Mr Netanyahu goes to Washington
Monday’s meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu is kicking up an unprecedented frenzy. This is the moment, we are told, when decades of blinkered American support of Israeli rejectionism will come to an end. Obama will tell Netanyahu in no uncertain terms that the jig is up, that the time has come to dismantle the outposts, remove the checkpoints, stop construction in the larger settlements and declare unambiguous support for the two-state solution. He might even conclude the ritual press conference by saying, “Mr Netanyahu, Tear down this Wall!”
This is the fantasy. As usual, the reality is a bit more blurred. On a rhetorical level, it seems as though Obama’s Mid-East policy is decisively different to what has come before. He seems committed to multilateralism, diplomacy, and reaching out to America’s traditional foes. He also understands the importance of resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. In the realm of action, though, there is less to discuss. The activist president at home is still surveying the scene abroad.
The time for talking, however, must surely soon be over. Obama’s meeting with Netanyahu is the second of four key meetings with regional leaders – King Abdullah, President Abbas, and President Mubarak are the other three. Iran and Lebanon are about to go to the polls, the picture is beginning to get clearer. Obama will have to state in no uncertain terms what his policy is.
In the meantime he has to contend with the sphinx that is Benyamin Netanyahu. There are two interpretations of this great political survivor. One depicts him as evolving slowly towards a two-state solution. He may be no great fan of the idea of Palestinian sovereignty, but he sees that getting out of the vast majority of the West Bank is the only way to preserve Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. If only it wasn’t for his extreme right-wing coalition, forced on him by the intransigence of Tzipi Livni! The second interpretation has Bibi down as an obfuscator, a slightly more media-savvy version of Yitzhak Shamir, a man who will do whatever it takes to obstruct progress on the ground, whether by talking the hind legs off a donkey or whipping up hysteria regarding the Iranian threat.
Whichever take of Netanyahu you concur with, one aspect of his politics is clear: the man is in thrall to American power. He understands more than anyone that Israel cannot forgo American support. Given the clear picture of Obama’s politics that one assumes has been painted for him by his neocon advisers, then, this puts him a bind. How can he extricate himself from the puzzle?
Since being elected, he’s tried everything. First ‘economic peace’, then support for the Palestinian security services, then I-won’t-do-anything-unless-you-sort-out-Iran-first – if all else fails try dubious linkage. If anything, it works the other way round. It seems logical that serious progress towards Israeli-Arab peace will undermine Iranian influence, exaggerations of Arab fears regarding the Iranian nuclear project notwithstanding.
Soon we’ll find out if any of this has worked. He still has time though. Obama is sensitive enough to the political reality to tread carefully in these early stages. If he has time to try and convince Iran to abandon their nuclear ambitions (and to persuade Israel not to attack), then he certainly has time to convince Bibi to lead Israel down the only sensible path for its future. In short, don’t expect a dressing-down. In the long run, however, the die seems to have been cast. There is a sea-change in American thinking on the Israel-Palestine issue, and patience is finally beginning to run out. Israel can do it the easy way or the hard way. Right now, it’s Bibi’s choice to make.
54 comments54 Comments so far
Leave a reply
Alex:
I utterly fail to understand why you want to guest post your pieces at Harry’s Place. The level of debate there when it comes to Israel-Palestine is well below that found at some two-bit third-rate US Conservative bloggers and their Evangelist Zionist supporters. It’s impossible as a critic of Zionism to post there without wading through buckets of distortion, straw man arguments and sometimes the vilest ad hominem I’ve ever come across. (Gert’s Landlord: I told you to clean your basement of SS porn’)
You berated me once for my ‘caustic tone’ (and I repented), adding that that sort of thing was ‘OK at JSF but not here’. Well, JSF is an oasis of good behaviour and sharp reasoning compared to HP, surely you can see that too?
If I had anti-Zionist supporters like that hanging out at mine, I’d have to rethink my position.
Do go and have a look. Try perhaps commenting. When it comes to I-P, that site’s comment section is a sewer like only the Tinkerwebs can sustain. Pitiful.
Well I’d agree with you about a lot of the comments on HP, but that’s primarily because it isn’t moderated. Imagine any site that wasn’t moderated. I try to be a libertarian, though, when it comes to commment, so I try not and let it get to me.
It is moderated, my comments regularly get stamped “you’re in a moderation cue” (or words to that effect), before getting through. One comment of mine didn’t appear for twenty minutes. When I reposted a slightly modified version from memory that one did get posted, but not the first one.
I wish the “fantasy” was actually happening! Go, Obama, go!
But also, are you sure the process toward a two-state solution, as it’s been described for the past 10 years or so, is really the only sensible solution to our problem? Sometimes I think that maybe there’s some other, ingenius move none of us have thought of yet.
Well there are other solutions – one-state, apartheid, genocide etc. As for ingenious moves, here’s your chance. Hope you’re having fun with your sister;)
Gert –
“but that’s primarily because it isn’t moderated.”
Are Phil Weiss’s comments moderated? Because I see some quite nice anti-Semitic vitriol there (there’s a difference between an anti-Israel stance and an Anti-Semitic stance) non-stop and even left wingers (like Realistic Dove for example) have pointed it out … In other words, do you think Phil Weiss should re-think his position too (just going by “If I had anti-Zionist supporters like that hanging out at mine, I’d have to rethink my position.”)
“Well there are other solutions – one-state, apartheid, genocide etc.”
Not ‘solutions’ – just bloody scenarios where nobody’s a winner.
Avram:
I accept your point but while Phil claims to have a moderation policy in reality no moderation takes place at all at Mondo.
Harry’s Place does moderate (even Zios complain about it) and does occasionally ban people. Hasbara Buster appears to have been banned. He’s anti-Zionist alright but not anti-Semitic. He’s always respectful, even in the face of the worst kind of bile.
I’m not asking for the HP trolls to be banned but moderation would make debate possible. Right now for opponents, in particular on I-P related threads, it must feel like they’re pissing against a gail force nine. It certainly does to me. Do they want debate or a chorus of sycophantic Zionists?
“while Phil claims to have a moderation policy in reality no moderation takes place at all at Mondo”
I’ll take your word for it as I obviously don’t know the answer.
I have a third evaluation of Netanyahu-He is a power-hungry egomaniac whose only ideology is “do whatever I can to stay in power”.
Bibi is all about Bibi. Nothing has changed. He is the nationalist who hates the right, and the pragmatist who hates the left. He will stomp his feet and pound his fist about how principled he is, and then flip flop back and forth without ever taking a principled stand on any substantive issue. He’s a coward, a fraud, and just another corrupt Israeli leader looking to become accepted on the international dignitary cocktail circuit. Feh.
<a href=”http://tonykaron.com/2009/05/18/why-obama-must-shackle-bibi/”I strongly recommend Tony Karon’s analysis.
ooops…
I strongly recommend Tony Karon’s analysis
read a bit, another extremely left slanting analysis. I am horrified it came from you.
The funny thing, I am amazed at how the tiny, semantical differences between Netanyahu and Obama have been blown up to be a big deal. Netanyahu is saying a Palestinian State cannot be ruled out, but it’s not going to be put on the table until gestures are made by the Palestinians and surrounding arabs. Obama says he wants to put the two-state deal on the table now and then try and cajole the arabs to accept it.
Either way, it’s the same dam thing, and either way it as the same NO CHANCE from either side. There is no single leadership among the Palestinians with the authority to accept or reject such plans, and all the arab factions have said that the Right of Arab Return to Israel proper is a non-negotiable must for any agreement.
Peace comes from population transfer…either the Jews must be expelled by force from Israel to America and Europe, or the Arabs need to be expelled by force to Jordan. I recommend it be the arabs, but if need be let them decide it on the ground. The only iron clad guarantee we know for a fact is that national co-existence is not viable.
Madzionist, the differences are not semantic. Obama wants a movement towards peace and Netanyahu wants to permanently discuss that movement. There is no hope for peace at this moment, but there can be movements made in that direction which would, in a short time, enable it. The best hope might be in the form of a hudna over a very long period (not the 5 or 10 year kind, think 30-50 years) so that by its end nobody who had lived through the peace would want to restart violence.
“The best hope might be in the form of a hudna over a very long period (not the 5 or 10 year kind, think 30-50 years) so that by its end nobody who had lived through the peace would want to restart violence.”
I guess that’s what we have to aspire to, considering the circumstances but then, it’s not really ‘a hudna’.
“I guess that’s what we have to aspire to, considering the circumstances but then, it’s not really ‘a hudna’.”
No, but there’s going to be some semantic trickery to allow Hamas to pretend they are still fighting but actually aren’t.
“No, but there’s going to be some semantic trickery to allow Hamas to pretend they are still fighting but actually aren’t.”
Perhaps a Colosseum (like the one in Rome)? Then we can have pretend fights where we **wink wink** let ‘em win all the time
Avram:
“read a bit, another extremely left slanting analysis. I am horrified it came from you.”
No attempt at rebuttal then?
Gabriel:
“No, but there’s going to be some semantic trickery to allow Hamas to pretend they are still fighting but actually aren’t.”
That’s one way of putting it, yes. Surely peace is far more important than the formal agreement of it?
I doubt if Hamas will ever be inclined to de jure recognise Israel, that would be like giving the aggressors the go ahead. Perhaps if Israel apologised for the Naqbas this recognition could be reconsidered but right now there’s still a lot of Naqba-denial going on, never mind recognition of Palestinian suffering or apologising for it.
Azzam Tamimi puts it better:
The world needs to think about what the demand for us to recognize Israel really means. For me as a Palestinian, if I say I recognize Israel, then I’m saying that what happened to my people in 1948 was legitimate, and this I will never say.
We can proceed by having a de-facto relation between us. In that way, we could have a longterm peace, even without any recognition of Israel.
Gert- Try and look beyond your own opinions of history – you said “Perhaps if Israel apologised for the Naqbas.” This will never ever happen – you’re asking Israel to apologize for its existence.
If they do not wish to recognize Israel because of the “illegitimacy” of the events in 1948 – then there will NEVER be peace. 1948 was Israel’s war of independence – a nation cannot apologize for that and still be independent.
And if Hamas will never recognize Israel because it views Israel as the aggressor – then maybe the flipside should also be true. Should Israel should never recognize the Palestinians because of all the terrorist acts perpetrated by them?
Finally, if a hudna is simple peace without “the formal agreement of it” – then Israel has peace on the Syrian border, and why should negotiations be pursued at all?
“No attempt at rebuttal then?”
If you want a rebuttal, read a moderate or ‘right wing’ commentator (that’s if you want one)
“if Israel apologised for the Naqbas this recognition could be reconsidered but right now there’s still a lot of Naqba-denial going on, never mind recognition of Palestinian suffering or apologising for it.”
Tell you what Gert – if the Arabs apologize for forcing Jews to wear Yellow badges in the 1000s under Dhimmi law throughout the Arab world, I’ll consider it. If the Arabs apologize for the countless of pogroms and public lynchings, I’ll consider it. If the Arabs apologize for the burning of synagogues, I’ll consider it. If the Arabs apologize for the expulsion of 900,000 Jews, confiscation of their property (estimated at x5 the size of the State of Israel) and assets (estimated at 30 billion USD in today’s economy), I’ll consider it.
Get it?
I don’t expect, or want an apology because it’s irrelevant. I want two people living side by side in an Egyptian like peace – (b/c a warm peace seems impossible as of now, so I’d rather keep my ‘wants’ at a decent level) so that both people can re-build their fragmented & hurting societies.
“The world needs to think about what the demand for us to recognize Israel really means. For me as a Palestinian, if I say I recognize Israel, then I’m saying that what happened to my people in 1948 was legitimate, and this I will never say.”
This is absolute nonsense. What recognizing Israel would do would mean that the Palestinians would be willing to move on from 1948 to a better future. Does my recognition of Germany mean that I think the Holocaust was legitimate? Does my recognition of Canada/Argentina/Australia/etc mean I think that everything that went into the creation of those countries was legitimate? Of course not. It’s an illogical argument meant to justify violence. (“If we can never recognize Israel, the only other option is to fight them.”)
Gert – I will virulently oppose any peace accord that does not involve mutual recognition of the two states.
“I will virulently oppose any peace accord that does not involve mutual recognition of the two states.”
Question Sir Stein – why do we need ‘their’ recognition? You believe this is your state, your land etc. Why do we need it from them in order to justify a peace treaty? I used to think that was key but I don’t care any more – I won’t recognize them, they won’t recognize me but they’ll be two countries trying to live in harmony (man that’s a good rhyme)
Because there can be no peace between states that don’t recognise each other. Recognition is what underpins the international system; it is the basic prerequisite to ensure that we won’t be at war.
I dunno – I bet most of Egypt’s parliament doesn’t recognize us, and yet – peace continues based on one man’s vision (more or less).
LB:
“If they do not wish to recognize Israel because of the “illegitimacy” of the events in 1948 – then there will NEVER be peace. 1948 was Israel’s war of independence – a nation cannot apologize for that and still be independent. “
Complete straw man: the apology would be for the ethnic cleansing that took place in 1948 and 1967, not for Israel’s independence.
Avram:
The Arabs you’re talking about are not the Palestinians, just like the Jews of Israel aren’t the Jews you’re talking about. Trust right wingers to go into the mists of time to try and justify things.
Gabriel:
“This is absolute nonsense. What recognizing Israel would do would mean that the Palestinians would be willing to move on from 1948 to a better future.”
How is that to happen when you now have the most rejectionist government since Mozes?
I end up concluding Israel’s Democracy isn’t functioning: I get Zios telling me all the time there is a majority of Israeli Jews in favour of a Two State solution, then how come you get nutcases like Netanyahu/Lieberman ruling the roost?
Alex:
“Gert – I will virulently oppose any peace accord that does not involve mutual recognition of the two states.”
And you can: because you come from the perspective of the powerful; you can dictate what you want. And in all likelihood end up with a ‘no state solution’…
Recognition is the elephantine non-issue in the room. One Israel will always demand because it will always demand this, that or the other. Easy to do behind the power of a loaded gun…
Israel reminds me of the Norfolk farmer (Mr Martin) and his fully loaded pump action shotgun. Martin had loads and loads of options at all times during his encounter with the burglars, yet at every possible turn chose the worst possible one. And so it is with Israel: unopposed, extremely powerful, it’s become arrogant and filled to the brim with ill-advised self-confidence. Pride before a fall…
Gert – “Complete straw man: the apology would be for the ethnic cleansing that took place in 1948 and 1967, not for Israel’s independence.”
And I presented a straw man? By attributing ethnic cleansing to Israeli actions you are belittling all incidents in the world of real ethnic cleansing.
Gert – Call me what you want. It’s not a non-issue, nor is it an elephant in the room. It’s about how peace is made. This isn’t about Israel being recognised as a Jewish state, it’s about the two sides signing a peace document. The signatories, I hope, will be Israel and Palestine. That will involve the two sides recognising each other and declaring that the conflict has come to an end. As an anti-Zionist, I’m not surprised you don’t like that idea, but don’t expect me to consent to anyone having their cake and eat it.
Woah, I didn’t notice you and The Ranks replied until now. I wasn’t talking about the idea of two states in general, but the way Israel/the US has been going about achieving the goal of two states over the past ten years or so.
I think there are way more options than one-state and genocide, but our leadership hasn’t been too creative with coming up with solutions. And obviously, I don’t have a good idea either.
LB:
Yes, it’s a straw man because you pull what I say out of (a simple) context.
Let’s recap a little. It’s Hamas that (at least up to now – my crystal ball is broken too) refuses to de jure recognise Israel. For this they invoke reasons that IMHO cannot simply be brushed under the carpet. But, Israel keeps insisting on it. Why then not, if it’s so important to Israel, offer a carrot: ‘we’ll formally apologise for suffering caused to the Palestinians in 1948 and 1967 if in return you recognise the State of Israel’.
Why does this strike you as such an unreasonable idea?
Alex:
De facto peace without formal recognition and a long term, negotiated truce is viable and allows all sides to buy time, in peace. One of the first things that will be needed to allow negotiations to take place is an armistice of sorts anyway. A long term truce would allow all kinds of things to happen. As Tamimi put it:
“It is usually assumed that a long term hudnah will likely last for a quarter of a century or more. That is seen as too long a time for someone to predict what may happen afterwards. There will always be the possibility that the hudnah will come to an end prematurely because of a breach. If that happens it is highly unlikely that the breach will come from the Hamas side for the simply reason that it is religiously binding upon the Islamic side to honor the agreement to the end unless violated by the other side. Should the hudnah last till the prescribed date, one scenario is that those in charge then will simply negotiation a renewal.”
Israel isn’t recognised by the majority of Arab states either. Does it keep you awake at night? No, because it’s a status quo that’s existed for some time.
Well we’re not embroiled in a conflict with a majority of the Arab states. A hudna with Hamas based on the 1967 borders is a non-starter. The aim of the game must be to end the conflict. Anything short of that lends fuel to the fire to those who argue that two-states is just a waystation for the Palestinians, with the ultimate goal being the destruction of the State of Israel.
May Flam the website – “I think there are way more options than one-state and genocide, but our leadership hasn’t been too creative with coming up with solutions. And obviously, I don’t have a good idea either.”
That’s a bit of a contradiction! Come up with a good idea! In the meantime, keep playing with your sister!
And LB:
“By attributing ethnic cleansing to Israeli actions you are belittling all incidents in the world of real ethnic cleansing.”
Now that you see, sounds really ominous. The permanent displacement of an est. 725,000 Palestinians doesn’t count as ethnic cleansing? It’s not “real” enough? What about the 250,000 of 1967? ‘Ethnic Cleansing Lite’? Something completely different?
Look up the dictionary definition of ethnic cleansing. It does not involve genocide or worse besides that. Zionists displaced large amounts of indigenous people to make room for Jews. That’s Ethnic Cleansing TM. And it goes on to this day.
Alex:
The real danger of a Two State solution wouldn’t be the Hudna. The real danger lies in the conditions that Israel can impose on this solution, from the perspective of those who hold all the cards. The current Israeli leadership’s doctrine seems to be that the Palestinian question can be deferred endlessly (in contrast the Iranian question which must be resolved by yesterday). The easiest way of doing so is to make unreasonable demands and make them sound reasonable (an undivided J’sem is such a demand and it seems to gain popularity in Israel by the day – non-Jewish Zionist sycophants like it too). When Obama then predictably will fall on the side Israel, the Palestinians will be between a rock and a hard place. Accept it and they end up with an unsatisfactory solution that will inspire some to keep on struggling (recognition or not: it doesn’t provide an anti-dote to war), don’t and they end up with nothing (and of course all the blame).
But right now all this is purely academic; I’ve never been so pessimistic about the whole thing as I am now. The voices for a Two State solution in Israel are very quiet and most sound very conditional anyway. The calls for an undivided J’sem are ever more clarion, even in the face of anticipated (?) American opposition (really? See Obama’s stump AIPAC speech, Clinton’s past stance on J’sem). Abu Mazen is powerless, Hamas, despite some softening of their stance, continues to be demonised throughout much of the world. Jerkowitz recently called them the linear heirs of Hitler. And even a settlement freeze isn’t on the cards: dismantling a few ‘illegal’ outdoor toilets, yes, that’s when they’re not busy erecting some more elsewhere.
Badly, I think is how all this will end. How, I don’t know but good I cannot see come out of all this…
“The Arabs you’re talking about are not the Palestinians, just like the Jews of Israel aren’t the Jews you’re talking about. Trust right wingers to go into the mists of time to try and justify things.”
Ok fine -
1929 ethnic cleansing of Hebron – good enough for you?
1936-1939 riots?
or how about, their head religious figure a) supporting Hitler’s final solution and becoming ‘mates’ with him and b) sending soldiers to help him?
Kill 6,000 ‘Israelis’ from 1947-1949 in the war of indepdence
When they apologize for that, we’ll apologize for the ‘Nakba’, deal?
“an undivided J’sem”
Did you read why Fatah want half of Jerusalem? Do you think he has a point? How much have you delved into the history of Jerusalem as a ‘capital’ within the Arab world etc? Just curious as it seems an essential issue in your mind (which I concur with)
Avram:
All in all, it’s a good thing that when negotiations finally restart that you won’t be involved. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail (but I have great doubts about that).
Avram:
Here’s some friendly advice: go visit the blogger ‘MadZionist’ from a few comments above. I know Madze very well: you two should get on like a house on fire.
Hi Gert,
a) Cooler heads? I’m very relaxed sir/ma’am, I’m just pointing out the obvious bias you have (be it your ‘anti-Zionism’ or you have the same issue you claimed Oren has) . But I’ll take that as, “Ok, you’re right. The Palestinians aren’t innocent in this conflict, but I want to pretend they are to continue my righteous preaching”.
b) I only know Mad Zionist from this blog – and if you’ve actually read my comments on things, you’d see me disagreeing with him on a lot. Alas, don’t let that not bother you as you’ve painted me as some ‘right wing fanatic’ when I’ve twice bought you up on your bogus/hypocritical requests (from Weiss’s ‘anti-semitic’ followers -and- the Palestinian wrongs committed against Jews – btw, not not once have I said us Israelis haven’t wronged the Palestinians, I’m very aware we have. Don’t let that bother you as I said earlier.)
“The permanent displacement of an est. 725,000 Palestinians doesn’t count as ethnic cleansing?”
Do you think the permanent displacement of an est 950,000 Arab Jews doesn’t count as ethnic cleansing?
“Hamas, despite some softening of their stance, continues to be demonised throughout much of the world”
Talk about talking around the issue. A) Hamas has only softened their stance to friendly Western audiences. They use the same antisemitic rhetoric the always have at home. B) “Demonised” implies that they don’t deserve the criticism. Yes, poor Hamas. All they do is spread antisemitsm and try to kill Israeli civilians. Poor, poor Hamas. This is quite typical of anti-Zionists. The absurd white washing of Israel’s enemies in order to make Israel seem evil. Even that vast majority of the left wing in Israel is well aware of who Hamas and Hezbollah really are. Also, it’s impossible to take seriously someone who writes “Zios” the same way it is impossible to take seriously someone who writes “Palis”.
Watch it Gabriel, she may soon paint you as a right wing fanatic because you find so many issues with her ‘facts’ about those evil zios.
Avram:
Your claim of 950,000 displaced Arab Jews is absurd. As always you want to create equivalence where there is none. On the topic of ‘ethnically cleansed Arab Jews”, see this source:
Yehouda Shenhav
The organization’s claims infuriated many Arab Jews in Israel who defined themselves as Zionists. As early as 1975, at the time of WOJAC’s formation, Knesset speaker Yisrael Yeshayahu declared: “We are not refugees. [Some of us] came to this country before the state was born. We had messianic aspirations.” Shlomo Hillel, a government minister and an active Zionist in Iraq, adamantly opposed the analogy: “I don’t regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists.” In a Knesset hearing, Ran Cohen stated emphatically: “I have this to say: I am not a refugee.” He added: “I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee.” The opposition was so vociferous that Ora Schweitzer, chair of WOJAC’s political department, asked the organization’s secretariat to end its campaign. She reported that members of Strasburg’s Jewish community were so offended that they threatened to boycott organization meetings should the topic of “Sephardi Jews as refugees” ever come up again. Such remonstration precisely predicted the failure of the current organization, Justice for Jews from Arab Countries to inspire enthusiasm for its efforts.
As regards leftwing/rightwing, you’re the one who dismissed a whole essay by Tony Karon on the gounds that is was “extremely left slanting analysis”.
Gabriel:
Hamas has in fact slightly softened its stance slightly, that is simply undeniable.
By contrast, Israel has voted in the most rightwing, most rejectionist government in its history.
A few simple questions to both of you: do you believe the continued building (not just expansion) of settlements improves Israel’s security? Do you believe this serves another, justifiable purpose? And if so what is it?
Gabriel:
“Also, it’s impossible to take seriously someone who writes “Zios” the same way it is impossible to take seriously someone who writes “Palis”.”
That would be a very cheap cop out. Call me an anti-Zio if you like: it’s an abbreviation, no more. Hell, even the terms Zionist and anti-Zionist are hopelessly reductionist but I use them for the same reason that you do: because every one else does.
As regards ‘Palis’, it’s derogatory but only in a derogatory context. Same as e.g. ‘Limey’, not derogatory if I used in on myself.
But do try an honestly answer the questions above: very few Zionists do. I’m just curious…
“Your claim of 950,000 displaced Arab Jews is absurd. As always you want to create equivalence where there is none.”
There is an equivalence in many ways. That you are unwilling to see one is due to your bias (which I guess we can attribute to your anti-Zionism). There are many people who say what Ran Cohen say, far more who didn’t see at that time (especially with the treatment they received – a topic for another day I guess?). There are some that say that Israeli agents agitated the situation, the majority say no. You choose to believe a minority in your attempt to suggest that only one population suffered from massive displacement in this time period …
“you’re the one who dismissed a whole essay by Tony Karon on the gounds that is was “extremely left slanting analysis”.”
Alas, but I read it. And then I made up my opinion. If you want a rebuttal, you’d read moderate to right wing analysts of the situation. I doubt you do, and if you do, you’d say exactly what I said (but obviously, with different words). I’d just hope that when confronted with Palestinian attacks on Jews/Israelis to counter a rather shallow statement (an ‘apology’), you’d reply to the substance and not start using labels.
“Hamas has in fact slightly softened its stance slightly”
What does the first line of their charter still say? Care to quote it?
“do you believe the continued building (not just expansion) of settlements improves Israel’s security?”
I believe most of the settlements need to go. Building them is stupid. I also however believe that in the peace treaty Israel & Palestine will one day sign, there will be land swaps so that major population bases are not forced to be relocated drastically on either side.
“Israel has voted in the most rightwing”
You mean Lieberman? Who wants to split Jerusalem & has no issues with two states? (He’ll be in jail within 1-2 years I think, so don’t worry about him too much – he’s got some dirty connections to this German Jew, who alas also had strong connections to … Arik Sharon)
Gert, you’re such a raving Judeophobic lunatic that I’m surprised intelligent people like Alex and Avram even bother wasting their time with you. Reasoned discussion with people who will settle for nothing less than the extermination of Israel, who seethe with hatred towards 98% of the world’s Jewish population, is simply not possible.
Mad Zionist:
Rarely have I met a more ‘principled’ hypocrite than you. Lemmesee, for at least two years I commented over at yours in the capacity of what Renegade Eye called ‘friendly opposition’. Despite you taking positions on Islam that were (quite literally) Hitlerian – calling for the extermination of all Muslims – not once you called for that, but over a prolonged period of time, not to mention your horrifying stance on homosexuals, I argued with you and some of your vilest trolls, reasonably and not entirely without success.
To this day you remain a committed transferist, not to mention a complete coward of course. Why a coward? Because from the soap box of your blog and the safety of your American home, you take positions that would make many on the Far Right in Israel blush. A ‘Revolutionary Zionist’? Gasbag more like…
Avram:
Thanks for your reply. It’s been noted.
“Thanks for your reply. It’s been noted.”
My pleasure. I just hope ‘two states’ happen sooner rather than later, because both people are so messed up internally (I’d be surprised, no insult meant, if you knew how screwed up internally Israel was – for many reasons not related to the conflict) that they need a ‘break’ to fix themselves.
I’m a fixyerpeopleupist
Gert, way to dodge the truth… Takiyah, right?
Anyway, you go can move to Ramallah anytime to show your jihadi brethren how you’re part of their cause. I’m sure you’ve been there before, right? Right? Er…maybe not. On second thought, just sit at your computer and spew anti-Semitic slurs against the Jews… pretending to be an anti-Zionist revolutionary must be so invigorating for the effete of heart.
“do you believe the continued building (not just expansion) of settlements improves Israel’s security? Do you believe this serves another, justifiable purpose? And if so what is it?”
No and No. It may surprise you that being a Zionist does not mean agreeing with everything (or even anything) the government does. Also, this far-right government is only far right in Israeli terms. Abbas is a Holocaust denier who seems to believe in the “Two-states for one people” model and whose “moderate” party still celebrates suicide bombers. (A Palestinian state for Palestinians and an Israeli state for Palestinians). How he is always seen as moderate while Lieberman is seen an extremist is ludicrous.