60 Minutes on the expiring “Two-State” Solution: Invitation to a fisking

I have begun doing some video fisking which we are calling “Dialogues with the Media.” For the first examples, see here. I’ll be putting up some shortly, one on Annie Lennox, another on a CNN interview with Diana Buttu, and a third on a BBC with Hamas official Mahmud al Zahar. In the meantime, one of the major cases I’m looking into is the CBS piece by Bob Simon entitled “Time Running out for a Two-State Solution?” In preparing it, I welcome comments from readers on what they suggest I say in response to this piece (as well as links to others who have already critiqued it). Remember, in video fisking, the comments have to be as succinct as possible.

Below is the transcript.

Time Running Out For A Two-State Solution?
Jan. 25, 2009

(CBS) Getting a peace deal in the Middle East is such a priority to President Obama that his first foreign calls on his first day in office were to Arab and Israeli leaders. And on day two, the president made former Senator George Mitchell his special envoy for Middle East peace. Mr. Obama wants to shore up the ceasefire in Gaza, but a lasting peace really depends on the West Bank where Palestinians had hoped to create their state. The problem is, even before Israel invaded Gaza, a growing number of Israelis and Palestinians had concluded that peace between them was no longer possible, that history had passed it by. For peace to have a chance, Israel would have to withdraw from the West Bank, which would then become the Palestinian state.

It’s known as the “two-state” solution. But, while negotiations have been going on for 15 years, hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers have moved in to occupy the West Bank. Palestinians say they can’t have a state with Israeli settlers all over it, which the settlers say is precisely the idea.

Daniella Weiss moved from Israel to the West Bank 33 years ago. She has been the mayor of a large settlement.

“I think that settlements prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in the land of Israel. This is the goal. And this is the reality,” Weiss told 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon.

Though settlers and Palestinians don’t agree on anything, most do agree now that a peace deal has been overtaken by events.

“While my heart still wants to believe that the two-state solution is possible, my brain keeps telling me the opposite because of what I see in terms of the building of settlements. So, these settlers are destroying the potential peace for both people that would have been created if we had a two-state solution,” Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, once a former candidate for Palestinian president, told Simon.

And he told 60 Minutes Israel’s invasion of Gaza – all the death and destruction in response to rockets from Hamas – convinces him that Israel does not want a two-state solution. “My heart is deeply broken, and I am very worried that what Israel has done has furthered us much further from the possibility of [a] two-state solution.”

Palestinians had hoped to establish their state on the West Bank, an area the size of Delaware. But Israelis have split it up with scores of settlements, and hundreds of miles of new highways that only settlers can use. Palestinians have to drive – or ride – on the older roads.

When they want to travel from one town to another, they have to submit to humiliating delays at checkpoints and roadblocks. There are more than 600 of them on the West Bank.

Asked why there are so many checkpoints, Dr. Barghouti said, “I think the main goal is to fragment the West Bank. Maybe a little bit of them can be justified because they say it’s for security. But I think the vast majority of them are basically to block the movement of people from one place to another.”

Here’s how they block Barghouti: he was born in Jerusalem, grew up in Jerusalem and worked in a hospital there for 14 years. Four years ago he moved to a town just 10 miles away, but now, because he no longer lives in Jerusalem, he can’t get back in – ever.

He says he can’t get a permit to go. “I asked for a permit to go to Jerusalem during the last year, the last years about 16 times. And 16 times they were rejected. Like most Palestinians, I don’t have a permit to go to the city I was born in, to the city I used to work in, to the city where my sister lives.”

What he’s up against are scores of Israeli settlements dominating the lowlands like crusader fortresses. Many are little cities, and none of them existed 40 years ago. The Israelis always take the high ground, sometimes the hills, and sometimes the homes. And sometimes Arabs are occupied inside their own homes.

One house for example is the highest house on the highest hill overlooking the town of Nablus. 60 Minutes learned that Israeli soldiers often corral the four families who live there and take over the house to monitor movement down below.

Simon and the 60 Minutes team went to an apartment owned by a Mr. Nassif. That morning, Israeli soldiers had apparently entered the apartment, without notice, and remained there when Simon knocked on the door.

“We cannot speak with you, there are soldiers,” Nassif told Simon. “We are in prison here.”

Asked what was happening, Nassif says, “They are keeping us here and the soldiers are upstairs, we cannot move. We cannot speak with you.”

Nassif said he couldn’t leave the house and didn’t know how long he’d have to stay in place. Asked if they were paying him any money, he told Simon, “You are kidding?”

Abdul Nassif, a bank manager said he had to get to his bank to open the safe, but one of the soldiers wouldn’t let him go. He told 60 Minutes whenever the soldiers come they wake everybody up, and herd them into a kitchen for hours while soldiers sleep in their beds. They can’t leave or use the phone, or let 60 Minutes in.

He sent 60 Minutes downstairs to see if his brother would open the door so we could ask the soldiers why they keep taking over this house. But the brother told Simon, “The soldiers close the door from the key. They take the key.”

So Simon and the crew left, and that night, so did the soldiers. But when 60 Minutes returned two days later, the soldiers were back for more surveillance. This time they kept the women under house arrest, but let the men go to work and the children go to school. When the children returned, we caught a glimpse of two armed soldiers at the top of the stairs.

Then more children came home, but the soldiers wouldn’t open the door again.

A commander told Simon that he and the crew would have to go back behind a wall in order for the children to be let in.

The commander declined to talk to 60 Minutes. “But we are talking to you now,” Simon pointed out, standing outside. “Why don’t you tell us what you are doing here? Have you lost your voice? Well they’ve closed the door now, they’ve closed the window so I guess if the children are going to get home now we have to leave, so that is what we will do.”

An army spokesperson told us the army uses the Nassifs’ house for important surveillance operations. The Nassifs told 60 Minutes that soldiers usually stay for a day or two, always coming and going in the middle of the night. When they do go, the Nassifs never know when they will be occupied again. It could be tomorrow, next week, or next month. The only certainty, they say, is that the soldiers will be back.

Another crippling reality on the West Bank is high unemployment, now about 20 percent. So some Palestinians can only find jobs building Israeli settlements. They’re so ashamed to work on the construction sites that they asked 60 Minutes not to show their faces.

The settlers now number 280,000, and as they keep moving in, their population keeps growing about five percent every year. But the 2.5 million Arabs have their strategy too: they’re growing bigger families.

Demographers predict that within ten years Arabs will outnumber Jews in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Without a separate Palestinian state the Israelis would have three options, none of them good. They could try ethnic cleansing, drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank, or they could give the Palestinians the vote. That would be the democratic option but it would mean the end of the Jewish state. Or they could try apartheid – have the minority Israelis rule the majority Palestinians, but apartheid regimes don’t have a very long life.

“Unfortunately, and I have to say to you that apartheid is already in place,” Dr. Barghouti argued.

Apartheid? Israel is building what it calls a security wall between the West Bank and Israel to stop suicide bombers. The Palestinians are furious because it appropriates eight percent of the West Bank. Not only that. It weaves its way through Palestinian farms, separating farmers from their land. They have to wait at gates for soldiers to let them in. Settlers get a lot more water than Palestinians, which is why settlements are green and Arab areas are not.

Moderate Israelis who deplore the occupation used to believe passionately in a two-state solution. That is no longer the case.

Meron Benvenisti used to be deputy mayor of Jerusalem. He told Simon the prospects of the two-state solution becoming a reality are “nil.”

“The geopolitical condition that’s been created in ’67 is irreversible. Cannot be changed. You cannot unscramble that egg,” he explained.

Asked if this means the settlers have won, Benvenisti told Simon, “Yes.”

“And the settlers will remain forever and ever?” Simon asked.

“I don’t know forever and ever, but they will remain and will flourish,” Benvenisti said.

“The settlers, the attitude that I present here, this is the heart. This is the pulse. This is the past, present, and future of the Jewish state,” Daniella Weiss told Simon.

She says the she and the settlers are immovable. “We will stay here forever.”

But one very important Israeli says she intends to move them out. She’s Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, a candidate to become prime minister in elections next month. She’s also Israel’s chief negotiator with the Palestinians, and she told 60 Minutes peace is unthinkable with the settlers where they are.

“Can you really imagine evacuating the tens of thousands of settlers who say they will not leave?” Simon asked.

“It’s not going to be easy. But this is the only solution,” she replied.

“But you know that there are settlers who say, ‘We will fight. We will not leave. We will fight,'” Simon asked.

“So this is the responsibility of the government and police to stop them. As simple as that. Israel is a state of law and order,” Livni said.

It’s also a state of law and disorder. When the army evicted just nine families from a West Bank settlement called Amona three years ago, it was chaos. It was the first time since the creation of the state that Jews were in pitched battles against Jews. To Israelis of all stripes, it was not a pretty picture. And it made the government loath to try again.

Officials fear that more battles to empty settlements could rip Israel apart. They’re afraid that religious officers in the army – and there are an increasing number of them – would disobey any order to evict settlers.

The army is evicting Arabs from their homes in East Jerusalem, which Palestinians hoped to make their capital. Outraged, Arabs tried to save their homes, but the Israelis have the guns. Israel demolished more than 100 Arab homes in the past year, ruling they had been illegally built. Arabs say this is just another tactic to drive them out. But officials say they also knock down unauthorized Jewish buildings on the West Bank. They’re put up by youngsters, the next generation’s campaign to populate the land.

Daniella Weiss told 60 Minutes they will not be stopped.

Despite the army tearing down a structure, the settlers began rebuilding it on the same day. “We will have the upper hand,” Weiss vowed.

“But the army will tear it down again,” Simon pointed out.

“And we will rebuild it,” Weiss said. “The experience shows that the world belongs to those who are stubborn, and we are very stubborn.”

Stubborn, she says, because they were ordered to populate this land by no less an authority than God. “This is the mission of our generation and I want to emphasis the most important point is to this,” Weiss said, picking up some soil, “to hold strong to the soil of the Holy Land.”

Produced by Robert Anderson
© MMIX, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

UPDATE: See Joshua Pundit’s comments

25 Responses to 60 Minutes on the expiring “Two-State” Solution: Invitation to a fisking

  1. JD says:

    Whatever. Rehash. A peace deal was always going to involve a withdrawal of settlements…Same thing as Gaza. A bargaining chip.

    The news report doesn’t mention the very apt comparison to Gaza. Which, of course, would undermine the template of Jewish causation. It is standard soft anti-semitism, always blaming the Jew as the singular “cause.” Barghouti maybe is trying to re-raise the “settlements” barrier. But before one gets to that, the barriers to peace in the last decade are foremost, Arafat’s and Fatah’s stoking the intifada, aka, “protect us from elections” strategy, and now second, Iranian encouragement of Hamas. Arafat blocked the the Clinton deal.

    Actually, the real talk among some Palestinians, the ones who don’t just want Israeli passports, is making the West Bank a United Nations protectorate. Sounds good to me. It is a UN welfare fraud case anyway. And, the reporter mentioned, but did not get a grip on what he heard Palestinians say on the West Bank. They are signalling “We’ll dump Gaza, give us a deal alone.” But the reporter and/or hack research staff did not get the historical import of that.

  2. oao says:

    there has always been one root cause of the conflict which, unless pal support by the world is not stopped, will only result in another genocide: arabs/muslims will NEVER accept a jewish state on what they perceive to be muslim land. the rest is conversation.

    yet this is precisely what the west does not want to accept and is in denial about. because if this is the problem it has implications for the west itself and the west does not want to face them.

  3. Eliyahu says:

    RL, I saw this show [documentary is too kind] on Israeli TV through the Ro’im `Olam program on Saturday night. It just oozes Judeophobia/Israelophobia. Bob Simon always made me nauseous. But this show has to be put in the context of a media/propaganda assault on Israel that has been ongoing for a few years. There was jimmy carter’s “book”, the walt-mearsheimer “book,” the Baker-Hamilton Report, the Polk report [Polk had a partner whose name I can’t remember], the bill moyers assertion of a Jewish genetic propensity to violence, etc etc. The show could be used as a case study in propaganda techniques. Almost every word was chosen for its psywar effect.

    I believe that opposition to Jewish settlements in Judea-Samaria is racism, anti-Jewish racism. But Simon writes that settlers “occupy” the “West Bank.” That is, they don’t have a right to be there, he believes. Such a belief is racism. We could go and on. Simon conveniently forgets that Judea-Samaria was part of the Jewish National Home juridically erected by the international community in the ancient Jewish homeland.

    It is interesting that Simon seemed to think it was right for police and border guards [Magav] to beat the people at Amona. You could go and on with Simon, but we ought to concede that he knows just what he is doing. Every word is measued for its psywar effect.

    By the way, did you hear about the anti-Israel petition at Columbia, supposdedly in defense of the academic freedom of a Islamist, jihadist institution called the Islamic University of Gaza, hit by Israel during the war because it housed rocket-making, bomb-making facilities? Does that institution of higher jihadist learning actually subscribe to academic freedom itself?
    What does it teach about the human rights of Jews?

  4. Stu says:

    As others have mentioned, Simon neglects to address the true genesis of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which you know well, Richard. Instead he mistakes an aggravating factor ( settlement) for the causal factor, and focuses entirely on that. Other issues, like the wall, are also put entirely into the context of settlement rather than, say, security and disengagement. Simon goes even one step further than the average dupe, however. Rather than excusing violent Palestinian behavior as an “understandable” reaction to the settlements and humiliation, he effectively eliminates (by total omission) the very notion of a violent Palestinian threat. The wall is portrayed not as a security wall, but a “security” wall, just as those checkpoints are effectively portrayed as Humiliation Stations designed to break the collective will of the Palestinians.

    Now, I personally do not believe that ongoing settlement activity can be morally justified (and no, Eliyahu, I do not agree that this makes me an anti-Semite). That said, I refuse to feel sorry for the Palestinians as they made it abundantly clear in 2000, and have made it abundantly in clear in most other years as well, that it is the very existence of Israel that offends their sensibilities–the settlements are just the icing on that giant shame cake of Jewish success. It is interesting to note that Simon makes no reference to this mildly important aspect of the conflict (of course, I am being sarcastic–there is nothing “mild” about it).

    It is also interesting to note that he has ready access to the lessons of the Lebanon and Gaza settlement withdrawals, but he makes no reference to them or how those lessons might have helped sour Israelis on the prospect of a two-state solution. The souring, of course, he does mention.

    Ciao from bella Napoli,

  5. JD says:

    I believe that opposition to Jewish settlements in Judea-Samaria is racism,

    That is silly.

    What Simon is doing is trying to reshape the debate to, “if only Israeli settlers would leave there would be peace.” Lots of people used to believe that. It was a comforting thought for them. Hits right wing anti-semitic ideation about controlling and pinning in Jews, left wing anti-semitism that Arab rejectionism is purely nationalist, not annihilationist, and fits in with Western hubris that the antagonistic other’s bad acts are merely responsive to selected Western actions–indeed, that the other has no interactions worthy of contemplation.

    Truth is not important, the Gaza example is irrelevant because the character of anti-semitism cannot concede even one instance of Jewish innocence or lesser blame. There is no nuance.

  6. oao says:

    I am with JD.

    Incidentally there is an older video by Pierre Rehov about the palestinians’ views of the conflict and solution and it tries to create the impression that there are pals who realize the right of return is only a dream which they must give up, that UNRWA does not help the pals, and that the pals should be resettled in their arab countries.

    but even in that attempt at optimism it is clear that those 2-3 voices are not representative. the vast majority are very clear that they’ll pay any price to return and NOTHING will make them give up. and that has to do with 2 factors: the jiziya they live on via UNRWA, and their culture/religion: one guy says “it’s allah’s will: we will return when he wants us to.

    the film makes it clear that the arabs left a barren, undeveloped land, which the jews developed it and built a reasonably rich society. and THAT’s what the pals want: to get what the jews built, because they are not capable of building their own. in true muslim fashion.

  7. Richard Landes says:

    sent by email:

    A Letter to 60 Minutes
    by Eli E. Hertz
    Bob Simon, who is humiliating whom?

    Bob Simon said on 60 Minutes, Jan. 25, 2009, “Time Running Out For A Two-State Solution?”:

    “Palestinians … when they want to travel from one town to another, they have to submit to humiliating delays at checkpoints and roadblocks. There are more than 600 of them on the West Bank.”

    Bob, you say Palestinian Arabs feel humiliated and harassed when Israeli authorities search them and their belongings; when they are prevented from traveling freely because of checkpoints, roadblocks, closures and curfews. You say they feel “corralled.”

    Bob, in Israel, every Israeli is searched numerous times during the course of a single day. Israelis are asked to open their bags and purses for inspection. In most cases, they are subjected to body searches with a metal detector every time they enter a bank or a post office, pick up a bottle of milk at the supermarket, enter a mall or train station, or visit a hospital or medical clinic. Young Israeli men and women are physically frisked in search of suicide belts before they enter crowded nightclubs.

    As a matter of routine, Israelis’ car trunks are searched every time they enter a well-trafficked parking lot. Daily, their cars pass through roadblocks that cause massive traffic jams when security forces are in hot pursuit of suicide bombers believed to have entered Israel.

    Israelis are searched not only when they go out for a cup of coffee or a slice of pizza, but also when they go to the movies or a concert, where the term “dressed to kill” has an entirely different meaning.

    These ordinary daily humiliations now extend to similar searches when Israelis go to weddings or Bar Mitzvahs. No one abroad talks about the humiliation Jews in Israel are subjected to, having to write at the bottom of wedding invitations and other life cycle events, “The site will be secured [by armed guards]” – to ensure relatives and friends will attend and share their joyous occasion.

    One out of four Israeli children, ages 11 to 15, fear for their lives. One out of three report they fear for the lives of their family members, and more than a third report they have changed their patterns of travel and social lives due to security concerns.

    Bob, these ubiquitous security checks do not exist in Arab cities and towns in Israel (or, for that matter, in Judea and Samaria) because those places are not and never have been targets of Palestinian terrorism. In fact, the average Israeli is “humiliated and harassed” by being searched far more times a day than the average Palestinian. Not one human rights group, nor you, has so much as noted this massive intrusion into the rights of privacy and person imposed on Israelis.

    To date, no one protests the fact that, since the 1970s, Jewish schoolchildren in Israel are surrounded by perimeter fences, with armed guards at the schoolyard gates, as if their schools were the domiciles of Mafiosi.

    Not one Arab village in Israel or the Territories has a perimeter fence around it. Guards are not required at Arabic shops, cafes, restaurants, movie theaters, wedding halls or schools – either in Israel or in the Territories. Palestinians also do not need armed guards to accompany every school trip, youth movement hike or campout. They are not targets of terrorism.

    Countless Israelis in sensitive areas within the Green Line – not only in the Territories, but also in Jewish towns, villages and bedroom suburbs – are “ghettoized” behind high fences.

    Many Israeli motorists avoid major arteries that pass through Arab areas of Israel, while Arab citizens and Palestinians from the Territories continue to enter Jewish cities and go about their business without peril. Israelis are told, in effect, to disguise themselves when traveling abroad – not to speak Hebrew in public and not to wear garments that reveal their Jewish-Israeli origins. Even Israel’s national airline – El Al – has been forced to remove its logo from the tails of its aircraft at certain airports, out of concern for the safety of its passengers. This followed several attempts to down Israeli civilian aircraft with missiles. On the other hand, Arabs who frequent Jewish cities and towns in Israel wear their traditional Arab headgear without fear of being attacked or harassed.

    Bob, all this begs the question: Who are the victims and who are the victimizers? Who are the ones being harassed and humiliated? Palestinian Arabs or Israelis?

  8. obsy says:

    Martin Solomon has a to the point summary of that show:


    “Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, once a former candidate for Palestinian president, told Simon.”

    That guy won only 2.7% in the last Palestinian Council election. While 60 Minutes seems to suggest, that he is speaking for the Palestinian People.

    Would they also present a former candidate for US-President that way, if he’d had that little support in the public?

  9. obsy says:

    “Like most Palestinians, I don’t have a permit to go to the city I was born in, to the city I used to work in, to the city where my sister lives.”

    Actually, most Palestinians are allowed to the city they were born in.

  10. obsy says:

    There seem to be no real individuals in this report. And only to kind of people. Israelis and Palestinians.

    Especially settlers and soldiers seem to work hand in hand.
    Look at the two paragraphs starting with,
    “What he’s up against are scores of Israeli settlements dominating the lowlands like crusader fortresses.”

    Btw: As far a I know many (most?) settlers don’t like the security barriers, because they block them from places that they would want Israelis to settle on.
    In contrast – in the 60 Minutes world – everything is part of a giant scheme to push the peace-loving Palestinians away from the “cities they were born in”.

    But what shall we accept from a report that starts its look into the region with:
    “For peace to have a chance, Israel would have to withdraw from the West Bank, which would then become the Palestinian state.”

    (Skillfully they don’t say “There will be peace, if …” or “there is a chance for peace, if …” – but that is the impression on the viewer.)

  11. Ruth says:

    I am pretty sure that there is a “do not” missing in Eliyahu’s sentence: “I believe that opposition to Jewish settlements in Judea-Samaria is racism.” It does not make sense to specify that Bob Simons characterization of the settlements has racist overtones if any opposition is already racism.

    Simon does not include the fact that there are currently 2 Palestinian proto-states. One in the Gaza strip and the other in the Westbank.

  12. Richard Landes says:

    maybe we shd start with preliminaries:
    1) the Oslo (PCP1) logic was land for peace. settlements were a major issue.
    2) those opposed to Oslo said: a) it’s not peace they offer for land, but a new war against a now more vulnerable israel; and b) the major issue is the teaching of hatred and the flourishing of jihadi terrorism
    3) when Oslo blew up in Israel and the Western liberals’ face, it was time to face the alternative meaning of “No” of Camp David and the incitement to genocidal violence of Hamas (al Durah) — ie Palestinian irredentism.
    4) in 2000 after that No and the outbreak of the second intifada, Simon still made al durah about settlements

    let’s see if he even gives his audience a glimpse at the other side, or if it’s still Oslo Bob.

  13. victor says:

    there ‘must’ be something wrong with the idea that all settlements have to be revomed as a prerequisite for a palestinian state.

    Indeed, Palestinians could simply ask for borders… even if the price for a (Democratic) State is giving citizenship to a minority of jews (make it 10% of the future state if all ‘settlers’ stay after an accord… and surely most will leave the place without the help of an evacuation plan)

    to me, it’s a lot like ethnic cleansing…

    so why so few people accept to call it that?
    why does one accept that palestinians cannot build a state if it contains some jewish villages…

    Israel makes it with its own arabs citizens (and some are demopath as we know here).
    do the supporters of a palestinian state free of any jewish population also support transfering the arab sectors of israel to this new state to help israel?

    if it’s not just about borders… then there’s something wrong…

  14. Jeremy says:

    Typically Simon interviews two people, Mustafa Barghouti, an entirely non-representative, liberal, democracy-leaning Palestinian ex-legislator; and Daniella Weiss, one of a handful extreme right-wing settler activists. That – in itself – tells you where this is coming from.

    Are any terror victims interviewed? No.
    Moderate israelis? No.
    Are any Hamas legislators interviewed? Or clerics? No.
    How about interviewing anybody who lives on the Israeli side of the fence to get that “before” and “after” feeling? No – not interesting.

    If you genuinely intend to fisk this, start with para.1: “For peace to have a chance, Israel would have to withdraw from the West Bank, which would then become the Palestinian state. here Palestinians had hoped to create their state.”

    There is now ample evidence that this is not the case – quite the opposite, if the Gaza example is the one we will all have to live by. Let’s see the Palestinians make a peaceful, democratic state out of Gaza, and then we can discuss the West Bank. Not before.

  15. oao says:


    a) it’s not peace they offer for land, but a new war against a now more vulnerable israel

    memri had a video of an arab editor of a paper (published in london, or the gulf) who says that arafat personally told him that this was his intention. that’s how he responded in arabic whenver he was questioned and why he agreed to oslo. the language he used was “just wait and see how I finish them off” and he referred to muhammad as an example.

    you should find that video and use it.

    b) the major issue is the teaching of hatred and the flourishing of jihadi terrorism

    in fact, this should be the central condition whose implementation should drive israel to concessions, not just security. the hatred indoctrination is the best evidence of what the pal intetnions are. israel has not emphasize this in its hasbara and policies and neither do they the jewish refugees. IMO, those are the two most eggregious mistakes that could have helped it in its war — yes, war — with the west.

    the real solution to the conflict is: the pals and arabs stop the hatred education, replace it with a peaceful alternative for the time necessary for one or two generations (and build a nation) and THEN can there be talk about peace. any arrangement that does not do that will mean the liquidation of israel.

  16. Eliyahu says:

    Just to confirm what Eli Hertz says in his letter –quoted by RL above– I went to the Jerusalem International Book Fair tonight and had to walk through a metal detector while my briefcase was searched, after I had taken my mobile phone out of my pocket so it would not set off the metal detector.

    Ruth, we can talk about the implicit racism [not intentional] involved in the refusal of Jewish settlement rights in Judea-Samaria. This right was recognized explicitly in the League of Nations “Mandate for Palestine,” confirmed by the UN charter [Article 80], NOT revoked by the UN partition recommendation of 11-29-1947 which was merely a recommendation as are all General Assembly political resolutions, according to the UN charter [Articles 10-12]. I could say a lot more about this issue if you’re interested.


  17. Eliyahu says:

    Ruth, here is more about the implicit racism of the anti-settlement position. Recall how military force was used by Prez Eisenhower to enforce racial integration in the American South.


  18. Rich Rostrom says:

    Eliyahu: You are absolutely right. All of what was Mandatory Palestine is legally part of Israel, and Israelis can legally reside in any part of it. And all residents of any part of Israel (including the “West Bank” and “Gaza Strip”) are legally Israeli citizens. Right?

    Israel needs to decide what its border is, annex everything inside that line (including all residents) and then quit screwing around with territory outside that line.

    Jeremy makes a good point: Simon’s choice of representatives deliberately skews the picture.

    Let’s also note the misleading line about the security wall “separating farmers from their land”. There are a bunch of small tracts of land that are on the wrong side of the wall (probably not more than a few thousand hectares), owned by a few (probably not more than a couple of hundred) Palestinian farmers. Like most Arab grievances, it is far more apparent than real, and could be resolved cheaply if the Arabs weren’t rigidly opposed to any kind of deal.

    As for Ms. Weiss: anyone who says they’re on a mission from God better be driving
    used Mount Prospect police car.

  19. oao says:

    And all residents of any part of Israel (including the “West Bank” and “Gaza Strip”) are legally Israeli citizens. Right?

    except you’re forgetting one small detail: the arabs attacked israel in 1967 (for the 2nd time after 1948). in both cases they refused to accept the 2-state solution specified by the UN.

    so israel defended itself and WON the wars!!! to the winner the spoils (show me another winner who could not keep it). and since the pals/arabs refuse to recognize the “zionist entity” in any form, there is no agreement. thus israel is not required to annex or not.
    it can hold on to it in any way shape or form as a spoil of war.

    if the arabs want some of it back, they now must contend with their gambles and its consequences. but there are 2 arab camps: those who want all of israel, with which there cannot be any agreement. that’s the fast jihad majority and is represented by hamas; and there are a few who want to get back politics what they lost in a war they started, such that they can return from slow jihad to fast jihad in improved circumstances.

    the settlememts are a war loss and there is no reason to liquidate them. even so there is no question in my mind that israel would swap land with the pals IF they were not the genocidal murderous and threacherous barbarians that that are.

    so I’ll tell you what: let the US return the land to the indians and then israel will do the same (even though they did not steal anything, like the americans did).

    there is hardly a country which has not taken the land from previous residents, yet they all hypcritically have the gall to gang on and demand only from israel what they won’t do themselves. it makes me want to vomit.

  20. Cynic says:

    Israel needs to decide what its border is, annex everything inside that line (including all residents) and then quit screwing around with territory outside that line.


    Um al Fahm has always made a lot of noise about their “dislike” for Israel and in 2000 participated in the domestic riots destroying property etc., in support of Arafat’s intifada.
    Well it was suggested that Israel just cut off the Wadi Ara road and incorporate that chunk of territory into the West Bank where they would come under the PA and providing Arafat with a bit more land.
    You should only have heard the screams.

  21. Cynic says:

    By the way seeing that we are discussing the media in this thread here is an example of a blog posting a faux-video
    Huffpo Red in the Face Over Fox News Hoax

    The Huffington Post has admitted they posted a doctored video intended to make radio host John Gibson look like a racist: Huffpo Red in the Face Over Fox News Hoax.

  22. oao says:

    The Huffington Post has admitted they posted a doctored video intended to make radio host John Gibson look like a racist: Huffpo Red in the Face Over Fox News Hoax.

    first do the damage, they know that’s what counts.
    is huffington a journo or a frustrated politician?

  23. oao says:

    here’s the real reason why a 2-state solution won’t happen:


  24. ar says:

    Why not a 3-STATE solution on palistina ?

    Help the westbank and shut off Gaza. The stick and the carrot. Palestinians will SEE a better westbank.

    Make of (some parts of) palestina example regions by massive support.
    A few cheap truckloads western overproduction will convince more, it should be really more.

    West must not set a unachievable myth goal where no one actual in believes.
    Let palestinians really SEE what the good alternative is on running around with green towels and machine guns.
    You can’t blame any side for being sceptic and not believing in words an myths.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *