewish Congress and the Synagogue Council of America) in The Nation,
    supporting my point that Israel emulates Old Europe, as well as the former South African
    regime. Here are some excerpts:
    “Imposing Middle East Peace
    by HENRY SIEGMAN
    January 7, 2010
    (This article is based on a longer study commissioned by the Norwegian Peacebuilding Centre
    in Oslo.)
    Israel’s relentless drive to establish “facts on the ground” in the occupied West Bank, a
    drive that continues in violation of even the limited settlement freeze to which Prime
    Minister Benjamin Netanyahu committed himself, seems finally to have succeeded in locking
    in the irreversibility of its colonial project. As a result of that “achievement,” one that
    successive Israeli governments have long sought in order to preclude the possibility of a
    two-state solution, Israel has crossed the threshold from “the only democracy in the Middle
    East” to the only apartheid regime in the Western world.
    The inevitability of such a transformation has been held out not by “Israel bashers” but by
    the country’s own leaders. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon referred to that danger, as did
    Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who warned that Israel could not escape turning into an
    apartheid state if it did not relinquish “almost all the territories, if not all,”
    including the Arab parts of East Jerusalem.
    Olmert ridiculed Israeli defense strategists who, he said, had learned nothing from past
    experiences and were stuck in the mindset of the 1948 war of independence. “With them, it
    is all about tanks and land and controlling territories and controlled territories and this
    hilltop and that hilltop,” he said. “All these things are worthless. Who thinks seriously
    that if we sit on another hilltop, on another hundred meters, that this is what will make
    the difference for the State of Israel’s basic security?”
    It is now widely recognized in most Israeli circles–although denied by Israel’s
    government–that the settlements have become so widespread and so deeply implanted in the
    West Bank as to rule out the possibility of their removal (except for a few isolated and
    sparsely populated ones) by this or any future Israeli government unless compelled to do so
    by international intervention, an eventuality until now considered entirely unlikely.
    It is not only the settlements’ proliferation and size that have made their dismantlement
    impossible. Equally decisive have been the influence of Israel’s settler-security-
    industrial complex, which conceived and implemented this policy; the recent disappearance
    of a viable pro-peace political party in Israel; and the infiltration by settlers and their
    supporters in the religious-national camp into key leadership positions in Israel’s
    security and military establishments.
    Olmert was mistaken in one respect, for he said Israel would turn into an apartheid state
    when the Arab population in Greater Israel outnumbers the Jewish population. But the
    relative size of the populations is not the decisive factor in such a transition. Rather,
    the turning point comes when a state denies national self-determination to a part of its
    population–even one that is in the minority–to which it has also denied the rights of
    citizenship.
    When a state’s denial of the individual and national rights of a large part of its
    population becomes permanent, it ceases to be a democracy. When the reason for that double
    disenfranchisement is that population’s ethnic and religious identity, the state is
    practicing a form of apartheid, or racism, not much different from the one that
    characterized South Africa from 1948 to 1994. The democratic dispensation that Israel
    provides for its mostly Jewish citizens cannot hide its changed character. By definition,
    democracy reserved for privileged citizens–while all others are kept behind checkpoints,
    barbed-wire fences and separation walls commanded by the Israeli army–is not democracy but
    its opposite.
    The Jewish settlements and their supporting infrastructure, which span the West Bank from
    east to west and north to south, are not a wild growth, like weeds in a garden. They have
    been carefully planned, financed and protected by successive Israeli governments and
    Israel’s military. Their purpose has been to deny the Palestinian people independence and
    statehood–or to put it more precisely, to retain Israeli control of Palestine “from the
    river to the sea,” an objective that precludes the existence of a viable and sovereign
    Palestinian state east of Israel’s pre-1967 border.
    A vivid recollection from the time I headed the American Jewish Congress is a helicopter
    trip over the West Bank on which I was taken by Ariel Sharon. With large, worn maps in
    hand, he pointed out to me strategic locations of present and future settlements on east-
    west and north-south axes that, Sharon assured me, would rule out a future Palestinian
    state.
    Just one year after the 1967 war, Moshe Dayan, then defense minister, described Israel’s
    plan for the future of the territories as “the current reality.” “The plan is being
    implemented in actual fact,” he said. “What exists today must remain as a permanent
    arrangement in the West Bank.” Ten years later, at a conference in Tel Aviv whose theme was
    finding a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, Dayan said: “The question is not, What
    is the solution? but, How do we live without a solution?”
    Prime Minister Netanyahu’s conditions for Palestinian statehood would leave under Israel’s
    control Palestine’s international borders and airspace, as well as the entire Jordan
    Valley; would leave most of the settlers in place; and would fragment the contiguity of the
    territory remaining for such a state. His conditions would also deny Palestinians even
    those parts of East Jerusalem that Israel unilaterally annexed to the city immediately
    following the 1967 war–land that had never been part of Jerusalem before the war. In other
    words, Netanyahu’s conditions for Palestinian statehood would meet Dayan’s goal of leaving
    Israel’s de facto occupation in place.
    From Dayan’s prescription for the permanence of the status quo to Netanyahu’s prescription
    for a two-state solution, Israel has lived “without a solution,” not because of uncertainty
    or neglect but as a matter of deliberate policy, clandestinely driving settlement expansion
    to the point of irreversibility while pretending to search for “a Palestinian partner for
    peace.”
    Sooner or later the White House, Congress and the American public–not to speak of a Jewish
    establishment that is largely out of touch with the younger Jewish generation’s changing
    perceptions of Israel’s behavior–will have to face the fact that America’s “special
    relationship” with Israel is sustaining a colonial enterprise.
    (…)
    The last thing many in the international community want is a resumption of predictably
    meaningless negotiations between Netanyahu and Abbas. Instead, they are focusing on
    forceful third-party intervention, a concept that is no longer taboo.
    Ironically, it is Netanyahu who now insists on the resumption of peace talks. For him, a
    prolonged breakdown of talks risks exposing the irreversibility of the settlements, and
    therefore the loss of Israel’s democratic character, and legitimizing outside intervention
    as the only alternative to an unstable and dangerous status quo. While the Obama
    administration may be reluctant to support such initiatives, it may no longer wish to block
    them.
    These are not fanciful fears. Israeli chiefs of military intelligence, the Shin Bet and
    other defense officials told Netanyahu’s security cabinet on December 9 that the stalled
    peace process has led to a dangerous vacuum “into which a number of different states are
    putting their own initiatives, none of which are in Israel’s favor.” They stressed that
    “the fact that the US has also reached a dead-end in its efforts only worsens the problem.”
    If these fears are realized and the international community abandons a moribund peace
    process in favor of determined third-party initiatives, a two-state outcome may yet be
    possible. A recent proposal by the Swedish presidency of the European Union is perhaps the
    first indication of the international community’s determination to react more meaningfully
    to Netanyahu’s intransigence. The proposal, adopted by the EU’s foreign ministers on
    December 8, reaffirmed an earlier declaration of the European Council that the EU would not
    recognize unilateral Israeli changes in the pre-1967 borders. The resolution also opposes
    Israeli measures to deny a prospective Palestinian state any presence in Jerusalem. The
    statement’s endorsement of PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s two-year institution-building
    initiative suggests a future willingness to act favorably on a Palestinian declaration of
    statehood following the initiative’s projected completion. In her first pronouncement on
    the Israel-Palestine conflict as the EU’s new high representative for foreign affairs and
    security policy, Baroness Catherine Ashton declared, “We cannot and nor, I doubt, can the
    region tolerate another round of fruitless negotiations.”
    More here:
    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100125/siegman/2

    Reply

  83. PissedOffAmerican says:

    It interesting that as much as Israel is criticized here, you very rarely see Jews being stereotyped.
    Yet when we read the zealotry and bigoted spew that rolls off of both Wig-wag’s and Nadine’s keyboards, they do nothing BUT stereotype the Muslims.
    And their callous indifference to Muslim suffering is eye-opening.
    Like I have noted previously, reading Nadine’s and Wig-wag’s comments and opinions really lends credence to the myriad of reported incidences of IDF atrocities, which credibly range from IDF soldiers shitting in the appliances of Palestinian homes they have commandeered, to IDF snipers targeting, and murdering, children.
    Nadine gives us a picture window into the mind of a racist, a person that truly believes that certain races or ethnic groups are inferior, and that their suffering, or their deaths, are of no consequence. It is a sad commentary on Israeli society that more and more this kind of mindset is not only blooming, but that it is actually being nurtured by rabbis, military leaders, and governmental dignitaries.
    Subsidized by us.
    Read Nadine’s comments carefully. In them you will find the mind of a real life ghoul, as ugly, and as dangerous, as the most radical of the Muslim extremists.

    Reply

  84. nadine says:

    Actually, the point, Carroll, is that you have unmasked yourself for what you are.
    Next time you might as well cut out the middleman, and instead of quoting forgeries by Nazi sympathizers, just quote directly from _Mein_Kampf_.

    Reply

  85. Carroll says:

    Posted by Noach, Feb 02 2010, 6:27AM – Link
    The point dear zionista is that every time you nadine and wiggie display your anti semitism toward the Arabs, call them animals and condemn their race or religion….a similar remark about jews can be found by someone with more standing than unknowns like yourselves.
    As I said, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

    Reply

  86. JohnH says:

    “Israel’s biggest concern is that in the long run they have a chance of losing.” They should be. The mystery here is why they can’t act like they might eventually live side by side with their enemy. Laying the groundwork for a peaceful future would unquestionably serve Israel’s long term interests. Unfortunately, it would not serve the short term interest of the brass in the IDF or the powerful “defense” industries.
    Instead of positioning itself for long term survival, Israel insists on planting the seeds for never ending conflict, threatening the long term survival of the enterprise.

    Reply

  87. David says:

    “…its simply about who wins the fight.” Can’t argue with that. I suspect Israel’s biggest concern is that in the long run they have a chance of losing. Their nuclear weapons are actually of no value because they cannot use them. They are just an ego-boosting icon of “national security.” Iran actually has greater need of nuclear weapons as an insurance policy against an Iraq-style invasion by the United States, although I think that is also ultimately an ego-boosting icon of “national security,” although it has more legitimacy than the Israeli “need for nuclear weapons.”
    Short term, Israel wants the geography for populantion growth and the water for quite obvious reasons. But they do not want a one-state solution that would give them all of this without war and other forms of brutalization of an inconvenient Palestinian presence on the geographical legacy of Abraham. And a two-state solution does offer the opportunity to engage in straight up state-to-state warfare.
    On the other hand, Livni et al might actually sort of grasp that Israel is travelling down a dead end street.
    Interesting that these people felt such a strong need to speak positively of US-Israeli relations. Political dymanics can be tricky, elusive phenomena that lead at times in quite unexpected directions.
    Who would have thought that the South could move in the direction it did beginning in the mid-60s, or that conversely it could embrace the teabaggers in 2010. Political dynamics are also quite often goofy, sometimes for the good, too often for the bad.

    Reply

  88. Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi says:

    The Tlipiz livni(an Israeli opposition leader) ventured progressive nationalism would be of no avail as long as Israeli government policy of constructing Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem is officially hailed,thereby negating the very substance of peace to pragmatically implement the two- states solution advocated/supported by the UN,the US,the EU, Russia and the Arab Muslim world.

    Reply

  89. nadine says:

    Noach, the letter to the Newport Synagogue is of course genuine, while the anti-Semitic quote is invented. George Washington, unlike Carroll, was not an anti-Semite.
    according to wikiquote:
    “This quotation is a classic anti-semitic hoax, evidently begun during or just before World War Two by American Nazi sympathizers, and since then has been repeated, for example, in foreign propaganda directed at Americans. In fact it is knitted from two separate letters by Washington, in reverse chronology, neither of them mentioning Jews. The first part of this forgery are taken from Washington’s letter to Edmund Pendleton, Nov. 1, 1779 {and the original can be found in the Library of Congress’s online service at http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mgw/mgw3h/001/378378.jpg }. I have tried to reproduce Washington’s spelling and punctuation exactly. In that letter Washington complains about black marketeers and others undermining the purchasing power of colonial currency:
    … but I am under no apprehension of a capital injury from ay other source than that of the continual depreciation of our Money. This indeed is truly alarming, and of so serious a nature that every other effort is in vain unless something can be done to restore its credit. …. Where this has been the policy (in Connecticut for instance) the prices of every article have fallen and the money consequently is in demand; but in the other States you can scarce get a single thing for it, and yet it is with-held from the public by speculators, while every thing that can be useful to the public is engrossed by this tribe of black gentry, who work more effectually against us that the enemys Arms; and are a hundd. times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in.
    The second part of this fabricated quote is from Washington’s letter to Joseph Reed, Dec. 12, 1778 {and can be found at the Library of Congress using the same URL but ending in /193192.jpg}, which again condemns war profiteers (the parenthetical list in the quotation is Washington’s own words which he put there in parentheses):
    It gives me very sincere pleasure to find that there is likely to be a coalition … so well disposed to second your endeavours in bringing those murderers of our cause (the monopolizers, forestallers, and engrossers) to condign punishment. It is much to be lamented that each State long ere this has not hunted them down as the pests of society, and the greatest Enemys we have to the happiness of America. I would to God that one of the most attrocious of each State was hung in Gibbets upons a gallows five times as high as the one prepared by Haman. No punishment in my opinion is too great for the Man who can build his greatness upon his Country’s ruin.”
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Washington

    Reply

  90. Noach says:

    to Caroll:
    though your list of anti-semitic quotes was interesting your
    context for offering them was, to me, unintelligible…are you
    actually looking to Napoleon Bonaparte for guidance and insight
    into the assessment of good character of the Jews? I can only
    shake my head at that one. Good luck with making your point–
    whatever it was.
    I only add that it would appear that George Washington, at least,
    is speaking out of both sides of his mouth:
    Letter from George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation at
    Newport
    c. August 1790
    Gentlemen:
    While I received with much satisfaction your address replete with
    expressions of esteem, I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring
    you that I shall always retain grateful remembrance of the
    cordial welcome I experienced on my visit to Newport from all
    classes of citizens.
    The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are
    past is rendered the more sweet from a consciousness that they
    are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security.
    If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with
    which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just
    administration of a good government, to become a great and
    happy people.
    The citizens of the United States of America have a right to
    applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an
    enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All
    possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of
    citizenship.
    It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the
    indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the
    exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the
    Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no
    sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they
    who live under its protection should demean themselves as good
    citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
    It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not
    to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my
    administration and fervent wishes for my felicity.
    May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land
    continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other
    inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own
    vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.
    May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness,
    upon our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful
    here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy.
    G. Washington

    Reply

  91. Amos says:

    “There may not yet either be peace, or even a clear way to get there, but this day may well have granted Obama a subtle victory, as the broad political recognition in Israel of the importance of a two-state solution was made urgently clear.”
    Obama’s credit? israel has agreed to this since at least 1947!

    Reply

  92. Carroll says:

    To reinforce my original comment on this conference….
    It’s not even worthing wasting print on what the Israelis say..except to drive home once again the obvious….everyone is disgusted with their drivel.
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1145985.html
    World isn’t buying Israel’s explanations anymore By Aluf Benn Tags: Israel news, Aluf Benn
    “In a speech at a conference not long ago, an Israeli diplomat serving in a European capital touted Israel’s hoary PR line, distinguishing between “the only democracy in the Middle East” and its autocratic Arab neighbors.
    “We share common values,” the Israeli told the Europeans. To his surprise, a member of the audience stood up and replied to him: “What common values? We have nothing in common with you.”
    The US has nothing in common with them either except some shared corrupt US politicans who work for Israel instead of the US.

    Reply

  93. Carroll says:

    “Anyone who thinks that any society as backwards, illiberal and retrograde as Arab society would ever contemplate “returning the favor” is naive in the extreme. ”
    How very uncouth of you wiggie….people who live in glass house shouldn’t throw stones.
    It’s time for your dosing…heheheheh
    CICERO (Marcus Tullius Cicero). First century B.C. Roman stateman, writer.
    “The Jews belong to a dark and repulsive force. One knows how numerous this clique is, how they stick together and what power they exercise through their unions. They are a nation of rascals and deceivers.”
    POPE CLEMENT VIII
    “All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very poor.
    Then as now Jews have to be reminded intermittently anew that they were enjoying rights in any country since they left Palestine and the Arabian desert, and subsequently their ethical and moral doctrines as well as their deeds rightly deserve to be exposed to criticism in whatever country they happen to live.”
    MARIA THERESA, Queen of Hungary and Bohemia (1771 – 1789)
    “Henceforth no Jew, no matter under what name, will be allowed to remain here without my written permission. I know of no other troublesome pest within the state than this race, which impoverished the people by their fraud, usury and money-lending and commits all deeds which an honorable man despises. Subsequently they have to be removed and excluded from here as much as possible.”
    WASHINGTON, GEORGE, in Maxims of George Washington by A. A. Appleton & Co.
    “They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy’s armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in… It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America.”
    CHURCHILL, WINSTON.
    “In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish efforts rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide revolutionary conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster has ably shown, a definite recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworlds of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of the enormous empire.
    There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creating of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. It is certainly the very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders… In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astounding. And the prominent if not the principal part in the system of terrorism applied by the extraordinary Commissions for combating Counter Revolution has been take by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many nonJews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing. (“Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People.” ILLUSTRATED SUNDAY HERALD, London, February 8, 1920.)
    WILHELM II. German Kaiser.
    “A Jew cannot be a true patriot. He is something different, like a bad insect. He must be kept apart, out of a place where he can do mischief – even by pogroms, if necessary.
    The Jews are responsible for Bolshevism in Russia, and Germany too. I was far too indulgent with them during my reign, and I bitterly regret the favors I showed the prominent Jewish bankers.” (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, July 2, 1922)
    TWAIN, MARK (S. L. Clemens)
    “In the U.S. cotton states, after the war… the Jew came down in force, set up shop on the plantation, supplied all the Negroes’ wants on credit, and at the end of the season was the proprietor of the Negro’s share of the present crop and part of the next one. Before long, the whites detested the Jew.
    MENCKEN, H. L. 20th century American writer.
    “The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of. As commonly encountered they lack any of the qualities that mark the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease, confidence. They have vanity without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning without wisdom. Their fortitude, such as it is, is wasted upon puerile objects, and their charity is mainly a form of display.” (Treatise on the Gods)
    BONAPARTE, NAPOLEON.
    “The Jews provided troops for my campaign in Poland, but they ought to reimburse me: I soon found that they are no good for anything but selling old clothes…”
    “Legislating must be put in effect everywhere that the general well-being is in danger. The government cannot look with indifference on the way a despicable nation takes possession of all the provinces of France. The Jews are the master robbers of the modern age; they are the carrion birds of humanity… “They must be treated with political justice, not with civil justice. They are surely not real citizens…”
    You really think everyone is stupid enough to believe the zionistas totally innocent jewish victim shick..LOL

