« Giraldi on the possibility of a hot summer. | Main | US approaches recognition of Libyan rebels. »

09 June 2011


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


But it cannot go on indefinitely...

I think the Israelis have made decisions that doom them to a 'South African' future.

They got the land, but they will not be able to rid themselves of the people, and this will lead to the destruction of (the Jewish nature of) Israel.

William R. Cumming

Clearly some in Congress are competent. But I watched a Senate Subcommittee hearing this AM on a federal program that is life and death for coastal areas. The inarticulate incompetence of a number of US Senators was on display and most could not think on their feet (or in this case their seats)and displayed not the wisdom of Solon but shocking inability to focus on the issues and policies involved in the program. My belief is this is more typical than not. The Chinese curse that beware that you get what you want seems evident in the current USA posture towards Israel. Thus, disaster lurks just around the corner.



'If' and I do mean a big 'if' the words of wisdom of the late Rav Yolesh were followed, we the world at large (and both Jews and Palestinians in particular) would not be in this current predicament, Rav Yolesh advocated disbanding/dissolving the 'Zionist' State of Israel, and leaving it to the Divine Hand to create. Rav Yolesh saw the Zionist creation as acting in a presumptuous way before Heaven with their presumptuous actions, thus the problems we witness today -- the Zionist State sets itself up as its own little god. Which sets up the Zionist State for a hard fall (by the Divine Hand) at a future point. All so needless bloodshed and angst, if it were dismantled as it should be the problems would not exist today.

Medicine Man

Before I ask this question, I would like to make two quick statements:
1) I'm not advocating anything.
2) I'm not implying anything about Israel's goals/motives.

My question: Is it really inevitable that maintaining their occupation of Palestine will "destroy the Jewish nature" of Israel? With sufficient media control, foreign lobbying, and obstruction of international bodies, is it really impossible that some form of ethnic cleansing could take place?

Perhaps I'm naive for asking; I just haven't seen anyone ask this question. Nevertheless, I've seen a few things previously unthinkable be subjected to debate in the benighted public sphere, torture for example, and I have started to wonder what is really "unthinkable".

Roy G

As bad as the situation is, the worst part is that I read the last sentence and think it applies as well to 'the enemy within.' How sad and strange that our own leadership would so enthusiastically participate in bringing about the demise of the USA, selling us out for a handful of beads, as it were.


"trapped by ruthless people"?

How about "paid off by ruthless people"?

This is about money, not innocent children in a war zone.


Henry Siegman indeed is one of the most sane voices.

The problem is the vast majority hasn't paid any attention for too long now. And the closer you get to the ground the more sick the picture gets.

After years and years of listening to the "terra nullius" argument, a people without a state can't have rights to the ground, suddenly we are to believe that the UN recognition of Israel would hinder the never ending peace process?

White Shirts in Jerusalem cry "Butcher the Arabs"


A sane young Jewish voice arrested for wearing both a kippah and a tiny Palestinian flag.


Of the necessity to demolish outdoor restrooms here:


or here:


@Medicine Man

Over the past 10 years, I too have lost my sense of "awe" at the normalization of the previously unthinkable.

Within the past year, the Israeli press has reported on Israeli military/police plans for the transfer of large numbers of Israeli Arabs outside Israel. And, yes, while I understand that military planning may well be based on unlikely scenarios, I think the idea is out there--certainly the political/rhetorical delegitimization of Israeli Arabs has been going on for years.

As for the Arabs in the OT's, their removal is happening on a daily basis. While I think that Israel would prefer that the transfer happen through "peace process" bantustans, I think Israel would be perfectly willing to forcibly transfer them across the Jordan.

I suspect all these scenarios could occur under cover of a regional war for "defensive" purposes.

And we know that the unthinkable is always ready to make an appearance.


The two state solution is dead.

Time to start working towards a Greater Israel that recognizes human and civil rights for all its subjects.

Charles I

Medicine Man, perhaps given eternal demands for recognition of the "Jewish State" while it manifests as a colonial war criminal occupier, and international rogue scofflaw for some decades now, "maintaining their occupation of Palestine" IS "the Jewish nature" of Israel"

Medicine Man

Charles I: Not even in my most paranoid moments of fantasy do I assume that the status quo is the best that Israelis would hope for their country.

Patrick Lang

Henry Siegman is a courageous and sophisticated critic of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. His criticisms in that area are usually correct and well-documented. He nevertheless is off-base in much of his article, cited by Pat Lang. In his article Siegman, first of all, based his position partially upon a false premise. As opposed to what Siegman maintained, the UN cannot create a nation-state but can only recommend that a state come into existence. Siegman's assertion that the UN Partition Resolution of 1947:"brought about the state of Israel and is the source of its legitimacy" is out of proper focus. The Israeli Declaration of Independence of 1948 did rely upon the 1947 Partition Resolution as a support for international recognition. Jewish militants in Palestine with some support from the West, however, created the state by sheer force. They probably could have done so before May, 1948, but they wanted international recognition, which was provided by the 1947 resolution. In addition they wanted to round out the borders for themselves, which they did between November, 1947 and May, 1948.

Siegman in his article also exaggerates the possible political effect of the potential Palestinian and Arab nation-state ploy of proposing a General Assembly resolution in the fall session that will call for the creation of a Palestinian state in the area of the West Bank and Gaza. The passage of such a resolution will not bring about a Palestinian state. The advocates know this. Presently, it is not even clear what exact borders will be proposed in such a resolution. Will it be the pre-June, 1967 borders without exception? Will the resolution make provision for any of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank? Will the resolution mention possible "swaps," which is anyway a vague and ambiguous term? The passage of a resolution at most will perhaps put Israel and its ally, the United States (both of whom will oppose the resolution) even more on the political hot seat of international opinion regarding the issue of a Palestinian state. In all probability the United States will veto any kind of follow-up resolution in the Security Council without prior agreement by the government of Israel and the Palestine National Authority (PNA). Such an agreement is simply not in the cards in the foreseeable future for reasons that have been discussed a multitude of times orally and in writing.

Will the Obama administration arrange another negotiating session between the Israeli government and the PNA before the fall UN session and thus be able to delay the formal proposal of a Palestinian state resolution in the General Assembly? Probably not. And even if this is accomplished, the negotiating session will most likely follow the previous pattern and develop into a farce with an unsuccessful result.

The reality today, and probably for the foreseeable future, is that a fair and equitable two state solution is a dead letter. It is redundant but necessary to repeat the following probabilities: Israel will not retreat to the pre-June, 1967 borders. The Jewish settlements will remain. Israeli land confiscation in the West Bank will continue. Palestinians, living in the occupied territories, will in varying degrees continue to be oppressed in a myriad of ways. Jerusalem will remain totally under Israeli control. Israel will not allow any return of Palestinians to land behind the Green Line that was confiscated by Jewish militants and by the Israeli government. The Zionist state will continue to favor Jews and grant them rights and privileges not granted to non-Jews, thus entrenching the second class status of Palestinian citizens of Israel. Violence will expand. The enmity of both Palestinians and Israeli Jews for one another will increase. The United States government will continue to support the government of Israel and its policies.

Sometime in the future greater catastrophe could occur. The Arab Middle East in sympathy with Palestinians could easily react far more violently against Israel. In order to attempt to avert catastrophe, the existent one state of Israel, which is actually Israel/Palestine, has to be transformed from a Zionist state into a more democratic, secular state that by law guarantees equal human rights to all people within its borders, while at the same time installing further protection for different cultural and ethnic groups. In order to move in that direction, human rights violations must be opposed and stopped, perhaps on a one-by-one basis. That is an enormous task but not impossible for human beings to accomplish. It provides the most realistic hope to forge a better future in this troubled area.

Norton Mezvinsky


Interesting protest movement-here in Portland, Or.


Turki al-Faisal states the Saudi position on this subject with this op-ed.



Israel will go on like it is and the US will go on with it and somewhere out there is a last straw for everyone except the US and Israel.
I favor a scenairo in which Israel finally drops it and Turkey and Egypt take exception to it....and let's see what the US does then.

Lars Moller-Rasmussen


being friends is not a sine qua non for making peace, although it would indeed help the cause of peace.

The Arabs can make peace if they arrive at the conclusion that they cannot defeat Israel, militarily or otherwise, whether they like Israel or not. The Israelis can make peace if they arrive at the conclusion that trying to keep the West Bank will ultimately threaten Israel's character as a Jewish-majority state.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be enough people on either side who are, as you say, "resigned" to the other nation staying in their part of the Holy Land.

However, traveling the Middle East as a journalist for the last quarter of the 1900's, I got the impression that the Arabs were clearly moving in that direction, and that there may well have been an Israeli majority holding that position. All this seems to have changed.

Charles I

Medicine man, I'm referring to behaviour, not character or affect, or eternally springing hope.

I used to hope for a two state peace. That's gone. I'd hope for a reconciled democratic one state, federation, whatever. That's unlikely; imagine the IDF pondering whether to destroy their WMD or share it with the majority of the state's citizens a la south Africa.

I've no hopes for a peace whose prerequisite is acknowledgment and subordination to the "Jewish State" whereas I'd muckrake for a safe democratic state for the Jews. Such a state would have to be just in context and in situ to be safe. Jewish arms and territorial acquisitiveness alone are hopeless. Israeli policy is on the record duplicitous.

What may I realistically hope for?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

May 2020

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 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad