Bleak House

What a Palestinian State will mean for Israel:

http://shomroncentral.blogspot.com/

Do “Palestinians” have a right to the Land of Israel?

See this:

http://tinyurl.com/JewishRights

“What the both of you advocate ”

Of course I don’t speak for Mr. Morris, but it seems to me this article does not advocate anything at all. It is purely 100% descriptive. It makes no policy recommendations, it simply describes the situation.

For my part, I would love to live in a world where the Arab consensus accepts Jewish sovereignty over some part of Palestine. Unfortunately, that’s not the world I live in. Raging against it is just as productive as raging against bad weather.

“And this is the ‘light unto nations’?”

I’ve come to realize over time that being a “light unto nations” doesn’t necessarily entail being soft or nice. Regretfully, it is sometimes necessary to be cruel. Sometimes even to the extent of grinding people into utter submission like what was done with Germany and even Japan during World War II.

“Your suggestion that the Palestinains deserve that fate is an abomination. ”

Exactly what fate do you claim I am saying that the Palestinian Arabs deserve?

“Just because they would have the temerity to oppose their dispossession and apartheid they should be treated as Nazis?”

No, they should be treated as Nazis to the extent they wish to slaughter the Jews en masse. Anyone who wants to slaughter Jews en masse needs to be treated like a Nazi.

” Is that really the lesson the world should draw from the Shaoh, that ‘it is sometimes necessary to be cruel’?”

Absolutely. If Western leaders had not been terrified of bloodshed, things may have come out a lot better. But when Germany was finally taken, the Nazis were ruthlessly rooted out and killed. If that had not been done, there would probably be Nazi terrorism to this day.

Gevalt, “Binyamin’, it is “gevalt” (not “gavolt”).
As for Benny Morris I may say the following (regarding his statement “…it means to admit that the Israeli-Arab conflict has no resolution apart from the complete victory of one side or the other…” ). He, as a historian, must know that this is the only way how conflict ends. Any conflict, including the one on the Middle East. Throughout the entire history of the humankind you won’t find any instance when conflict between two sides ended anyhow differently. The degree of submission depends on the comprehensiveness of the victory but in every case the peace comes only when the victor dictates its conditions to the loser. There is obvious logic to this also: every war starts when the sides cannot or unable to resolve their problems diplomatically, by good will, by compromises and mutual concessions. But if the war starts because of this particular reason – why would it end by coming to the point from which it started? This is actually the main reason why Middle Eastern conflict lasts so long: Israel achieved victories on the battlefield but never dictated its conditions for peace to the losers (due mainly to the presence of “impartial brokers”: USA, EU, USSR, UN, etc). Only one time when Israel signed peace agreement with Egypt the loser accepted victor’s demands: land for peace, Sinai for peace agreement. That is why the agreement was signed.
The conflict on THe Middle East will continue until “impartial brokers” will realize that one of the sides must accept conditions of the other in order to end the hostilities

The posters above confirm my view of Benny Morris’ new incarnation as chief apostle for Kahanism. (I call on him to distinguish his views from the late Rabbi.) Thank you Gene for focusing my thoughts. When you and Morris declare that “the Israeli-Arab conflict has no resolution apart from the complete victory of one side or the other…”, you are proposing ethnic cleansing or genocide. After all, how could a “complete victory” by the Jews (of course) be realized in any other manner, given the “basic rejectionism” of the Palestinians? Actually, what the Palestinians (and I) reject, is not Jewish presence in Palestine (which has been there for almost 2 thousand years, albiet as a tiny minority for a 1500 of those years), but the demand that Jews alone have the right to rule, regardless of any democratic considerations. Both the Zionists and Hamas are drunk on the same wine — religiously based demands for exclusive power. Israel and Benny Morris proclaim the right to make the Palestinians dhimmi. The only difference between them is that Israel has the F-16s, the Merkavas, and the Apaches (as well as a nuclear stockpile twice the size of Great Britain’s). But crush them periodically with Cast Lead type force, they will not submit. Israel now faces a crisis of historic dimensions. Morris is to be congratulated for acknowledging it, even if he plagiarizes Kahane. He is gloomy not because there is no peace, but because he senses, correctly, that Israel faces decades of international isolation and domestic turmoil as it adopts apartheid as the default strategy. He believes that will pose an “existential threat” to Israel. And he’s right. Better then to achieve “complete victory” now, no matter the cost. It is an diabolical falsehood to claim that is the only path. From our own Civil War, America experienced ” a new birth of freedom.” Israelstine, or Palirael, will do the same. And Gene, you say Gavalt, I say Gavolt, lets call the whole thing off.

” but the demand that Jews alone have the right to rule, ”

What exactly do you think will happen if the Arabs rule?

“Just a footnote, Sabril.”

Hold on a sec. First, please answer my question from before:

Exactly what fate do you claim I am saying that the Palestinian Arabs deserve?

“This is a realistic and accurate picture of the present situation.”

I basically agree. For the most part, the Arabs are at best interested in a peace deal which weakens Israel and moves it along the road to its eventual destruction as a Jewish state.

Imagine if the Jews in Israel were 60% religious Zionists. People who believed to the core that Jews have a divine right and obligation to exercise sovereignty over the entire area. In that case, peace would be impossible no matter how reasonable and accommodating the Arabs were.

Well that’s basically how the Arabs are right now.

“the demographic picture is in fact improving for the Jewish population.”

I believe it is. Israel turned a demographic corner about 5 years ago. Since then, the percentage of Jewish births has been steadily rising. Once the Jewish population is high enough, the West Bank can be annexed. I think this is the only solution which will not involve a lot of bloodshed.

At best, I was hoping for a partition like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. This article makes even this sound impossible.

I ask Benny Morris one question: what could the Arabs do to convince you they are not exterminationists? There hasn’t been a suicide bombing in years, much less a concerted campaign. Even Hamas’ “rain of rockets” (never really more than a drizzle) has all but stopped completely. (Not a single casualty since Cast Lead– and total fatalities since the rockets began in 2001 — 28 — fewer than the number of MONTHLY traffic fatalities in Israel. Meanwhile Israel killed about 3000 Gazans.) For Morris, the absence of violent resistance is evidence of Arab cunning. Without so much as a single reference to a fact, he concludes there is a historic conspiracy among the Arabs to do away with the Jewish state. Perhaps he has discovered “The Protocols of the Elders of Palestine.”

The truth is just the opposite. The Arabs are now reconciled to Israel. Witness not only the Saudi Peace Plan, but numerous Wikileaks cables where Arab and Pakistani leaders let their hair down. The real rejectionists are the Israelis. They reject any Palestinian political entity and that is why the occupation and the settlements will continue. Morris’ new job as the darling of the right is to supply a pretext for, at a minimum, apartheid, and at a maximum, expulsion. The truth is that Israel is already a bi-national state. The West Bank and Gaza have already been annexed, and the annexation is irreversible. (Turning Gaza into a prison camp only makes it more dependent on Israel.) Bibi’s “peace talks” are a sham.

What the Palestinians (both in the territories and in Israel) reject is apartheid, and so will most of the world. Zionism has made its own bed, and now they will lie in it. I don’t care whether Israel is “Jewish state” or not, whatever that means. It must be a democratic state to have my support.

The tragedy is that if Jews worldwide were to support a democratic resolution within a bi-national framework, Israel would truly become the brightest light unto nations.

“I ask Benny Morris one question: what could the Arabs do to convince you they are not exterminationists?”

I realize this question is not addressed to me, but I will take a crack at it. I will believe the Arabs are not exterminationists (meaning that they want to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state) if two things happen:

(1) The Arab leadership announces that the ultimate result of the peace process should be to have a Jewish state and an Arab state, both in Palestine, at peace, with Jewish sovereignty over the Jewish state and Arab sovereignty over the Arab state; each state having the right to set its immigration and naturalization policy to preserve its Jewish (or Arab) character indefinitely.

(2) The general consensus of the Arab man in the street comes to reflect this point of view. I’m not asking for unanimity, but it should be widely accepted.

A quote I recently saw: “If the Arabs were to lay down their guns there would be no more violence or war; if the Jews were to lay down their guns their would be no more Israel.”

“They did that at Oslo”

Cite, link, and quote pleae. If you are not BSing, I will rethink my position.

By the way, I just reviewed the Wikipedia entry on the Oslo Accords. I found NOTHING where the Arab leadership endorses the concept of a Jewish state in Palestine with the right to establish policies to preserve its Jewish character.

In short, I think that “Binyamin” is lying.

However, I am eager to be corrected. If the Oslo accord really did endorse the concept of a Jewish state in Palestine; with the right to preserve its Jewish character, then I will eat crow and concede that there is hope of a negotiated solution.

Sabril, come on. You don’t think that when the PLO entered into negotiations to partition the land, on the basis of the ’67 borders, that is not “recognition”? They don’t “recognize” that when you have a two-state solution, one of those states will be Israel? Why would it be for anyone other than the Israeli electorate to decide the “character” of Israel. If by “preserving its Jewish character” you mean discriminating against non-Jews, I expect the Palestinians, and Israeli Arabs would voice their opposition, as I will, and as any person who supports liberty and equality will. But why would the Jewish majority of Israel, armed to the teeth, particularly care?

If you mean that Hebrew will be an official language, that Jewish religious and cultural institutions will be subsidized, I doubt anyone would have a problem, as long as non-Jews are are not discriminated against. When the PLO agreed to give up 72% of historic Palestine, they made a “painful concession”, in the words of Arik Sharon. What has Israel conceded, other than the settlements of 6000 nut cases who were living on stolen land in Gaza? All Bibi had to do is agree to the Clinton Plan — partition Jerusalem, uproot all but the biggest settlement blocks (and agree to a land swap to keep those), and you got a deal. The “right of return” is a non-issue, despite what Benny Morris tells you. At Camp David, Arafat agreed to abandon the guts of it. Read Shlomo Ben-Ami, or even Dennis Ross’ account. Clinton’s memoir has Arafat agreeing to require all refugees, other than a symbolic 10,000, to return to the new Palestinian state. The PA reiterated that at Taba. It was the Israeli refusal to partition Jerusalem that tanked Camp David.

But Morris is right. All of that is moot now. It’s on to “complete victory (with the corollary of expulsion, or annihilation).” Sounds delightful, doesn’t it? I doubt it would take the IDF more than a week to carry it out.

P.S. By “back up your claim,” I mean provide the actual quote from the Oslo accords.

And please do not try to pretend I said something different from what I actually said. You asked what it would take to convince (me) that the Arabs do not wish to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. Inter alia, it would require the Arab leadership to explicitly endorse the concept of a Jewish state in Palestine with the right to implement policies to preserve its Jewish character. Perhaps it would take less to convince you, but we are talking about what it would take to convince me.

You claim that that the endorsement I described was made in Oslo. Fine, so quote it. Otherwise you are a liar.

Oh, and PS please answer my question from before:

Exactly what fate do you claim I am saying that the Palestinian Arabs deserve?

Sabril – Your writing convinces that you think Palestinian Arabs deserve to be Ground into Submission, as you say. If that is not your view, then in attempting to communicate to others, your attitude and tone of aggressive hostility has managed to distort whatever IS your true message. If being Ground into Submission IS actually your view of what the Palestinian Arabs deserve, you (and Benny, for that matter) have failed to make a persuasive moral case for the Grinding of those human beings. You sound frightened to the point that your fear has taken over your obvious rational powers, so afraid and angry that you are not even hearing yourself.

And so does Benny Morris, and so does Avigdor Lieberman.

John, what I mean by “light unto nations” is a bi-national state where Jews and Arabs share the land as equal citizens, with constitutional protections for the uniqueness of both cultures.

Sabril, you said it best in describing the fate you wish for the Palestinians: “Grinding [them] into utter submission”.

And lets pretend you and Morris are right. The Palestinians will not “accept a Jewish state.” And lets draw the most negative inferences possible from that very vague statement. What now? Apartheid rule? Ethnic cleansing? Worse?

” so any discussion on what they did or did not do there is not relevant ”

I agree, but still it would have given me hope. If even one time since 1948, the Arab leadership had publicly and unambiguously endorsed the concept of a Jewish state in Palestine with the right to preserve its Jewish character, I would have hope that a negotiated peace deal is possible.

It seems pretty clear that has not happened, notwithstanding the lies of posters like “Binyamin” who wish to pretend it has happened.

As Mr. Morris correctly points out, the consensus Arab world view is that there should be no Jewish sovereignty over any part of Palestine. Put simply, they are unwilling to share.

Interesting article and even more interesting comments. Morris has a way of laying things our rather clearly. As does Sabril in his comments. It’s clear that those who disagree with them are not trying to engage in reasoned discussion on the topic but scrambling to protect their ideological beliefs – beliefs that defy reality on every conceivable measure – as this discussion vividly illustrates.

“Sabril, with that devastating parry, I give you the the last word. (But not before one final Oy Gavalt!)”

Whatever, you could just apologize for misrepresenting my position. I talked about annexing the West Bank and giving voting rights to the Arabs there. Which would not make the Arabs ecstatic, but it’s a far cry from stating that the Arabs deserve to be ground into utter submission.

“That may have more to do with the security fence (partly, but only partly, a wall) than with any change of Arab policy.”

I believe it was Ambrose Bierce who defined virtue as a “lack of opportunity.” Anyway, it really wouldn’t be all that hard (at least in principle) for the Arabs to demonstrate to the Jews (and the rest of the world) that they are committed to peace and worthy of having their own state.

If they would stop the rocketings; stop teaching their children to glorify martyrdom and hate the Jews; stop punishing people who dissent; stop punishing people who trade with Jews; stop their Pallywood antics; and publicly the world that they want two states for two peoples, then even hawks like me would go along with a two-state deal.

Although this would not be hard in principle, as a practical matter it is impossible. Arab culture, particularly Arab Muslim culture is just too inflexible. In the same way that some Jews can’t let go of Hebron, the Arabs cannot let go of any part of Palestine.

Wrong, Joanne, Hardly a week goes by that the Israeli press does not report on a mass roundup of young Palestinian males inside Israel. They are not suicide bombers, but people desperate to get jobs to feed their families. The problem has become so acute, the Israelis set a special police unit, the “Oz Unit”, to hunt them down and boot them back across the Green Line. If one one-hundredth of them had suicide vests on, there would be a lot of dead Jews by now.

Get this through your head: The Palestinians just want a decent life for their kids. But no, they will never sing the HaTikvah. The statement “Arab culture, particularly Muslim Arab culture, is just too inflexible” is just a racist stereotype, the same as saying Jewish culture is too money-grubbing.

” There is no major Palestinian party that rejects “armed struggle” (the Arab euphemism for terror) . . .”

It’s not simply a need for a party that rejects armed struggle. Such a party would be reviled and its leaders killed should it ever appear. So it won’t.

This is a culture that sees compliance with an enemy’s demands as a deep humiliation unless they have been militarily defeated to the point where any significant struggle is no longer possible. Then they accept defeat and the new rules laid down by the victors, as Arabs throughout history have when those conditions have prevailed. I think most westerners – even many Israelis – still have no idea of the power of the cultural beliefs they are dealing with.

That despite clear evidence over the last several decades that this is the case. The reason it is so incomprehensible is because we have our own cultural beliefs. Liberals especially tend to believe (in a religious way) that all cultures are alike and all people value their families lives and happiness enough too cooperate and compromise creatively with one’s enemies if possible – rather than engage them iionn war. This is just what we did leading up to WWII and it led to 60 mill dead.

I’m afraid that for many people violent war until one side completely defeats the other is the way the world works and they have no desire to seek any other way. If they did they would. I’m also afraid it’s a lesson that’s unlikely to ever be learned.

“Liberals especially tend to believe (in a religious way) that all cultures are alike and all people value their families lives ”

I think this is probably true. It seems a lot of people cannot grasp the distinction between (1) how they wish the world were; and (2) how the world actually is.

As noted above, I would love to live in a world where the Arab consensus accepts Jewish sovereignty over some part of Palestine. Unfortunately, that’s not the world I live in. Pretending otherwise is unproductive at best and downright dangerous at worst.

“The problem has become so acute, the Israelis set a special police unit, the “Oz Unit”, to hunt them down and boot them back across the Green Line.”

That’s an outright lie.
The Oz Unit was formed to deal with foreign workers and infiltrators from the Egyptian border (the former typically from East Asia, the latter being nearly all Africans), and doesn’t deal with Palestinians at all to this day. Palestinian infiltration (for work and for not-as-nice reasons) still exists but in a much reduced volume and is typically handled by Magav.

“There is no excuse for apartheid”

It depends what you mean by “apartheid.” Besides Israel, there are lots and lots of countries which give preferential immigration and naturalization treatment to people of preferred ethnicities/races/religions. It’s much easier for ethnic Japanese, Greeks, and Poles to get into Japan, Greece, or Poland. Nobody really complains about it unless it’s Israel doing it. Then it’s “apartheid.”

“Without U.S. weapons and our moral sanction, Israel cannot do bupkiss to anyone”

Right, that explains how Israel got its ass kicked in 1948, 1956, and 1967.

“Bottom Line People”

The bottom line is that you refuse to distinguish between your own wishes and reality. It would be nice if we could wish away the regular rocket attacks from Gaza.

But it ain’t happening any time soon. Not while the Arabs are showing their children videos like this:

http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2413.htm

Professor Morris,

As I read your essay, your central point seem to be that the Palestinians do not want peace as evidenced by their leaders’ statements or lack thereof.

You are wrong. Certainly, most Palestinians would prefer that Israel not exist, just as many Moslems look forward to someday retaking Spain. However, they recognize that their wishes are not going to be realized in the foreseeable future. Similarly, many Jewish Israelis would prefer that the Palestinians disappear, but they realize that is not going to happen. The best sources of information about what realistic Jews and Palestinians will settle for are the polls jointly reported by the Truman Institute at the Hebrew University and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.

You contend that no Palestinian leader can surrender on the matter of the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel – wrong again. The Geneva Accord, agreed in October 2003, provided that, “Refugees shall be entitled to compensation for their refugeehood, [that] … states that have hosted Palestinian refugees [shall be entitled] to remuneration, and that the PPR [Permanent Place of Residence] options from which the [Palestinian] refugees may choose shall be at the sovereign discretion of Israel ….” Those who agreed after negotiating on behalf of the Palestinians were: Yasser Abed-Rabbo, then former Minister of Information and Culture; Nabil Qassis, former Minister of Tourism; Qadoura Fares, Palestinian Legislative Council member; Mohamed Horani, Palestinian Legislative Council member associated with
Fatah/Tanzim; Samih al-Abed, Palestinian Legislative Council member; Bashar Jum’a, Palestinian Legislative Council member, and Dr. Nazmi Shuabi, Palestinian Legislative Council member.

Mr. Levitt,

The Geneva Accord stated that Israel shall receive a number of “refugees” which is based on a decision by third parties (i.e. a totally unacceptable surrender), and that this will be based on decisions like 194 and considered an implementation thereof (which is another disaster). To quote directly:

“Option iv shall be at the sovereign discretion of Israel and will be in accordance with a number that Israel will submit to the International Commission. This number shall represent the total number of Palestinian refugees that Israel shall accept. As a basis, Israel will consider the average of the total numbers submitted by the different third countries to the International Commission. ” [emph. mine]

Secondly, yeah, polls are very interesting, like the recent one that found most Palestinian think a two-state solution should be a stepping stone to a one (Palestinian)-state solution…

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?ID=196040

I reviewed your new publication and do not see any useful purpose to your existence. We already have too many overlapping so-called “Jewish” publications that are mostly outlets for secular Jews with big egos and no desire to personally improve anything. We already have The Forward which is mostly useless and now the Tablet is simply a junior version of The Forward.
American Jews who can’t sleep because of “Jewish settlers’ could better look in the mirror and admit that THEY are the real “Jewish settlers” in a country based on theft of land, enslavement of blacks and genocide of native tribes.

sabril, it doesn’t look that way to me.

The deal would be explicitly based on 194, “Arab Peace Initiative”, etc. (both of which are based on granting all the refugees a right to choose to go to Israel), and the refugees get a supposedly free choice. The only shield Israel gets is a “sovereign discretion” (could that overrule Israeli recognition of UNGA 194 as basis of the arrangement, given 194 grants an nigh-unlimited right?), yet even this is limited by an average entirely controlled by third parties. And should Israel dispute this, all disputes on this question are to be refereed by an “International Committee” made up of third parties (Interestingly, all other disputes in the deal are refereed by the IVF except this).

In short, I think Israel’s sovereignty is being stripped away in Geneva. That’s not remotely acceptable to me. Mind you, it wouldn’t have been acceptable even if they had given Israel a real right to limit the number – as Prof. Gavison (hardly a rightist) pointed out, any kind of recognition of a right or of 194 or even a “symbolic number” can “tie Israel’s hands and lead to mass lawsuits that will effectively mean the end of the Jewish state”[1]. To me that’s obvious – we can’t grant a right and than limit it numerically.

[1]
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3931910,00.html

sabril, that’s a good point.

“What I mean by apartheid is any ideology that posits a permanent right of one ethnic, racial or religious group to political power, regardless of democratic considerations. ”

There are lots of countries which are officially Christian. And lots of countries which are officially Muslim. And one small country which is officially Jewish.

Guess which one gets trashed as an ‘apartheid state’?

I think the crux of the problem is that the Palestinians- while beaten at every turn, including the Intifada- have yet to be defeated. I am talking about psychological defeat, when the notion of pushing the other into the sea is finally seen as impossible. Short of an over whelming Israeli victory in which the UN and institutional left either looks the other way or is shown as powerless such a defeatist mind set shall not be.

Dispensing with the “right of return” and dispersing the refugee population in the aftermath of such a victory would be very doable. Such a defeat would be a humanitarian disaster but I disagree that this has a “corollary of expulsion, or annihilation”. It just has to be so sudden and one sided that the will resist is broken along with the physical means of resistance. The 1982 Falkland’s war, where Britain’s victory end the not just the war but Leopoldo Galtieri’s military junta being an example of this.

Professor Morris, Yair and Sabril,

What are you afraid of?

The Israeli side in negotiations will demand: full Palestinian citizenship for Jews resident in the West Bank who choose it; return of Palestinians to Israel only on the basis of reunification of families; Israeli sovereignty over the Wailing Wall; free access for all to their sacred places in Israel or in Palestine, and international guarantees that the world community will enforce the terms of whatever peace treaty is agreed.

If the Palestinians won’t agree, so be it. If they do agree but violate the treaty, Israel will be no weaker. Violations will be clearly legitimate causes for war – recognized to be legitimate, because they are so defined by the law of nations.

Of course, the Palestinians will demand: sovereignty over all land east of the Green Line; full Israeli citizenship for all Palestinians resident in Israel, and the right to ship goods to and through Israeli ports.

Is this what frightens you?

Again and again, people don’t seem to be listening to what Morris is saying. Peace, a settlement between Palestinians and Israel, is not going to happen until the entity we call “Palestine”, agrees to a two state solution that allows for Israel to remain as a Jewsih state within the region. Israel has already shown its willingness to make concessions, and they will do so again. But who amongst the Palestinians will speak for that nascent state?

If the West ruly wants “peace” in the region, they must exert pressure on “Palestine”, not Israel. AIPAC would do Israel a great service, for instance, if it would lobby the Obama administration to help create a viable partner for Israel to share the land in the region. Indeed, give Israel a chance to negotiate with a government that is willing to accept a two state model, that is accept Israel’s right to exist, and Israel will prove to be a flexible and reasonable partner. But at present, neither the extemists in Hamas or the moderates in the PLA will even countenance the possibility that Israel is a legitimate State and is a worthy neighbor. This reality, more than Avigdor Lieberman, Shas, the West Bank settlements, or Israel’s alleged apartheid, is what makes peace unreachable.

If American Jews wish to promote peace, they must work to bring a unified, confident Palestine to the bargaining table. But until a Palestinian consensus arises on the legitimacy of Israel, Professor Morris’s pessimism is understandable.

Les Miller, I agree. I would add that Western pressure on Israel may actually be counterproductive for two reasons:

First, it gives the Arabs hope that Israel can be brought down like South Africa. If they believe that time is on their side, then they are discincentivized to seek peace now.

Second, when Israel is singled out and treated unfairly, it demonstrates to Israelis that they cannot depend on the West to take their side if the Arabs violate the terms of any peace deal.

Morris: To grant it means to admit that the Israeli-Arab conflict has no resolution apart from the complete victory of one side or the other (with the corollary of expulsion, or annihilation, by one side of the other)—which leaves leaders like President Barack Obama with nowhere realistic to go with regard to the conflict.

Only if you stick to the Westphalian paradigm that says that you only deal with national and equivalent governments. If you step away from that paradigm, then you look to people like Abdallah Abu Rahmah, profiled in today’s article “The Diasporist” and enact policies that would allow such people to show the Palestinian people that there way gets results thus creating the possibility that they would elect committed opponents of violence who may actually accept Jews having a permanent state at the expense of those like Abbas who merely seek objectives that on their face the world would find no objection but which give him the necessary tools to cause the elimination of the Jewish state.

“If you step away from that paradigm, then you look to people like Abdallah Abu Rahmah,”

I did a few searches on this character, and it looks to me like typical Pallywood nonsense. He organizes weekly protests in Bil’in; apparently Arabs stand off-camera and throw rocks and stones at Israeli soldiers, hoping to provoke violence.

“enact policies that would allow such people to show the Palestinian people that there way gets results ”

Exactly what policies do you have in mind?

Benny Morris makes a compelling case for why any two-state solution will not be viable.

Perhaps its time for both the left and right to listen to Moshe Arens, Tzipi Hotovely, Reuven Rivlin, and Uri Elitzur and at least consider a one-state alternative incorporating the West Bank. The fact that it would be both democratic and Jewish, with citizenship options for Palestinians and full civil and legal protections is a breakthrough idea whose time may have come. The fact that it is now being taken seriously on the Israeli right also makes it more likely that a single bi-national state could actually be implemented. Given the choice between a bi-national or Palestinian state…which would you choose?

For an example, see http://www.onestateplan.com/.

“These leaked documents show Abbas and the PA were willing to abandon the Palestinian ‘right of return’ for the 5 million descendants of the Nakba in exchange for a symbolic return of 10,000 refugees”

(1) Do you agree that Abbas denies having offered this concession?

(2) Was he lying then or is he lying now?

“He’s lying now. ”

Well if he is clearly a liar on such important issues, then I don’t see why any reasonable person would trust him on anything.

“The PA no doubt believes that if they can get the territorial concessions, including East Jerusalem”

Any evidence for this belief? Or just your own wishful thinking?

“Sabril, politicians are habitual liars. ”

Sure, which is why you need to look at peoples’ words in the context of their actions. Anyway, I take it your answer to my question is “no” — you don’t have any evidence for your belief besides your own wishful thinking.

“Because if you succeed in consolidating the apartheid rule over the Palestinians,”

I have no idea what this means. “Consolidating the apartheid rule”? What would this entail?

“You must be utterly petrified by the events in Egypt”

Not utterly petrified, but concerned yes.

“s it blows away all that racist twaddle about how backward the Arabs are.”

At this point, it doesn’t really say anything about the backwardness or forwardness of the Arabs. Anyone can revolt.

“The Arabs, including the Palestinians, are a brave and righteous people. To you, to Benny Morris and to the Israeli puppets in Ramallah (and even to the Hamas dictatorship), I say, beware: Cairo is coming to your neighborhood!”

Are you saying that Israelis should worry that Egypt will renege on its peace treaty with Israel? If not, what exactly should Israelis be worried about?

The Iroquois and the Mohawk have a “historic connection” to New York state, especially what is now called New York City (a connection more recent and long enduring than the Jewish connection ever was to Palestine). Does that mean they have the right to retake political power here by force? And carry out an ethnic cleansing of two thirds of the Europeans who now live here, and make the remainder subordinates forever merely because they are not Iroquois or Mohawk? Under Benny Morris’ logic, and yours, if they could get enough nuclear warheads to make the whites flee, they would be entitled to do so.

Sabril, aren’t you engaging racist stereotyping when you accuse an entire religious and ethnic group of murdering women, being anti-semites, terrorists and supporters of terrorists? How are your questions different from those who ask, upon reading about Bernie Madoff, “Aren’t the Jews money-grubbing tricksters?”, or after reading the speeches of Meir Kahane, “Aren’t the Israelis all a bunch of fascists?”

The South Africans attempted to consolidate apartheid rule by granting blacks a very restricted self-government within the bantustans. That is what Israel is attempting to do in the territories (including Gaza) today.

As to the treaty with Egypt, every sovereign nation has the right to abrogate treaties. One the first things Bush did on taking office was to abrogate the ABM treaty. The Egyptian treaty was signed by a dictator and is not binding on a democratically elected government. If the new government wants to reaffirm it, fine. George Washington and the Continental Congress were not bound by treaties between the colonies and Great Britain. Israel has to deal with the new democrat reality in the Middle East, just like King George had to deal with the new reality in North America. The 1979 Camp David Accords provided that Israel would withdraw from the occupied territories within five years. If you want Egypt to reaffirm the peace treaty, Israel should live up to its part of that bargain, n’est pas?

“Sabril, aren’t you engaging racist stereotyping when you accuse an entire religious and ethnic group of murdering women, being anti-semites, terrorists and supporters of terrorists? ”

Of course, just as you are engaged in racist stereotyping when you assert that the Arabs are “brave and righteous.” If it’s possible for an entire ethnic group to be “brave and righteous,” then it’s also possible for an entire ethnic group to be cowardly and evil.

“That is what Israel is attempting to do in the territories (including Gaza) today.”

Please tell me EXACTLY what actions Israel is taking to “consolidate Apartheid rule.”

“As to the treaty with Egypt, every sovereign nation has the right to abrogate treaties”

Assuming this is true, you are evading my question.

Are you saying that Israelis should be worried that Egypt will abrogate its treaty? It’s a simple yes or no question.

If not, what exactly are you saying that Israel should be worried about?

Again my questions:

(1) Exactly what would “consolidating the apartheid rule” entail?

(2) Are you saying that Israelis should worry that Egypt will renege on its peace treaty with Israel? If not, what exactly should Israelis be worried about?

(3) Do you agree that a “brave and righteous” people would prohibit honor killings?

(4) Do you agree that a “brave and righteous” people would acknowledge that the Jews have a historic connection to Jerusalem?

(5) Do you agree that a “brave and righteous” people would condemn rocket attacks on Jewish civilians?

(6) Do you agree that a “brave and righteous” people would not dance in the street after 9/11?

(7) According to you, when did the 5 years for Israel to withdraw start running?

Oh, and

(8) Do you agree that it’s “racist stereotyping” to characterize Arabs as “brave and righteous”?

Yup. Agreed.

Sabril, bubalaha, its not “racist” to characterize a people as “brave and righteous.” If I said that Jewish political tradition was characterized by a “brave and righteous” support for human rights, would I be guilty of racism/anti-semitism? By the way, that statement is true, for everyone except Palestinians, of course.

Sabril, can’t any part of you admire those young men and women who have risked their lives throughout the Arab world in these recent days to confront the tanks of the dictators? Can’t any part of you recognize the bravery and righteousness of those Egyptian women and Bahraini men, and Libyans of all ages who have risen against tyranny? What better proof is there than watching CNN for the past few weeks that the Arab people (not the Arab dictatorships) are indeed a “brave and righteous people.” And Sabril, there is bravery and righteousness in al peoples, even the Israeli people. To the Avraham Burg’s, the Uri Avneri’s and the brave Israeli Jews who week after week confront the apartheid regime’s guns on the West Bank and in Silwan, I say, Kol Hakovod!

Sabril, you don’t seem to understand the difference between a positive generalization and a racist one.

Of all of the points I made with expect to Morris’ views, Sabril, the one that most stuck in your craw was when I had something positive to say about the Arab people. Why do you suppose that is?

Oh, and by the way, do you have any other response besides ad homenim inneundo?

I’ve said that least 881625 times. The problem this like that is they are just too compilcated for the average bird, if you know what I mean