    Reply

  94. nadine says:

    POS, every objective observer not interested in furthering anti-Israel propaganda doubts the Goldstone Report.
    First of all, several of the Goldstone panel announced the conclusion before the investigation even started. (This was why the IDF declined to attend its own lynching.)
    Second, Goldstone’s methodology was so fast and so shoddy that he could not have possibly gathered the evidence to support his “conclusions” even if you think he was unbiased, which he wasn’t.
    For example, Goldstone drew many conclusions in the report about existence of “war crimes”. In order for a jurist to determine a war crime, he has to reconstruct the war as best he can. It’s not enough to look at a pile of rubble and have someone tell you “This was a civilian house” and declare, “Oh a civilian house destroyed! a war crime!” You have to ask questions such as, “was the house being used as a firing post?” “could it have been caught in a cross-fire, or hit by an errant shell?”
    Yet Goldstone declares Israeli war crimes freely by just assuming the worst about the situation and Israeli intentions (Hamas, on the other hand, always gets the benefit of the doubt). Goldstone never talked to any of the fighters and never tried to reconstruct the fighting. He did once ask “the Gaza authorities” (=Hamas) if he could talk to some Hamas fighters and they told him, “oh we don’t know any of those guys.” A real Alice in Wonderland moment, but typical of the rigor of the report.

    Reply

  95. Dan Kervick says:

    “Dan, what do you mean by claiming that everyone wants the two-state solution?”
    Oh, for the love of piss-christ. Even when I agree with you, you disagree with me. Toamyto, tomahto. Whatever.

    Reply

  96. Dan Kervick says:

    ” … you know that power is never given, it’s always taken.”
    Ooohh … I love it when Jews get all ubermenschy and leather Nazi. It’s like a naughty cross-dressing revue. Makes be feel so bad – in a hot, good way.

    Reply

  97. JohnH says:

    Wigwag–“power is never given, it’s always taken.” Not always. There are powerful examples of the opposite being true.
    After WWII the United States took a different course from winner-take-all approach used after WWI. It decided not to punish Germany by assessing war reparations. It instituted the Marshall Plan. Germany, an intractable warrior nation, became America’s friend. And it joined together with arch-enemy France in the European Coal and Steel Community.
    And guess what? Europe hasn’t had a war in 65 years!
    Sadly, Israel noticed the holocaust and adopted nasty German tactics like ethnic cleansing, but strangely failed to notice Europe’s path to peace. So someday Israel will suffer the consequences of its winner take all policy. And I guess you will be perfectly happy with that, knowing that in your version of history that’s the only way things can turn out.
    BTW, when did American women ever fight for women’s rights? I never heard of any women carrying guns or rocket propelled grenades to subdue the men of this country. Rather women used convincing moral arguments to persuade men to give them their rights. This is another instance to show that you can appeal to the generosity of winners (in this case men) and have a win-win outcome.
    Sad that you are interested only in winner take all outcomes. There are proven alternatives available. And I guess you won’t be complaining about any unfairness, when Israel eventually becomes the vanquished and loses it all…

    Reply

  98. nadine says:

    Dan, what do you mean by claiming that everyone wants the two-state solution? Does Hamas want it? Does Fatah want it? 16 out of 23 of the members of the Fatah Central Committee are hardliners who refuse to recognize Israel or support a deal with it; one of them, Muhammed Ghaneim, is Abu Mazen’s designated successor. Yet we never hear about him.
    Your statement is so unrealistic as to be surreal.
    “The Palestinians are not going to ever leave the Israelis alone until they get a viable sovereign state.” (jdledell)
    Ah. And after they get it a “viable state”, and declare it insufficient, and the missiles still fly and the bombers keep coming, what then?
    Israel was at least allowed to respond to Jordanian invasions — but they wouldn’t be to Palestinian missiles. I believe this is a major reason the Palesitnians don’t want to declare statehood. The slight chance that they might be regarded as a state and not a Cause is unnerving; it would cost them too many privileges.
    “The issues preventing a peace agreement are not about 92%, 95%, or 98% of the land – those are simple and the Palestinians are eager to compromise on percentages as well as the right of return. Remember all they want is some face saving tokenism on the right of return but real compensation as they expressed to Clinton as well as the Geneva Accords”
    They’re eager to compromise? Say what? You think Muhammed Ghaneim and Islmail Khaniya et. al. are eager to compromise? I have a nice bridge to sell you. If all they wanted was “face saving tokenism” and compensation, why did Arafat summarily refuse the Taba Accords, in which Israel would have taken some tens of thousands of refugees, with compensation to the others? How many refugees did Israel take in under Oslo, wasn’t it 50,000? That’s quite the token.
    It’s an easy game to play, this Oh, if only Israel did this or that or offered more or whatever, then peace would break out. But it’s nuts. It’s the Yossi Beilin school of nuts. You have to ignore Palestinian politics. You have to ignore the statements of Palestinian leaders (esp. to each other in Arabic). You have to ignore the reaction to every previous offer, which is not to make any concessions in return, but to make new demands. They hear folks like you, and they smile and think, we never have to offer a thing, just sit and wait for more offers, until piece by piece Israel disintegrates.

    Reply

  99. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Noam Sheizaf
    Israeli media goes after New Israel Fund: “responsible for Goldstone Report”
    The New Israel Fund (NIF), the American based progressive organization that sponsors social justice projects in Israel, is the victim of a new smear campaign launched by the right-wing movement “Im Tirzu” (?? ????) and picked up by Israeli media. Im Tirzu, together with right-wing MK’s and even IDF and Shin Beit seniors, are demanding Knesset and government actions that will prevent the NIF from transferring funds to Israeli human rights and peace organizations – and possibly even ban the organization altogether.
    Im Tirzu’s campaign against NIF started in the cover story of Maariv’s political section this weekend. An article by Maariv’s senior political correspondent, Ben Caspit, quoted a claim put forward by Im Tirzu, according to which human rights and peace groups are responsible to more than 90 percent of the evidence against Israel in the Goldstone report. This was a gross misrepresentation of the facts to begin with, because as even Im Tirzu’s representatives admit, the Goldstone report was based mainly on evidence collected form Palestinians and international sources. From the data provided by Israeli sources, 42 percent came form human rights groups. It didn’t bother Mr. Caspit to make it sound like it was Israeli NGO’s who were behind the entire report.
    Israel’s image is at an all-times low. International pressure is mounting, and with it the calls for boycott. All this was fueled by the Goldstone report, which was in itself fueled by Israeli sources. The funding for these sources is provided by, amongst others, the NIF. The question is whether the New Israeli Fund is indeed for Israel.
    Caspit mentions 300 grassroots and social organizations receiving funds through the NIF, and asks: “is all this activity just intended to serve as a front for radical subversive activity, acting against the very foundations of the state?”
    Caspit never bothered to call anyone in the INF or other NGO’s to discuss this story. The fund was only given a few words of official comment at the bottom of the article, and the notion that “more than 90 percent of the Goldstone report is based on Israeli sources” has become a “fact” used by the mainstream media.
    ——
    During the weekend, Im Tirzu activists demonstrated in front of the house of former MK and the chairman of the NIF, Naomi Hazan. They were dressed with Kafia’s and carried signs saying “I hate the IDF, and I support Naomi Hazan.”
    Today (Sunday), the popular host of channel 2 news, Avri Gilad, interviewed on his morning show one of the heads of Im Tirzu, and while doing so, referred to this demonstration as a left wing one against the IDF. “The signs say it all,” Gilad said. “They hate the IDF.” Had channel 2 bothered to check the clip before airing it, or to host in their studio someone from the NIF, they would have found out immediately that this is a right wing hoax. But Gilad was in such a rush to denounce the left, such details never bothered him, and he even repeated his mistake on his radio show on the IDF station.
    continues……
    http://palestinenote.com/cs/blogs/blogs/archive/2010/02/01/israeli-media-goes-after-new-israel-fund-responsible-for-goldstone-report.aspx
    It becomes easier and easier to understand why this arrogant and racist little welfare state is becoming loathed by the global community. Why are we pissing our money away subsidizing these self destructive and murderous zealots?
    Israel is not being accused of war crimes because of the INF. Israel is being accused of war crimes because they committed war crimes. There is far far too much evidence to ignore, evidence that is easily obtainable just by doing image searches on the internet. Is there anyone here so slimey and dishonest that they deny there is photographic evidence of white phosphorous being dumped on densely populated civilian neighborhoods?
    There is NO ONE on this blog that seriously doubts the veracity of the Goldstone Report. And that includes those here that claim to question the report. Whats that tell you about them?

    Reply

  100. WigWag says:

    “By taking all the spoils, you’re setting the terms of your side’s eventual defeat. By showing some generosity and establishing the rule of law, you’re also establishing powerful precedents for positive future relations about the peoples.” (JohnH)
    I agree with half of your statement. The Jews have been defeated numerous times in their history and they have lost their homeland more than once. It is entirely possible, perhaps even probable, that it will happen again some day.
    This is humanity that we’re talking about; nothing lasts forever.
    Generosity of spirit does not exist between nation-states and the victors have always taken the spoils. Showing what you call “generosity” would be incredibly foolish and only hasten the day when that inevitable defeat arrives.
    Every nation throughout history that has vanquished its enemy sets terms that are advantageous to it not to the defeated party; the Israelis would be insane to do otherwise.
    Anyone who thinks that any society as backwards, illiberal and retrograde as Arab society would ever contemplate “returning the favor” is naive in the extreme. Israel’s Arab adversaries are not as “enlightened” as you are JohnH, nor are they as “enlightened” as the faux-progressives in Europe and the United States who love to wax eloquent about the wonders of international law.
    International law, it is little more than a sad joke. Like everything else in human affairs, the nature and content of international law is established by the powerful; that is by the victors. As soon as international law fails to benefit the powerful, it is abandoned or ignored. As the U.S. Constitution teaches us, without equal protection, law is next to useless. Equal protection is a foreign concept in international affairs and always will be. In any case, not being firmly rooted in democracy, international law is illegitimate to begin with.
    In fact, you could make the argument that the Israelis are being generous to the Palestinians by not forcibly converting them to Judaism. That’s what many Muslim invaders did to the people that they conquered for thousands of years (in fairness, the Ottoman Turks unlike the Persians or the Arabs, merely discriminated against those who didn’t convert they didn’t require Christians or Jews to convert).
    Had the Israelis decided to behave like Arabs, Muslims would be forbidden to enter the Temple Mount/Al-Haram al-Sharif and the Dome of the Rock would be little more than a museum today.
    Perhaps the Palestinians should reflect on how good they have it. After all, the Israelis could just as easily have been like them.
    One more thing, JohnH. It is a fact that every human being living on the planet today is the descendant of people who forced other people off their land. It is not a fact that women, as the physically weaker gender “lost.” In fact, gender equality and women’s rights weren’t granted by men; they were won by women through struggle. In the Western world that struggle, while far from over, has produced great progress. In the Muslim world, women, unfortunately, are still generally treated like chattel. It would be nice if more Muslim women were able to win their rights in the same way that Western women won theirs. Unfortunately, given the primitive nature of much of the Muslim World, it will, I’m afraid, be a long time in coming.
    As a good leftist, JohnH, you know that power is never given, it’s always taken. That’s as true in the world of gender politics as in every other aspect of human affairs. Women in the West have our rights because those rights were fought for. Women faced plenty of adversaries on the road to equality; those adversaries were defeated; just like the Palestinians were defeated.

    Reply

  101. JohnH says:

    Great point, Carroll. Why should Wigwag complain about sexists societies? Men won. According to Wigwag’s own rules, they should get everything.

    Reply

  102. JohnH says:

    So Wigwag and Marcus–You’d be content for Israelis to live in Gaza-like ghettos once Israel loses? And don’t say it’ll never happen. It happened before and it will happen again. Never is a very long time.
    By saying that the victor gets all the spoils, you have to accept the consequences.
    Personally, I’d rather see some generosity of spirit towards the vanquished. Even better, I’d like to see the rule of law put in place so that there would be no need to fight wars and no victors and no vanquished.
    By taking all the spoils, you’re setting the terms of your side’s eventual defeat. By showing some generosity and establishing the rule of law, you’re also establishing powerful precedents for positive future relations about the peoples.
    Apparently you’ve chosen the future you prefer. I only ask you accept the consequences.

    Reply

  103. Dan Kervick says:

    “I understand that there’s a lovely little museum in Concord where you can view Pennacook artifacts.”
    Damned Pennacooks never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

    Reply

  104. WigWag says:

    “I think I’ve come across that parable before. But in the version I heard, when the traveler asks the homeowner how the latter’s grandfather came into possession of the land, the homeowner says, “He exterminated the people who lived here before.” The traveler then strokes his chinny-chin-chin and says, OK, I’ll exterminate YOU then.” (Dan Kervick)
    Yes it used to work that way quite often. Our little parable reminds me of the story of the Pennacook Indians; you know them don’t you, Dan? They were your predecessors in New Hampshire. Shortly after the first Europeans arrived, a significant majority of the Pennacook were killed off by a variety of European diseases like small pox. The few that remained were then attacked by several Mohawk Tribes coveting their land.
    As it turns out, the war between the Pennacook and the Mohawk was short-lived. It wasn’t long before the English colonists hunted the few remaining Pennacook down and murdered them. I understand that there’s a lovely little museum in Concord where you can view Pennacook artifacts.
    It’s a real sign of human progress, I think, that with any luck at all, the Palestinians won’t share the fate of the Pennacook; in fact the Palestinians don’t even need to worry about the reservations that your New Hampshire forebears once contemplated for the Pennacook. The Palestinians can actually have a nation of their own; sure it will have to be demilitarized and sure it may not be much larger than Monaco or Lichtenstein and sure it’s going to be alot less than the Palestinians think they deserve.
    But at least they’ll have it quite a bit better than the people forced to make room for the property that your home sits on.
    You see, there really is such a thing as progress.
    Now if we can only find a home for the Kurds!

    Reply

  105. Carroll says:

    Posted by Paul Norheim, Feb 01 2010, 9:21PM – Link
    Why complain about sexist societies, WigWag? In general, men happen to be physically
    stronger than women, and in most societies they possess the power and all the means to
    oppress women. Why not just surrender to reality and accept the terms?>>>>>>>>>>>>
    LOL…perfect!

    Reply

  106. Carroll says:

    Posted by Paul Norheim, Feb 01 2010, 9:21PM – Link
    Why complain about sexist societies, WigWag? In general, men happen to be physically
    stronger than women, and in most societies they possess the power and all the means to
    oppress women. Why not just surrender to reality and accept the terms?>>>>>>>>>>>>
    LOL…perfect!

    Reply

  107. Carroll says:

    Blah,blah,blah…oh hum…another year, another conference.
    Same old crapola the Israelis have spouted for years.
    Not even worth reporting on.
    The audience was mostly cautious?…heheheheh, wonder why?
    Open a zionst mouth out pops a lie.
    No one in the universe believes a word Israelis say.

    Reply

  108. DonS says:

    Wigwag, it has been my argument and disappointment with you for the past year or two that you place loyalty to the tribe above loyalty to the human race. It’s something many Jews of your generation, and the cynical heirs like Netanyahu, find a mark of honor. I find it sad.

    Reply

  109. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “My point is that the debate will never be solved by discussing water rights or legalistic minutai,its simply about who wins the fight”
    So, Marcus thinks that dumping white phosphorous on women and children trumps throwing rocks at jackbooted storm troopers. To the victor go the spoils.
    No suprise, eh?
    And people like this are offended when they are called “nazis”? Why? You’d think they would consider it a compliment.

    Reply

  110. Dan Kervick says:

    ” … but it is pretty clear that it’s in American interests.”
    Heh. Like you care. But I agree that it is good for the Jews to keep pretending that we care about American interests, and that throwing more American fortunes and boys into the Middle East is good for all of us. So lets keep doing it!

    Reply

  111. Dan Kervick says:

    I think I’ve come across that parable before. But in the version I heard, when the traveler asks the homeowner how the latter’s grandfather came into possession of the land, the homeowner says, “He exterminated the people who lived here before.” The traveler then strokes his chinny-chin-chin and says, “OK, I’ll exterminate YOU then.”
    Who could argue with the homely wisdom, and irrefutable, timeless logic of this tale? He who doesn’t like its lesson might as well complain about the indignity of flatulence, or the eternal war against unsightly ear and nose hair.

    Reply

  112. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “If you could bring yourself to accept the obvious ie; that ALL of Israel naturally,historically,legally,morally belongs to the jews” (Marcus, on another thread)
    Anyone making that argument, without defining “all of Israel”, doesn’t have anything worthwhile to say.
    Its not suprizing seeing Wig-wag humoring this latest troll, nor is it a revalation seeing it latch onto Nadine, and vice-versa. But unfortunately, it spells doom for anything resembling constructive debate on this topic. Lies, hasbara talking points, an obscene indifference to the suffering of the Palestinians, religious hogwash about God given property rights, and a healthy dose of racist horseshit masquerading as justifications and rationales for human rights abuses and war crimes that Hitler would be proud of. Thats what we can expect from these three.
    The effect Nadine has had on this blog is far more damaging than mere “name-calling” is.

    Reply

  113. WigWag says:

    My last comment appearing here was intended for the Iraq thread.
    Sorry for the mistake.

    Reply

  114. marcus says:

    Before I go I wanted to say to WigWag-THANKS-for keeping my faith in the thin flikker of reason alive-

    Reply

  115. WigWag says:

    Nice to hear from you, Paul and Dan.
    It’s easy to be sarcastic, boys, and it can be fun too but it’s not much more than that.
    I don’t know if supporting Kurdish independence and stationing American troops in Iraqi Kurdistan is particularly good for the Jews or even the Israelis but it is pretty clear that it’s in American interests.
    Every Administration for the past 20 years considers Iran and Syria to be enemies of the United States. Presidents of both political parties regularly excoriate the Syrians.
    President Obama like President Bush before him spends a considerable portion of his day thinking about how to stifle the Iranians. The reason is simple; it’s not because the United States considers Iran to be an ally, it’s because the United States considers Iran to be an enemy. It’s a point of view widely shared by the American public and almost universally believed by representatives of both political parties in Congress. After all, the recent legislation to sanction Iran passed the House of Representatives 412-12 and the Senate by the rather lopsided vote of 87-0.
    I understand that you may not consider Iran and Syria to be enemies of the United States but most Americans do, and virtually all of the democratically elected representatives in both the legislative and Executive branch do.
    My point is simple; placing 30 thousand American troops in Iraqi Kurdistan is a way to unnerve and unbalance America’s adversaries in the region; it might even be a substitute for an American attack on Iran.
    The fact that the Kurds would finally achieve their freedom from the monstrous oppression they face in all the nations that virtually enslave them is just an added bonus.
    If the Syrian regime or Iranian regime is destabilized, that’s a good thing not a bad thing.
    As I said; it’s a win-win!

    Reply

  116. jdledell says:

    Nadine – Here is the situation in a nutshell. The Palestinians are not going to ever leave the Israelis alone until they get a viable sovereign state. That means the Palestinians control their own borders, water, airspace and electromagnetic spectrum as well as foreign,economic and military policy. That is the nature of statehood in every corner of the world.
    When Israel signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan they did not require any of the ridiculous stipulations on sovereignty that they want of the Palestinians despite those countries having killed more Israelis than the Palestinians ever have. When Israel was formed the UN and the rest of the world did not require monitors on the borders, permissions for planes etc.
    Israel could have peace with Lebanon if they wanted but they would have to give up flying war games over their sovereign territory and leave the Lebanese alone.
    Since 1967 the Israelis have never left the Palestinians alone, even during periods of years without violence. The reason is they don’t ever want to leave them alone because deep in their hearts they really want to keep Judea and Samaria. The issues preventing a peace agreement are not about 92%, 95%, or 98% of the land – those are simple and the Palestinians are eager to compromise on percentages as well as the right of return. Remember all they want is some face saving tokenism on the right of return but real compensation as they expressed to Clinton as well as the Geneva Accords. What prevents a solution is Israel’s demeaning requirements for limited statehood(some coming close to being just autonomy) that is hidden away in the fine print but are crucial. Last but not least without East Jerusalem there will be no settlement and Israel knows it.
    When Israel offers the Palestinians a real state – there will be peace.

    Reply

  117. Dan Kervick says:

    Bizarrely, I have to agree with Nadine here. Have expectations sunk so low that now that the mere recognition of the desirability of a two-state solution of some kind is now a “subtle victory for Obama” Everyone in the universe outside few few bizarre ultra-super-Zionist sects want a “two-state solution”. Of course, some people want the Palestinians state to enjoy genuine state-like independence, and to lie roughly in the territories Israel invaded in 1967, and others want the Palestinian state to be something like an Israeli-controlled but Arab-administered enterprise zone lying on the infertile scraps that Israeli colonists decide they don’t want.

    Reply

  118. Paul Norheim says:

    Why complain about sexist societies, WigWag? In general, men happen to be physically
    stronger than women, and in most societies they possess the power and all the means to
    oppress women. Why not just surrender to reality and accept the terms?

    Reply

  119. WigWag says:

    Of course, the parable Marcus shared with us is irrefutable; it would be very interesting and entertaining to watch any attempt to refute it. Marcus gives us the unalterable and undeniable story of human history. It won’t be changing any time soon. In fact, it will never change.
    Of course that doesn’t mean that the Palestinians shouldn’t get a nation of their own. Mixing ethnic, religious and national populations that don’t wish to live together simply never works. The entire history of the world for the past 150 years has been about disaggregating populations that can’t live together peacefully and aggregating populations that consider each other to be kinsmen.
    There is simply no way that the Israelis and Palestinians will ever give each other anything other than misery until they achieve their permanent divorce.
    Unfortunately for the Palestinians, the nation that they eventually achieve will be significantly smaller than even their most modest expectations. As the weaker, poorer and less sophisticated party to the dispute they will share the fate of all parties that are militarily defeated; terms will be imposed on them and they won’t like those terms. Until they surrender to reality and accept the terms that they consider humiliating they will continue to have what they have now; nothing.
    The sooner the Palestinians deal with their defeat, the sooner they will be able to start rebuilding their nation (such as it is). It is doubly sad for the Palestinians that even after they achieve their nationhood (whenever that is) they still will not be liberated from the profound dysfunction that afflicts the entire Arab world and most of the Muslim world. Culturally, scientifically, educationally and even in a certain respect spiritually, the Islamic World is stuck in a morass that Christendom began to escape from at the time of the enlightenment. The unfortunate reality for the Palestinians is that even if they do get a nation of their own, that nation is likely to be as backward, sexist, regressive and poor as the rest of the Sunni Arab world.
    The parable Marcus shared with us, says it all.
    Don’t like it? You might just as well complain about the indignity of getting old.
    It’s inevitable. And its irrefutable,

    Reply

  120. Paul Norheim says:

    You bet he’ll stay if you feed him well.

    Reply

  121. Fawning over chutzpah says:

    Marcus, marcus, please, stay. Never, never leave us. Please

    Reply

  122. marcus says:

    A little story about the birth of countries
    (israel included)
    A traveller comes across a beautiful homestead,with water and trees-he likes it. He goes up to the house and knocks on the front door,the homeowner comes out to the porch and asks the traveller what he wants
    The traveller asks him who”s property is this ?
    the homeowner says it”s mine
    And how did you get it ? he ansewrs, It was my Father”s, he left it to me when he passed away.
    And who owned it before your father? the traveller asked. Why, my Grandfather did. And how did your grandfather get it ?
    Oh well,he fought for it !
    The traveller looks around,he strokes his chin thoughtfully,then turns to the homeowner and say”s Okay, I”ll fight YOU for it !
    My point is that the debate will never be solved by discussing water rights or legalistic minutai,its simply about who wins the fight.
    Crass certainly-Human definitly

    Reply

  123. Neo Controll says:

    Nadine, your new found buddy ‘marcus’ has some words for you.
    ” it seems to me that israel has come a very long way in recent decades in establishing facts on the ground.”
    “Perhaps in a few more decades this 2 state nonsence will go away as well”
    “Perhaps over time people will finally accept the return of israel (ALL of israel)on the world map”
    Let’s hope marcus sticks around, shall we? He’s priceless.
    –NCHQ

    Reply

  124. nadine says:

    “Unfortunately, too many Zionist are infected by primitive tribal religious ideas (i.e., the “chosen people” crap), profound racism, and basically, a coarse political culture. Until Israelis evolve politically, they can’t engage construtively.”
    ROFL. Would that be as opposed to the humane, universalist, untribal and secular culture propagated by Hamas? None of that messy primitive “democracy” stuff for them! They’ve evolved! Allah told them so!

    Reply

  125. nadine says:

    Steve, I have a Palestine Note question: how come it doesn’t cover Palestinian politics?
    I searched the whole site for “Fatah Central Committee” and found only a few references, all (or nearly) linked from the Jerusalem Post. How come Palestinians politics is reduced to the names “Abbas” and “Fayyad” (both quite weak as far as I can understand) everywhere but in right-wing Jewish sources? Who covers the Fatah Central Committee and the Revolutionary Council?

    Reply

  126. marcus says:

    I”m old enough to remember that the debate surrounding israel centered solely on if it had a right to exist at all there was NO debate at all about a two-state solution,only wether the arabs were going to be able to destroy israel and drive all the jews into the sea.This went on for decades And the world just watched and waited and debated.
    Today all the talk is about the 2 state-solution it seems to me that israel has come a very long way in recent decades in establishing facts on the ground.
    Perhaps in a few more decades this 2 state nonsence will go away as well
    Perhaps over time people will finally accept the return of israel (ALL of israel)on the world map
    stranger things have happened !(but I can t think of any at the moment)

    Reply

  127. nadine says:

    “In order to build a Palestinan state, it is not enough for the Palestinains to get 95% of the West Bank and Gaza. It is necessary for Israel to leave the Palestinians alone.”
    They would love nothing better, if they could get the Palestinians to leave the Israelis alone.
    Unfortunately, the Palestinians have something of a track record in that record.
    Every time the Israelis withdraw from any patch of land, they get attacked from it. Lebanon, West Bank, and especially Gaza. This is not “hasbara” but fact.
    Why don’t you get that this track record discourages further unilateral Israelis concessions? Why don’t you get that if the Palestinians want their autonomy demands addressed, they really have to address Israel’s security demands?

    Reply

  128. Matthew says:

    Nadine: Repeating hasbara talking points is really tiresome. You just don’t get it. In order to build a Palestinan state, it is not enough for the Palestinains to get 95% of the West Bank and Gaza. It is necessary for Israel to leave the Palestinians alone. That means Israel doesn’t get to control Palestinian airspace, the coast of Gaza, the West Bank’s border with Jordan, the water table under Palestinian land, and Palestinians right to travel around the world.
    Until the Israelis can get their thuggish little heads around the idea that Palestinian freedom and statehood means the end of Zionist control over their lives, there will not be peace.
    Unfortunately, too many Zionist are infected by primitive tribal religious ideas (i.e., the “chosen people” crap), profound racism, and basically, a coarse political culture. Until Israelis evolve politically, they can’t engage construtively.

    Reply

  129. nadine says:

    I don’t think anyone at the Herzilya conference has in mind a Palestinian state that anyone I know would want to live in. It would mean that Israel would have to share, something they have shown no sign of being willing to do.
    100% of Gaza and 95% of the West Bank, with land swaps to make 100% is not “sharing”? That was the last offer Abu Mazen refused. Now he doesn’t even want to negotiate. Israel is willing. Abu Mazen refuses.
    These complaints are detached from reality.
    Literally, it doesn’t matter what Israel does. You make exactly the same complaint regardless.

    Reply

  130. samuelburke says:

    3 witches divine George Mitchell’s fate
    by PHILIP WEISS on FEBRUARY 1, 2010 · 13 COMMENTS
    Mitchell’s an elderly envoy heading home in humiliation –Robert
    Fisk
    Hired by Obama under false pretenses, Mitchell’s been hung out to
    dry and rendered a Condi-like haggler, and should resign — Steve
    Walt
    Mitchell is a kangaroo hopping around with an empty pouch –Uri
    Avnery
    http://mondoweiss.net/2010/02/3-witches-divine-george-
    mitchells-fate.html

    Reply

  131. JohnH says:

    The real question is–what two states do the Israeli elites have in mind? The dispossessors and the dispossessed? Well, we already have that! I suppose they could unilaterally formalize the arrangement by declaring the collection of Palestinian bantustans to be a “state.” And they could make the bantustans’ government look like Haiti’s–a collection of NGO presided over by a skeletal state and foreign troops.
    Bottom line is that a two state solution is only possible if Israel is willing to share the land, the water, and allow Palestinians to enjoy the same rights and obligations as Israelis.
    I don’t think anyone at the Herzilya conference has in mind a Palestinian state that anyone I know would want to live in. It would mean that Israel would have to share, something they have shown no sign of being willing to do.

    Reply

  132. samuelburke says:

    ” and the proponents of the State of Israel – attempt to kindle a fire
    under the Jews in all lands in order to make their position
    untenable so that they emigrate to augment the population of the
    new State. (For example, Ben Gurion’s statement in the N.Y. Times
    4/22/1963. “Jews are in truth a separate element in the midst of
    the peoples among whom they live an element that cannot be
    completely absorbed by any nation. for this reason no nation can
    calmly tolerate it in its midst”).”
    http://jewsagainstzionism.com/

    Reply

  133. Matthew says:

    Israel can have peace or they can continue to devour Palestinian land. They chose Palestinian land.
    No amount of spin can wash away this sin.

    Reply

  134. DonS says:

    Common sense dictates that Israel seek some stability with its neighbors before it is swallowed up by it’s own religious zealots. The sensible folks are abandoning Israel in droves. Unfortunately, common sense is not in much supply, and the Israeli notion of “two state solution” resembling neutered batustans is just so much posturing.

    Reply

  135. nadine says:

    “There may not yet either be peace, or even a clear way to get there, but this day may well have granted Obama a subtle victory, as the broad political recognition in Israel of the importance of a two-state solution was made urgently clear.”
    Joel Rubin speaks as if this was something new. But if you looked at last year’s Herzliya conference, or the year before, or the year before, you would have heard much the same. For some years now, Israel has wanted the two-state solution a whole lot more than the Palestinians have wanted it.
    Does Hamas want it? No. Does Fatah want it? no. Abu Mazen refused Olmert’s offer in 2007 and gladly took the excuse Obama handed him to stop negotiating altogether (Obama raised hopes, since dashed, that he could get everything for nothing by waiting). Could either party sign an agreement even if they wanted to? No; they would at once be declared traitors by the other party and most of their own party as well.
    So what is the point of the exercise? For the Israelis, it seems clear: trying to paint their relationship with a not-very-pro-Israel administration in the best possible light, as the conflict with Iran looms. So they’ll dutifully talk about prospects for negotiations even if they know they are nil. For opposition politicians like Livni, it’s a good opportunity to take a shot at Bibi.
    And for liberal commentators like Joel Rubin, it’s a chance to find a whiff of a “subtle victory” for Obama in what otherwise looks like a demonstration of naivité and policy failure of the first order.

    Reply

Add your comment

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