Israel’s “Three Choices”: A tentative response to “israeli”

In a previous post on Bob Simon’s 60-minutes piece, I got a long comment from someone with the tag “israeli”, in which he made the basic argument that Simon did about needing to act now in order to avoid either self-destruction as a Jewish democracy or apartheid.

My answer to him turned out to be much longer than I had planned, and fairly dense in both style and content… lot’s of contorted short-hands and long explanatory phrases in mid-sentence. But I do think it gets at some of my broader thoughts on some key issues concerning the problem of “solving” the conflict. So I’m putting it up as an independent post, and starting a new line of comments.

If anyone wants to offer some edits of my text so it’s not so convoluted, I’d be very grateful. If anyone has links to suggest, also welcome.

I am very late to this, so i am not sure RL will even see my comment but here it goes anyway…

RL, the points you bring up are valid, but there is one or two things you are not taking into consideration… I worked in the policy world for a while, on military matters… The main thing I learned was that critiques are no good if you cannot offer a better solution.

i understand, and have been told that many times. i think, however, that in the current situation, demanding solutions is a luxury we can’t afford. first we have to think seriously and realistically about the situation before we can come up with solutions.

indeed, it’s precisely this demand for solutions that contributed so much to getting into our current predicament. rushing to solutions that policy-makers hoped would work (positive-sum, marshall-plan, land-for-peace type solutions), we systematically ignored all evidence that they wouldn’t work, then didn’t work, indeed even ignoring that they’ve blown up in our face — in this conflict, right now, concession produces violence.

so we won’t find real solutions if we don’t do more reality testing (ie shed our liberal cognitive egocentrism, pay real attention to what’s going on on the other side, and learn to identify and isolate demopaths).

what solutions will emerge for clearly seeing and acknowledging the realities (which in good post-modern style, i will grant you are mutliple and variegated), will only emerge over time. if you won’t move off your current paradigm till you have a solution in sight for this problem, you will go nowhere.

In Israel today the situation is as follows: If there is no peace deal between Israel and the palestinians, the settlements will gradualy expand to the point that a two state solution will become impossible.

i don’t know why you say that. i really doubt any serious settlements are going up in the middle of clearly palestinian areas. most activity (as far as i know — and i’ll accept correction/rectification on this — are areas that a reasonable palestinian negotiating team will agree belongs under israeli sovereignty (e.g., maale adumim, gush etzion).

in any case, this is not what i would call an axiom, so much as it is an acceptance of the current palestinian negotiating stance as immutable — ie the settlements are the reason why there’s not been a 2-state solution yet (eg why Oslo failed), and they all have to go. so if the settlements grow, it’s all over. i don’t accept any of these positions or suppositions as either “fact” or justified.

At that point the palestinians will demand citizenship and Israel will have the choice of apatheid or a democracy that is dominated by the soon to be arab majority.

your very language suggests the degree to which your thinking has been taken over by others. by any sane rules of the democratic game, the “palestinians” have no right to demand citizenship and the israelis are under no moral obligation to grant either to them.

over the last 60 years, the palestinian leadership has pursued policies, both internal and external, that are so profoundly anti-democratic that the current palestinian population, especially the generation raised by the post-Oslo leadership (Fatah and Hamas), are radically incapable of sustaining a democracy among themselves much less participating in one created and maintained with great energy and immense risk, by the israelis.

the only reasoning that this kind of idiotic thinking — that the israelis must grant citizenship to the palestinians if they don’t “give them” their own state — is so fashionable is the result of a combination of incredibly superficial political thinking (along the lines of “hamas was elected, so it must be a democracy/israel, if it wants to be a democracy, can’t insist on being a jewish state”) and really nasty anti-zionism (make them swallow the indigestible palestinians either as citizens or as sovereign neighbors and watch them die a long and painful death).

(i know some of my commentators here will point out that i’ve just “combined” two expressions of the same thing — nasty anti-zionism. and i must confess that the superficiality of most political science right now is so breath-taking that it demands explanation, and that anti-zionism and its siamese twin anti-semitism are major candidates. but i’d like to at least allow the possibility that not every intelligent idiot is a scoundrel. there are genuine dupes of demopaths who, if they realized their folly and confronted the dangers, would change their mind.) Time to swallow the red pill.

So yes, all of your critiques are valid, but what is the alternative? It is either peace or the end of Israel as a jewish and democratic state. this is what arafat was refering to when he said palestinian victory is in the arab womb. The palestinians understand this and that is why they are so reluctant to make peace.

you speak about this reluctance as if, with the current palestinian leadership, peace is even an option. israel says: “i want a divorce!” they say, “you can’t divorce me, you’re still beating me.” and the world castigates israel.

this demographic victory is their backup. it’s a successful but not very glorious way of getting back at israel for the humiliating naqbas they’ve experienced at your hands. but why you, a democracy, have to commit suicide by granting citizenship to people motivated by such malevolence, is completley beyond me. why do you think you israelis have to do that? because the (currently insanely self-destructive) western community tells you you have to?

All the palestinians need to do is keep the conflict on a low simmer for the next two decades and they will end up with one palestinian state dominated by arabs between the jordan and the sea.

much can and will happen in 20 years. it’s always a mistake to project demographic (and other) trends linearly into the future. i gather that there’s serious debate over this demographic argument, and i certainly know that given how untrustworthy statistics can be and how intense the political meaning of any of these statistics (to which, add the long-standing palestinian practice of inflating them), that it wd be unwise to make decisions, or imagine the options, constrained by such figures. that doesn’t mean i’d ignore them, just that i wouldn’t assume them or let them dictate decisions.

Sharon eventually understood this dynamic and that is how we ened up with the disengagement.

which blew up in your face in more ways than one. remember that sharon had said to sharansky beforehand that the disengagement wouldn’t solve anything, “but at least it will prove our bona fides and get the west off our necks for a decade or so.” sorry, just as the concession whet the palestinian appetite for violence, it whet the western appetite for demonizing israel and making more demands for concessions. so even if he read the future right, sharon read the present wrong and made a policy error.

granted, staying in was also a problem, but at least, given how obvious the coming failure of the disengagement was to anyone who’s been paying attention (esp since oslo), at least the period after the disengagement could have been better prepared and handled. like bush in iraq, if you know a move of yours is going to open up a new round of hostilities, you better get ready for it, rather than assume it’ll quiet things down.

we can sit here and criticize the peace process all we want but in the end we will be facilitating the destruction of Israel as a jewish state.

presumably here you meant to end the sentence if we don’t try and do something now. i agree israel should do something. but right now, i’d argue heavily against making more concessions. i’d say israel need to make some clear and serious demands, first of which is an end to hate-mongering.

israel should not have to make concessions to a culture that rivals the nazis for genocidal desires. on the contrary, israel should be making a clear set of demands about the nature of any neighbor they should have to live with, an argument that makes clear what the demands on a population are, before they have a right to ask the international community for statehood. not every 20-year old gets the keys to a tank loaded with ammunition. if there’s anyone on the planet not worthy of statehood right now, it’s “palestine.”

now granted, you can say to me, “but even if you’re right, no one will listen to this argument. no one will go anywhere with these demands.” and in the current scene, i agree with you.

on the other hand, these arguments are really common sense, based on an appreciation of how valuable and rare civil polities are. since we face a decade of failing states and collapsing democratic experiments, it’s just possible that people will begin to acknowledge these “self-evident” truths, drowned out by the current politically correct discourse.

in any case, they stand a far greater chance of getting people to think, if, on the one hand, the israelis articulate them firmly and clearly; and on the other, she doesn’t participate in her own self-destruction by making concessions that will back fire, based on assumptions that come from malevolent-minded analysts like jimmy carter.

israel is probably the least racist society in the world, and the very notion that they are racist apartheiders if they refuse to either incorporate or empower a population brainwashed with a vicious hatred of them and a profound incapacity to even govern themselves well, is moral sadism on the part of people like carter, and masochism on the part of any israeli so lacking in perspective that he believes that accusation.

Instead we should be focusing our efforts on figuring out a way to separate from the palestinians.

yeh. and anything you do short of establish a weaponized enemy in your bosom, will be viewed as apartheid.

As hard as it is to swallow the future of israel depends on two states, one with as many jews and as few palestinians as possible, and the other with as many palestinians and as few jews as possible.

that’s one way to look at it. actually, if we’re talking about two civil polities, one israeli, one palestinian — which is what israel should hold out for and the “left” should insist on for the sake of the palestinian people, and which reflects a real confidence in the possibilities of the palestinians overcoming their unfortunate legacies — then they should have a fair ability to tolerate such minorities. in fact the palestinians could use israeli help and know-how.

think of it: under the most trying circumstances, israel is the civil polity (democracy) with the largest percentage of muslims in the world. quite an accomplishment i’d say, no matter what criticisms one might want to add. so israel has a right to demand reciprocity at even a heavily diminished level, say, the right to incorporate the major settlements into israel since the palestinians are incapable of protecting the rights of christians, much less jews, in the areas they rule. instead israel bows its head in shame at how they’ve treated the arabs. now that‘s shameful.

i think it’s important not to make up your mind about the future. maybe it’s time for the israelis to get zen, get “don’t-know-mind” and start with (the painful, non-delusional reading of) the now. so much of israeli policy decision (including their semi-conscious “hasbarah” policies) are based on a profoundly faulty analysis of what motivates the palestinian/arab/muslim world, and what motivates various elements (political spectrum) and areas (academia, media) in the west.

we can’t find the solution till we first find out what alternative sources of leverage we have. i for one am really big on embarrassment. the arabs/palestinians are deeply susceptible to public rebuke. it’s time for the west to start getting tough verbally. and that’s a truth with a future. otherwise, it’ll be terrible violence. since that’s what the worst of them want, we — israel, the usa, the west — would be advised to start talking intelligently and courageously sooner rather than later.

94 Responses to Israel’s “Three Choices”: A tentative response to “israeli”

  1. Lorenz Gude says:

    Bravo for the main thrust of this piece – Yes, Israel should start making demands with both force and clarity. The apologetic attitude just invites more demonetization. The distinct improvement in the way Israel waged information war during Cast Lead as opposed to the 2006 war is a step in this general direction and very hopeful. I would also say my experience of the reaction to Sharon’s withdrawal from Gaza is different than yours – as a non-Jew who has a lot of non Jewish leftist friends. I noticed that the intellectually honest ones expressed admiration for what Sharon did and were distraught at his stroke. They really believed in land for peace. (I was always extremely uncomfortable with the whole notion.) Put it this way. They never mention the Palestinian cause since they saw what the Palestinians did with Gaza, just like they never mention Iraq since Petraeus turned it around. The intellectually dishonest ones will continue as usual, but Israel not standing up for itself only encourages these people. I think that Israel has to keep harping on the idea that they tried land for peace and it did not work. And that they want a real two state solution that absolutely has to meet certain minimum standards. In short, I think your call for Israel to be more demanding breaks some new ground.

  2. Cynic says:

    “but at least it will prove our bona fides and get the west off our necks for a decade or so.” sorry, just as the concession whet the palestinian appetite for violence, it whet the western appetite for demonizing israel and making more demands for concessions.

    While proving Israel’s bona fides it seems to have proven too the West’s deceitful behaviour covered by sanctimonious concern over the years.

    RL,
    Don’t forget that embarrassing the Arabs via the Danish cartoons proved too much for the West to stomach.
    Using articles as some have tried has led to accusations of Islamophobia, so most probably coming out of official Israel would lead to indignant rebukes from the Whitehouse further strengthening the arab position.
    Given the past contretemps with Washington it seems that Israel has yet to find an ally with enough integrity to stand up and face the facts.

  3. israeli says:

    Thanks for the response,
    Let me make a few clarifications…
    You wrote:
    “so we won’t find real solutions if we don’t do more reality testing (ie shed our liberal cognitive egocentrism, pay real attention to what’s going on on the other side, and learn to identify and isolate demopaths). “
    That is exactly why I wrote here. Too often those who are offering solutions are blinded by what you call lce. But equally problematic is that those like yourself, who are more clear sighted when it comes to the Palestinians spend all your time and effort attacking demopaths instead of applying your understanding to help us move toward a solution. I know you said you think that a solution is not possible, but I disagree. I think that the reason a solution is so hard to come by is because of the reasons I just mentioned. LCE and demopaths have been the only ones offering any solutions and people who are not demopaths or lce spend most of their time criticizing and not offering their own solutions.
    Your suggestions that the Israelis should demand Palestinian reform before moving is problematic. The Palestinians have no incentive to reform because they, correctly, think that if they do not reform and the conflict continues, they will end up with a one state solution. And in a one state solution they will be in charge. The only time the Palestinians have shown any openness to change was in the early 90s when Arafat thought that an enormous wave of 5 or 6 million Russian Jews would immigrate to Israel, and Israel would settle them in the West Bank. These numbers never materialized, but it is a good lesson. Only if the Palestinians think that they will lose in the end will they do anything. Right now they think time is on their side. And they are right. The reason they are right is the settlements
    Israel is able to treat the Palestinians as non-citizens is because they are not considered to live within the state of Israel. The territories are a separate entity and legally the Israeli government considers it the same way it would consider land of another state. It relies on international law, not Israeli state law. Once it becomes clear that the West Bank is not a separate entity that can be separated from the state it will no longer be possible to rely on international law and Israel will have to govern it under Israeli law… and grant the Palestinians citizenship. You may be against this, but most Israelis would have a serious problem (as they should) with an apartheid state. As for the settlers… they are not building new legal settlements outside areas they believe will be a part of Israel in an 2 state solutions, but the hill top youth and other groups are certainly building illegal settlements that the Israeli government has been reluctant to dismantle. These groups are very open about their desire to make the West Bank inseparable from Israel proper. Just look at the settlement patterns. They are not in clusters but in lines that cut horizontally across the West Bank. This is obvious to anyone who follows the hebrew press. I will do some digging and see if I can get you a couple of good examples. The reason for the settlers doing this is obvious: make it that no contiguous Palestinian state could be formed.

    There are solutions, but it will take people like you to reach them. If you claim that they are not listening to you it is because many israelis see the continuation of the conflict as an existential threat. It is as if you are telling a sick man not to go to the doctor because the doctor is has been wrong in the past. Well, the other choice is to do nothing and to waist away. What we need now is a new doctor, not critiques of the old ones.

  4. E.G. says:

    first we have to think seriously and realistically about the situation before we can come up with solutions.

    You mean that good problem-solving should start by defining and analysing the problem?
    That particularly complex problems often need restructuring before starting the search for means to handle them?

    it is an acceptance of the current palestinian negotiating stance as immutable — ie the settlements are the reason why there’s not been a 2-state solution yet (eg why Oslo failed)

    Are settlements the problem? The sole one? The main one?
    I thought the main problem for the Arabs of former Palestine was the establishment of an independent, viable state. And the main problem for Israel is ensuring a secure Jewish state.

    At that point the palestinians will demand citizenship

    Well, that would be a change. After more than 60 years of hereditary refugee status, having both refused to take any citizenship of the few that have been offered, and having been denied citizenship by countries around Israel, fiat lux!
    And on what basis should Israel grant them citizenship? Which Intl. law can be evoked for such a case?

    There are many sovereign states whose population include citizens and residents. The latter don’t have the same rights as the former. If that’s apartheid – many should plead guilty.

    Instead we should be focusing our efforts on figuring out a way to separate from the palestinians.

    That’s the easy part. Retract to the coastal strip, and let them have all the rest. Is that good enough? Can/do you trust your new neighbour to happily devote themselves to constructing a peaceful state? On what basis? For how long? And the dreaded womb won’t be a threat any more in a few decades? We won’t read articles about former Ariel being the most densely populated area in the world? And its poverty stricken populace denied access to that blooming Jewish port of Haifa?

    And in all the exchange terrorism was not even mentioned. Nor the “Palestinian” chronic incapacity to coalesce. As a matter of fact, I’d like someone to let me know what, except from a narrative, have the Arabs of former Palestine constructed. Ever.

    RL – embarrassment? Wasn’t 1973 a war intended to wipe off the 1967 shame stain, the one that the 1967 war wanted to remove since 1956 and 1948? Hasn’t recovering an honourable status been one of the main motives of Arab terrorism?
    Actually, commentator israeli is on the embarrassment trail: working out Israeli brains in order to find an embarrassment of riches to offer Scylla and Charybdis.

  5. E.G. says:

    israeli,

    Only if the Palestinians think that they will lose in the end will they do anything.

    a. A similar fear of losing is driving the Israelis. Some fear to lose land, others fear losing moral standards, etc. See: the discussion below on Cog-war.

    b. How about letting the “Palestinians” know, now, that they do have things to lose?

  6. Jeremy says:

    We have made many mistakes in the past, but our most serious mistake is that we have been engaging in monologue with the Palestinians.

    “If we do this, then they will HAVE to do that”
    “If we give them this, then they will no longer have any excuse to do that”
    “Let’s give them an offer they cannot refuse”

    etc. etc.

    We have spent years convincing ourselves that we know what the Palestinians need, what they are thinking, what they will agree to. All we have achieved is a situation even worse than before and complete distrust on both sides. Time to stop these increasingly dangerous assumptions!

  7. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    Just read your comment on the previous thread:

    Maybe,just maybe, in cases like this the problem was not correctly defined (it seems that the definition arrived at today is a distortion of historical facts and there’s no compunction to insist on them). Redefine it and see what solutions come to mind. Of course that requires calling a spade a spade and sufficient integrity to see it through.

    Hear! hear!
    and me too – #4 above.

    HEAR ISRAELI !

  8. obsy says:

    “i think, however, that in the current situation, demanding solutions is a luxury we can’t afford.”

    True!

    Also, there are problems for which no solutions exist.
    Often looking for a solution of a specified problem is inferior to looking for a good state in a broader problem formulation. In the Israel-Palestinian case even the status quo is better than the proposed peace plan.

    Instead of praising things simply because they call themself “solution” (like user “israeli” does), we must look for the best outcome that we can spot (including so called “solutions”).

    Demanding solutions instead of relatively good outcomes is a problem.

    Currently, even the status quo alone is better than the “solutions”. Status quo + investigation (what Richard suggests) is superior by far.

  9. obsy says:

    Imagine the following:

    A bear has chased you onto a tree. Now a friend to your left starts to saw the branch on which you sit. You tell him, “Stop it!”. Then he asks, “Do you have a better solution?”, and continues to saw.

  10. obsy says:

    Btw:

    As I read user “israeli” ‘s doctor analogy …
    Ironically many atheists are solution-driven.

    All People will die. Without god – you lose everything.
    Religiousness proposes a solution (or a “solution” if you prefer.)
    It is irrational to demand the stupidest “solutions” elsewhere and at the same time reject that most important issue because it lacks data for a definite decision.

    Big critical thinkers believe in “peace deals” and laugh about religious fanatics. Peacemongers are the real fanatics!

  11. obsy says:

    One last thought:

    Rejecting the status quo as an option hits conservatism right in the face!

  12. E.G. says:

    Where’s oao?
    I seek someone to disagree with!

  13. israeli says:

    There has been a lot of talk here about the feasibility of reaching a solution. I think this defeatist attitude is part of the problem. Allow me to float an idea… just for the sake of discussion…
    We all know the Palestinians are not at this point capable of running a state that will can offer Israel any sense of security. Sharon’s disengagement was an obvious failure (this does not however change the dynamic of the demographic problem that led to the idea of disengagement, it means the solution was flawed, but the problem still remains alive and well) and it show that the Palestians want more than for Israel to withdraw from the territories. However, Sharon’s disengagement is not the only way to go about disengaging. We should look at Israel’s presence in the West Bank not as a singular activity. It actually contains two clearly distinct aspects. One is the settlements and the other is the IDF/security element. Why not disengage only the settlements? Create the boarders of a contiguous Palestinian state, but keep the IDF there. Keep the road blocks and checkpoints and occupying government. Then you have switched the time element. Time would then be on Israel’s side. The Israelis could then make all the demands they want and could wait 100 years if need be for the Palestinians to meet them. There would be no threat of a one state solution because it would be clear that the Palestinians have a state in waiting, just as soon as they are willing to meet the requirements inherent in living as a peaceful neighbour. This would also put much more pressure on them to reform. Right now there is no incentive to reform because they think that if they do not they will end up with everything. In the situation I put forth, they will know that not reforming will not lead to a one state solution. It will only lead to further Palestinian suffering, which when warranted, Israel should not be shy about dishing out. I must emphasis this is not meant as a concession to the Palestinians. This is about Israel’s future security, not about the interests of the Palestinians. Neither is this meant to appease the international community. I doubt whether that is possible. But the international community/MSM is not nearly as big a threat as the one state solution.
    This is just a thought experiment, but it seems to offer both long and short term security. The situation we have now, offers short but not long term security.

  14. nelson says:

    What I simply cannot understand is the behaviour of a large part of the Israeli elite. Few elites in the world, in the democratic world at least, are more inclined to act against the deepest interests of their constituencies. There’s no such thing as a French Meretz or a Spanish or Russian Tzipi Livni. Either they are incredibly stupid and their only wish is to please the EU and the State Dept. or they are actually corrupt and being financed by Israel’s enemies. OK, the US may have its Chomkys and Michael Moores, but their chances of becoming president are very slim indeed. But even with the country under perpetual siege, attacked from Lebanon and Gaza, waiting for the Iranian bomb, there are enough people there to vote for Kadima, Meretz, Labour, for people who actually subvert the country’s security and make negative propaganda of it abroad (and I’m not talking about the Arab fifth column). In the Arab countries, those politicians who are seen as betraying them, those who would sign a meaningless piece of paper emptily promising to recognize Israel are murdered sooner or later. Those in Israel who actually do much worse things are not even voted out of office. The truth is: Israel has probably the most self-destructive elite in the whole world and too many voters continue to back it. Can Israel survive its politicians, media and intellectuals?

  15. E.G. says:

    israeli,

    There has been a lot of talk here about the feasibility of reaching a solution.

    No, it’s more about the present way of searching for a solution, and the Israeli precipitated race after a solution.

    I think this defeatist attitude is part of the problem.

    Defeatist attitude? Look who’s talking!

    Right now there is no incentive to reform because they think that if they do not they will end up with everything.

    Are you sure that incentives (to reform) can only be external?
    Getting organised, abandon counterproductive ways, adopt constructive policies… all this has to be bought? Isn’t there a shred of an internal need for a civil society?

    I’ve been wondering about this statement:
    Once it becomes clear that the West Bank is not a separate entity that can be separated from the state it will no longer be possible to rely on international law and Israel will have to govern it under Israeli law… and grant the Palestinians citizenship.

    Where on earth did you get these notions? Where did you find this scenario? While you’re at it, why don’t you mention the necessary dismantling of the UNRWA – and the consequences of that?

    And what makes you sure that dismantling the settlements will be perceived as you state (wish) it will?

  16. JD says:

    “At that point the palestinians will demand citizenship and Israel will have the choice of apatheid or a democracy that is dominated by the soon to be arab majority.”

    “Israeli” sounds like Bill Clinton of late. Essentially, avoid the Hamas matter, the Arab camp besides Syria is pulling for a deal, resurrect the “settlements are the barrier to peace” slogan, despite the fact Arafat rejected the deal addressing such earlier.

    Its a continuation of the “blame Israel” fashion and avoid, even ignore Palestinian actions. The acceptance that Israel has an “existential threat” is a concession that left wing Western discourse must make to a post-9/11 world where the internet allows the people to get through news and information media filters, which prior denied and suppressed the reality of such threat. Here, it is shaped to be a fault on Israel’s part for a lack of action on their own part, not a quality inherent in their enemies.

    This line of attack might work if, and only if, the West Bank is separated from Gaza. There are no settlements in Gaza, and Israel pulled out, yet violence increased, a palpable and undeniable problem for left wing anti-Israel narrative construction.

    If a separate deal is made on the West Bank, where the Arab League has sway, it could be quickly done in the form of a UN protectorate. The UN would love this, codifying their income stream from the area.

  17. Rich Rostrom says:

    RL: “by any sane rules of the democratic game, the “palestinians” have no right to demand citizenship and the israelis are under no moral obligation to grant either to them.”

    Jefferson: “Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

    Lincoln: “No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.”

    Israel has, unquestionably, the right to enforce order in the territories and suppress attacks on her – to exercise military government over occupied territory.

    But that right is intrinsically temporary and emergency. If Israel asserts permanent civil authority over the territories, while denying the inhabitants representation in the government, then Israel will become a real apartheid state.

    Also, I take Lincoln’s dictum a step further: No people is so virtuous that they can exercise government over another people with perfect justice. Israelis are not angels; there are serious problems with corruption and with ethnic rivalry among Israeli Jews. If Israel has under its permanent rule a large population with no political rights, that will be a standing invitation to abuse.

    What is to be the end state? It seems to me there are only five alternatives.

    1) Perpetual military rule, justified by perpetual Arab hostility.

    2) Annexation with denial of citizenship; that is, quasi-apartheid.

    3) Annexation with citizenship, which is national suicide.

    4) Annexation with “population transfer”.

    5) Two “states”: Israel, including such parts of the territories that are predominantly Jewish, and some kind of autonomous Palestinian entity with civil authority over such territories as Israel does not annex.

    (1) is the present condition. (2), (3), and (4) are impossible. (5) is impossible now, because of the deranged hostility and civil chaos among Palestinians.

    But it is also impossible as long as Israel maintains numerous settlements with de facto extraterritorial status outside its borders. That policy appears to give the settler movement an implicit veto of any final settlement. While that is true, a lot of otherwise sympathetic people will not support Israel.

    BTW, this post seems to be seriously deficient in capital letters.

  18. israeli says:

    EG,
    My comment on the status of the teritories under Israeli law is not an opinion. According to the Israeli government, Palestinians are ruled by military occupation. This is not something that is debated. An Israeli soidler cannot arest a settler because the settlements are ruled by Israeli civil/criminal law, but the same soilder can arrest a palestinian because Israeli law does not apply to them. My arguement is that once the West Bank becomes inseperable from Israel proper, this situation will no longer be realistic.

    Dismantle UNRWA if you want… it does not make one bit of differnce. If you allow the settlements to remain/expand we are headed toward a one state solution.

    Yes there can be internal incentive, but whay should Israelis leave their fate up to the (unrealistic) hope that this will happen. Israelis should take matters into thier own hands and preserve the states long term status as both Jewish and Democratic.

    Also, earlier you stated that other states have seperate laws for citizens and non-citizens. Which states are you refering to? If you are refering to the situation in the gulf arab states, I would say that yes that could be considered a type of aparthied, and no one claims any of those states are democratic. But I hope you are using them as abar by which to judge Israel. If you you must have a very low opinion of Israel. If you are refering to various European states where some immigrats do not have citizen ship, that is a differnt situation than what we have in the West Bank. In the West bank there are two seperate systems os law. One military and one civil. I would like you to show me another democratic state where that is the case. And even in Europe, the children of those imigrats can become citizens. It is not automatic, and it may be difficult at times but they can do it. Palestinians as of now cannot become citizens. This is only justifiable because the Teritories are governed by the military as if they are a foreign country. Once it is clear that they are not seperate, nor will they every be seperate from Israel proper this situation will no longer be acceptable… not to most Israeli citizens, and not to the world.

    Nelson,
    That is a fair question. As wrong as they sometimes are, I think Israel can survie its MSM etc.. But I would also ask you if Israel can survive the continued settlement of the West Bank. I dont think it can.

  19. E.G. says:

    Rich Rostrom,

    6) Restitution, minus corrections, to Jordan (6.1 – custody?).

  20. oao says:

    well, i understand and agree to what RL proposes, of course, but I do not think it addresses what is implied by the israeli question.

    so we won’t find real solutions if we don’t do more reality testing (ie shed our liberal cognitive egocentrism, pay real attention to what’s going on on the other side, and learn to identify and isolate demopaths).

    indeed, any solution of the kind rl suggests will have to be predicated on changes in israel which will eventually cause changes in both the west and the pals. the problem is that even if israel abruptly changes along the suggested lines tomorrow, it won’t cause the necessary changes in the west and the pals, for various reasons that I explained in other threads. it’s simply too late.

    the world has decided that the jews are at best an inconvenience and at worst the new nazis. and the pals, sensing that they manage to fool the west and the US into abandoning israel, have no incentive to change.

    if the question was what israel can do for a solution, then the answer is nothing, short of doing its best despite the abandonment to defend itself for as long as it can. it can extend the time by hugely disproportional responses, provided it can muster the resources for it and sustain an enormous creativity. the crisis of leadership, including the army’s, makes
    it quite difficult. by turning into a typical western society israel has been losing the resources to survive as a country under constant and unending siege.

    if you won’t move off your current paradigm till you have a solution in sight for this problem, you will go nowhere.

    we won’t, but this won’t mean going nowhere. it will mean israel will be removed, either by attrition, or by coordinated attacks, or both. and this time there will be NOBODY to prevent it.

  21. oao says:

    Also, I take Lincoln’s dictum a step further: No people is so virtuous that they can exercise government over another people with perfect justice. Israelis are not angels; there are serious problems with corruption and with ethnic rivalry among Israeli Jews. If Israel has under its permanent rule a large population with no political rights, that will be a standing invitation to abuse.

    frankly, I don’t give a damn about the degree of abuse which is likely to occur by israel, for 2 reasons:

    1. the pals are genocidal and israel is already treating them too fairly, enabling them to keep murdering israelis

    2. the pals are treating each other so much worse than any abuse israel can apply.

    period.

    so my concern is not with israel ‘s unfairness and abuse. it is with israel’s ability to sustain the rule over the pals with the whole idiotic world, including now the US against them.

  22. abu yussif says:

    sorry, but living here for several in israel with my arab family, i’m just not seeing any apartheid at all. granted, i live mostly among jews (who know we are christian and arab) one might think the “apartheid” claim would be most apparent. to the contrary. at times i feel we have been given preferential treatment because we are a minority. sometimes not. in other words, i feel we are treated quite normally. if we lived among muslims, however, i wouldn’t say what i did, mainly because of how they (muslims) treat our christian family where they live.

    but that’s just my experience and what do i know?

  23. Chaim says:

    How about complete disengagement from the West Bank as well as Gaza?

    Borders closed to all goods, services and persons, with no exceptions – no emergency cases evacuated to Israeli hospitals – no water or oil or anything else. An absolute return to pre-summer ’67.

    Don’t control a thing going into either the West Bank or Gaza, even if Israel knows weapons are being imported. Operate borders in accordance with international conventions. Wait until the PA decides to recognize Israel and exchange ambassadors. Make them completely responsible for their own state – do not interfere with their society. Israel can make it known to the world repeatedly that they accept and recognise the Palestinian state and the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people, and if the Palestinian people choose not to seek peaceful co-existence with Israel and normalised inter-state relations that is their prerogative.

    Thoughts?

  24. E.G. says:

    israeli,

    Nice getting a little closer to reality.
    It’s military government in the Territories. And it’s Kosher according to Intl. law.

    Now, could you please explain why the West-bank would become part of Israel?

    FYI, in most Western countries the citizenship is legally restricted. Even EU citizens of one country residing in another EU country do not benefit from full rights.

    Regarding UNRWA – the first implication is abandoning the refugee status (what happens to the “right” of return?). The second is having to do something for a living and some other services (e.g. education).

    Yes there can be internal incentive, but whay should Israelis leave their fate up to the (unrealistic) hope that this will happen.

    Give’em a state! Now, right away. If it turns into Hamastan – a nice and orderly neighbour – or Balagan, who cares? The main idea is to just separate. Your moral is worth more than your life, is that it? Life is not worth living if it’s not moral? And by whose standards?

    Israelis should take matters into thier own hands and preserve the states long term status as both Jewish and Democratic.

    And pluralistic. Please don’t forget that.

  25. israeli says:

    EG,
    Yes it is a military government and it is legal under international law. I never argued anything other than that. But what you don’t seem to understand is that it is only legal because the West Bank is seen as a seperate entity from Israel proper. It is a separate distinguishable territory. Now, if settlement continues, then the West Bank will cease to be a separate distinguishable territory and under international law Israel will have to grant the residents rights that residents of Israel posses.

    You claim that “FYI, in most Western countries the citizenship is legally restricted. Even EU citizens of one country residing in another EU country do not benefit from full rights.” I said almost the exact same thing earlier. But this in no way parallels the situation in the West Bank. Please give me an example of an EU where military law applies to some residents and civil law to others?

    You wirte: ” Give’em a state! Now, right away. If it turns into Hamastan – a nice and orderly neighbour – or Balagan, who cares? The main idea is to just separate. Your moral is worth more than your life, is that it? Life is not worth living if it’s not moral? And by whose standards?”

    When did I ever call for giving them a state? I said that the IDF should continue to occupy the West Bank until the Palestinians change their ways, and I said that I don’t care if it takes 100 years… But what does that have to do with the settlements? The settlements have nothing to do with security.

    As far as UNRWA… who cares about the Palestinian right of return or about the UN education. Under the scenario I put forth Israel could wait until the Palestinians forget the right of return, and if the Palestinians decide to continue with the UN or not does not matter. Until they meet the criteria for living peaceably with Israel they will not have a state. Its up to them how they wish to meet those goals.

    But, only by ending the settlement of the West Bank can Israel wait these things out. If settlement does not end the West Bank will become an inseperable part of Israel and the Palestinians will end up with one unifed, Arab controlled state between teh Jordan and the sea.

  26. E.G. says:

    israeli,

    Now consider the Golan plateau. It’s been annexed by Israel.
    Don’t the Druze there benefit from special status and extra-rights? Isn’t it a negotiable territory, despite the Israeli civil presence there?

  27. israeli says:

    JD,
    Your post seems to sugest that I was calling for a disengagement from the West Bank similar to that of Gaza. You should reread what I wrote. I called for pulling out the settlers but not the IDF. This will ease the demographic question but not lead to a security meltdown.

    Chaim,
    That is an interesting idea, except for one thing… rockets. If we pulled the IDF out of the West Bank, rockets would soon be falling on Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and ben gorion airport.

  28. israeli says:

    EG,
    You are correct that the situation in the West Bank would resemble the situation in the Golan.
    On the Golan the Druze can have Israeli citizenship. Like the Palestinians in Jeruslam they can chose to declare citizenship but do not. The Golan Druze the Jerusalm Arabs are a small minority and they consider it stratigicly benificial not to declare citizenship. However, if the situation arose where they would be the majority, I am pretty sure they would declare citizenship.

  29. oao says:

    chaim,

    are you serious?

  30. oao says:

    Give’em a state! Now, right away. If it turns into Hamastan – a nice and orderly neighbour – or Balagan, who cares?

    i would suspect the israelis who want to live do.

  31. oao says:

    Now, if settlement continues, then the West Bank will cease to be a separate distinguishable territory and under international law Israel will have to grant the residents rights that residents of Israel posses.

    why???

    The settlements have nothing to do with security.

    are you sure?

    if arabs lived in the settlements area, would security be harder to achieve, or easier? and without the settlements, useful idiots like olmert, livni and barak would have long done a ghaza on the wb; would that have not affected security, you think?

    Until they meet the criteria for living peaceably with Israel they will not have a state. Its up to them how they wish to meet those goals.

    you seem to disregard the fact that now even the US has stopped requiring them to adhere to meet the criteria. if they have not until now, what is the chance they will do it now?

    But, only by ending the settlement of the West Bank can Israel wait these things out. If settlement does not end the West Bank will become an inseperable part of Israel and the Palestinians will end up with one unifed, Arab controlled state between teh Jordan and the sea.

    on the contrary, that will speed up its destruction.
    your 2nd statement is simply false.

  32. oao says:

    I called for pulling out the settlers but not the IDF.

    whether the idf leaves or not it’ll be interpreted as weakness by the pals. this is part. so since it’ll be done after the US has turned against israel too.

    why not stick to their guns and demanding more from the west? after all it’s been very effective for the last 60 years — they are finally getting all they want.

    However, if the situation arose where they would be the majority, I am pretty sure they would declare citizenship.

    but that will probably happen in proper israel anyway, regardless of golan, jerusalem and wb!!!!! then what?

  33. E.G. says:

    As far as UNRWA… who cares about the Palestinian right of return or about the UN education.

    Guess who?
    Hereditary refugees. Indoctrinated for generations in UNRWA schools that they are the rightful owners of the land on which your Jaffa/Ramat-Aviv/Petah-Tikva home stands.

    Until recently, quite a few EU countries have not been models of civil rights at all, and de facto segregation was in practice. I think there still is.

    At any rate, what you’re suggesting is keeping military law in the West-bank, which indeed is humiliating and oppressing and depriving. Especially for those suspected to be engaged in “friendly” activity towards Israel. So for a little carrot of Judenrein Judea-Samaria (very respectful of the rights of full Israeli citizens, mind you), you go on with the big military stick, waiting for the “Palestinian” Godot.
    Don’t forget his 34 brothers and 26 sisters.

  34. oao says:

    Guess who?

    apparently alibama and shrillary, who have dumped 900B on it.

    Until recently, quite a few EU countries have not been models of civil rights at all, and de facto segregation was in practice. I think there still is.

    part. with respect to their jewish citizens, wouldn’t you say?

    At any rate, what you’re suggesting is keeping military law in the West-bank, which indeed is humiliating and oppressing and depriving.

    vastly more benign than the rule of hamas or even fatah.

  35. E.G. says:

    No, I wasn’t thinking about Jews.
    Some minorities such as Transylvanians, expelled Germans… I recall an article about Chinese (construction?) workers in Romania or Bulgaria locked-up in some hangar…

  36. JD says:

    Putative “Israeli” writes,

    JD,
    Your post seems to sugest that I was calling for a disengagement from the West Bank similar to that of Gaza. You should reread what I wrote. I called for pulling out the settlers but not the IDF. This will ease the demographic question but not lead to a security meltdown.

    Nope. I was calling you on the demographic issue. Israel will never “take in” or have to “take in” the West Bankers, occupied or not. The population dynamic “concern” is within its borders. Clinton, others i’ve seen combine the Population bomb issue and democracy concerns with the West bank matter. The way the concern comes up with the West bank is a reason why NOT the Israelis annex it. Possibly, there is an assumption Israel MUST annex it if the two state deal is dead, which is not true. The status quo can remain, or a UN protectorate can be established in the West Bank, the latter under cover of (rightfully) blaming Hamas as spoiler of a “two state” solution.

    BTW, the number of Palestinians is grossly inflated for UN welfare purposes

  37. Chaim says:

    oao and israeli,

    regarding post #22, that wasn’t serious. I saw the proposal earlier today in the comments section here and felt like running it by the folks here:

    http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000662.html

    I’m with you guys….it’s suicidal. The loony left would love an end to occupation and settlements, and especially love seeing Jews reliving our roles as eternal victims again once rockets start hitting Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

    Of course as soon as Israel retaliates “disproportionately”, that same left would hate Israel and the Jews even more than they do today. The withdrawal would be viewed as a diabolical Israeli plot to move the settlers out of the way in order to commit mass genocide against the innocent Pals. Like Camp David 2000 and Gaza 2005, another Israeli concession equates to even more hatred by the world. Israel can’t win.

    I can’t think of any solution that would work. The PA and Muslim world simply won’t allow for peace. They can’t even get along with each other. What makes anyone think that they wish to get along with the hated Jooz? Even if by some miracle Israel made real peace with the Palestinians, there’s simply no way the rest of the Arab world would join in. They can’t let go of their scapegoat. And even if they did sing kumbaya with Israel, there’s still Iran/Syria/Hizbullanon and of course, the loony left that would support Iran/Syria/Hizbullanon. It’s hopeless.

    Israel simply needs to do what’s best for Israel. They can do nothing aside from commit suicide to please anyone else.

  38. oao says:

    No, I wasn’t thinking about Jews.

    yes, i know. but I was adding them to the argument, to reinforce it.

    The status quo can remain, or a UN protectorate can be established in the West Bank, the latter under cover of (rightfully) blaming Hamas as spoiler of a “two state” solution.

    sure, but for how long in the current int’l atmosphere?

    The loony left would love an end to occupation and settlements, and especially love seeing Jews reliving our roles as eternal victims again once rockets start hitting Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

    to be honest, I would not be too sorry having them under sharia and obligated to convert to islam or pay jiziya. too bad this can’t be achieved without saving all the rational israelis from it.

    I can’t think of any solution that would work.

    the only solution would be for the west to gather what’s left of its balls and face jihad as it should be faced. but even if they wanted to do it today, i doubt it’s not too late, part. after the alibama election. and they don’t wanna. THAT’s what’s hopeless and at the very least it’s good that the west will pay its own price for it. except israel will pay it sooner.

    as i keep saying: in the direction the west is going i don’t see any justification for it to persist. where are the greeks and the romans, now? they were civilized too. when they weren’t no more they were dismantled.

  39. oao says:

    folks: if the west now including the US keeps preventing the pals from incurring any cost from their genocidal behavior, how is israel gonna keep it up?

  40. israeli says:

    oao,
    you jpost article gets right to the point. the pals do not think they have to change and they wont change under the current circumstances. But there are things we can do to begin to change their mind. for example, as i have stated repeatedly above. show them that unless they change they will not improve their lives…ever. right now they think they do not need to change because in the end they will end up with everything they want. and they are right.

  41. oao says:

    But there are things we can do to begin to change their mind. for example, as i have stated repeatedly above.

    no, we can’t.

    show them that unless they change they will not
    improve their lives…ever. right now they think they do not need to change because in the end they will end up with everything they want. and they are right.

    1. that’s only one reason they won’t change.

    2. the other is that their first priority is to destroy israel, no matter what the price. it’s one half of the core of their identity and israel is a shame that overrides everything else.

    3. the other half of the core is islam: they are not permitted BY ALLAH to allow any infidels be sovereign on land that is considered islamic land.

    this is the fallacy of obama, of the israeli elite and the entire west: that they are “just like us” and because we can be “bribed” with life improvements so can they, hence the huge jiziya for which they have nothing to show.

    well, if they are willing to die by the tone, to scarifice their children to destroy israel, how can anybody in his right mind believe they can be affected by life improvements?

    this is

  42. obsy says:

    User ‘israeli’: “show them that unless they change they will not improve their lives…ever. right now they think they do not need to change because in the end they will end up with everything they want. and they are right.”

    So the first step to show them that they will not improve is to give them what they want?

    If you take your kind of thought seriously and start to think from the beginning, you come to a different solution:

    For every aggression they show against Israel, take something away from them. Until they have learned. Even “apartheid” or “military rule” do not have to be kept up eternal. Once they calm, normalization can take place.

    I would agree that this is a better and more realistic option than “peace plans” or whetting Palestinian appetite again with another concession in advance.

    There is no need for Israel to show its bonhomie, because the world does not want to see it. (Even the US will change)
    There is no benefit in giving up the territories, because the Palestinians are already living in the Israeli heartland. They are called Israeli Arabs and reproduce fast.

    Btw: I don’t like the term “Israeli Arabs” because it masks the religious element.

    But I don’t believe in a solution. Part of this is because the Al Aqsa mosque stands on the spot of the third temple. And face it: No Land For Peace will change that ever!
    I don’t believe in a solution, because I know Islam. Jews would at best be allowed with minor rights under moderate Muslim control.
    You can call it Apartheid, if you will. But as history tells us, not all Muslims are moderate and you would eventually learn what the word “massacre” really means. It might take some generations.

    But let’s say there would be eternal Apartheid. Would you feel better as a Dhimmi? Less guilt. Less responsibility. Less life.

    I don’t believe in peace deals. I see that the current situation is far better. Hectic decisions are doomed to fail, again.

  43. nelson says:

    The situation is fluid, not static. Israel alone cannot do very much, except resist. But that it has to do, waiting for better times, when, for instance, the Gulf States start getting really afraid of Iran or when the Europeans get fed up with their own Muslim minorities. When things like these happen, the Palestinians will lose much of the world sympathy they still have. Right now, however, it is quite a bad time to negotiate anything with them. There were other times when, due to their own misguded decisions, they had to negotiate from a position of weakness: that happened immediately after Arafat backed Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. What Israel needs is patience because waiting for better conditions can take long, even decades. But so what? In the meantime Israel becomes stronger and the Palestinians poorer and weaker. Even now, during the Gaza skirmish, they got more symbollic (and useless) help from European leftists and Muslims than any kind of practical help from their own Arab brothers. Actually time works in Israel’s favour.

  44. E.G. says:

    israeli,

    From what/how you write, it appears you’re feeling threatened. If that’s the case, could you specify by what?
    And, if there are more than one threatening elements, can you classify them (e.g., by importance)?

  45. E.G. says:

    obsy,

    Btw: I don’t like the term “Israeli Arabs” because it masks the religious element.

    But Israeli Arabs do have numerous religions.

  46. Cynic says:

    E.G.

    In a way it’s like the way Hindus in Britain are lumped together with Muslims as “Asian”. “Asian gangs” applied to those Muslim murders of that Scots teenager should have had the Indians rioting to be so slandered.

  47. Eliyahu says:

    Abu Yussif is right about “apartheid”. That was just a clever pejorative label brought in to smear Israel. In fact, I think certain British and American mouthpieces of anti-Israel policy were using it before the Arabs were. I wonder if younger people really know what apartheid in South Africa was. It was like jimcrow in the southern USA which lasted into the 1960s, but worse than jimcrow. Everything was segregated, trolley cars, schools, residential areas, restaurants, public toilets, hospitals [if I'm not mistaken], etc etc. Whereas in the US South, Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus, in South Africa there were separate buses by law. Such a system never existed in Israel. If you visit a shopping center in Israel –I live in Jerusalem– you can see many Arabs there, eating in restaurants, shopping, trying on expensive clothing, looking at window displays like anybody else. The Muslim women stand out because they usually wear a cloth tight around their heads, something like Casper the Friendly Ghost, although they seldom wear veils here. On the other hand, many of these Muslim women –besides their head wrappings– make sure that their eye brows are well trimmed, that their eyelashes are well groomed, that their makeup is properly applied, that their pants are revealingly tight, lip gloss [is that what it's called] on their lips, expensive shoes on their feet, jewelry, etc. My wife was in a shopping mall today and gave me a report. I’m sure many of the Jews are jealous at this display of prosperity by Arabs, especially since we hear the same poormouthing propaganda about the Arabs here that you hear in the West. Well, jimmy carter is already accusing Israel of “apartheid.” But it seems to me that he is advocating apartheid by denying the Jewish right to live in Judea-Samaria. So it seems that our “Israeli” is the one advocating apartheid insofar as he follows jimmy carter’s hostility to settlements.

    Rich R, the official Israel govt policy denies that Israel is “occupying” Judea-Samaria. Israel officially has been saying that the territories are “administered” and that the issue of rightful sovereignty over them has not been decided. Note that the Green Line was never a border but only an armistice line. This was because the Arab parties to the armistice accords [Rhodes 1949] refused to make peace on the basis of those lines, never recognized them as borders, never recognized Israel as a state, etc. Also read about the Three Noes of Khartoum of 1967. One of these was No Peace with Israel. Rich, note that all of the land between the Jordan and the sea was part of the Jewish National Home [east of the Jordan was too but let's leave that area out of the discussion for the sake of simplicity] as decided by San Remo [1920] and endorsed by the League of Nations in 1922. The UN Gen’l Assembly partition resolution of 11-29-1947 was merely a recommendation as are all UN Gen’l Assembly political resolutions. So the status of Jewish National Home remains, although it might be possible today to get a General Assembly or Security Council majority to not only revoke that status but to send all Israelis to Auschwitz. A new book has come out on the issue of rightful sovereignty over all of the Land of Israel. It was written by attorney Howard Grief of Jerusalem and is available on Amazon and probably Barnes and Noble too.

    “Israeli,” when you write about the Druze on the Golan, I get the impression that you are not as knowledgeable as you should be or maybe are not Israeli. All the Golan Druze took Israeli citizenship and voted in elections, mainly for Likud I believe. This changed in the mid-1990s when the Rabin-Peres-Beilin govt started talking about giving the Golan up to Syria, although it was historically populated by Jews in the Roman period with many archeological remains, including Gamla mentioned in Josephus’ Jewish War, I believe. It seems that the Golan Druze changed their attitude when they began to fear that they might indeed be handed over to Syria which would not fail to take revenge on them for taking Israeli citizenship, etc.

    As to Arabs in Jerusalem, the ones who were formerly Jordanian subjects mainly failed to take Israeli citizenship, although it was offered to them. This seems to have mainly been out of fear of the Fatah, and later Hamas. Now, in the mid-1990s, when they feared coming under arafat rule from Ramallah, long lines used to form outside the Interior Ministry offices in east Jerusalem. These were Arabs applying for Israeli citizehship. In addition, many Jerusalem Arabs interviewed by foreign TV and print media denied a desire to become part of the Palestinian Authority preferring to stay under Israel. So, “Israeli,” whoever you are, things are not as you claim, nor are matters simple at all. All simplifying slogans and analyses about Israel should be rejected by the wise.

    The Palestinian Authority is not a friendly political entity. So there is no reason to increase its power and influence. Rather they should be reduced. To think statehood will make the PA friendly is silly. It will just give the PA more power to make trouble. And many Arabs are not happy with it in any case. Yoram Ettinger has written lately in the Jerusalem Post that the demographic situation in Israel west of the Jordan [excluding Gaza] is not as usually depicted in the Western media [or by "Israeli"]. Maybe those Arabs who don’t want Israeli citizenship should be offered Jordanian citizenship back and have the right to vote for the Jordanian parliament and the right of permanent residence west of the Jordan, while Israel maintains security control and the human and national right of Jews to move to ["settle" in] Judea-Samaria.

  48. oao says:

    i am sorry but reading the post and this thread (as well as others on the subject) I see people threading water.

    the whole point is that the root problem of the conflict is something the west is both incapable and unwilling to understand and accept. there is nothing good israel will do and bad the pals will do that will change this reality. so all these ideas about solutions and what it’ll take to get the solutions is just talk. it’ll never happen.

    the stratgey by the arabs to sacrifice the pals as weapons for israel’s estruction has worked beautifully because the west has funded and supported it. when the conjunction of the west bankruptcy, jihad terror, and arab riches occurred, that’s when the west collapsed and started to descend into oblivion.

    to imagine that this can be reveresed is to have imagined that the fall of rome could have been reversed at the time.

    while i was in academia i noticed certain segments of it which i called “intellectual masturbation”. that’s how discussions of solutions to the conflict seem to me. either one understands the reality and cannot possibly talk about solutions, or one talks about solutions because one does not understand the reality. or one talks just for the sake of talk about it.

  49. oao says:

    But that it has to do, waiting for better times, when, for instance, the Gulf States start getting really afraid of Iran or when the Europeans get fed up with their own Muslim minorities. When things like these happen, the Palestinians will lose much of the world sympathy they still have.

    wishful thinking. it won’t happen, it can’t happen.
    europe is full of pensioners which it cannot support and dying and is already on the way to islamization via demographics, violence it can’t control and slow jihad.
    societies do not recover from that, they can’t.

    america is being dismantled and turned into europe with the only segment who could fight it in abysmal disarray, pushing intelligent design.

    don’t wait for better times, they won’t come. prepare for some serious catastrophes.

  50. oao says:

    btw, i have no problem with discussing matters so that they are better understood or clarified, or for learning or for speaking one’s mind.

    but proposing solutions or ways to solve that will never happen, that I find questionable in terms of value.

  51. Eliyahu says:

    Here is an article by Yoram Ettinger that responds to “Israeli”‘s claims about demography.

    http://yoramettinger.newsnet.co.il/Front/NewsNet/reports.asp?reportId=263922

  52. E.G. says:

    israeli,

    Is this your inspiration? A solution at any cost

  53. oao says:

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/130177

    we’ll get what we want by hook and by crook. if you cede it to us, fine. if not…

  54. oao says:

    focused cooperation among all the political and social forces that agree that the formation of an independent Palestinian state – while maintaining the security of Israel’s citizens – is the central and most substantial issue in Israeli society for years and which must be resolved immediately.

    that’s a contradiction in terms. and from now on it will be and those who believe it is not are deluding themselves.

  55. E.G. says:

    israeli,

    An example of European differential law:
    Alsace-Lorraine, or more precisely the three (present)”départements” of Haut-Rhin, Bas-Rhin and Moselle is a piece of land that was french since Louis the XIVth. In 1870, after the defeat of Napoléon the 3rd to the (newly unified and created) German Empire, Bismark decided to seize Alsace-Lorraine, based on the german notion of nationality, defined by the German culture and the German language. Yes, at that time, a majority of the inhabitants of Alsace-Lorraine used germanic dialects and spoke some french. But the border did not follow the language line, and some french speaking areas were annexated.

    In 1918, France reclaimed Alsace-Lorraine, but the Alsaciens and Lorrains found that german law was in many instances better than the french law. Moreover, the inhabitants did not agree with the 1905 french law, which separated between Church and State. Therefore, law in Alsace-Lorraine (or rather Alsace-Moselle, since not all of Lorraine had been annexated) has kept the “Concordat” (treaty between France and Vatican), which lets rabbis and christian ministers be paid as civil servants by the state. Moreover, if german law is better than french law, german law is applied and conversely. For instance in matters of health insurance, the law is more favorable in Alsace-Moselle than in the rest of France. In case of conflict, the reference can still be the german text of law under the Kaiser… In 1940-1944, Alsace-Lorraine was again annexated by the Germans, and it returned to France in 1944, going back to this unusual regime of local law.

    Modern French law has often special provisions for Alsace-Moselle. Progressively, some of the differences disappear, but very slowly.

    Re. the situation in the west bank, the situation is quite different, since law is defined on the basis of residence. Should I move to, say, Strasbourg, the Alsace-Moselle law would apply to me.

    Comment by Michelle Schatzman — February 26, 2009 @ 5:24 pm

    And another one, from the USA:
    EG, I don’t know much about the French law regarding Alsace-Lorraine. But the US has differential laws for its overseas territories. Consider the lack of Puerto Rican right to vote for president or to send voting representatives to Congress. PR has non-voting reps in the US Congress. Yet the Puerto Ricans are subject to the draft. by the way, the name Puerto Rico is a corruption of the original Indian name, Boricua. I think that some of the other overseas territories have even less rights than Puerto Rico. But you don’t hear much complaint about that. Where’s jimmuh carter on the issue of rights for Puerto Rico? Shouldn’t they have independence, if he is consistent in his principles? Where is the ever so righteous Left when it comes to Puerto Rico, although they probably pay some lip service to the issue from time to time?

    Comment by Eliyahu — February 26, 2009 @ 4:37 pm

    (both posts copied from another thread here)

  56. Cynic says:

    E.G. with regard to your link in #58

    Shlein and his colleagues should know that there are enough programs on the various channels that engage in a campaign of incitement, de-legitimization and demonization against the Arabs, while deliberately ignoring the elementary possibility of offering them the right to respond. This is lowly journalism.

    I’d like to know what Shlein said first before commenting. Anyway it is entertainment and not journalism what his show is about. SNL is not journalism.
    Amazing how sensitive are those who criticize Jewish sensitivities.

    But what comes to mind is that the incitement, de-legitimization and demonization invokes that outrage of the “victim” because they don’t like the facts about them being shoved in their faces.
    Demonization is what the arab world, especially the Palestinian media broadcasts in their “religious” rants about Jews.

    Lumped together The Police for one and the journalists for two who could not bring themselves to say who the perps really were.

  57. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    It was a bad joke about the Nativity trio or sthg.
    My point was about who lumps whom, in the Israeli (Arabs) context. This inciting guy (Andreus) is one of a few non-Moslem activists. I think their proportion is small but their toxicity is disproportionate.

    Asians… Youths… Minority individuals… see my comment #3 in the “PC, Prohibited etc.” thread.

  58. oao says:

    Lumped together The Police for one and the journalists for two who could not bring themselves to say who the perps really were.

    whether conscious of it or not, they are scared shitless.

  59. oao says:

    My point was about who lumps whom, in the Israeli (Arabs) context. This inciting guy (Andreus) is one of a few non-Moslem activists. I think their proportion is small but their toxicity is disproportionate.

    given what we know about the initial roots of anti-semitism and how christians are treated in the muslim world, their activism shoots two birds with one shot, wouldn’t you say?

  60. E.G. says:

    I say a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

  61. oao says:

    not sure i got your point.

    mine was that if you’re that type of christian who still believes the jews refused jesus and killed him on the one hand; and you live among jihadis who opress and kill infidels, you might as well present yourself as more judeophobe than the jihadis.

  62. Cynic says:

    By the way this business of SMSing here
    about the Nativity trio or sthg.
    is a bit disconcerting as I stall trying to fathom out the word implied.
    Please consider that some of us readers come from before the “baby-boomers” era and are not as adept at cryptography anymore. :-)

  63. E.G. says:

    Holy Ghost! Cynic, you can’t possibly be THAT advanced!
    Will do my best to avoid SMS. I suppose telegraphic style will do?

    I didn’t see the “masterpiece” of stupid humour, but it was mocking Mary, her hubby and the Saviour.

    (You didn’t study at Trinity, did you?)

  64. E.G. says:

    oao,

    This Israeli Arab (and his companions) should be reminded that the freedom he enjoys and exploits is definitely much more than he’ll have in the situation he actively seeks to establish.

  65. Cynic says:

    (You didn’t study at Trinity, did you?)

    Noo Siree! The only time I was anywhere near was during the summer drought of 76 with standpipes at every corner except in Oxford where it pissed non-stop while I was there, and the sombre weather drove me almost to distraction.
    No wonder Morse drank himself to death.

    The Shlein business, according to a person who watched the particular show, was that seeing that some deny the holocaust (that RC Bishop for example who was brought back into the fold) then they should not be upset if others deny the virgin birth etc.
    Nothing about mocking the Trinity.

    Almost akin to accusing Geert Wilders of demanding that the Qur’an be banned when he did not, but called for non-partisan application of the Hate Speech law to apply to Muslim tracts as well.

    Holy Ghost! Cynic, you can’t possibly be THAT advanced!
    Stopped advancing and have been regressing these past few years (the C C of Ben Button?)
    All the kids get their driver’s license for ten years before renewing. I have to do it every two years with complete medical. Fortunately they don’t demand an MRI hee hee.

  66. Cynic says:

    e.g.

    No doubt you are aware of George Constanza – Seinfeld?

    “The most unfair thing about life is the way it ends. I mean, life is tough. It takes up a lot of your time. What do you get at the end of it? A death. What’s that, a bonus? I think the life cycle is all backwards. You should die first, get it out of the way. Then you live in an old age home. You get kicked out when you’re too young, you get a gold watch, you go to work. You work forty years until you’re young enough to enjoy retirement. You drink alcohol, you party, and you get ready for High School. You go to grade school, you become a kid, you play, you have no responsibilities, you become a little baby, you go back into the womb, you spend your last 9 months floating… then you finish off as an orgasm! Amen.”
    – George Costanza

  67. Cynic says:

    E.G.

    Israel’s Channel 10 just had a discussion on Shlein’s piece and humour discussing everything from “Life of Brian” to Eretz Nederet treatment of Jewish things religious.
    One comment was that the Arabs in the north of the country treated Shlein’s comparison as something personal, which it was not. This of course made the headlines for the Arab stations and in all their hypocrisy attacked Shlein. No doubt they suddenly became very sensitive to Christian feelings;not.
    Once more we have humour and our understanding of it and their understanding.

  68. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    So how come that using a paleolithic keyboard (is your model in stone or clay?) has never come up as a hypothetical “Filters blocking” option? For your own good, better ask for an MRI on the next Med. Check. Err, sorry, thorough medical examination preceding and conditioning the licence needed to drive a wheelbarrow attached to a beast (Camel? Ox? Ford?).

    Constanza – Amen! :-D

    Aha! Cambridge, Summer 1976 – that’s where we met! I distinctly remember rolling in my uncle’s Rolls to his Alma Mater. You must be that grumpy guy (with the weird haircut) who wouldn’t take notice of my angelic self crawling on the ever green lawn…

    Shlein – Virgins. Whatever the joke/skit (and thanks for the update), the amplification is absurd. But it’s Andreus’ “identity statement” that struck me as the latest example of self lumping.

  69. oao says:

    No doubt you are aware of George Constanza – Seinfeld?

    that sequence has occurred to me more than once. absolutely right.

    then they should not be upset if others deny the virgin birth etc.

    ah, but there WAS NO virgin birth; which is why they get upset by the denial.

    This Israeli Arab (and his companions) should be reminded that the freedom he enjoys and exploits is definitely much more than he’ll have in the situation he actively seeks to establish.

    i am not sure they’re unaware of it. but they get swamped away with the jew hate atmosphere. it’s catchy.

  70. Cynic says:

    i am not sure they’re unaware of it.

    It’s too sophisticated a conception for the great majority of them.
    They are born into the tribal/clan culture, and freedom as we think of it, is too much for the t/c thinking to endure. The big kahuna would certainly object to any thinking outside the box.

    Just take Majdal Shams on the Golan Heights taken from Syria in war where those who when it was suggested that the border fence be moved to put the town once more under Syrian control, objected because they would lose the material benefits while the other half, approximately, are only too Thrilled at the idea of feeling Assad’s jackboot once more.

    Very few of them seem to have the notion of what some of us consider freedom.

  71. Cynic says:

    My keyboard is not paleolithic but post pleistocene.
    Qwerty circa 5767 (CE). It is ceramic (Delft) and comes with brickbats.

    The latest upgrade which includes vitriol filled quills.

    What do you mean by the hypothetical “Filters blocking” option?
    A stone or baked clay in the cake hole filters everything.

  72. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    ’67 (B”H) is a vintage year.
    But the Delft blue is not the appropriate tone. A bit too dark.
    This might cause the @#^&”! Filters to withhold some comments. Since I’ve become vitrioholic (C-brand, well aged in oak barrels), waiting too long for hem to get de-blocked makes me suffer.

    Conceiving freedom – we’re not discussing the silent majority but the vocal minority. I’m not sure the latter are unaware of it either.
    But then, preferring a worse-being under “one of us” rather than well-being under “one of them” does make sense too – in the logic you (and some others) expose and that we don’t share.

  73. oao says:

    It’s too sophisticated a conception for the great majority of them. They are born into the tribal/clan culture, and freedom as we think of it, is too much for the t/c thinking to endure. The big kahuna would certainly object to any thinking outside the box.

    it does not require sophistication: witness their refusal to live in a palestinian state. they know what their society will end up like. but this does not prevent them from hating the jews and conforming to avoid risking their neck. it’s overcoming THAT HATRED which requires sophistication.

    there was a piece on israel tv on friday about the pal collaborators living in israel. each of them experienced the arab society enough to want to get the hell out of it PRIOR to collaboration. they are paying a huge price and live in constant fear of torture and assassination of their families, but they don’t seem to regret it.

  74. oao says:

    Very few of them seem to have the notion of what some of us consider freedom.

    they don’t have the concept. they have something called justice and we both know it has nothing to do with our concept thereof.

    they would not know what to do with freedom: there would
    immediately be thugs taking control and they would rush to obey the ones that come on top. THAT is the islamic concept of justice.

  75. Cynic says:

    E.g.

    (C-brand, well aged in oak barrels),

    The Mono-Cult Wh brand is more to my taste.
    I had to go for the Qwerty because the Diogenes 67 was in short supply. Besides the brickbats it has caustic broadsides to boot.
    Ho hum

    Now I don’t know if you ever, for whatever reason, had contact with animals in captivity.
    After some time in some cases they refused to leave the cage or constraint. They did not know what freedom meant and in those cases were fearful of the “great outdoors”. What they did know was the security of their environment, in these cases real and not imagined, and were not quick to give up the known for the unknown.

  76. E.G. says:

    So- no guilt concept and no freedom concept?
    Actually, I’d replace freedom by independence. All Israelis, minority included, enjoy freedom of speech. Independent thinking and way of life is variable.

    Cynic,
    What’s Wh brand? I’m sure it’s undiluted.

  77. Cynic says:

    Wheell now, seeing you have to ask (good Oirish brogue); it’s certainly not champagne.

    Heh! All Israelis, minority included, enjoy freedom of speech. Independent thinking and way of life is variable.

    But some cannot take advantage of it 100% to use that freedom of speech when it does not only impinge the other.
    They cannot talk freely because they do not know who might be listening.
    They might be living in Israel but they are living amongst their own where the t/c does not appreciate straying.

    In a manner of speaking here’s an analogy: Madame Biliary speaking at Sharm & Shake yesterday said that they had taken all measures to ensure that Hamas does not get the 2.5 billion.
    Laughter from all over at the thought of keeping the money out of the clutches of the greatest shakedown artists since Jackson and Sharpton.
    They will take the money out of the pockets of anyone receiving it from Abu Mazen. They have their maggots everywhere sucking away, their fingers in everybody’s pocket, their eyes on who one is talking to.

  78. Cynic says:

    What’s Wh brand? I’m sure it’s undiluted.

    No rocks for sure with a Bushmills sm.

  79. E.G. says:

    Aye!

    Though I meant (a) publishing or publicly speaking like the inciting Andreus above – exploiting freedom of speech; (b) if/when outside their own, and ample possibilities are available. But indeed some independence must be “internally” allowed, if not encouraged.

    Some KMD you got!

  80. Cynic says:

    E.G.

    One can take a horse to water …………..
    Publishing/publicly speaking in one’s own name is also risky, depending on the topic of course, especially if one is rubbing their faces in the mud for the kafir to see.
    Wafa Sultan would have a ball living among the Jews but would risk having a hit put on her.
    There are quite a few Arab families living amongst the Jewish population in various towns for obvious reasons.

    Of course the Arab MPs exploit free speech; how silly of me to forget it!!
    Now if they said the same things about their own community ….

    Don’t know if you read Michael Totten, anyway he was here about 2 years ago and from a post he did I gathered that while in Yaffo, trying to engage some of the locals in a discussion was not too successful.
    (They were seen talking to him and he writes something not too pleasing – they’re in trouble)

    KMD? Knight Master of the Demopaths?

  81. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    It’s not only Arab MP’s but also “community organisers” (seen quite a few articles after the Acres riots) but I think we agree, at last.
    It is amazing, though. Israelis openly talk so much and about so many issues that one would assume that this societal feature would be adopted after so many years. My guess is that it did permeate, a little bit. Like with Yekke great-grandchildren.

    Keyboard of Mass D… (you’re free to choose :-) )

    You mustn’t use rocks with that Gorbals stuff – they’re reserved for brutally occupied children.

  82. Cynic says:

    Please explain of Mass D
    It’s time for me to go to bed and honestly cannot for the life of me work out what you mean. I am from a previous generation!

  83. E.G. says:

    Destruction was my initial thought. But then, why not leave the choice to the owner of the perfected tool?
    Devotion Disagreement Disengagement Distraction Discomfiture Discredit Doubting… whatever suits you.
    Dreams?

  84. Cynic says:

    E.G.
    Devotion Disagreement Disengagement Distraction Discomfiture Discredit Doubting… whatever suits you.
    Dreams?

    Sweet!
    But Mass Destruction has already been discredited in human discourse by the Demopathic Left – Bush lied, Saddam fried

    I will stick with my Delft ceramic with brickbats and caustic broadsides. Hopefully I will upgrade to the Diogenes and supply vitriol as well.

  85. E.G. says:

    Cynic the Elder,

    I humbly and respectfully submit my last suggestion – Darting – to your sharp examination.

    And also, an interesting background to the Shlein “affair” (including Mandate heritage!):
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1068574.html

  86. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    Read that Haaretz article very rapidly because it was in my opinion not looking at those “offended” by a phrase taken out of context but going off at a tangent on the theatrics of Israeli theatre history.

    Those who were so shocked, shocked I tell you, shocked because it was to garner some more anti-Israel invective.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>