« Habakkuk on the end of the "Two State Solution" | Main | National Journal blog - 18 March 2010 »

18 March 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

William R. Cumming

In deference to an excellent post by Dr. Silverman it seems to capture the problem nicely. My concern is that it is not the US and its polity that is the key dynamic but the belief of Isralies as to US sentiments and motivation that is off base. Personally, I have emotionally followed this issue since throughout living in Arlington County Va for over 55 years (no longer live there) I had relatively close friends choose to emigrate to Israel on a permanent basis. My question to them is and was always WHY? Clearly it was part of their persona and religion to go to their perceived homeland. Hey there are many professional IRISH living in the US and other nationalities and religions. But my sense is that Americans really don't focus on Israel all that much unless they are Jewish or have Jewish friends (of which I have many)! Americans tend to adopt a policy of live and let live and let other nations take care of their own and own problems. What is becoming evident to the American polity that despite their desire to prevent another holocaust of the Jews or others, there may be increasing dangers from ignorance and diplomatic reinforcement of the Israel. This then raises the question is this perception accurate? But I think the more important question is what do Israeli's think? Almost no polling data on Israeli beliefs and societies makes it into the MSM in the US? Why? Perhaps I am fundamentally incorrect and ignornant in my understanding but I tend to view Israel as a religious Sparta. What I do NOT want is the US to be a religious Sparta!


Let me take the bullet and ask the dumb question: without American military involvement, what would be the prospects of a joint Arab war against Israel with "limited goals" (i.e. free the Palestinian territories, perhaps extend them or otherwise redraw the map, but without trying to destroy Israel itself).

The reason I'm asking this is a personal fantasy that, should such a situation occur, the current American adminstration might actually see the light and tell the Arabs, "If you threaten Israel's existence and/or commit mass atrocities, we'll bomb you all the way back to Damascus. However, if you restrict yourself to liberating and re-arranging Palestinian territories, we'll just grumble a bit and look the other way."

Green Zone Cafe

GEN Petraeus's foray into the issue is welcome. It's time to start talking about final boundaries and stop the rope-a-dope with settlements.

As an aside, has anybody written as much trying to save America from despotism as Glenn Greenwald has in recent years?

Clifford Kiracofe

1. Do your statistics, or others, indicate that the majority of American Jews would support a one-state solution?

2. AIPAC, the Council of Presidents of Jewish Organizations, B'nai Brith, Anti-Defamation League are the four most prominent "Jewish" lobby organizations.
Why do these organizations not represent the political consensus of the American Jewish Community?

3. Isn't J-Street an impotent fig leaf politically? Just window dressing?

Are there any statistics to indicate just what actual political impact it has in terms of votes in Congress, for example?

And does J-Street insist on the Jewish State and "two-state solution" or would it agree to a "one-state" solution?

3. It appears from your presentation that the underlying concept is the "Jewish State" continued with a "two-state solution"? Perhaps I missed something.


One of the brick walls that U.S. policy (spelled White House) is running into regarding Israeli settlements, is the attitude of Israeli apartheid as evidence by Israeli Housing Minister Atias. Atias openly pushes for turning Israel into an apartheid state through active segregation in Israel.

Israel's Interior Minister who embarrassed Joe the Gardner and the Obama administration is Eli Yishai who is the chairman of the Shas Party. Shas has a powerful power base in NYC's Orthodox communities.

Atias and his element seeks to create apartheid not only between Arabs and Jews, but between secular and Orthodox Jews. Atias and his element's views is that separation between the secular and Orthodox is needed in order to prevent 'unnecessary friction'.

Patrick Lang


I think Israel would defeat any combination of Arab armed forces in any conventional war that involved an invasion of Israel or the occupied territories. On the other hand a guerrilla war waged the way the Arabs fought back in the '30s could be lethal for Israel if the Arabs stuck with it for a few years. It would get to be extremely ugly. pl

N. M. Salamon

From the news about President Obama and Israel.\, one can conclude that the famous CAIRO SPEECH is dead for all intents and purposes. SAD! There was hope - though the IRanians did make the right observation: not words but acts count. Toaday we can clearly state that both the words and the acts are null!

Thank you Dr. Solverman for the far ranging analysis!


Anyone who looks at the maps of Israel/Palestine on Juan Cole's blog, Informed Comment (scroll way down) can see for themselves the reality of the situation: there is no possibility of a two-state solution physically. The Israelis would have to pull back to the 1967 lines. Which they aren't willing to do. So one state it is. Now how do we prevent a Palestinian holocaust?

Clifford Kiracofe


One concept might be that the United States take a Roman Imperial perspective and dictate the one state solution in cooperation with Europe, Russia, China, the UN and etc.

Diplomatic recognition of "Israel" would be withdrawn by all members of the UN, as Israel has not complied with international law nor have the original UN actions toward Palestine (partition and two states) been fully implemented.

Thus we push the "restart button" and return to historic Palestine post Mandate and prior to Partition and begin again with the "Jewish Problem" as a global issue.

Would a regional war against Israel involve just Arab states?

Thinking out of the box, could/might an Islamic Turkey and an Islamic Iran join in to create a "united front" perhaps?

David Habakkuk

Dr Silverman, mo,

Thanks for Dr Silverman's very helpful post. I am familiar with the writings of Glenn Greenwald, and greatly admire his courage, good sense and lucidity.

I was going to post some responses to the comments by mo on the previous thread, but as the caravan is moving on it seems sensible to put them on this thread, hoping that he will be following it.

My strong suspicion is that you may, ironically, be echoing a highly dangerous misjudgement by the likes of Netanyahu and his fellow travellers in the U.S. -- also Britain -- about the possibility of maintaining the support of Jews outside Israel for the course of action they have chosen.

Certainly the notion that a single-state solution would facilitate the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, because it would 'silence dissent from "Liberal" Zionists', would not apply in Britain. (And in the light of the figures quoted by Dr Silverman, I doubt it would in the United States.)

This is partly because very many such people -- like Richard Goldstone -- are men and women of honour and integrity. But it is also relevant that a key traditional alliance in British society, going back to the Thirties, is between liberal Jews and people like myself -- that is, non-Jews who saw National Socialism as an awful warning about the need to be cautious about yielding to the temptations of tribalism.

A classic statement of this view comes in the writings of Sir Karl Popper, a refugee from that once great centre of Jewish culture, Vienna. Although I have more doubts about some of Popper's ideas than I had as a young man, the warnings about the dangers of succumbing to the temptations of Blut und Boden have not lost cogency.

The definition of Jewishness which Netanyahu offers is essentially as a tribe that people want to kill. For liberal Jews to buy into that position risks calling into question the sincerity of their own commitment to try to transcend tribalism -- suggesting as it were that the gentiles must give up the delights of Blut und Boden, but the Holocaust gives Jews a special and continuing entitlement to these.

Moreover, that definition of Jewishness implies that the kind of genocidal anti-Semitism practiced in National Socialist Germany is a real and continuing danger in countries like Britain or the United States. And indeed, without this suggestion, a natural conclusion to draw from Netanyahu's apocalyptic vision of the perils facing Israel from its Muslim neighbours would that every Jew who can should emigrate to safer places.

The suggestion is in fact false. Moreover, given the success and influence of Jews in Britain and the United States, to embrace it risks giving credibility to the notions of a 'hostile elite' elaborated by that unpleasant but not unintelligent figure Kevin MacDonald.

(See http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/SlezkineRev.pdf.)

A curious aspect of the utterances of some of more fervent supporters of Israel in the United States, incidentally, is how close they sound to traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes. I was really taken aback the suggestion by Vice President Biden, at his address at the Yad Vashem memorial, that 'for world Jewry, Israel is the heart. For world Jewry, Israel is the light. For world Jewry, Israel is the hope.'

With very little modification, the notion of some kind of coherent 'world Jewry', seeing Israel as 'the heart', 'the hope', and 'the light', because they live in continual fear that their gentile neighbours may turn on them, could feature in the writings of MacDonald. It is also, I think, bunkum.

Patrick Lang


Joe Klein has a piece in Time in which he says that AIPAC made a serious error in siding with Israel against the US in this crisis. I just watche Rep. Wiener of New York do the same thing on MSNBC. That's a shame. Wiener is usually a sensible man. pl

Adam L Silverman

I'm going to try to take this in order of appearance:
Mr. Cummings: I think there are three things here. The first is that for most American Jews Israel, for all its warts, holds a special emotional and/or intellectual place. A good chunk of that is acculturation and the rest is good PR. I know a number of American Jews who talk about Israel as home, but if you scratch the surface its really and idealized type of concept and they really don't want to move. I also agree that barring a major incident Americans generally tune out Israel (not to mention Iraq, Afghanistan, and just about everywhere else). This has to do with a number of things, not the least of which is how bad our media is and how incurious we've become as a society. The Sparta reference is not wrong, but the better one is Masada. I highly recommend Ben Yehuda's "The Masada Myth", but in a nutshell Masada is Israel's "Remember the Alamo" mythos. The image of the plateau with the legend "Masada Shall Never Fall Again" has appeared on a number of images such as stamps and posters over the years and I think has been hyper internalized by the Likud to the right crowd in Israel and their allies in the US. One final point: because of the nature of Israeli parliamentary politics you get a lot of the dysfunction that we see in the US Senate - where a small handful can pretty much move the decision making and kill proposals. Since neither Likud or Labor, not to mention the newer fusion Kadima is able to get a governing majority everyone is left with essentially two options. Governments of national unity that basically straddle the Israeli center or plurality led Likud, Labor, or Kadima governments where small, much more extreme parties become kingmakers and spoilers - thereby pulling Israeli governance to the extremes. By including folks like Lieberman or parties like Shas Netanyahu, already far to the right even for Likud, gets pulled even farther in that direction.

Green Zone Cafe: I am in 100% agreement: Mr. Greenwald takes on all comers and is owed a huge debt by all Americans!

Professor Kiracofe: I've seen no data on a one state solution. I think the reason for this is pretty obvious: No one has seriously proposed it as a policy option. The entire framework, every international agreement, even the UN Resolutions themselves, all point towards a two state process. As such no one polls on the one state concept. As for the list of organizations you refer to: some were set up as special interests, others like the ADL was set up as an anti-extremism watchdog and clearing house and by and large still does a lot of that, B'nai B'rith was, and is, a fraternal organization whose membership has seriously dwindled over the years. AIPAC was, is, and I expect always will be a special interest political outfit intended to move policy in their preferred direction. What has happened with all of these is that the leadership has been captured or intimidated into toeing what AIPAC and some others would like everyone to believe is the official "American Jewish" position. Because most people are too busy, and don't have access to getting in front of news cameras or on the NYT or WaPo editorial pages, this becomes the perceived default position. From what I can tell from the polling and from my friends - most Catholics don't agree with Bill Donohue, but he gets on tv and they don't, so he wins the PR war by default. As for J Street I think its too soon to tell. Its only a couple of years old, has to start from scratch, and has the much harder task of trying to organize the large number of American Jews who just sort of ignore all the noise and heat in order to get its point across. AIPAC didn't become a powerhouse overnight, I don't expect J Street to either. As for a one or two state solution: I tried to stick as close as I could with the data available. Professor Cole's arguments about the non-viability of a two state solution are, I think, spot on, however, all the proposed solutions are two state. That leaves three possibilities: give up completely and just let things get worse, pressure the Israelis into pulling back and dismantling the settlements so that a viable two state solution could be done, or develop a coherent and palatable one state proposal and start pushing policy that way.

J: I think I got to part of your comments in my reply to Mr. Cummings, but you are absolutely correct about the dispute between the ultra devout/observant, the observant, and non-observant. While this has been flaring up more and more it is still partially subsumed under the Israeli/Palestinian issue. Interestingly the same issues exists among Muslim Palestinians and between Muslim and Christian Palestinians too. If the Israelis and the Palestinians ever get their issues resolved, the fights will just turn internal and those are going to be really ugly. This is also a largely undiscussed, and therefore unplanned for, problem set to resolving the Israeli/Palestinian dispute!

LB/Professor Kiracofe: There won't be a reset/restart. Either Israel realizes its settlements are unsustainable and pulls back (most likely under external pressure) or the one state option becomes inevitable by default. As for an ethnic cleansing: the Israelis actually wrote up the CONOP for what happens if the Palestinians unilaterally declare a State. This was when Barak was head of the IDF not Labor, and was called Operation Crown of Thorns (sometimes I saw it as Bloody Thorns). Basically it called for forcibly marching all Palestinians across the borders into Jordan or Syria or Egypt or Lebanon, called for exceedingly high casualties for the Israelis and even higher ones for the Palestinians. I always believed that it was because he was the IDF Commanding General when this was produced, that Barak knew how bad no resolution was and why he went as far as he did in the negotiations in the mid to late 1990s.

Mr. Habakkuk: I think you are 100% correct. I can not tell you how many times I have heard the reference that "if things were to go bad here in the US for Jews, Israel would be a safe haven". As an adult I always thought that was kind of strange, given that if things get that bad in the US for a largely assimilated religious minority, then I don't think anywhere is going to be safe! I think a great deal of this is generational in the US and is dying out. A lot of older Jews remember that while the Greatest Generation may have gone to Europe to fight the NAZIS, in the 1930s they were also overwhelmingly voting for candidates who were running on openly anti-Semitic and often pro-NAZI platforms for local, state, and Federal office. If I recall correctly over 2/3s of all those elected to positions in the mid 1930s were running on those types of platforms. This attitude is also regional, so in places that still have highly concentrated visible Jewish communities, such as parts of NY, this may linger longer, but my guess is that if the US becomes inhospitable to its Jewish citizens, then things are likely so bad that no where would be safe.


Did Obama just cancel his indonesia-oz trip? I was going to use that trip to test and adjust my prediction. uhm...hello? state dept? This is kinda lame? Somewhere in beijing a lowly score keeper diplomat is chuckling and moving one of his chess piece forward on the map.


about all the opinion poll & statistic above. I think they are not very relevant to predicting how israel-palestine conflict vs. US politics will unfold. Israel is a highly militarized society, press and public opinion are controled. And they have fairly mature propaganda dept. (Habara anybody?)

US public opinion? This is so obvious it's not even worth discussing. Israel intel agency has a fairly deep understanding how US public psychy operate. A spielberg holocaust movie, a couple NYTimes column/fake articles, manufactured controversy, flood of foxnews/am radio, email campaign and lobbyists can pretty much give Israel whatever they want. My wild guess, probably take about 20-50 officers to start the entire mighty wurlitzer in motion.

Only taliban is better in term of practical propaganda/understanding the psychy of target than Israel.

I for one think by now, the general structure of players, organizations and what variables that goes into US-Isrel foreign game can be sketched. It is much more productive tracking several dozen key people , speech, meeting, announcement, travel interaction, money than reading polls. The most visible part of public opinion shaping machine is fairly constant.

Incidentally, where is bill Kristol? He is missing. He suppose to mouth off supporting israel last week. (or at least some behind close door speech somewhere.)

ps. I hope somebody will post complete audio/vido recording of next aipac meeting online. That'll be a big chuckle and do more to middle east peace process than twenty kabuki peace initiative BS.


A curious aspect of the utterances of some of more fervent supporters of Israel in the United States, incidentally, is how close they sound to traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes.
Posted by: David Habakkuk | 18 March 2010 at 11:34 AM

Because that trick is universal. All you need to do is change the wording and the delivery.

The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (...) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood.

(guess who said that. nooo googling pleasee....)

Sidney O. Smith III

When it comes to US foreign policy in the Middle East, all the analytical assumptions one needs to know come from the work of Rabbi J. Teitelbaum. Progressives, particularly progressive American Jews, may have a hard time giving the man credit because he is Orthodox.

Who cares…it is the proper analytical assumptions that matter, not the source, right? Accuracy is what counts.

So each to his or her own, but I’d dump the assumption that Israel is a “liberal democracy” unless you want to redefine a liberal democracy as including apartheid, ethnic cleansing and a complete rejection of the Baker v. Carr principle of one man, one vote. To even hang onto the idea of Israel as a liberal democracy in not only laughable but also raises the presumptions that certain ideological goals are paramount, not accurate analytical analysis.

And, at least from my perspective, strategic intel analysis for the Middle East for too long has relied on misassumptions, if not misrepresentations. Such a flaw is inherent in the analysis available in the public domain. Patently obvious.

One prime exhibit is Dennis Blairs’ recent work. Like Aipac, Blair has sided against the American people. At best, he is unconscious of the flaws underlying his work. At worst…well…he has sold out.

If one so wanted, one could rip to shreds Blair’s work to prove that he has bought into a false set of assumptions and ignored reality. And one could rely on the work of Sherman Kent to do so.

And a very real danger does exist that Blair’s work and those from his school of thought will increase the odds of a rupture between the USM and the American people.

What will happen if the American people decide that the USM no longer represents them but instead represents special interests?

I saw echoes of such in the 1970’s when working class Scot-Irish and blacks believed, either rightly or wrongly, that the USM did not represent them. It was horrible. And I am not talking about the Jane Fonda crowd, in the least. Trust me on that one.

Leaders of the US Army, at least from what I can tell, did a brilliant job restoring the “tradition” and repairing the breach. Hate to see such great work go the way because of inherently corrupted analysis that leads to placing US soldiers at a needless risk. And there is no doubt that the Leo Strauss crowd sees the American people as cannon fodder and wants to shape foreign policy to promote their interests at the expense of the American people. That is one assumption you can rely upon. Tried, tested, and true.

Petraeus may see the light as he recently created the all important linkage. From what I can tell, he inferred that Israeli actions endanger US soldiers lives. Glad to see Petraeus take that stand. Hope others in the US military will do the same.


Something else that AIPAC, Shas, the Likud led Israeli government will run from is the 'growing' segment within Judaism that are agreeing with the Neturei Karta parameters that the 'Zionist' State Of Israel as it exists is presumptuous before Heaven, and that would be better served dismantling the Zionist created State Of Israel in favor of one that is supposed to be created by the Divine Hand. Whether Zionists both Jews and Christians like it or not, Neturei Karta & True Torah Jews ranks are on the upswing both domestically U.S., and internationally.



D. Gordon

As usual Colonel, yours is the best discussion on the web.

I write to add a small point to the thoughtful commentary:

It is generally forgotten that as late as the early or even mid 1950s, adherence to "zionism" was grounds for rejection of membership in many reform synagogues in the U.S. The history of suspicion and outright hostility to zionism among elite American Jews (particularly reform and assimilated Jews) is largely forgotten today. It certainly had been eclipsed by the early 1970s, when I attended summer camp and swam in a lake dug in the shape of Israel.

Things change. But that is the point. Things change, and if the Israeli government makes the contradiction between zionism and liberalism undeniable, unavoidable and ever starker, the American Jewish community will choose liberalism en masse and will abandon the committment to Israel and Zionism that is taken for granted at this point. In this regard, the Goldstone report might be the beginning of the end.

Whether one agrees philosophically or not with Zionism, versions more liberal, humane, and responsible than that practiced today by the government of Israel could (or could have) existed. They have dug their own grave (figuratively, we should all hope) by their violence and expansionism and are creating conditions where a democratic one person one vote one state solution will be the only thing left to do. As reported in England, the possibility of a 2-state solution provides a real rationale for liberal Zionism. If that is impossible, and its one-state or "transfer" I think that the choice for Americans, of all backgrounds, will be clear.

Clifford Kiracofe

Dr. Silverman,

I agree that the default position seems to go to AIPAC. And as I have indicated before, this has something to do with the inertia from the Biltmore Conference of 1942 and its consensus Biltmore Program, IMO.

From the standpoint of practical politics today in the US, what I am not able to see yet is how we get from the AIPAC controlled default position to a position which would reflect the probably overwhelming majority of the American Jewish community.

It is the AIPAC position to which Congress and the White House responds and supports despite whatever may be the general position of the US Jewish community which is traditionally liberal and progressive.

All that said, there still remains the problem of what policy the United States should pursue. What is our national
objective with respect to a solution? What is the solution which best suits our long range national interests?

I fully agree with David Habakkuk that the two-state solution is dead and beyond recovery. On the other hand, both sides do benefit from it: Israel can play it to stall for time while more land is being confiscated and the Palestinians can play it to stall so that more Palestinian babies can be born.

So in one sense, the charade and faux diplomacy of the two-state solution suits both the Israelis and the Palestinians (paradoxically).

Thus there would seem to be three plausible scenarios:

1. Continuation of the charade of the two-state solution for reasons mentioned above.

2. Serious planning for a one-state solution defined as a democratic state and a binational state. Logically, Palestinians would have a right of return. Just as logically, the geographic space of present day Israel, Gaza, West Bank would become Arab majority. I do not see massive numbers of Jews from around the world knocking on Israel's doors today. In fact, I think Germany is the favored destination these days (ironically perhaps).

3. A violent "transfer" or expulsion of Palestinian Christians and Arabs from Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank to neighboring countries. This could be undertaken within the context of some form of a Middle East War, for example, as cover.

From a realistic point of view, I should think that scenario 1 will be what we see for the near term at least. It would take some time for the attitudes of the gentile majority in the US to harden sufficiently to deal with the abovementioned political and structural problem in our Republic.

William R. Cumming

Thanks Dr. Silverman. I also forgot to mention that many of the Arlington departees to residence in Israel ended up being LIKUD followers. Arlington political history is complex but the redbaiting in the 50's led to creation of the ABC nonpartisan group. Also to modification nationwide of Hatch Act to allow civil servants to participate in nonpartisan elections.

The scars of the McCarthy Era ran deep in Arlington and its almost total collection of families of civil servants and military (no longer the case)! I always wonder if some of the Jewish departees had been impacted by that viciousness. And I guess I would like to know is the LIKUD in Israel driven by the same poision as McCarthy?

BillWade, NH

A lot of people have come to the United States from countries/regions during and after wars and the like. Once here, I think it's generally accepted thinking that you are supposed to let go emotionally, politically, and militarily of the old country and move on with your life in your new country, the USA. If you are a General Vang Pao, former Royal Lao Army, and try to organize in the United States arms, money, and personnel for defeating the current communist goverment of Laos, you will be shut down immediately and hard, same goes for Irish gangsters in Boston and NYC trying to get arms to the IRA with donations from Irish-American dumbasses (I'm of Irish descent, just for the record). I know it's hard for people to just let go, but for the sake of the United States and yourself for that matter, you have to let go.

Stanley Henning

The U.S.-Israel relationship is clearly an emotional, not really rational, "fatal attraction". It needs to be completely revamped based on reason or this will
play out tragically for us.


curious, Goebbels?

Green Zone Cafe


I had the privilege of meeting Glenn Greenwald. I took the opportunity to tell him he was a great American and a true patriot.


David H,

Maybe I didn't put my thoughts across well enough in the previous post but I did not mean that the ethnic cleansing would come as a result of the silencing of the Jewish dissenters in the UK or US. Nor was I suggesting that the Jews of the US and UK would tolerate or condone such a thing (and I have been on a fair few marches with many Jews to understand this).

I meant the one state solution would be seen to have given the Arabs some sort of justice and that, combined with the ultra-slick Israeli PR machine would be enough to cause pro-Zionists at least to get onside. It would also give opponents of what the Israelis love to call "self-hating Jews" a lot of ammo.

However, since you and I and the whole world knows that a one state solution would lead to the Jews in Israel to become a minority, I am willing to bet the house that Israel would not agree to such a solution if it did not have a plan to take care of it. And certainly such a plan would not be obvious and brutal but would be done on a slow drip so that the world never has cause to complain. It may be economic, it may be legalistic and most likely it would be both and it certainly would not need to be militarised.


curious, Goebbels?
Posted by: optimax | 18 March 2010 at 05:57 PM

Was from wiki. Mein kampf. I then read a copy online. I have to say it made me flip out. hoooleeee historical rerun batman (complete in his ranting term like "internal colonization", national insult, economy went down and German finance under attack.) ... it is insane. I really have to shut up about all this, the conclusion is too crazy. No wonder Merkel is acting weird.

"The devastating influence of this parliamentary institution might not
easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless the
reader has learned how to think independently and examine the facts for
himself. This institution is primarily responsible for the crowded
inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics. Confronted with
such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real qualities of
leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in political
life; because under these circumstances the situation does not call for
a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship but rather for a
man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of the majority. Thus
the situation will appeal to small minds and will attract them

Charles I

Wow, what, some serious work going on here today, thank you very much ladies and gentlemen.

Going to see Mustafa Barghouti Saturday night in Toronto, very timely discussion for me.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad