loving the Burgermeister Meisterburger pic

Huckabee genuinely scares me.

However, I am somewhat comforted by the fact that William “The Bloody” Kristol is wrong about…well, everything.

Gosh! I wonder if Bill Kristol will end up arguing from now on that Democrats and especially liberals are wrong and dangerous and that only by adopting conservative principles (and maybe calling them bipartisan) can we ever save ourselves from the stupid poopy-head liberals, and also we need to do all the hawkish stuff he wants us to do, no matter who is in charge, even though of course we should choose Republicans because they are awesome and Democrats are always at risk of surrendering to the terrorists and turning our country into a Soviet state-run central heating system.

The suspense is killing me.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v638/imperfectionist/kristol_war.jpg

That boy’s face fits my ass crack so very nicely.

This is awesome, highly worthy of Sadly, No! coverage:

Via DailyKos, and presumably others, the completely and utterly independent and fair minded Frank Luntz who just happened to work as a spin-meister for Republicans was caught red-handed in his FUX NOOZ “focus groups” using the same exact guy (a nearly dead ringer for a younger and slimmer and presumably saner David Horowitz) months apart to stand up and say that no one could bring themselves vote for Hillary.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/7/73440/84026/168/432067

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/07/scandal-du-jour-luntz-focus-group-guy-shows-up-twice/

I’m not saying I agree with everything he stands for in terms of foreign policy, but Bill’s a pretty bright guy. And obviously, you haven’t caught that Huckabee fever. Perhaps this Elvis parody will help:

Hucka Hucka Burnin’ Love
http://www.drblt.net/music/HuckaSamp.mp3

Man, am I wrong, or did we see a pundit backlash against the “having a beer with” trope about six months ago?

Because if I’m right, we now have the exact timeframe by which Billy the K is behind the times.

Jim said, January 7, 2008 at 18:02

Man, am I wrong, or did we see a pundit backlash against the “having a beer with” trope about six months ago?

Because if I’m right, we now have the exact timeframe by which Billy the K is behind the times.

There is only one fashion. Only one trope. Only one cause. Only one style.

It is right wing war mongering red-baiting colonialist Arab / Muslim / independence of US control bashing.

That is it. There is no need to change. Others who change are wrong. The Old Ways are correct. The Old Language is correct. Change is good when it approaches the Old Ways. Change is bad when it leaves the Old Ways.

He is permanent and yet ever changing, locked in stasis while vaulting into the future. He is the pivot around which time moves, it is not he who need move even the tiniest bit.

If the Universe is in the wrong location, this is no suggestion of a need to move Bill Kristol, but rather we should call for a lever long enough to move the Universe back to its proper position in front of Bill Kristol’s rightness, which is centered exactly where it should be, where only right exists and one dimension extends only in one direction.

So, is this about Kristol being pro-war, or pro-Israel?

As a grad student at Rutgers who interacted with undergrads to an unseemly degree, I got to know a lot o’ Jr. Bill Kristols and that ilk.

They were very interesting people. They would say straight up to you (if they know you are a fellow Jew) in self-congratulatory tones about how wonderful it is that we Jews have got the goyim to fight “our” (i.e. their view — whether or not any actual Israelis agree with it — of “Israel’s”) wars for “us” (i.e. their view of Israel). But if you call them on what they just said they’ll accuse you of being a self-hating Jew. And if you are a non-Jew and point that out … well, look at what they tried to do to Walt and Mearscheimer (sp?).

Moreover, even as they view the Christian fundies as tools, they fail to realize what tools they are (to both the fundies and the military-industrial complex). After all, the Kristol Jrs. are not profiting from the wars they push (although neither are they fighting in them … if you point this out, they’ll point out how their 3rd cousin’s former roomate is in the army in Iraq), yet they still push talking-points generated by people who do profit.

And as to the fundies, the Kristol Jrs. say “we don’t believe in that claptrap … but let’s use them to support our agenda”. Except that they are, of course, supporting their agenda. And even if you don’t believe that Armegeddon’ll bring Jebus to Earth, their agenda (regardless of the truth value of their beliefs) is Armegeddon. And while the Kristol Jrs. dismiss the very notion of pernicious influence, the fact is that once you get your bread buttered on one side, you know which side that is and will respond accordingly: even if the fundies are bizarre with their beliefs, they are supporting/funding their agenda and by accepting their support, the Kristol Jrs. inevitably become the tools of the fundies, not the other way around as they see it.

And there is no better stool pigeon than someone who thinks he’s the con. The Kristols, et al., may love to think they are the cons, but they are really the stool pigeons.

But don’t tell them that — they’ll say you are a self-hating Jew/anti-Semite.

a212, based on the photo I’d say it’s about Billy K being terminally constipated.

His mommy told him, don’t stick your head up there Bill, you’ll be soooorreeee. But would he listen?

” Bill’s a pretty bright guy.”

Bill is not a pretty bright guy. He’s a Da Vinci Code Straussian. About 10 IQ points away from drooling on himself.

it’s about being pro-israel.

israel is a country, you see. it’s a state. it has policies that are good or bad like every other state in the world. it is no more or less special than any other state. to criticize the state of israel viz its policies is to be “israeli-critical.” i think the SLORC in myanmar (nee burma) are a terrible bunch of fuckheads who do evil on this earth, hand in hand with chevron. that does not make me anti-burmese, or anti-buddhist or so on.

the syllogism that israel and all things israeli=jews and all things jewish is of course bullshit. jews gave up the right to just be a wandering tribe when they settled down and founded (by beating the shit out of/chasing away several hundred thousand residents who through no fault of their own were in the wrong place at the wrong time) a state. now they are like everybody else–their policies can be analyzed and criticized qua state behavior.

so no, saying that bill kristol’s love of Israel over that of the country where he lives (negev to hot for ya buddy?), and his desire to manipulate the state in which he lives to help his faux-adoptive state is not anti-semitic. it’s not even necessarily anti-israel. here’s why: if bill kristol says something about anything ever anywhere, what he really means is: “kill the fucking arabs”.

and yes, i’m a jew, though of the atheist variety.

Wha? No way dude. Bush claims he’s best pals with Jesus and various dipshits scream “Umuricuhz uh Christian Nation!” so disagreeing with Bush makes you a Bible-burning gay aborting nazifascist.

now they are like everybody else–their policies can be analyzed and criticized qua state behavior. – Robert Green

Of course there is a legitimate criticism to be made then of the degree to which Israel’s policies are condemned by, e.g. international community, which condones similar behavior by other states.

OTOH, as you point out, in some ways this whole idea of “Jewish normalcy” for which the Zionists pushed really wasn’t such a good idea after all, was it?

And don’t forget about the oil. Kristol’s and his ilk’s reasoning is all useless tripe spiced with emotional arguments they don’t even believe themselves, in order to get us over their and get our hands on our sweet lovely oil that’s underneath their sand.

I’m thinking that Bill needs a nice dangly earring for that left earlobe, since his little wire/direct-to-the-brain injection device has laid the groundwork for one, so to speak.

DAS

of course it was and it wasn’t. they wanted a state, and there was a deal on for southern brazil. but no, the fucking religious zealots (who were normally beholden to the socialist zionists like ben-gurion et al) won that battle and so it was off to the desert, the one “god” “promised” them. and no, i don’t think that israel is held to higher standards by anyone, even europe. for instance, they are allowed to possess a massive (200 plus) stockpile of nuclear weapons in a region where no one else is allowed to. they regularly break pretty much every international treaty put their way without consequence.

that’s just you channeling approved “give them special consideration” bullshit because religion is involved.

“…it’s not even necessarily anti-israel. here’s why: if bill kristol says something about anything ever anywhere, what he really means is: “kill the fucking arabs”.

You’ve totally hit the nail on the head here. Today, “pro-Israel” has come to largely mean “anti-Arab” and “anti-Islam” as opposed to any actual liking of Eretz Israel per se. Remember the whole S,N! expose of the “anti-Jihadi” movement with the Dutch and British neo-Nazis? As long as Israel is “over there” (outside of Europe & America) it is easy to support their onslaught against the Palestinian people. After all, if your idea of a great policy is butchering Arabs, Israel is bound to reflect rather well.

…and yes, i’m a jew, though of the atheist variety.

Me too: Jewish Friends of Palestine: http://www.jewishfriendspalestine.org

Robert Green,

As I understand the history of how Israel came to be where and what it is, it’s a little bit more involved then that. (Jewish) religious zealots didn’t get on board (even now, many of the zealots most responsible for keeping liberal Judaism from making head-roads in Israel, which drives many Israelis away from religion in general, really are not fully on board with Zionism and just have reached an accomodation with the state of Israel which they view as a tool) until after Israel was founded. The religious zealots involved in locating Israel where it is were Christian.

Anyway, the whole “Israel is wrong for displacing the Arabs … why didn’t they locate it in Brazil” argument is bizarre: if Israel were located in Brazil, all y’all would be complaining about Israel displacing Brazilians. Nu? where should the Jewish state be? And, while I disagree with Zionism as the solution to what they used to call the “Jewish problem” before the term was discredited, what would you say should have been done? How should the rejection of Jews by Christian Europe have been handled?

“[T]hey regularly break pretty much every international treaty put their way without consequence” you argue? Nu? But what of the double standards encoded in those treaties? Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic) could be secure in its borders by kicking out a bunch o’ Sudetens. Russia could be secure by kicking out a bunch o’ Finns. Etc., Etc. Every nation does all these horrible things (or allowed such horrible things to happen to their own benefit) and then, once they begin to profit by having done such horrible things (or allowing them to be done) they suddenly become enlightened and “forbid” Israel from doing so? How convenient!

Of course, there is the other issue about why certain people feel comfortable holding Israel only to the standards of, e.g. Soviet Russia when we Jews are supposed to be a light unto the nations (Kristol, et al., display the soft bigotry of low expectations, as it were). But the fact remains that to complain that Israel violates “international treaties” whose convenient timing displays a double standard is itself displaying a double standard.

To be fair, shouldn’t Europe, having benefitted from a peace dividend created by driving out Sudetens, et al, have to majorly compensate the Sudetens, the Karelians, etc? It’s hypocritical to complain about Israel just trying to have the same benefits as Europe and other places …

That “you can have a beer with Bush” b.s. in the 2000 and 2004 campaigns was so infuriating. I wasn’t so mad at the media for repeating it ad nauseam because I expected it from them. What I hated was that Gore and Kerry’s people (not directly from them but through their “unaffiliated” mouthpieces) didn’t come back with “well, you know what, you can’t have a beer with Bush because he’s a fucking alcoholic — having allegedly given up drinking only when he was 40 — and you can see the effects of 20 some years of alcohol abuse every time he tries to speak.” They should have gotten that slipped into the national dialogue so many times that no one would have ever brought up that stupid “have a beer with the president” line again.

where should the Jewish state be?

Without arguing all the history and circumstances that led to the current situation, my argument today is that there shouldn’t a “Jewish State” any more than there should be “Christian states,” “white/Aryan states,” “Islamic states,” or “a Serbian state” or whathaveyou. I’m a strong supporter of one democratic secular state for all its people regardless of ethnicity, religion, language, &c. http://www.onestate.org

Today more and more people – both Jewish Israelis as well as Palestinians – are reaching the conclusion that there will be no viable Palestinian state (ghettoization schemes like modern Qalqilya or bantustan schemes like Gaza notwithstanding) and therefore the default current reality – that is, one state under an ethnocentric regime (see for example Meron Benvenisti’s newest) – is effectively changing the struggle from one of ethnic separatism (the “two-state solution”) to equality within the existing reality (“one state for everyone”).

LiberalFascistLover,

I agree, there shouldn’t be a Jewish State any more than there should be a Christian State or a Muslim State or what have you. But such states exist. Are you gonna force Saudi Arabia to repatriate anybody who has left the country, converted to Judaism and wants to return to her home in Mecca?

More specifically, how will you guarantee that by having a one-state solution, the result won’t involve massive “retaliatory” discrimination against Jews? How do you guarantee Jews have access to our holy sites, etc? When Israel has been shelled, etc., people say “Israel shouldn’t respond” even as its citizens are under mortor attack? WTF? So now we can feel confident that, if the majority of citizens in a one-state Israel/Palestine decide that people who are not sufficiently “friendly to Islam” don’t get to visit, my right as a liberal Jew to visit Jewish holy sites will be maintained? Sharon was “wrong” to go to the Western Wall because it was “provocative”? Will it be wrong for a liberal Jew to visit (and hence justified for the government to prevent me from traveling to) the Western Wall because my liberalism is “provocative”?

The comparison is always made to the struggle against Apartheid, but even the radicals in the ANC gave the average white South African a lot more confidence that Black-African rule would not turn into an anti-White bloodbath than does pretty much every Palestinian “leader”.

And what about a “right of return” for Jewish refugees … that ain’t something that a bunch of Jewish nationalists pulled out of their hat. There’s a certain reason why that’s important. When things go wrong in a country, who gets blamed? (of course, with people like Kristol around, we wonder why?).

I’d love a one state solution as much as you — if the solution would be one in which basic liberties are maintained — but that just ain’t gonna happen.

Hell, ALL the republican candidates scare me. Watching the implosion at the GOP over a Huck nomination as their A-list candidates go down in flames is a positive sign though.

Arky – Fascitanata said,

scream “Umuricuhz uh Christian Nation!”

Do you know how many teef I had to extract to make that sound realistic????

Nothing intelligent or insightful to add here today; just that we could have an even shorter Bill Kristol if that useless and unhealthy fatty growth above his adam’s apple were removed. I know I’m being evil and mean and a troll baiter, but so what? Grrrrr.

DAS

If you’ve seen how Israel treats African Jews, to expect better for Palestinians is naive. A single state solution with Jews is not going to happen.

Hi DAS, to start with your conclusion: “I’d love a one state solution as much as you — if the solution would be one in which basic liberties are maintained — but that just ain’t gonna happen.”

I think you miss the point, I’m not talking about something that should happen; I’m talking about the de facto reality on the ground as it exists right this moment. There IS one effective state between the river and the sea and that state is Israel which controls – directly or indirectly – every square inch of Mandatory Palestine. One state isn’t some ideal to be reached, it is the reality as it exists, there is one utterly ethnocentric state (the “Jewish State” in which half the resident population isn’t Jewish) and there is no sound reason whatsoever to believe this is going to change. So, let’s deal with reality as it is – one discriminatory state – and from this starting point move towards one non-discriminatory state.

“Are you gonna force Saudi Arabia to repatriate anybody who has left the country, converted to Judaism and wants to return to her home in Mecca?”

For the record, I’m certainly no fan of Wahabi Saudi Arabia, BUT what is important here is that they are not forcibly imposing their religious-centric state on millions upon millions on non-Muslims that have no other place to go; which is a very different situation than that of Israel. Should Saudi Arabia drop its militant religious/ideological state? Yes, it should, BUT, quite unlike Israel, it is not forcibly imposing this regime on a massive population that can never be reconciled to it; whereas Israel is forcibly imposing a “Jewish State” upon millions of people who can never meet the criteria (being Jewish by whatever definition) for full equality in such a state.

“More specifically, how will you guarantee that by having a one-state solution, the result won’t involve massive “retaliatory” discrimination against Jews? How do you guarantee Jews have access to our holy sites, etc?”

Minority protections can be guaranteed as happened in South Africa or even the modern United States. That is NOT to argue that either of these models are perfect – they are not – but they are tolerable and lay the groundwork for future integration and interaction. For example, there is no collective right for Jewish people that cannot be enshrined in a constitutional mechanism and can only be overturned through the acceptance of the relevant population. Generally speaking, firm minority protections against the “tyranny of the majority” are a defining characteristic of modern liberal democracies. There are many different models that can be applied in Israel/Palestine.

“When Israel has been shelled, etc., people say “Israel shouldn’t respond” even as its citizens are under mortor attack? WTF?”

Who says this? Care to provide some citations? I don’t know anyone who argues that Israel should not respond to the attacks of the home-made “Qassam” rockets; HOWEVER, the response has to be proportionate and justified by the attacks. That is, Israel cannot use the Qassam rocket attacks as a justification for the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians (any more than Islamic Jihad is justified in using these rockets against the civilians of Sderot). Direct proportional response is perfectly fine, grossly disproportionate indiscriminate slaughter is not.

“Sharon was “wrong” to go to the Western Wall because it was ‘provocative’?”

Sharon’s ‘visit’ was a raid, accompanied by over 1,000 Israeli soldiers as well as a gaggle of the Knesset’s most outspoken radical anti-Arab anti-Muslim MKs. Further, it wasn’t to the Western Wall (where Jews go all the time without incident) but inside Haram al-Sharif, the Islamic religious center, in violation of even Rabbinical Law (which says Jews shouldn’t go up on the Mount because the location of the Holy of holies is unknown and no Jews can accidently enter that area). Get the facts straight.

“Will it be wrong for a liberal Jew to visit (and hence justified for the government to prevent me from traveling to) the Western Wall because my liberalism is “provocative”?”

No one is preventing anyone from going to the Western Wall, but no, it wouldn’t be your right as a non-Muslim to go storming Haram al-Sharif. I think there is a webcam that shows the Western Wall all the time and all the time there are plenty of Jews mind their own business praying there.

“The comparison is always made to the struggle against Apartheid, but even the radicals in the ANC gave the average white South African a lot more confidence that Black-African rule would not turn into an anti-White bloodbath than does pretty much every Palestinian ‘leader’.”

This just goes to show you have no idea what you’re talking about. There was no such confidence, in fact their still isn’t (a, anti-White blood bath is still not beyond the pale of possibility); nevertheless, both sides realized – and still realize – that such an event would be manifestly unhelpful for either community. Keep in mind, under Apartheid there was also the very real possibility of a White-led anti-Black bloodbath as well, and still is.

“And what about a “right of return” for Jewish refugees … that ain’t something that a bunch of Jewish nationalists pulled out of their hat.”

Yes it is, but still, I personally don’t think this should change. Lots of states offer immigration preferences for preferred groups. It is just that this should not be discriminatory against native Palestinians. My personal suggestion is that the “Law of Return” for olim be maintained, just expanded to include Palestinians who can also document their native claims to residency in Palestine. Further, I think this is how the refugee crisis should be resolved; not through some mass flood of refugees, but through an expanded “Law of Return.”

So I hope that answers your questions. One state isn’t some abstract possibility for the future, it is the current on-the-ground reality and will remain so.

“Hell, ALL the republican candidates scare me. Watching the implosion at the GOP over a Huck nomination as their A-list candidates go down in flames is a positive sign though.”

There’s no reason to be afraid. As Jesus said, “Fear not!” All of these guys present themselves as extremely competent and extremely bright. (Okay, Huckabee may need to fill in a few gaps in his fund of knowledge). And all seemed very compassionate (okay Romney could stand to get in touch with his femine side just a little), but the others make bleeding hearts look like blood clots.

I’m not up on my Israel-lobby politics–certainly not enough to jump in with two feet–so I’m genuinely curious.

DAS, to what degree do you think it’s possible to separate the government of Israel from Jewish national identity? I think in particular Israel’s policy on terrorism is as backwards and as foolish as our War on Terror, but it would never occur to me to describe that as the Jewish policy.

It appears the little Billy has to make a correction to his first effort at the NY Times.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/07/kristols-first-column/

Shocking. Kristol isn’t really used to having to fact-check the blather that comes out of his mouth.

There IS one effective state between the river and the sea and that state is Israel which controls – directly or indirectly – every square inch of Mandatory Palestine. – LibrulFascist

Define “Mandatory Palestine”. Before Sept. 1922, Mandatory Palestine also included what’s now Jordan, which Israel certainly does not control.

My personal suggestion is that the “Law of Return” for olim be maintained, just expanded to include Palestinians who can also document their native claims to residency in Palestine. Further, I think this is how the refugee crisis should be resolved; not through some mass flood of refugees, but through an expanded “Law of Return.”

Sounds kinda fair to me (although even a “Law of Return” for refugees is somewhat un-precidented: why does the Palestinian refugee problem have to be solved on different terms than other 1948-era refugee problems? see what I mean about double standards?) … but is that what will happen if the right of franchise is granted to a non-Jewish Arab majority in a One State Israel? And if such conditions are imposed, how is that allowing such a state to be a sovereign democratic republic?

it wouldn’t be your right as a non-Muslim to go storming Haram al-Sharif.

Why not? I wouldn’t do it because it’s generally considered against Rabbinic dictates (although there is disagreement about this … interestingly, at one time, non-Muslims were allowed in the Haram al-Sharif). But who is the Muslim community to stop a non-Muslim from visiting a site holy to other people besides Muslims?

*

If you’ve seen how Israel treats African Jews, to expect better for Palestinians is naive. A single state solution with Jews is not going to happen. – Moondancer

Oy gevalt it’s bad. But I’m not being naive here. While it is a shanda how Jews in Israel treat both their fellow Jews and Palestinians, I don’t expect any better from a Palestinian majority in a one state solution scenario. That’s why I’m against it. There is simply too much ill will.

DAS, to what degree do you think it’s possible to separate the government of Israel from Jewish national identity? I think in particular Israel’s policy on terrorism is as backwards and as foolish as our War on Terror, but it would never occur to me to describe that as the Jewish policy. – Robert M.

And it isn’t a Jewish policy. They violate Jewish law left and right (with nary a peep from the same people who throw fits if someone dare drive on the Shabbos). Of course, according to the Kristols, et al., of the world, you cannot separate the government of Israel from Jewish (national) identity (*) … but if you say that back to them, they’ll call you a paranoid anti-Semite, such is their delusional mendacity.

(*of course, then there is the issue of what is Jewish national identity anyway? the Jews are an “Am” — a people, not a “Goy” — a “nation” … but then you have the issue of what Judaism means anyway: we see, e.g., people on this thread talking about being “Jewish atheists” even though part of the Jewish identity is belief in Hashem … the idea of a secular Jewish identity is itself the keystone of Zionism, which is why religiously oriented Jews — from the liberal, Reform variety, to the most Orthodox — originally rejected Zionism. Yet today we have “religious nationalists” and many “atheist Jews” who reject Zionism yet still cling to a Jewish identity which, being so non-religious, can only be described as “national” …)

I wouldn’t lump Jonah Goldberg in with that group. Jonah cares about himself; that’s all.

There IS one effective state between the river and the sea and that state is Israel which controls – directly or indirectly – every square inch of Mandatory Palestine.

Not so. There is the state of Israel. There is the mess of Palestine. Yes, Israel has a level of military control, but that’s merely containment and it’s necessary for their survival. The Israelis have reached out several times and essentially said that if the Palestinians would just stop trying to kill them, they could have their own state. No Palestinian leader has accepted that basic premise. And when Israel turned over the Gaza without the precondition of no attacks, the attacks increased. This proved out the Israeli position beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The Palestinians have all the power over their own condition. Stop violence and terrorism, and get a state. The Israelis choice is stay dug in, or give the Palestinians what they want and then get killed.

BUT what is important here is that they are not forcibly imposing their religious-centric state on millions upon millions on non-Muslims that have no other place to go;

No. Instead they performed mass forced ejections of Jews and took their property against their will. Over a half million Jews came to the nascent state of Israel because they were forced out of their home countries (Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, etc.) Why did they go there? Because they had “no other place to go.” In contrast, the majority Palestinians left at the behest of their own leaders so it would be easier to kill all the Jews. Oops. Didn’t work out as planned.

BUT, quite unlike Israel, it is not forcibly imposing this regime on a massive population that can never be reconciled to it;

And ask any non-Muslim woman (who isn’t allowed to drive or show any part of herself) in Saudi Arabia whether or not the Saudis forcibly impose their religious-centric state on them.

And tell me, how many non-Muslims serve in the Saudi government? Muslims serve in the Knesset. And the Knesset has the authority to pass laws that override what’s known as the “Basic Laws of Israel”. Please let us know of any Arab nation that comes close to this. It sure isn’t Saudi Arabia.

Direct proportional response is perfectly fine, grossly disproportionate indiscriminate slaughter is not.

Looking at the firepower that Israel has at its disposal, and the fact that every cease fire has been violated by the Palestinians, I’d say they’ve held back pretty damned well, especially in the last decade. They could easily blow back a 10 mile buffer zone, yet they haven’t.

Also, you fail to mention that the Palestinian attackers use civilians as cover. It is unreasonable to ask Israel to simply “take it” because an innocent Palestinian might be killed. If the Palestinian people don’t want civilians caught up in the war zone, then they either need to take control of their own destiny or move back from the front. It’s long past time for them to take SOME level of responsibility. Electing a terrorist group to lead them was not that moment.

Sharon’s ‘visit’ was a raid,…

Bulls***. He actually cleared the trip with Arafat and his security forces BEFORE he ever went there. Arafat approved the arrangements. And what did Arafat do immediately after? “INTIFADA!!!” You need to get your facts straight on that one. Arafat used it as a PR ploy to continue flux and chaos, because that’s the only way he could maintain his rule. He had not ability and no interest in nation building.

My personal suggestion is that the “Law of Return” for olim be maintained, just expanded to include Palestinians who can also document their native claims to residency in Palestine.

This is an suggestion straight from La-La-Land, where the facts on the ground don’t matter. The number of supposed ancestors of Palestinian who left is in the millions. Israel as it exists would be destroyed by this influx. It’s nice to say that everybody should just get along, but the fact is that it is not possible to mix that many people who have been at war for 60 years.

And even if they did get along, how would the Israeli economy absorb that many essentially unskilled people? It’s simply an an economic burden they can’t afford.

My own view on the “right of return” is that most Palestinians left of their own accord. Their places were taken by nearly twice as many Jewish refugees who were forcibly ejected by Palestinian allies. Where is your analogous call for responsibility by these Arab nations?

I’m not Jewish, and I’m certainly not a neocon, but I cut Israel a LOT of slack over the fact that they are surrounded by people who have attempted to wipe them off the face of the earth since they came to exist.

“I’m not Jewish, and I’m certainly not a neocon, but I cut Israel a LOT of slack over the fact that they are surrounded by people who have attempted to wipe them off the face of the earth since they came to exist.”

Aha, a refreshing bit of common sense. It is a rare find around these parts, so it is something I treasure.

So, is this about Kristol being pro-war, or pro-Israel?
Uh, yes.

It’s also about Kristol hedging his bets just like he learned from former boss Bill Bennett. That’s the problem with a pundit that has policy influence. He is always playing an angle and anything he says has to be filtered through that.

“That’s the problem with a pundit that has policy influence.”

Name a pundit that does not wield policy influence, or is not, in some way, positioning him/herself to wield just such influence. Such a pundit is as rare as hen’s teeth.

Let’s occasionally try to remember that what most people mean by “pro-Israel” is quite clearly not “pro-Israel” — rather, it means policies which favor the same sorts of hawkish pricks who dominate U.S. foreign policy.

So, if you favor actual sane policies which might actually improve the lives and safety and political health of the people who live in Israel, this is not considered “pro-Israel”, unless by accident.

If, however, you push continual war-mongering which might lead to situations of great instability, threat, and possible devastating war, this is “pro-Israel.”

In the same way, supporting Bill Kristolian eternal war policies isn’t “pro-American”, it’s “pro-nutbag”, and also “pro-hawk”, and that’s the same way about so-called “pro-Israel” policies which are really just another reason to back dickhead right wing hawk a**hole policies in Israel.

“Pro-Israel” is only “pro-Israel” if it actually makes the situation better for all Israelis, not just for various posturing politicians, blustering generals, and their hordes of worshipful acolytes.

The Palestinians have all the power over their own condition. Stop violence and terrorism, and get a state.

And now, in order to get a state for Rastafarians, all the Jamaicans have to do is stop death.

“Pro-Israel” is only “pro-Israel” if it actually makes the situation better for all Israelis,…

I agree. What the crowd you’re describing really want is U.S. control of the oil resources in the region, but Israel makes a great excuse for actions in the region.

What the Israelis want is to be reasonably confident that they or their children won’t get blown up when they go out in public.

There’s a subtle difference.

I hate the enablers of sick freaks even more than the sick freaks. What’s up with the NYTs hiring this prick?

“Define “Mandatory Palestine”. Before Sept. 1922, Mandatory Palestine also included what’s now Jordan, which Israel certainly does not control.”

Oh, just save the nonsensical Likudnik talking points, and no, I’m not saying this facetiously, but this point was the entire basis of Jabotinsky’s Revisionist movement which is today represented by Likud & Bibi. Like it or not – and the Mandate text itself fully reaffirms the point – the Mandate did not go into effect until 1923, long after Britain recognized Transjordan as a separate Hashemite state (though still a protectorate, an ostensibly sovereign state in treaty relations with Britain). Further, as the text of the Mandate itself also reaffirms, Britain had every right to separate Transjordan from Palestine and did so. So no, the Likudnik & ethnic cleansing slogan that “Jordan is Palestine” has no legal/historical merit whatsoever. By the time the Mandate went into effect it referred exclusively to Palestine between the river & the sea.

“Sounds kinda fair to me (although even a “Law of Return” for refugees is somewhat un-precidented: why does the Palestinian refugee problem have to be solved on different terms than other 1948-era refugee problems? see what I mean about double standards?)”

No, I really don’t. The Palestinian refugees are just that, Palestinians native to Palestine, and as such have every right to return to their native homeland (here is the double standard, that Israel hasn’t been forced by the international community to deal with ITS problem, the Palestinian refugees, for sixty years now). This isn’t anyone else’s problem, Israel created the refugees and Israel will have to deal with them. In my suggestion, since Israel already has a legal mechanism for preferred immigration (the “Law of Return”) as well as the unique capacity to accept and fully integrate proportionately enormous numbers of immigrants (the Russian olim for example); I don’t think there is a reason to reinvent the wheel. Use the existing Israeli infrastructure to reintegrate the Palestinian refugees into modern Palestine, i.e. Israel.

“ … but is that what will happen if the right of franchise is granted to a non-Jewish Arab majority in a One State Israel?”

Israel will cease to be an exclusively “Jewish State” imposed on a land where half the resident population isn’t Jewish; but this does not mean the “destruction” of anything (just to save you the time). The end of South African Apartheid did not result in the “destruction” of the South African state or of the Afrikaner people; similarly the collapse of Jim Crow in the US didn’t result in the “destruction” of the US or in the end of white Southern culture. The same can be done in Israel/Palestine.

“Why not? I wouldn’t do it because it’s generally considered against Rabbinic dictates (although there is disagreement about this … “

No, not really. The only “disagreement” is from the psycho Third Temple crowd (Temple Mount Faithful, the radical Xtian “Noahides”, &c.) which is so far to the Right that even the mainstream Israeli Right (Likud, Avigdor Lieberman, YESHA Council) try their best to ignore them. Otherwise, there is no disagreement that religious Jews are NOT permitted on top of the Mount. Sharon’s 2000 raid was in fact in direct contradiction to Rabbinical Law (according to the official Israeli Orthodox Rabbinate) and was nothing more than a deliberate provocation that unfortunately worked like a charm for him.

“…interestingly, at one time, non-Muslims were allowed in the Haram al-Sharif).”

True, and I suspect that if the Sanctuary wasn’t under Israeli siege that the rules would relax with time.

“But who is the Muslim community to stop a non-Muslim from visiting a site holy to other people besides Muslims?”

That’s just it, Haram al-Sharif – the compound itself including the Mosques and the Shrine – are not holy to anyone else. For religious Jews the whole compound is off limits, though obviously this has nothing to do with the Western Wall, where Jews are probably praying as you read this. As for Christians, their place is the Church of the Holy Sepulcher which is in the neighborhood, but not on the Mount. As for the top of the Mount – Haram al-Sharif – it is only a Muslim shrine. And no, I’m not arguing that the entire Mount isn’t significant in Judaism, but religious Jews can’t go on top, so where’s the harm?

“While it is a shanda how Jews in Israel treat both their fellow Jews and Palestinians, I don’t expect any better from a Palestinian majority in a one state solution scenario. That’s why I’m against it. There is simply too much ill will.”

This is EXACTLY the same argument that pro-Apartheid whites in South Africa, pro-Jim Crow whites in the Deep South, and so on made. I agree that if things are just allowed to play out without a deliberate attempt to compromise at some point compromise will become impossible, but I don’t think we’re reached that stage yet (Israelis are still firmly in control, and Palestinians are still firmly dedicated to resist); but this is changing. If both sides come to accept that compromise is the only way forward, intelligent paths to compromise (neither Israeli Jews nor Palestinian Arabs are particularly stupid) can be made that will make violence unpalatable to the majorities both sides (extremists notwithstanding).

“And it isn’t a Jewish policy. They violate Jewish law left and right (with nary a peep from the same people who throw fits if someone dare drive on the Shabbos). Of course, according to the Kristols, et al., of the world, you cannot separate the government of Israel from Jewish (national) identity (*) … but if you say that back to them, they’ll call you a paranoid anti-Semite, such is their delusional mendacity.”

All of which is very true.

“…of course, then there is the issue of what is Jewish national identity anyway?”

LOL, very true, which is why you can easily tell a racist idiot whenever they start talking about “all Jews” anything since even among people who consider themselves Jewish there is no shared definition, much less unity of purpose or ideology. Even the state of Israel itself hasn’t been able to work this out, holding differing – and conflicting – definitions of what it is to be “Jewish.” For example, many discover that they are “Jewish enough” to immigrate to Israel and receive their oleh certificate; only to learn that they are not “Jewish enough” to marry, divorce, or be buried in Israel. …

LFC – “Not so. There is the state of Israel. There is the mess of Palestine. Yes, Israel has a level of military control, but that’s merely containment and it’s necessary for their survival.”

Absolute rubbish. There is no Palestinian state, even the “Palestine Authority” created by Oslo was specifically defined as a formation in the Oslo Accords with absolutely no pretense to being a national government. Further, from the very outset, the Palestine Authority has been under total Israeli control: Israel decides where it can go, what it can do, and what resources it has at its disposal. To argue that the Palestine Authority represents anything other than a semi-autonomous creation (and thus branch) of the Israeli government is simply false. The Palestine Authority has never had ANY authority that conflicts with Israeli whim, period. As I said, there is ONE effective state between the river and the sea that controls every square inch, and that state is Israel.

“The Israelis have reached out several times and essentially said that if the Palestinians would just stop trying to kill them, they could have their own state. No Palestinian leader has accepted that basic premise.”

Israel has never done any such thing. Oh, that isn’t to deny that it has offered the Palestinians some extended ghettos and Bantustans that remain under Israeli control, but that isn’t offering a real state. Israel has never even pretended that it will leave East Al Quds, the Jordan Valley, the taps of the West Bank aquifers or anything else that would allow for a real Palestinian state.

“And when Israel turned over the Gaza without the precondition of no attacks, the attacks increased. This proved out the Israeli position beyond a shadow of a doubt.”

And Israel NEVER “turned over the Gaza” to anyone. It removed the settlements, but that is all it did. Israel still controls all the borders of Gaza (even that with Egypt & the entire coast), still controls the electricity, still controls all movement of goods and people, the airspace, and every other aspect of Gaza except the arrangements confined inside this Bantustan. IF Israel had actually left Gaza and really allowed it to be free the Palestinians there would have a lot better things to do than attack Israel; but as it is, “Disengagement” was little more than a slight readjustment of the Occupation and nothing more. And as long as the occupation continues, so too will Palestinian resistance.

“The Palestinians have all the power over their own condition.”

The Palestinians have absolutely no power over their condition and the only way an ethnic separatist “two state solution” could possibly work is if Israel agrees to end their absolute monopoly on control, which they flatly refuse to do. So, now we have to deal with the reality of the situation: one state.

“BUT what is important here is that they are not forcibly imposing their religious-centric state on millions upon millions on non-Muslims that have no other place to go;”

Maybe not in whatever fantasy land you’ve dreamed up, but in reality this is exactly the case.

“Instead they performed mass forced ejections of Jews and took their property against their will.”

The Palestinians did? Exactly when and where was this? And just to save you the trouble, don’t even try to blame the Palestinians for whatever situations Jewish people faced in other Arab states. The Palestinian Arab people are not Egyptians, Yemenites or Iraqis, they are Palestinians. If you have a problem with actions taken by Egyptians, Yemenites, or Iraqis, you need to take it up with them; the Palestinian people aren’t responsible for that and can’t be held so. Yes, they are all Arabs, but your argument is akin to saying that Jews in say Canada should be held personally responsible for the actions of Jews in Israel; another racist proposition.

“In contrast, the majority Palestinians left at the behest of their own leaders so it would be easier to kill all the Jews. Oops. Didn’t work out as planned.”

This antiquated mythology has been thoroughly disproven from all angles today: Israeli, Palestinian, and third party sources; most convincingly from the records of the IDF itself. Grow up and face reality.

“And ask any non-Muslim woman (who isn’t allowed to drive or show any part of herself) in Saudi Arabia whether or not the Saudis forcibly impose their religious-centric state on them.”

Fair enough, and as stated before, I’m not fan of that system (or our support for it) either. However saying that other people are doing bad things is no excuse for Israel’s behavior either.

“Looking at the firepower that Israel has at its disposal, and the fact that every cease fire has been violated by the Palestinians, I’d say they’ve held back pretty damned well, especially in the last decade.”

That’s only because it isn’t your children that are being methodically massacred. http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/ (click on the “Children Remembered” button)

“Also, you fail to mention that the Palestinian attackers use civilians as cover.”

That’s the result of imprisoning the entire Palestinian people and since Israel controls every square inch of the land, the only way to avoid being in the “war zone” is to leave, which is EXACTLY what most Zionists want, the Palestinians to simply vanish from reality for the glory of greater Eretz Israel. But that isn’t going to happen, primarily because the Palestinians have no where to go as no one else wants millions of politicized angry Palestinian refugees even if they were willing to give up and leave (which they aren’t).

“He actually cleared the trip with Arafat and his security forces BEFORE he ever went there. Arafat approved the arrangements.”

Oh yeah, this is just straight wingnuttery; when reality doesn’t fit the script, just make it up… blah. You plainly have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about in this respect.

“And even if they did get along, how would the Israeli economy absorb that many essentially unskilled people? It’s simply an an economic burden they can’t afford.”

Now this is a reasonable contention that has been raised in one state circles. However, realistically, it isn’t near as insurmountable as it seems since a) Israel already has exhaustive experience in integrating large numbers of unskilled or semi-skilled immigrants (as dominated all the post-1948 Aliyahs); and b) most of the West (and possibly even much of the Arab world) would be willing and able to invest heavily in finally resolving this issue.

The Palestinian refugees are just that, Palestinians native to Palestine, and as such have every right to return to their native homeland (here is the double standard, that Israel hasn’t been forced by the international community to deal with ITS problem, the Palestinian refugees, for sixty years now).

They only have such a right if there is a double standard. The international community has not generally recognized such rights for other refugee groups (except maybe for the refugees themselves, but certainly not for descendents) that came into existance in the post-WWII upheaval of the late 1940s. For instance, there is no right of return for Karelian refugees, Polish refugees, Hindu and Sikh refugees from what became Pakistan, Moslem refugees from what became India, Jewish refugees from the Arab world, etc. That the international community has not forced Israel to deal with “its problem” is merely a nod to the fact that it doesn’t even consider other nations to have such a problem.

Even more recently, many people of relatively recent Bihari origin have been dispossed of everything and are pretty much refugees in their land of birth, or for the older ones land of settlement since 1947 (Bengladesh), since they fought on the wrong side in Bengladesh’s war for independence. Has there been any real pressure to repatriate these refugees to India?

Of course, the real issue is why the Palestinian refugee problem still exists when other such problems don’t. Part of it is because of a lack of resources for settling refugees in the Arab world (although the Jewish community, having been recently decimated, somehow could deal, although not very humanely it must be confessed, with refugees pouring in from the Arab world). But part of it was because Arab leaders felt little compassion for their fellow Arabs and preferred to use them as pawns in a geo-political game.

We could have used Sudeten refugees in a geo-political game against the Soviet block. The Finns could have used Karelian refugees similarly. India and Pakistan could have used refugees in game playing. As could have Israel. But they didn’t. They said “we have refugees in land we control [for comparison, remember Arab countries occupied “the occupied territories” before Israel did], and they are our brethren, so we should deal with them and integrate them into our society”.

But the Arab world did no such thing. Israel as a richer nation (although nowadays the Arab world has some oil money floating around it seems) without whose existance there wouldn’t be a Palestinian refugee problem does have a responsibility to help, in financial terms and logistical support, to resettle Palestinian refugees. But they have no more obligation to absorb any of them than other nations have to absorb refugees they created.

Remember, nations displace people. At the very least, you always end up having a need for eminant domain. People have no “right” to return anywhere. The displacers have an obligation to compensate the displaced, help them with resettlement, expenses, etc. — but there never has been really an enforced right of return for refugees to the extent somehow “international law” says Israel must allow for returns. It would be a double standard to force Israel to absorb such refugees when other nations have no similar pressures from refugee groups coming into existance in that same era.

“it’ll help bring Jesus back.”

Bingo. This is the ONLY reason American Tabliangelicals support Israel: their slavering fantasies about the ultra-violent end of the world, which (for the past nineteen centuries) will start Any Day Now. That a huge war around Jerusalem would be a disaster for the actual Israelis living there means nothing to these estachological idiots. Fools like Kristol think they can play our rubes for more killing of Ay-rabs (or Persians), but it’s Kristol playing the fool. Put his fat ass in a uniform, give him a rifle, and send him to Anbar. Now.

DAS — “The international community has not generally recognized such rights for other refugee groups (except maybe for the refugees themselves, but certainly not for descendents) that came into existance in the post-WWII upheaval of the late 1940s. For instance, there is no right of return for Karelian refugees, Polish refugees, Hindu and Sikh refugees from what became Pakistan, Moslem refugees from what became India, Jewish refugees from the Arab world, etc. …”

First, each of these different situations has its own unique dynamics and circumstances and it is well beyond the scope of this discussion or forum to go into a lot of detail here. However, what I will say is that the primary difference is in most (not all) of the cases you cite, the refugees received and accepted alternative citizenships that were extended to them by other willing states. Such is not the case with the Palestinian refugees. Further, keep in mind I am ONLY talking about the 4-5 million official refugees recognized by UNRWA. Some 4-6 million refugees HAVE in fact accepted alternative citizenships (excluding Jordanian, whose citizenship was forced on the Palestinians as part of its illegal and unrecognized attempt to annex the West Bank 1948-1967 and never recognized) and homelands and are no longer legally refugees, though they’ll argue that with you.

In the case of the UNRWA recognized Palestinian refugees, they – meaning in general – have never sought an alternative homeland (refusing to surrender their claim to their homeland and national identity) and they have never been offered full citizenship by another sovereign state that wanted them. The refugees themselves are not interested in shedding their national identity and just claims to return home and the neighboring states – recognizing that Palestinians are NOT Lebanese, Egyptians, or what-have-you (despite the Zionist myth that all Arabs are exactly the same people) and don’t want them. This means it is an issue to be worked out between the victims (the refugees) and the perpetrators (the state of Israel) and no one else (though of course realistically lots of third parties would probably be willing to help).

“But part of it was because Arab leaders felt little compassion for their fellow Arabs and preferred to use them as pawns in a geo-political game.”

There is some truth to this mantra, but it is also immaterial. Yes, it isn’t exactly nice that many Arab national groups have turned their backs on the Palestinian Arab nation, but then again, it isn’t their responsibility or problem. It isn’t the American Jewish community’s responsibility or obligation to defend the Jews of Israel; of course you can if so inclined, but you don’t have to, their fight is only ours if we choose to accept it. The same is true with other Arab nationalities regarding the Palestinians. The only parties with specific obligations are those directly involved namely the Israelis and Palestinians.

“But they have no more obligation to absorb any of them than other nations have to absorb refugees they created.”

On that score you’re completely incorrect. The states that create refugees DO have an obligation to rectify this: both the policies and practices that created the refugees as well as the result. Further, and one of the factors that makes the Israeli situation somewhat unique is that Israel controls 100% of the refugee’s homeland, meaning there is no alternative at all. In many cases refugees are allowed to enter protected areas (look at the Darfur protection force, the NATO force over Kosovo, the UN force over Bosnia, &c.) but that isn’t an option in the Occupied Palestinian Territories because Israel flatly refuses to surrender any control whatsoever over every square inch of Mandatory Palestine. Yes, it is Israel’s – and only Israel’s – problem, though should Israel make a reasonable offer I have little doubt that many third parties would be willing to help.

LiberalFascistLover, there’s just so much inaccuracy and so little time. I’ll take a few.

Israel didn’t offer Arafat everything he asked for other than the right of return and the promise of negotiations on Jerusalem? GONG!

As to Sharon and the intifada, try looking up Imad Faluji and Jabril Rajoub.

As to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc., you can not separate them from the Palestinians at that time as they attacked the Jews as their allies. Look up the word “allies” and it will make sense. These were not sympathy actions. They went to war, side by side, against the Jews. That ties them together, not the fact that they are all Arab.

As to the fact that the Palestinians did not leave at the behest of their leadership, citations please. Please show me the documentation that the Jews ran them out, and it had nothing to do with an enormous f***ing attack meant to literally wipe the Jews from the face of the earth. “Grow up” is not exactly convincing. Just the opposite. It smacks of a lack of reality.

As to Arab nations helping resettlement, puh-lease. Their track record sucks. They’ve left the Palestinians to dangle for decades. They’re a convenient excuse to make the masses angry at Israel rather than their own oppressive governments and downtrodden economies. Want to hazard a guess at how equitably the oil wealth is distributed in Saudi Arabia?

You’re placing all blame and responsibility on Israel and assigning none of it to the Palestinians. And I’m not buying it. You can pretend all you want that Israel hasn’t been threatened with total destruction since it was first formed, and not formed by throwing people out of their land, but that doesn’t make it true.

This means it is an issue to be worked out between the victims (the refugees) and the perpetrators (the state of Israel) and no one else

Are you really ignorant to the fact that the ancestor’s of many of these people attempted genocide the instant the state of Israel was formed?

Yes, it isn’t exactly nice that many Arab national groups have turned their backs on the Palestinian Arab nation, but then again, it isn’t their responsibility or problem.

Repeat after me. Allies. ALLIES. They fought for and with the Palestinians, in an alliance with Palestinian leaders. So yes, it is their problem.

The states that create refugees DO have an obligation to rectify this…

Hence the Arab states that were the initial aggressors have the responsibility.

You really don’t seem to understand who attacked first, do you?

Just making it up as you go there LFC?

“Israel didn’t offer Arafat everything he asked for other than the right of return and the promise of negotiations on Jerusalem? GONG!”

Wrong. Israel didn’t offer the Right of Return, Al Quds (Jerusalem), the Jordan Valley (thus control of its own borders), the West Bank aquifer control (control of its own water), and insisted that the West Bank be divided into seven nifty ghettos to be completely surrounded by (and thus controlled by) Israel, no control over its own electricity, no control over its own trade, no control at all. As I said, Israel has NEVER offered even the most constrained requirements for a viable Palestinian state. And as Gaza plainly shows, mild restructurings of the occupation isn’t going to get Israel off the hook.

“As to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc., you can not separate them from the Palestinians at that time as they attacked the Jews as their allies.”

Of course I can, just as surely as I can separate Germans and Austrians (who look the same, speak the same language, and share the same religions); Canadians and American (who look the same, speak the same language, and share the same religions); and so on and so forth.

“Look up the word “allies” and it will make sense. These were not sympathy actions.”

So you’re arguing that the Palestinians are somehow responsible for the way Egypt treated its Jews after the Lavon Affair (when the Israelis recruited Egyptian Jews for a terror campaign against US and British targets) in the 1950’s; the way the Iraqis treated its Jewish community later in the 1950’s (after Israel launched a deliberate bombing campaign in Iraq to force the Jewish community to flee to Israel); and so on and so forth? What treaty is that in? Based on what?: that both peoples happen to be Arabs? That would be like holding me personally responsible for the Qana Massacre in Lebanon based on the fact that both the guilty parties and myself happen to be Jews. Save your racist scapegoating for someone stupid enough to fall for it. Palestinians are no more Iraqis than I am an IDF war criminal as the plight of the Palestinians in Iraq since our invasion graphically illustrates.

“They went to war, side by side, against the Jews. That ties them together, not the fact that they are all Arab.”

Who did? When? I assume you mean 1948? I guess you’re going to tell me all about the mighty Palestinian legions that formed up in 1948? LOL. Why don’t you tell us about all the Palestinian Arab formations of that conflict, don’t worry just make something up.

“As to the fact that the Palestinians did not leave at the behest of their leadership, citations please. Please show me the documentation that the Jews ran them out,…”

Uh, virtually all literature from virtually all sources since the mid-1990’s (once the IDF records were declassified) discussing the issue. Pretty much everyone, from all sides, aside from a few old fashioned “see no reality” types concede the point today. Where to begin, just about anyone from Benny Morris (he’s a radical right-winger who thinks Ben Gurion didn’t go far enough and is sorry the ethnic cleansing wasn’t more comprehensive) all the way to Ilan Pappe (he’s a radical left-winger that shares my one state perspective), and literally ANYONE in between. It was all in the IDFs own records, in their own words.

“As to Arab nations helping resettlement, puh-lease. Their track record sucks. They’ve left the Palestinians to dangle for decades. …”

Fair enough.

“You’re placing all blame and responsibility on Israel and assigning none of it to the Palestinians. And I’m not buying it.”

That’s not really accurate, the Palestinians have made plenty of mistakes too, but there is absolutely no getting around the fact that since Israel has total control of the situation and ALL the power, so any peace has to come from Israel. All the Palestinians have the option of doing is resisting and reacting. If Israel changes the situation on the ground, the Palestinian reaction changes accordingly. Since 1967 the Israeli-Palestinian dynamic has been a nothing more than a story of Israeli action and Palestinian reaction.

“You can pretend all you want that Israel hasn’t been threatened with total destruction since it was first formed, and not formed by throwing people out of their land, but that doesn’t make it true.”

Israel faced a serious (though not overwhelming) threat in 1948 and also in the beginning of the 1973 war, but that’s it. The rest of this “oh, Am Yisrael is so pathetic and weak we must cower behind our bunkers and indiscriminately slaughter civilians for fun and games” nonsense carries no weight whatsoever. Israel controls the world’s seventh most powerful military, has enormous natural capital, technology, and people: the idea that they are about to be “thrown into the sea” by the Palestinian is just patently absurd by any conceivable standard.

“Are you really ignorant to the fact that the ancestor’s of many of these people attempted genocide the instant the state of Israel was formed?”

No one has attempted genocide in Palestine in the last few centuries (on either side mind you). The only genocide the Jewish people has faced in recent times was in Nazi Europe and again, the Palestinians can’t be held responsible (yes, just to save you the trouble, DESPITE the Mufti’s attempt to win Nazi support. One of those very real mistakes made by the Palestinian leadership).

“Yes, it isn’t exactly nice that many Arab national groups have turned their backs on the Palestinian Arab nation, but then again, it isn’t their responsibility or problem.”

Exactly right, just as it isn’t my responsibility or problem to try to defend Israel’s utterly indefensible behavior.

“Repeat after me. Allies. ALLIES. They fought for and with the Palestinians, in an alliance with Palestinian leaders. So yes, it is their problem.”

So, I guess by your standards, since Israel was allied to Apartheid South Africa, Israel has a direct responsibility to provide housing for the millions of homeless South African Blacks? Similarly, since Israel was also allied to Iran under the Shah, I guess that means Israel bears direct responsibility for SAVAK and thus owes the Islamic Republic reparations? Likewise, since Israel is currently allied to Turkey, I guess Israel should be held responsible for Turkish actions against the Kurds? Do I have it right?

As for all the “who started it all” nonsense, we can go around in circles with that all day and all night and not convince the other of anything. The poiont is, starting from right this second, the current reality as it exists this very moment, one state is the de facto reality and there is no reason to believe this will change.

Your Israeli chocolate’s in my Palestinean peanut butter!!

“Your Israeli chocolate’s in my Palestinean peanut butter!!” — Yummy! Everything gets better the more you mix it up. 🙂

Great taste! Less filling!

So, I guess by your standards, since Israel was allied to Apartheid South Africa, Israel has a direct responsibility to provide housing for the millions of homeless South African Blacks?

Funny. I didn’t know Israel sent troops into South Africa and attacked blacks. I simply MUST get my hands on the history book you use.

Your answers show that you really don’t understand the difference between going to war with somebody and looking like somebody or being friends with somebody. Until you figure that out, you’ll never understand the responsibility of the Arab nations that attacked Israel WITH the Palestinians. Any Arab nation that was not involved in these wars does not hold the same responsibility.

As to Israel controlling their electricity, why don’t the Palestinians have power plants. Hmmmm. Maybe because their leaders, including their hero Arafat, siphoned off all the money that was meant to make their lives better and give them infrastructure? I guess Israel forced them to steal all that money, right?

I’ll throw you a softball. You say the Palestinians can only react because Israel has all the control. For the last 2 decades, show me an instance when the Palestinians called a ceasefire but the Israelis escalated the violence anyway.

Actually, the point I brought up about infrastructure made me thing of something else. The Palestinians have modern automatic weapons, RPGs, and can build rockets, and yet you say they’re completely dependent upon Israel for power? Gee, do you think that if maybe, just maybe, they put the same effort into building a stable society that they do attacking Israel, then maybe, just maybe, they’d have a little something to call their own by now?

A long journey starts with a single step. The Palestinians have not taken that step yet.

Well, to give credit where it is due LFC, at least you’re starting to actually discuss things as opposed to blindly copying & pasting the standard Israeli propaganda talking points.

“As to Israel controlling their electricity, why don’t the Palestinians have power plants.”

Specifically, it is because this is a constituent element of Israel’s control dynamic. For example, when Israel took Gaza in 1967 its entire energy infrastructure was self-contained (that is, they produced all their own electricity). Israel deliberately and systematically eradicated this energy infrastructure, forcibly shutting down most (there were some exceptions, mostly those run by UNRWA) Palestinian energy producers and integrating Gaza into the Israeli power grid. On the positive side, this scheme meant there was more power in Gaza and a lot of places received electricity that hadn’t had it before (this was the Israeli talking point); but the flip side of this was that Gaza became 100% dependent on Israel for its electricity.

After Oslo, but before “Disengagement,” the Israeli government loosened its control, allowing Gaza one major power plant that supplies something like half of Gaza’s power but even at that Israel maintains control over it by sporadically bombing this plant and/or preventing the importation of fuel whenever they feel like inflicting some collective punishment. See, for example, just from this week’s news: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSL0654977920080106

“Maybe because their leaders, including their hero Arafat, siphoned off all the money that was meant to make their lives better and give them infrastructure? I guess Israel forced them to steal all that money, right?”

This is a different topic, but one I completely agree with you on. That Arafat & the old PLO/Fatah leadership have proven to be hopelessly corrupt and their regime a virtual kleptocracy is utterly undeniable. In fact is one of the primary reasons that the Palestinians voted in Hamas, who has a reputation for honesty and lack of corruption (as opposed to the standard Israeli myth that Hamas was voted in because they want to “kill Jews”). As far as my personal opinion is concerned, the “Palestine Authority” should be completely dissolved as it is utterly dominated by corrupt thieves (not to mention this helps lay to rest the premise that the PA constitutes some sort of “government” and therefore advances the one state proposition).

If you were hoping I would be a PLO/Fatah/Arafat defender, I’m sorry to disappoint you.

“You say the Palestinians can only react because Israel has all the control. For the last 2 decades, show me an instance when the Palestinians called a ceasefire but the Israelis escalated the violence anyway.”

You’re joking right? This exact scenario has been repeated so many times it is ridiculous. Just last month Israel refused yet another Hamas truce proposal brokered with the mediation of Egypt: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/20/news/Israel-Palestinians.php Israel is completely and utterly addicted to the conflict today and whenever – without exception – things start to stabilize and it begins to look like the violence might slow down Israel launches some sort of provocation in full knowledge that the Palestinians will respond and no peace will come about. It has happened so many times, over and over again, every single time there is a ceasefire or even a lull in the violence that ANY observer recognizes the trend.

Quite simply, if the violence stops, then Israel has to actually talk to the Palestinians, and that means negotiation. Negotiation, of course, is utterly anathema since any negotiation HAS to result in loosening Israeli control. Israel has no intention of loosening its total control so it behooves Israel to keep the conflict active (just as long as it is “low level” and therefore also kept under control). The current “low level” fighting serves Israeli interests of keeping negotiation at bay just fine, despite the Bush administration’s pressure to resume talks.

“Gee, do you think that if maybe, just maybe, they put the same effort into building a stable society that they do attacking Israel, then maybe, just maybe, they’d have a little something to call their own by now?”

I’ll grant that the Palestinians certainly could be investing more time and energy in their own internal situation; but ultimately as long as they remain under Israeli military occupation and are denied any possibility for material development nothing will change. Without exception, whenever either the Palestinians or foreign donors build up something to help, Israel bombs it into oblivion; because of course ANY Palestinian development slightly reduces Israel’s 100% total control and the Palestinian’s 100% dependency. The famous EU-built Gaza airport or the PA/Arab League built Palestinian parliament building in Abu Dis are cases in point. Palestinian development results in some small degree of Palestinian empowerment and that is manifestly unacceptable to Israel; and so Israel deliberately, systematically, and undeniably prevents any such development/empowerment.

Just last month Israel refused yet another Hamas truce proposal brokered with the mediation of Egypt:

Thanks for the article. It makes my point beautifully. Did you actually read it?

“The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the Hamas proposal was limited to stopping the rocket fire in exchange for a halt to Israeli military operations in Gaza.

…and just a few sentences later…

Despite the tentative contacts, there were more Palestinian rocket barrages Thursday. One rocket fired by militants in Gaza exploded next to an Israeli school, terrifying children. Late Thursday, Hamas said it fired three rockets at Israel, its first such claim in weeks, putting the truce talk in doubt.

So Hamas makes its advance, while continuing to shoot rockets, and what is Israel’s reply?

Israel rejected the advance, saying there was no need for a truce because if the rocket fire stopped, Israel would have no reason to attack.

And why won’t they deal with Hamas?

Israel refuses to deal directly with Hamas because the militant Islamic movement rejects the existence of a Jewish state in the Islamic Middle East and routinely calls for its destruction.

Gee. To a thinking person, that all makes sense. To you, it says that the Israelis are baaaaaaaad people who want perpetual chaos.

And in reply to your previous post with a site that’s all about the dead children…

In amateur video of the Thursday rocket attack on the battered Israeli town of Sderot, taken from inside the school, the sound of the explosion is clearly heard. Children scream and cry as a teacher tries to round them up and guide them to a safe location.

No one was hurt, but Israeli officials said about a dozen children suffered panic attacks, and one was taken to a hospital for shock.

But I guess the Palestinians are justified in trying to wipe out Jewish kids because they lost two wars that they started.

Without exception, whenever either the Palestinians or foreign donors build up something to help, Israel bombs it into oblivion;

All the Palestinians have to do is forgo violence. Tell me, Mr. Palestinian Apologist, just what have the Palestinian people EVER done to show that they are serious about a peaceful resolution with Israel?

And let’s revisit your reply to my request for a time that Israel attacked during a ceasefire. You failed miserably the first time, making my case very strongly, thank you very much. So your reply of This exact scenario has been repeated so many times it is ridiculous means you should be able to provide buckets of incidents. Where are they all? Or do you just “know” that it’s true?

Quite simply, if the violence stops, then Israel has to actually talk to the Palestinians, and that means negotiation.

While your at it, please tell me anything substantial that the Palestinians have ever offered in a peace negotiations. Arafat saying Israel has the right to exist doesn’t count as it has no substance. Name one thing they’re willing to give up to get their own state.

A little selective nitpicking LFC?

Yes, Hamas was continuing to lob home-made Qassams at Sderot AND Israel was continuing to kill Palestinians at the time of the proposed ceasefire, that is of course why there was a need for a ceasefire. If the two sides had already ceased firing at one another there would already be a ceasefire and thus no need for a new ceasefire. The whole idea of proposing a ceasefire is because there was not one already in practice. I don’t think this is too difficult to follow so I’m not exactly sure what you’re taking issue with. If there was already a ceasefire – meaning the two sides had stopped firing at one another – there wouldn’t be a reason to propose a ceasefire, would there?

“Israel refuses to deal directly with Hamas because the militant Islamic movement rejects the existence of a Jewish state in the Islamic Middle East and routinely calls for its destruction.”

LOL, what claptrap. Israel does deal with Hamas all the time and always has, though it is kept “low level” and somewhat “unofficial” and usually through mediators for larger issue discussions. Just from this week’s news: http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Palestine/220583 (see the last paragraph) And, of course, since Hamas controls the interior of Gaza and Israel controls all the borders, there is also “tactical” interaction dealing with borders and the like as well. This is only prudent as – ideological claptrap notwithstanding – no one outside of the US Congress can deny that Hamas is a legitimate player in the conflict and therefore has to be dealt with.

“To you, it says that the Israelis are baaaaaaaad people who want perpetual chaos.”

No, not perpetual chaos exactly, but perpetual low level conflict for sure. In those instances when the situation legitimately spiraled into chaos – say the first month of the Al Aqsa Intifada or March/April 2002 – Israel certainly exerted maximum effort to bring things under control. Perpetual chaos does NOT serve Israeli interests as they lose control of the situation, however low level perpetual conflict that remains firmly under Israeli control certainly does.

“And in reply to your previous post with a site that’s all about the dead children…”

If you had actually bothered to look at the website you would have noticed that it also includes ALL Israeli children that have been killed since the outbreak of the Al Aqsa Intifada as well. In one respect this shows balance (i.e. the killing of children is wrong, regardless of the identity of the perpetrators or victims); conversely it also graphically illustrates how incredibly disproportionate the number of murdered Palestinian children as compared to that of Israeli children.

“In amateur video of the Thursday rocket attack on the battered Israeli town of Sderot, taken from inside the school, the sound of the explosion is clearly heard…”

At no point have you seen me try to defend, justify or excuse the Qassam rocket attacks on Sderot, so I’m not sure what your point is here. The fact that Palestinians will continue to resist – even using such detestable methods as the shelling of Sderot – as long as the Israelis continue to maintain absolute control over Gaza is just a fact of life. If Israel wants Gazan resistance to end it will have to actually free Gaza, there is no other way. As noted anon, if Gaza were actually free and its people had the opportunity to actually advance their situation as opposed to just sitting there under Israeli rule, they would have lots of more important things to do than attack Israel. But as it is, they have absolutely nothing better to do.

“All the Palestinians have to do is forgo violence.”

That simply isn’t going to happen for one very simple reason, peace is the ONLY thing the Palestinians have to offer that Israel wants, so there is no chance that they’ll trade away their one bargaining chip for nothing. Israel has conclusively proven (1967-1987, 1993-1994, &c.) that whenever the Palestinians stop resisting, Israel has everything it wants and all negotiation and compromise come to a complete stop. Essentially what you are demanding is that the Palestinians give Israel everything it wants (namely passive docile Palestinians) in exchange for nothing and despite the fact that Israel has proven repeatedly that the second the Palestinians stop their resistance Israel is completely satisfied and all concessions and negation stops. Somewhat akin to the ceasefire issue above, your demand that the Palestinians simply surrender as a precondition for negotiation is a non-starter as we all know that if they do surrender then Israel has everything it wants and there is no reason to negotiate or compromise at all.

Time to face reality here. Your demand that the Palestinians simply give everything Israel wants as a precursor to further discussion is a complete nonstarter. The reason there is a need for a ceasefire is that there isn’t one; both sides are currently firing at one another. The reason there has to be sincere peace negotiations is because there is no peace. It makes no sense to discuss a ceasefire if there is already one, nor does is there any incentive to have sinceere peace negotiations if there is already peace.

“So your reply of This exact scenario has been repeated so many times it is ridiculous means you should be able to provide buckets of incidents. Where are they all? Or do you just “know” that it’s true?’”

Tell you what, since it is such an incredibly common thing, just give me a year (since 1994) and I’ll give you and example. It isn’t hard at all.

I seem to recall a joke I made about Jews and tools, but I forget.

Somewhat akin to the ceasefire issue above, your demand that the Palestinians simply surrender as a precondition for negotiation is a non-starter as we all know that if they do surrender then Israel has everything it wants and there is no reason to negotiate or compromise at all.

No time today to go over everything, but this one jumped out as a ridiculous statement. Surrender? Where the hell did that come from? Stop attacks, start talks. It seemed to be working before the “high crime” of a Sharon visit was used as a bulls*** excuse for Arafat’s last intifada, but the Palestinians intentionally destroyed those negotiations. Most of Arafat’s demands were already agreed to by Israel. Israel did ask for one main thing … stop killing our people. The Palestinians wouldn’t, or couldn’t, do it.

The Palestinian leadership draws its power from the continuation of conflict. What has the PLO done to build a society? How about Hamas? Hell, they tore down the greenhouses left behind in Gaza when the Israeli settlers moved out. Talk about self inflicted wounds. Arafat needed the hate of Israel to mask his own sins and keep him in power. Hamas is now doing the same thing. Look for continued exhortations for young people to martyr themselves.

In the end, I think your opinion that Israel wants continual low-grade conflict will be shown to be totally false. Israel wants security. If the Palestinians don’t change, the Israelis will finally have had enough and will wall off any and all access to Israel from Gaza and the West Bank. No checkpoints. Nothing. Gaza will have its border with Egypt, and the West Bank with Jordan, but no access to the Israeli economy … which will be devastating to the Palestinians.

LOL, what claptrap. Israel does deal with Hamas all the time and always has, though it is kept “low level” and somewhat “unofficial” and usually through mediators for larger issue discussions.

I guess that was your other truly ridiculous statement. First, “always has”? Uh, don’t you mean they’ve always dealt with the PLO? Second, just as you can’t figure out the difference between expressing sympathy and actually going to war with somebody, you can’t differentiate low level interactions and talks about the future of two states. You just seem to be an all or nothin’ kinda’ guy.

“Stop attacks, start talks.”

Blah, blah, blah. The second the resistance stops there is no reason for talk, is there? That is the one and only thing the Palestinians have that the Israelis want so you can pretty much count on the resistance to continue until something is worked out. As I noted before, there is no incentive to talk peace if everything is already peaceful, so yes, your demand that the Palestinians give Israel everything it wants (i.e. surrender) as a precondition for talks is a total nonstarter. 1967-1987 & 1993-1994 has conclusively proven that the second the Palestinians stop resisting their occupation all Israeli compromise and negotiation comes to a complete halt.

“It seemed to be working before the “high crime” of a Sharon visit was used as a bulls*** excuse for Arafat’s last intifada, but the Palestinians intentionally destroyed those negotiations.”

That just proves you have no idea what you’re talking about. Israeli aggression and Palestinian resistance had been steadily increasing throughout the OPTs prior to Sharon’s raid on Haram al-Sharif. Most of us watching it at the time were predicting a new intifada for the preceding couple of years, all it needed was a spark. In 1987 that spark was a traffic accident in Gaza, in 2000 it was Sharon’s raid on Haram al-Sharif, though realistically it could have been almost anything so high had tensions risen by that time.

“If the Palestinians don’t change, the Israelis will finally have had enough and will wall off any and all access to Israel from Gaza and the West Bank. No checkpoints. Nothing. Gaza will have its border with Egypt, and the West Bank with Jordan, but no access to the Israeli economy … which will be devastating to the Palestinians.”

The Palestinians haven’t had access to the Israeli economy, except those exploitive measures meant to use the OPTs as a “captive market” since 1996, so that’s a completely empty threat. Interestingly, their campaign to bring in all the Asian workers to replace the Palestinian workers is leading to an entirely new series of threats to the “Jewish nature” of the state.

IF Israel really freed the OPTs, meaning the Palestinians had access to their resources (water, Gaza’s offshore natural gas, &c.), control of their own borders (meaning Israel leaves the Jordan Valley, ends control of the Gaza coast and border with Egypt, and so on) then you would have a real workable unilateral two-state option. Israel could do this tomorrow or could have done this and saved themselves a LOT of trouble in Gaza all along. That is the entire point, Israel has never – not once – even hinted at such a thing, which is why both your “threat” and the two-state solution are pipe dreams. If Israel were actually willing to carry out the “threat” you’ve made here, most of the actual fighting (as opposed to the larger conflict) could be effectively resolved tomorrow; but Israel will NEVER do as you suggest. They demand 100% control and this means there will be no separation and no two-state solution.

“First, ‘always has’?”

Yes, ALWAYS has from the very outset (back in the 1970’s) when Israel gave Hamas tacit support (including official licensing and permission to operate) as an Islamic counterbalance against the secular nationalist formations of the PLO. It is one of the greatest examples of “blowback” of all time (right up there with the US & Bin Laden).
UPI: “Analysis: Hamas history tied to Israel”

“Uh, don’t you mean they’ve always dealt with the PLO?”

There have always been some indirect ties with the PLO, but it wasn’t really until the Madrid Talks that any official Israeli negotiators sat down with the PLO ones. Israel’s ties to Hamas are much stronger as they’ve been there from the very beginning of Hamas.