VIEWPOINT / The Down with Israel Syndrome

[Phx_Dem]

Each year, in preparation for Israel's birthday, American newspaper editors feel an urge to invite Arab writers to tell us why Israel should not exist. Typical this year were the Los Angeles Times (Opinion, May 12 "Forget the two-state solution", by Saree Makdisi) and the Christian Science Monitor (Ghada Karmi "A One-state Solution for Palestinians and Israelis", May 30, 2008), where the elimination of Israel were advanced under the usual euphemism of a "one-state solution."

I presume this exercise gives editors some satisfaction, of the kind one would get in inviting officials of the Flat Earth Society to tell us why the earth should not be round, and do so precisely on Earth Day, lest the wisdom would escape anyone's attention.

Undoubtedly, the banalization of absurdity has its kicks. It is sporty, admirably "out-of-the-box-ish" and, if only it did not involve a dangerous experiment with the lives of millions of human beings, could be considered mighty cute. But this practice is adult matter, and the result is a depressing Kafkaesque choreography, in which Israel is put on trial for its very existence, while less radical commentators, if they are invited, deal with Israel's future, difficulties and achievements, but leave the accusations unanswered.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1002304.html

[Phx_Dem]

1. another snippet

Today we are witnessing a concerted effort by enemies of co-existence to get people to envision, just envision, a world without Israel - the rest, they hope, will become history.

The American press seems to fall for it.

In fairness to the editors of some newspapers, articles calling forthe elimination of Israel are often balanced by articles discussingthe prospects for a peaceful settlement of the dispute. But, ironically, this "balance" is precisely where the imbalance cries out loudest, for it gives equal moral weight to a provocation that every Jew in Israel considers a genocidal death threat, most Jews view as an assault on their identity as people and most Palestinians view as an incentive to undermine or forestall peace negotiations.

Balance has its norms, logic and responsibilities, mirrored and shaped by sound editorial judgment. We do not rush to "balance" each celebration of Martin Luther King Day with articles by white supremacists, and we do not "balance" a hate speech with a lecture on breathing technique; a hate speech is balanced with a lecture on the evils of hate.

[shaayecanaan]

3. No race has an inherent right to ethnic hegemony in any state...

Neither does any race have an inherent right to constitute a supermajority in any state. Whenever I read this kind of tripe I am reminded of the white-fright narratives that forecast a terrible time when white people no longer constitute a supermajority in the United States.

White people do not have an inherent right to constitute the majority in the United States; neither do Jews have an inherent right to constitute a supermajority in Israel. The same with ethnic Germans fearing too many Turks in Germany or white Australians fearing too many Asians in Australia.

In each case the fears are motivated by base, unreconstructed racism.

Whenever I see these kinds of posts being made, I always remind the poster that due to natural increase, Arabs may constitute a supermajority at some stage in the future in Israel whether the Palestinian right of return is acknowledged or not.

This is always brushed aside, for some strange reason. One poster even said that if Arabs became a majority due to natural increase that was "fine" but not if it happened due to the right of return.

I doubt whether it really is "fine" - more probably the poster is simply concerned about appearing patently racist. After all, if you argue that Jews are entitled to defend their supermajority in Israel by any means, then you implicitly legitimise the means - ethnic cleansing, forced sterilisations, population transfers, etc - that might be used to attain that goal.

What is strange is that Israel has no compunctions about preaching the right of return to others - for example, witness its exhortations to the Armenians that they should allow the Azeri refugees to return to Karabahk.

[henank]

4. Ah, but there you are wrong

"neither do Jews have an inherent right to constitute a supermajority in Israel"

But the UN itself would have it otherwise.

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine or United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 was a plan approved by the General Assembly on November 29, 1947 to terminate the British Mandate of Palestine by August 1, 1948, and facilitate the creation of two states, one Jewish and one Arab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Resolution 181 doesn't give any inherent right to create a supermajority in either state...

All it did was approve a plan to terminate the British Mandate and move towards the creation of two states. On reading the text of the Resolution it did contain a lot of 'inherent rights' that both Israelis and Palestinians totally ignored...

[pelsar]

5. some of us live in the real world....

races may not have a 'right' to "own' anything....but people of all races also have a right not to live in fear, be subject to blood libel etc.....israel in its short history has provided a haven where jews dont have to live in fear just because they are jewish....for the first time in 2,000+ years. First straighten out your racially oriented world, then come back and tell the jews they dont need their own country.

you should study demographics and sociology a little bit more.....in the near future the arab israelis will not become a majority.....your claim is simply wrong as is your whole thesis and its conclusion of forced sterilization's etc....

[shaayecanaan]

32. first time in 2000+ years...

The Jews in India lived fairly uneventfully. The Kaifeng Jews in China had no major mishaps.

As for the United States, I can remember one Jew being lynched, I think his name was Leo Frank from memory. Small fry compared to the hundreds of blacks that were strung up, burnt, photographed and then sent to Auntie Mae as a postcard for Christmas. One should be more fearful to be a black than a Jew in America, if statistics are anything to go by. Particularly if you're reaching for your wallet and a policeman is nearby. To say nothing of the 25 million souls trafficked as slaves in the US by Christian, Jew and Muslim alike. If you think that a repeat of the holocaust is plausible, do you think blacks should be worried about being re-enslaved?

The Jews in Iran have been around for a while. You might snort at that but you should probably try to imagine where the Jews would be now without the Persians at a certain pivotal time in their history.

What you are essentially stating is that the holocaust provides a continuing moral alibi for Israel to continue shafting the Palestinians. I can understand that argument appealing to Jews. What you should acknowledge, however, is that it is not going to appeal to anyone else, on an objective basis. Not least because a Jew in the US is in about as much physical danger as I am of having the Taj Mahal suddenly emerge from my arse.

[Phx_Dem]

35. Couple lynched jews you forgot about

The Mississippi Civil Rights Workers Murders involved the 1964 slayings of three political activists during the American Civil Rights Movement.

The murders of James Chaney, a 21-year-old black man from Meridian, Mississippi; Andrew Goodman, a 20-year-old white Jewish anthropology student from New York; and Michael Schwerner, a 24-year-old white Jewish CORE organizer and former social worker also from New York, symbolized the risks of participating in the Civil Rights Movement in the South during what became known as "Freedom Summer", dedicated to voter registration.

The case also underscored the extensive participation of Jewish-Americans during the Civil Rights era working in concert with African-Americans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_civil_rights_workers_murders

[shaayecanaan]

39. Ah yes, I remember the Paul Simon song...

I guess that takes it to three. Having looked at Wikipedia, however, it seems as though there were 1293 white lynching victims in the US, so there may well be more. However, the link below implies that Shakers, Catholics and Mormons figured heavily amongst the white victims. Many white lynch victims were carpetbaggers from what I understand, mostly recent immigrants.

http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/question/may07/

[pelsar]

43. so little understanding....

2000 years.....spain, france, england, US, germany, russia, egypt, etc etc etc etc.....how many anti jew laws were there? and for how long? (you actually picked out india and china---wow)

i didnt even mention the holocaust...i just think it was just one more event in a very long line of them (a bit out of proportion though). And yes your right my argument is appealing to jews and not to anyone else...its not about "everyone else"..its about the jew getting shafted at different places at different time by so many different societies.....and finally having a place where it not longer happens.

its about not trusting a world that has so much racism in it...like i wrote, when you clean up the world of racism, get back to us, we'll have much to discuss then...

[shaayecanaan]

44. "one more event in a very long line"

Not really. What you're really talking about is the holocaust with a bit of garnish. Outside of the holocaust, you have some pograms in Russia, the coin-clipping episode in England. The expulsion from Spain was of Muslims and Jews both. Nothing that would be unknown to most minorities that have persevered over the last 2000 years (Zoroastrians, Assyrians, Armenians, Copts, etc).

Without the holocaust, the Jews wouldnt come anywhere near top spot in the league table of suffering. The Africans might have it, or maybe the Armenians. The Armenians lost one third of their number in the Hammidian massacres and two-thirds of the remainder in the Armenian genocide so they have some good form as far as sob stories are concerned.

You might not know or care, but it was an edgy time for Christians back in the last days of the Ottoman empire. The Assyrians, Pontics and Armenians were getting the knife left right and centre. We enjoyed relative protection as Catholics, as the Turks weren't quite so cavalier about killing the Pope's own compared to orthodox Christians, and besides, we were a fair ways from Turkey. Our family received quite a few Armenians and Assyrians during that time fleeing the genocides, a lot of those Armenians are still in Lebanon. Not that it matters, but for the most part, the Jews turned their heads and coughed politely whilst the Christians were being led away (yes, there were exceptions). The good Turkish Jews are still there today. Ironic isnt it?

[pelsar]

45. still trying..the moral equivalency.....

that comes up a lot around here....and when really placing everything in its place it always falls flat...your latest attempt to show that jews dont get that unique place in history of constant persecution (love the line "without the holocaust....-can we be consistent and say about the armenian genocide.....) unfortunately they do..perhaps because they actually did survive as a culture/race unlike other groups over the years

all of your examples are all short lived and limited to a specific geographic areas....i'm afraid the jews take the cake for world wide anti jew laws (not limited to killing..just anti jews laws for about 2,000+ years..thats 2000 years of various types of persecution/racism at various places throughout the world....

including arab countries, europe and the "new world".......(cant say i know much about china, korea, vietnam...but i would guess that they lump jews into the "western white category and really dont give a shit about being jewish-but thats just an impression).

that translates to world wide racism......see if you can find something that comes even close to that.....somehow i doubt it.....(your best bet is probably the gypsies of europe...but they too dont even come close)

[shaayecanaan]

46. You are Jewish

and I am quite prepared to accept that you do not value the suffering of Armenians as equivalent to your own. I am probably more minded to do so given the problems Maronites had with the Turks. You might not view the Young Turks as equivalent to the Nazis, but their victims were just as alive as when they started, and just as dead when they finished. I hate the casual use of the term "young turks" for that reason, particularly on this website.

Im posting from Japan at the moment (if anyone doubts this they can ask the mods to confirm the IP for all I care) and I can vouch for the fact that no one within probably 2000 miles of here gives the slightest toss about any of it.

can we be consistent and say about the armenian genocide

There were also the Hammidian massacres, the pogrom of 1955, the Ottoman conquest. The Armenians are pretty good at recording their grievances, about as good as Jews are. You should try asking one. They probably own the lease for the land your house sits on (or the Greeks do, along with the land underneath the Knesset) so you wouldnt have to go very far.

i'm afraid the jews take the cake for world wide anti jew laws

Europe and Russia is hardly world wide. I dont think Im being particularly contentious by saying that Asia should be considered part of the world. And the Ottoman empire was a fairly significant chunk of territory.

including arab countries, europe and the "new world"

New world? You mean the fact that Jews couldnt play golf at a few WASP country clubs in America? I dont know much about Canada, but if it is anything like Australia I imagine the Jews there are about as Jewish as Christians are Christian, which is to say not very much in either respect. As for South America, I can recall the bombing of the Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires (sp?) which was apparent carried out by the Hezbollah ESA (not necessarily related to HA itself). But aside from that I cant say Ive heard much from them. These are entire fucking continents we're talking here.

Trivia question for you:- what was the punishment in Georgian England for "impersonating an Egyptian" (associating with gypsies)? You might want to try and answer this one before offering your assessment of just how much the Gypsies suffered or not.

And the 2000+ years part is just bullshit. What do you think standard Roman practice was in relation to rebellions? You can read about the Servile Rebellions if you're unsure...

[LeftishBrit]

47. Firstly, it's not a competition!

Jews are not on the whole engaged in a contest over 'whose suffering is worse?'; they are concerned to have a safe haven so that they don't face too much risk of getting massacred yet again. After 2000 years of pogroms and expulsions, in many parts of the world at various times, it's rather understandable that we want to have one country which is a 'homeland'.

'Some pogroms in Russia' is rather dismissive-sounding; there were many pogroms, not just in Russia but throughout Eastern Europe, and at times elsewhere, including Arab countries and Argentina.

The Armenians also have their homeland and I am quite sure that they strongly wish to keep it for similar reasons to the Jews!

The Assyrians are being subjected to persecution and massacres in Iraq *now* - one of the disastrous consequences of the war there. There are other places where extreme violence and indeed genocide are taking place today - most notably and horribly in Darfur. All of these are evil. Not a competition.

In a certain sense, it is true by definition that the Jews are better off than some other ethnic groups that have existed in the world. Because there are some that were wiped out entirely or almost entirely!!! The Jews did manage to survive (though many individuals didn't) - and we would quite like to keep it that way!

[LeftishBrit]

9. I think I might have been that poster...

and it's nothing to do with racism. And in fact, I do support right of return for the original refugees.

It's a question of not liking wars. Natural changes in populations are a totally different matter from invasion and conquest.

At present, 'right of return' is often used as a euphemism for 'shove mortal enemies in a small space together, and watch the result. And as the Arabs will then outnumber the Jews, we hope that the Jews will be defeated'. In fact, long-term civil war is IMO as likely a consequence as speedy defeat of the Jews. Either way, it is a recipe for extreme violence.

And before anyone says 'the status quo/ the occupation is also a recipe for violence!' - I oppose that too. A peaceful secular 'single state' will be impossible for many years at least, so the options are: (1) continuation of the status quo; (2) complete military defeat for Israel as a Jewish homeland; (3) prolonged civil war; or (4) a two-state solution. There seems to me to be *no* contest between the options; the fourth - the two-state solution - is the *only* one that is both acceptable and possible.

[shaayecanaan]

31. So if you oppose shoving mortal enemies together...

you think that the Hutu refugees should not be able to return to Rwanda? Or the Azeris to Karabahk? Do you think the Serb refugees should be able to return to Kosovo?

Israel, as far as I know, is in favour of the first two. A fairly glaring case of hypocrisy wouldnt you think?

[Vegasaurus]

10. Of course Jews have the right to constitute a supermajority in Israel

It is a "Jewish state".

There are predominantly Muslim states, many of them in fact, and most of them will not allow Jews to live there. They also discriminate against Christians.

Are you opposed to the existence of those states, or only Israel, because it is comprised of Jews?

[Violet_Crumble]

13. I'd like to see this list of *many* Muslim states that don't allow Jews to live there...

I won't hold my breath waiting, though...

[Vegasaurus]

14. Let's start with Saudi Arabia and Jordan nt

[Violet_Crumble]

15. No, let's start with you using facts for a change...

Y'know, instead of opining away, you supply what you actually claimed existed which was MANY Muslim countries that don't allow Jews to live there. It wouldn't surprise me if Saudi Arabia did that, but I want you to supply this list of MANY countries and actual information that supports yr claim...

[henank]

17. Does it really make a difference if it's many or few Arab countries?

How many countries not allowing Jews to enter, live, have citizenship or own property is OK with you? 1? 2? 10? Obviously according to you, "only" two Arab countries who specifically don't allow Jews is OK.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. No more than it makes a difference whether it's many or few Israelis who want to expel Arabs...

Oh, and the sentence I was replying to saying not once, but twice, that it's MANY Muslim countries tends to make a difference.

'There are predominantly Muslim states, many of them in fact, and most of them will not allow Jews to live there.'

Obviously according to you, "only" two Arab countries who specifically don't allow Jews is OK.

Gosh, I don't know why I bother posting anything when folk like you are so quick to come up with things I don't think and have never said.

Thanks, though. I'll remember yr routine next time someone replies to a poster who says that Israelis want to expel Arabs from Israel and points out that few Israelis do. ;)

[LeftishBrit]

40. A point that comes to mind here...

and it's not specifically directed at you or any other single poster:

It is true that two countries are not most/many Muslim countries. However, Israel is only *one* country, and its actions get an awful lot of attention here. Why not also think a bit more about the other Middle Eastern countries - and I don't mean just those that are on Bush's current bogeynation list; indeed neither Saudi Arabia nor Jordan is!

Wouldn't it be wonderful if ALL Middle Eastern countries had liberal/left, secular governments; which treated all ethnic groups equally, and did not discriminate against any; and lived at peace within themselves and with their neighbours?

It is not going to happen any time soon, just because some foreigners think it might be a good idea; and for outsiders to try to enforce this is likely to lead to war. But it might be a good idea if it could happen!

And I am not saying anything here that's any different from what I've said about the hypothetical binational single state in Israel/Palestine! Thre are a lot of things that would be a good idea in an ideal world; a lot of them impossible; and demanding the impossible tends to lead to disaster. But it's worth remembering that 'apartheid' occurs in *most* Middle Eastern states, to a significantly worse degree than in Israel. This isn't a matter of 'Look over there! Israel can't be criticized as long as other countries are doing the same or worse' - which is how it sometimes gets interpreted. It's a matter of treating practices as ethnic discrimination and human rights abuses as one's enemies, rather than specific countries as one's enemies - which makes it easier to fight them. It's also a matter of being realistic about what can be achieved in the real world, without going from the frying pan into the fire. Politics has sometimes been described as 'the art of the possible'. Perhaps 'the art of the impossible' is - war. And war is not something to be welcomed.

[Phx_Dem]

42. I think you've hit on a key point

That is people need to look for realistic solutions to the IP conflict and a single state is not realistic.

[Vegasaurus]

18. Considering that Egypt and Iraq kicked out all their Jews (and stole their land and property)

that Syria has about 50 old Jews left (no one new invited in), I don't know what you are trying to protect.

Do you really want to try to convince yourself that Jews CAN live in Muslim countries? Comical!

Arabs actually DO live in Israel. 1.5 million of them.

There isn't a single Arab or Muslim country with more than a few hundred Jews, if that. And then there are those countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia which actively forbid Jews to have citizenship.

Are you opposed to that kind of anti-semitism and racism, or is it OK because Muslims are doing it?

[Violet_Crumble]

24. You claimed that MANY Muslim countries don't allow Jews to live there...

And now yr unable to bring up any list of MANY countries, you instead divert into idiotic drivel that's got nothing to do with what you originally claimed. Oh, and throw in a pathetic insinuation that I condone antisemitism for good measure.

I'm not trying to protect anything, though I do have a major issue with yr repeated misrepresentation of Muslims, be they Americans or from Middle Eastern countries. I have similar issues with folk who try to misrepresent and stereotype Jews. If you are as you claim so sensitive to antisemitism, why are you not as concerned about bigotry against Arabs and Muslims?

[Vegasaurus]

26. Do you claim that Jews can live in MANY Arab countries?

Go ahead and prove yourself.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. No, if you bother READING the discussion, I'm asking you to prove yr claim...

Which you haven't been able to do. I'm interested to see this list of MANY countries you must have close at hand...

[azurnoir]

33. Yes and Israel welcomed those Jews

gave them instant citizenship because they were needed to fill up the spaces left by Arabs that Israel had just kicked out, funny how that part is always left out.

[henank]

16. Stop holding your breath

Here's a little list.

Jordan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Jews

Jordan has a law explicitly prohibiting any Jew from becoming a citizen.<7> and that "In Jordan, no Jew can be a citizen or own land.".<8>

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Jordan

Saudi Arabia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Saudi_Arabia

There is virtually no Jewish activity in Saudi Arabia today. Public worship of all religions but Islam is strictly forbidden.

In fact, for a taste of the wonderul tolerance of those simply wonderful tolerant Arabs, have a little look at this whole page:
Arab Jews

Jews might not be explicity excluded from other Arab countries but the Arabs sure make it darned uncomfortable if not outright dangerous. This is not mere "discrimination" or "racism". It is plain old antisemitism. And if someone here wants to be disingenuous and claim that Arabs can't be antisemitic because they themselves are Semites, well then, let us call it Judenhass. Jew Hatred in other words.

Read all about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
or here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/antisem.html

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Yeah, a little list of two is the right description of it...

And since when has anyone with a shred of objectivity taken Dershowitz as a credible source? (he's listed as the source for footnote 7)

Interesting to see you jump immediately from not being able to supply a list of MANY Muslim countries that don't allow Jews to live there to peddling yr own personal opinions. I think there could possibly be a fair bit of good old Arab Hatred going on with some folk who insist that Arabs are Jew Haters. Who are *the Arabs*, henank? Are they related to *the Jews* that I've seen antisemites use in sentences when they're making nasty generalisations about entire groups of people?

[Vegasaurus]

22. I'd say the rhetoric from most Arab countries

in their press, comics, etc. pretty much shows a lot of Jew haters.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. I get the feeling you don't bother reading a wide range of Arab media or books...

How "progressive", Veggie. Y'know, there's a mirror image of yr opinions. They're the folk who go on about things like rhetoric from Israel showing that Israel is full of Arab haters. Both stereotypes are wrong and shows a deep unwillingess or inability to grasp that Arab and Israeli cultures are diverse and complex ones. To try to portray either as a bunch of seething bigots is pretty damn hateful and not the sort of stuff that any left-winger should be encouraging...

[Vegasaurus]

27. But SOME "left wingers" seem to have no problem allying themselves

with cultures that support stoning of women, hanging of gays, lack of human or civil rights.

Not very "progressive" of them!

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Even if they did it here, why does that make it okay to stereotype Muslims & Arabs?

That's what I don't understand. There's no excuse for stereotyping of Muslims and Arabs, and if you think that speaking out against the stereotyping that goes on makes someone a supporter of a culture that does horrible things, then yr very very wrong...

[azurnoir]

37. And the "regressive" have even less problem

stereotyping an entire religion, which the regressive(s) choose to call a culture, if anyone were to hold Jews to the same standards judging all Jews by the actions of a few the shrillness would shatter glass, yet feel "justified" in holding over 1 billion people responsible for the actions of a relative few. Then there is laughable pretense of "concern" about Muslim women and gays, which is only mouthed as a means of further demonizing an entire religion. Sort of reminds me of "someones" choice for VP running mate, "I will choose a women as running mate not cause I give a damn about women's rights but because it will make me "look good" and get me votes"

[LeftishBrit]

38. I think rather few left-wingers seriously do so.

There are some 'mirror-image-ists' who *do* seem to think people like Ahmadinejad must be OK just because they're enemies of Bush. But for the most part, left-wingers don't *ally* themselves with repressive Muslim-Right governments. We do tend to be afraid of Bush and such people going in and establishing 'regime change' with bombs, as in Iraq; and some people get a bit paranoid that *any* criticism of another country, esecially in the Middle East (and especially Iran, and sometimes the Hamas government), means a desire to bomb that country. Not so at all: you can criticize a government without wanting to bomb that country!

Re hanging of gays: by no means all or even most Muslim countries practice this. I checked in Wikipedia (which I realize can sometimes be unreliable or out-of-date) which contains an article about homosexuality and Islam. They list 47 Muslim-majority countries. Of these, 8 permit the death penalty for homosexual acts; 24 criminalize such acts but do not make them subject to capital punishment; and 15 have no laws against homosexuality. The Palestinian Authority criminalizes but does not execute gays, though gays have sometimes been lynched without reference to the law.

To get this in an international perspective: 70 of 195 countries in the world criminalize homosexuality, with the number falling dramatically over recent years. Countries cannot join the Europaean Union if they criminalize homosexuality; however, much of the change in Europe is very recent. Gays could be imprisoned in the UK until 1965. (Until the 1860s, they could be executed.)

People interested in campaigns for greater GLB rights within Islam and Muslim countries may be interested in the writings of Irshad Manji and in the following organization:

www.al-fatiha.org

[Vegasaurus]

2. It's important to have some honesty about this issue

"One state" means one thing only: A state for Arabs and not Jews.

It is disgraceful that people actually talk about "one state" which would be to displace six million people, many of whom have lived there for two generations, from their own country.

Talk about ethnic cleansing and genocide. That is what a "one state solution" would look like.

Finally, a middle east free of Jews, just as the Arabs always wanted.

Wish come true, only the Jews aren't going away quietly.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. I want you to explain something in that post...

Talk about ethnic cleansing and genocide. That is what a "one state solution" would look like.

Are you arguing that if a one-state solution came into being that the Palestinian population would indulge in ethnic cleansing and genocide? I sure hope that's not what yr saying, which is why I'm asking you to explain what you meant...

[Vegasaurus]

11. Considering the suicide bombings and efforts to eradicate Israel of Jews

I would say that putting two warring people in the same state against their will is a recipe for disaster.

Infer whatever you wish.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. No, I don't want to infer something. I want you to be honest and say it...

Yr always accusing people of attributing views to you that you don't hold, so I want you to explain what you meant so it's clear. Are you saying that if a one-state solution ever happened that the Palestinian people would indulge in genocide and ethnic cleansing?

[Vegasaurus]

20. History speaks for itself. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

21. That's nice. Clearly yr unwilling to speak for yrself...

Why so shy all of a sudden? You've come so close, so why not just come straight out and say what you think?

[LeftishBrit]

34. Would you not agree that if a one-state solution happened soon ("ever" is a long day)...

there would be a major war? With a lot of Jews - and probably Arabs - killed?

These are enemies. It's not a question of the Palestinians (or Israelis) being somehow uniquely evil. It's a question the Palestinians and Israelis considering each other as the Enemy - and some of the other Middle Eastern governments being only too ready to pour petrol onto the flames.

Which makes a single-state solution absolutely untenable at least *at this time* .

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Yes, but what you said and what Veggie said were two completely different things...

And when someone posts the following, it's very hard to see how for them it's not a question of Arabs being uniquely evil:

'Talk about ethnic cleansing and genocide. That is what a "one state solution" would look like.

Finally, a middle east free of Jews, just as the Arabs always wanted.'

So the post in question wasn't saying that there'd be mutual violence if a one-state solution was forced on Israelis and Palestinians. That post was saying that Israeli-Jews would become victims of genocide at the hands of the Palestinian population...

Let's talk about those who are ready to pour petrol on the flames. It's not just some Middle Eastern governments, but if there's a lot of Americans who hold views like the one expressed in that post, then it looks like a lot of Americans have some emotional energy invested in fanning those flames as well...

[azurnoir]

41. Considering which side has cluster bombs

and a proven track record of using them even against civilian populations, and then claiming that there were terrorists in the "area" I would like to see a logical answer to the question, not more nonsensical hyperbole.

[azurnoir]

36. "She" may be right on that

but "she" is being disingenuous to say the least about who would be "ethnically cleansed". The is the one reason I am against a one state solution, it would put the Palestinians in truely mortal danger. The "justus" crowd here can caterwaul all they want, but which side actually has the ability to ethnically cleanse the other side. The one with that has a few outdated missles or the one with a standing army, air force, cluster bombs, tanks, drones, ect

[Violet_Crumble]

6. I support two-states, but that article is garbage...

Here's the links to the two articles that Mr Pearl portrays as extremist, and also equates with Nazi antisemitism and White Supremacy?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-makdisi11-2008may11,0,7862020.story
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0530/p09s02-coop.html

Could someone point out how those two articles can be in any way equated with Nazi antisemitism and White Supremacy? In fact, Saree Makdisi's article that he in such a knee-jerk fashion labels as an example of hate, contains one sentence in particular that the likes of Pearl don't seem to have any comprehension of: 'The violence will end, and a just peace will come, only when each side realizes that the other is there to stay.'


Let's discuss Makdisi's article in particular, seeing it was my favourite of the two. While Pearl paints pictures of genocide and hatred and a desire for a Greater Palestine from the Palestinian population and those who support one binational state, Makdisi actually commits the grave crime of focusing on the West Bank and pointing out quite rightly that Israel's actions in continuing with its policy of settlement building is making it more and more unlikely that a viable and independent Palestinian state will ever emerge. And that Olmert himself said in 2006: 'every hill in Samaria and every valley in Judea is part of our historic homeland" and that "we firmly stand by the historic right of the people of Israel to the entire land of Israel." Makdisi's article mentions a few things that Pearl doesn't seem too interested in. Words like *share*, *equal*, and *peace*. Apparently using such inflammatory terms as these are akin to calling for the annihilation of Israel in Pearl's mind, as there is nothing in the article that even remotely hints that Makdisi wants to see annihilation, death and destruction or even to see Israel cease to exist. What Makdisi wants is for a state to exist where there is genuine equality for all. Does anyone seriously think Israel will suddenly cease to exist and Israeli-Jews will keel over of heart attacks if there comes a day when people stop obsessing more over whether someone is Jewish or Arab rather than stopping and thinking that they're all human beings with the same right to security and safety?

Pearl mentioned in his article that every year when the American media celebrates Israel's anniversary, it's met with 'down with Israel' articles (his words, not mine). Two things - First, does the US media celebrate any other country's birthday, or is it just Israel? If (and I very much doubt it happens), the US media were to celebrate Australia's anniversary, there should be a very loud mention that it spelt the beginning of the end for indigenous Australians. Israel's creation is similar in that it's a date that marks the creation of a state, but also the date that spells the dispossession and mistreatment of another people. It strikes me as unrealistic to expect that when a country's beginnings is praised on its anniversary that there shouldn't be voices pointing out that it wasn't a joyous and wondrous experience for many people who already lived there.

[Phx_Dem]

30. Your LAtimes link is not working

The settlement issue is a red herring, 40-50 thousand or so settlers (left after land swaps) hardly constitute a significant barrier to Palestinian statehood. As we have discussed in the past, settlers like the ones in the Jordan Valley should be given the option of becoming Palestinian citizens, if and when the Palestinian state comes into existence.

Since I can't access Makdisi's piece I can't really comment on it.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Here's a link that works and a comment on settlers being offered citizenship...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-makdisi11-2008may11,0,7862060.story

No, the settlement issue isn't a red herring at all. When Israel is still busy expanding settlements and control over the West Bank, and when Israel is resistant to even ceasing settlement activity, let alone dismantling most of the settlements in a peace deal, the only Palestinian state that could possibly emerge isn't going to be a viable and independent state. What about the what must be thousands of Palestinians who live in areas that Israel would want to annexe in order to take in their settlement blocs? It's clear Israel doesn't want them to become Israeli citizens, and I doubt the Palestinians affected would want that to happen either. So I can only see two possibilities. One is that Israel would have this bizarre looking border where only the roads leading to the settlements and the settlements themselves are annexed, or that the Palestinians are expected to up and move somewhere else. If it's the latter, why should they be expected to leave their land?

I recall the settlers we discussed in the past that you thought should be given the option of staying where they are now were the extremist Hebron settlers. Sorry, but those guys are Israel's problem and Israel needs to start dealing with them and dragging them kicking and screaming back to Israel. As for other settlers, if a fledgling Palestinian government wants to offer them citizenship (and keep in mind that it would be up to the Palestinian govt, not anyone else), isn't the argument of some people here when it comes to a one-state solution that Israelis and Palestinians can't live together? So why wouldn't that argument apply to Palestine if it applies to Israel? Why want a bunch of people who people think can't live with Palestinians to live with Palestinians?