Jerusalem: The Jewish Mainstream Starts To Accept Reality
Good news.
Some of the more conservative American Jewish institutions are coming around to acceptance of the two-state solution, ending the occupation, and sharing Jerusalem.
It’s about time. The overwhelming majority of Israelis and Jewish Americans favor those positions and, eventually, the more status quo-oriented organizations have to catch up – especially now that the Israeli government asserts that it finally has a genuine Palestinian partner.
Today's New York Jewish Week provides tangible evidence of a seismic shift. The Jewish Week is the largest circulation Jewish paper in the United States. It is the official voice of the New York Jewish community.
Its publisher, Gary Rosenblatt, is an important figure in New York.
A respected journalist, and a right-of-center Orthodox Jew, he is a key part of the New York Jewish establishment.
In an editorial he publishes in this week's paper. In it, he tells Jews to essentially “get real” about Israel, its borders, the future of Jerusalem, the occupation, and the Palestinians.
Rosenblatt writes:
"Now is a good time for diaspora Jews to start thinking about the differences between the ideal Israel and the real Israel. The ideal Israel may indeed have the holy city of Jerusalem as its eternal and undivided capital. But if there is to be a peace agreement—at the end of next year or at the end of this century—it may well call for formalizing the kind of division within Jerusalem that we have seen for decades, with much of East Jerusalem under the sovereignty of a Palestinian government….”
"And we Diaspora Jews who have listened so long to Israeli leaders tell us about the state’s absolute red lines must realize that the rhetoric and realities are changing. Otherwise we will be of little help in supporting our brothers and sisters in Israel, the majority of whom have come to believe that an end to wars and bloodshed is worth real sacrifice. They will have to decide if the risks are worthwhile because they already live in the real Israel."
Rosenblatt’s editorial appeared the same week as Israel Policy Forum’s annual event at a Manhattan hotel. The first thing that struck me about the IPF event was that on each table in the grand ballroom was a centerpiece made up of the American, Israeli, and Palestinian flags.
The second was the list of speakers: keynote speaker Haim Ramon, Vice Prime Minister of Israel; Former Israeli Deputy Defense Minister and current MK General Ephraim Sneh; Jordanian Ambassador to the United States Prince Zeid al-Hussein; and head of the PLO Mission to the United States Afif Safieh.
Just a week after Annapolis, the IPF event resembled similar events during Oslo’s best days. Clearly, the seven year dormant peace process is back.
But not back at square one.
During Oslo, representatives of Israel, Jordan and the PLO would have set forth clearly different views of what a future agreement between Israelis and Palestinians would look like. No more.
Although the 2000 Camp David summit failed, it is quite clear that the agreement nearly reached at Taba in 2001 (an agreement that almost surely would have been signed had President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak remained in office) is alive and is now accepted by both sides as the basis of a final status agreement.
That became obvious in Vice Prime Minister Ramon’s speech, in which he made clear that the position of the Israeli government on all the major final status issues is in line with both Taba and the Geneva Initiative.
On the occupation:
“We have to understand that the occupation is a threat to the existence of the state of Israel…. If we don’t bring an end to the occupation, the occupation will bring the end to the state of Israel…..This is not about giving something to Palestinians. It is rather about trying to secure the Jewish state.”
On Jerusalem:
“It is clear and in the interest of both sides that East Jerusalem will be the capital of the Palestinian state and that its Arab neighborhoods will be under Palestinian sovereignty. It is also clear that the Jewish neighborhoods, including the neighborhoods beyond the 1967 Green Line will be under Israeli sovereignty.”
On borders:
“It is clear to everyone that territory on the east side of the fence will not remain under Israeli sovereignty. It is even clear to those Israelis currently living east of the fence; they have demonstrated that with their efforts to be included on the west side.
“Under the Geneva Initiative, the Palestinians recognized that about 2½ percent of the West Bank would be included under Israeli sovereignty. The gap between the two sides is between 2½ and 8 percent. It’s not easy to bridge this gap. It is agreed, however, that between our position of 8 percent and the Palestinian position of 2½ percent there will be a land swap. Where the swap will be and how it will happen is something that we have to negotiate. But the principle is accepted. So let’s formalize it.”
On refugees:
“The Palestinian leadership knows that the refugees will not return to the State of Israel [but to an independent Palestinian state]. They know that the idea of Palestinian refugees having a right to return to the state of Israel contradicts the two-state solution [which they support]. So, what will happen with the refugees? What can happen is the creation of an international fund to deal with compensation as well as the humanitarian problems of the refugees. And maybe, if because of humanitarian reasons, and only because of humanitarian reasons, Israel will decide that some of the refugees will return [to Israel], Israel will discuss it.”
On Israeli security:
“The principle that the Palestinian state will be demilitarized is clear. The meaning of demilitarization has to be discussed, but the principle is agreed upon.”
I think that covers the key areas which must be resolved in negotiations. Ramon knows that reaching an agreement will not be easy. Keeping everything west of the security barrier as part of Israel is, in itself, very difficult. Unless parts of the security wall are moved west, the Palestinian state will not be viable and too many Palestinians will be included in Israel against their will and Israel’s demographic interests.
The refugee issue remains problematic. Although the refugees would return to the State of Palestine and not to the State of Israel, the Israeli government will likely have to acknowledge responsibility for creation of the refugee problem and offer, at least, symbolic reparations. Palestinians, for their part, could reciprocate by acknowledging responsibility for the terror Israel has endured for so much of its history. Such statements of empathy cost nothing but, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in conflict situations, acknowledging the pain one side has inflicted on the other is essential if peace is to be achieved.
There clearly are hurdles that have to be cleared. Ramon not only believes that they can be, but that a deal can be reached in 2008.
Former Deputy Minister of Defense, and current MK General Ephraim Sneh, agrees. I joined him on a number of visits to Capitol Hill this week and his message was the same as Ramon’s but with a twist.
Like his mentor and friend, Yitzhak Rabin, Sneh believes that finally ending the occupation and achieving establishment of a viable contiguous Palestinian state is not only the right thing to do, but that it will help neutralize real threats to Israel from the likes of Iran and its terrorist clients (i.e. Hezbollah).
“Israel must strike a deal as soon as possible with the Palestinians,” Sneh said. “Peace with the Palestinians is crucial for Israel to defeat not only Hamas but Iran and Hezbollah as well. The conflict with the Palestinians is eroding the country's military strength, while undermining its friendships and alliances in the region and around the world.
“If Israel starts the process of solving the conflict with the Palestinians, it will be easier for the moderates in the Arab world to ally with the Jewish state against extremists like Iran. It is a mistake for people to say that because the government is weak it can’t negotiate. A government that negotiates will be a strong government. If the government does nothing it will be weak.”
Nothing, Sneh believes, pleases the mullahs and Ahmadinejad more than perpetuation of the status quo.
So why should that same status quo also please the pro-Israel establishment in America? It shouldn’t and, perhaps, at long last, it doesn’t.
Two thousand and eight will be a year of decision. For Israelis, Palestinians, and for the rest of us too.
Yes, it is. It's amazing that when people focus on reality instead of illusions that every problem becomes solvable. I remember listening to George Will prattling on in the 1980s or 1990s about how the conflict in Northern Ireland was unsolvable. How ridiculous is that opinion now? Ditto I-P.
December 6, 2007 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
A good harbinger...MJ
December 6, 2007 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
mythbuster,
truly.
M. J., I'll be back when the fireworks start.
December 6, 2007 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Rosenblatt is telling everyone to throw in the towel to the post-Zionist regime ruling Israel today. We should roll over and play dead everytime the gov't decides to break another one of its promises and erases another one of its red lines. I would like to ask Rosenblatt why we should stop at Jerusalem? Eventually, the Israeli establishment will accept in principle the Palestinian "Right of Return". After that and they discover that the Palestinians are still not satisfied, the post-Zionist Establishment will say...."look, having a sovereign state is simply not worth the trouble, let's have the UN come in a place both us and the Palestinians under a Mandatory regime like there was before 1948". Sounds ridiculous? Well, up to 1999, BOTH the Labor Party AND MERETZ opposed dividing Jerusalem, so why not give up everything else? I would also ask Rosenblatt about Sederot and the Western Negev....the gov't has abandoned them, many people have fled due to the rocket attacks and yet we keep hearing that "now is not the time to send the IDF to clean out the hornet's nest in Gaza because [choose one of the following] (a) casualties would be too high, (b) there might be tension with Syria so we can't fact the danger of a 2-front conflict, (c) we are in the middle of a "peace process" with the Palestinians and they won't like it if we fight to defend ourselves". So much for Sederot-"be realistic Rosenblatt!". Some demographers (wrongly, in my opinion) say hundreds of years from now the Arabs might outnumber Jews in Israel, so why doesn't Roseblatt "get realistic" and tell us to capitulate now? Why not be like "realistic Avrum Burg" and tell everyone to make yerida (emigrate from Israel) now?
Rosenblatt's ridiculous claim the "Jerusalem is already divided" I have already dealt with in earlier threads of MJ's. Yes , it is true, Jews generally don't go into the Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem, but the Arabs are not now capable of firing into the Jewish areas, which they will do if Israel ends security control. The city is quiet and peaceful.
Division, or "sharing" would be the end of that, we would have the city turned into another Baghdad, Belfast or Beirut. (Also be aware that the Arabs themselves don't want to live under Palestinian rule). Rosenblatt suddenly comes up with arbitrary red lines-The Temple Mount and the Western Wall. I am sorry to be the one to break this to you Rosenblatt, but you are not being "realistic"....Barak already conceded the Temple Mount to the Arabs at Camp David and they also claim the Western Wall as their "holy place" where Muhammed's steed "AL-Buraq" was tied up, but according to Palestinian spokesmen, once we Jews accept that it is an Arab holy place, they might let us continue to pray there under certain circumstances. Very nice of them, but very "unrealistic" of you, Rosenblatt.
As I said, it is true that the Israeli Establishment is heading in the direction of dismantling the state. But who says they will be in power forever. Actually, it would be easy to oust them, they are very unpopular. Most Israeli strongly oppose the "realistic" capitulations Rosenblatt is talking about, but the political Right has disappeared and no political alternative is being offered. I am confident that eventually, such an alternative will arise and there will be a new dawn of hope for Israel and Zionism. And the irony is, it is only such a renewed Jewish/Zionist leadership committed to Jewish rights and settlement throughout ALL of Eretz Israel that will be able to reach a true accomodation with the Arabs. This post-Zionist gang in their self-abasement are driving peace further and further away by convincing the Arabs that all they have to do is wait, and they will get everything they want for free. They will only talk seriously to a government that really represents the Jewish people and insists on its rights as much as the Arabs insist on theirs.
Rosenblatt's article is a disgrace and defeatist. If people had listened to those who spoke like him 60 years ago and earlier, there never would have arisen a Jewish state.
December 6, 2007 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see that those who want to suppress free speech are back. This won't stop us, though.
Unfortunately, not everyone is as "realistic" as Mr Rosenblatt. Here is an excerpt from the Jerusalem Post about what the Palestinian leadership views as "realistic" peace terms....
---------------------------
PLC passes law to make any concessions on J'lem illegal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST Dec. 6, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hamas-dominated Palestinian Legislative Council Thursday passed a law that makes any concessions on Jerusalem illegal.
The law, which was approved by first reading, also defines such concessions as a crime of high treason.
Presented by Hamas legislator Ahmed Abu Halbiyeh on behalf of two parliamentary committees - the Judicial Committee and the Committee for Jerusalem Affairs, the law is expected to pass in second and third readings in the coming days.
The PLC session was boycotted by many members of the rival Fatah faction in protest against Hamas's violent takeover of the Gaza Strip last June.
However, many Fatah legislators have made it known that they too support the law, which states that Jerusalem is a Palestinian, Arab and Islamic city and that it is totally forbidden to give up or conduct negotiations about any part of the city.
According to the law, anyone who violates the law would be prosecuted as a traitor.
The new law still requires the approval of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, said Ahmed Bahar, acting speaker of the PLC. He said the law would be submitted to Abbas after it passes second and third readings.
The law is intended to embarrass Abbas and ties his hands on the eve of the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on core issues, including the future status of Jerusalem. Hamas officials said Abbas would have no other option but to endorse the law.
Tayeb Abdel Rahim, a top aide to Abbas, said in response that, as far as the PA was concerned, Jerusalem was a "red line" that can't be crossed.
Abbas told supporters in Ramallah Thursday that he did not go to Annapolis to make concessions. "There are some people who are trying to distort the truth," he said. "They are saying that we went to Annapolis to sell our cause, negotiate and sign agreements. But we went there to convey our principle and fixed positions."
Abbas said the Palestinian team to Annapolis faced many "obstacles." He said that these obstacles included demands to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and relinquishing the rights of the Palestinian refugees.
------------------
cut rest of article.
Rosenblatt had better get "realistic" about his red lines...the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.
December 6, 2007 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
And guess what? They will compromise--like all politicians. You could fill a warehouse with all the Israeli "red lines" that have been crossed over the years. When Israel makes big speeches and then compromises, it is viewed as signs of political intelligence; when the Palestinians do it, it is spun as perfidy.
I am convinced the Settlers fear a solution. Then they have to pay the same mortgages as other Israelis and watch as the Palestinians rise from poverty. When you've been kicking people to the dirt for 40 years, you don't want them to succeed. It makes you look bad.
December 7, 2007 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "settlers" opened joint businesses with the Arabs in Judea/Samaria and hired many to work in building the settlements. It was the first "Intifada" (1987-1991) that ended the joint businesses. Why would you think it is the Jews interest that the Palestinians be poor? It is the Palestinian Authority's interest that they remain poor, that way it keeps them dependent on the ruling clique.
December 8, 2007 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
But can you explain how civilians living outside the fence are helping Israel to keep the security control of West Bank of Jerusalem?
December 6, 2007 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The main reason that, thank G-d, the suicide bombers have been thwarted is NOT because of the Wall, but because of the IDF's forward defense strategy of going after the bombers and those who send them and organize the attacks in their strongholds, in the Palestinian cities of Judea/Samaria. Note how that removal of IDF security operations in Gaza have led to endless attacks from there, in spite of the security fence which completely surrounds the Strip. Jewish civilian presence in Judea/Samaria serves to increase security on the roads and gives the IDF a strong back up of Jewish communities on which to rely for support. Although the Jewish communities of Judea/Samaria play an important role in security, my reason for supporting their presence is essentially Zionist/ideological---this is the historic heartland of the Jewish people and the Arabs know that and they see any attempts by Israel to remove them as moral degeneration and weakness. This is why any attempts to expel Jews from Judea/Samaria must be fought.
December 6, 2007 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 6, 2007 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel a need to clarify what you highlighted.....I stated that most Israelis would agree to a "2-state" solution even though I oppose it. However, that is not to say that Israelis do not support the Judea/Samaria settlements, most do. Its just they might be willing to give up some of them for a "true peace" that they do not believe can be achieved. Even the more problematic Gush Katif settlements had good support...Sharon had less than 50% support for destroying them.
December 7, 2007 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bar, Are you claiming that in reality most of Israelis want to keep all of WEst Bank?
December 7, 2007 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
JW--reality doesn't matter to the usual suspects around here. I lived in East Jerusalem for a few months (Salah-al-Din) Street, the main drag in EJ)
while most of the "united Jerusalem" folks never barely set foot in East Jerusalem.
East Jerusalem is already de facto Palestinian. Making it de jure won't make a difference on the ground but could produce peace.
December 6, 2007 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Were you there before the 6-Day War when the city was divided by mine fields, barbed wire, anti-sniper walls, shooting into the Jewish areas? That is what will return if they do what you want. O, excuse me, you will insist that they sign a scrap of paper promising they won't do that. Just like Arafat promised to prevent terror attacks and prevent racist anti-Jewish propaganda in his state-controlled media.d
I recently visited the Rockefeller Museum for the first time in years (it is located just outside the north-east corner of the Old City walls). There is Jewish traffic around the Old City so it is not true that Jews don't go anywhere in the Arab areas.
Umm el-Fahem is the largest Israeli Arab city, located near Wadi Ara. Israelis rarely set foot there. How about giving that to the Palestinians, too? That is what Avigdor Lieberman advocates. Pretty odd, you are considered a "progressive" and he is called a "racist".
December 6, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Mr. Settler. The Israeli government would not sign an agreement that would not guarantee the security of Jerusalem and its Jewish citizens. It will, however, when the time comes, evacuate the settlements.
And, like citizens of democracies everywhere, you will abide by its decision.
December 6, 2007 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The government of Israel signed the Oslo Agreements which led to murder of over 1000 Israelis and the wounding of thousands more. Sharon also said the destruction of Gush Katif would stop all rocket fire into Israel "because they would no longer have a reason to fire them". Peres and Rabin ridiculed Knesset members who warned that Oslo would lead to rockets being fired into Ashqelon and called them "fearmongers".
Peres said "Arafat was a changed man" and no longer supported terrorism.
It amazes me, MJ, but all your policy proposals are based on government press releases by the Palestinians and Israel's post-Zionist regime. Does it ever occur to you that they are lying? After all, you always like to point out that Bush and his neo-con friends lied about the WMD's in Iraq in order to get support for policies he wanted. Bush I said "Saddam was worse than Hitler" (apparently Bush I saw some sort of good points in Hitler that Saddam was apparently lacking) in order to get support for his war. LBJ lied about North Vietnamese naval attacks in order to get the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution. So why is it unthinkable to you to believe that Peres and Arafat would lie also? Would Peres have received the Nobel "Peace" Prize otherwise?
December 6, 2007 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Israel's post-Zionist regime...."
Wow. You really are one of the settler crazies, aren't you?
When you moving back to the US?
December 6, 2007 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, your postings rarely ever deal with Israel's internal situation. That is why you could write in the previous threat that "Olmert is now looking every bit the Prime Minister" like Ben-Gurion. Apparently you haven't seen the post-Annapolis polls which show his approval rating is at 20%. You think that all Israelis care about is the things that American TV news viewers like yourself care about and that is getting Abbas and the Palestinians to like us. Are you aware that there is a high-school teacher's strike going on for months now? Are you aware that there is a long-term strike of the senior University professors? Did you hear in the last test of Israeli school achievement, Israeli pupils are near the bottom of the list among Western countries? Do you think everyone has forgotten the horrible incompetence of Olmert and his gov't in the Lebanon II war and the deterioration of the army that caused it? What about the failure to help the 1 MILLION people who were forced to leave their homes or were stuck for weeks in bomb shelters? Are you aware that the Supreme Court, which is dominated by hypocritcal post-Zionists has an approval rating around 30% whereas 20 years ago it was around 90%.
The post-Zionist Establishment has virtually eradicated all serious politcal opposition and solidified control of the electronic media, the 3 big newspapers and the coercive arms of the state in addition to the education system, causing all these insitutions to deteriorate. Everyone sees it.
Shimon Peres once had someone write a book under his name in which he states " we have come to realize that the ideologies we used to believe in are irrelevant (he is referring to Zionism and Socialism). He had someone write in another book under his name something to the effect of :"globalization and mass communications have made old forms of identity (like religion and nationalism ) obsolete.".
This is post-Zionism which is now the official religion of Israel. Zionism was the belief in the collective responsility of everyone for each other in the Jewish state. Now, the philosophy is "everyone for himself" and "the most important thing is to make as much money as possible". Most Israelis don't accept this, but this is the view of the Establishment (e.g. Minister Meir Shitreet's statement that "unemployed people are lazy").
During the Oslo period of the 1990's, the Left tried to claim that the "moderate" Arafat-wing Palestinians agree with this, and that "real Israelis" (as Rabin called them-i.e. followers of his views) true allies are these Arabs, not the primitive religious/nationalist Jews. Unfortunately for the Left, the Arabs, including Israeli Arabs openly rejected this line, even though we see people, such as MJ, try to revive this line (e.g. "the conflict is not between Israel and the Arabs-it is between the moderates and extremists on both sides").
This is post-Zionism. Unfortunately for MJ and the rest of the Left, there is no "post-Palestinianism".
December 6, 2007 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can only hope that "globalization and mass communication [will] make old forms of identity (like religion and nationalism) obsolete." That would be a step in the right direction.
December 7, 2007 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, imagine a time when our politicians don't need to define a nation as being a state of most, but not all, its citizens. I'd like to start by having American politicians take a pledge to stop claiming that America is a Christian nation. Unless by that they mean it is a Muslim, Jewish, Budddhist, Hindu, or Agnostic Nation too.
December 7, 2007 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently, Mitt Romney did just this, by leaving aetheists and agnostics off his 'approved American' list.
December 7, 2007 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is an irony. Mr. "I'll have no Muslims in My Cabinet" doesn't want the rest of us clouding our votes with religious bigotry. This is why I love America: It's the best show in town!
December 7, 2007 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two points you obviously missed:
1. Israel also placed about 200,000 more settlers on the West Bank since Oslo, which indicates how much the government respected its agreements.
2. The IDF has killed at least 4,000 Palestinians in the same period of time, including more than 800 children.
Sorry, but Jewish blood is not more valuable than Arab blood.
December 7, 2007 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was wrong. If Americans had to kill Japanese civilians they should've let Japanese to kill equal number of American civilians. That would be fair.
December 7, 2007 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for addressing the issue instead of taking it off in another direction.
December 9, 2007 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jewish blood may not be more valuable than Arab blood but if Palestinians were not so murderous and not so cowardly there would be a lot fewer Palestinians killed. Firing missiles into Israel, attempting to commit terror against Israelis and then hiding among your own people is likely to have a bad result.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 8, 2007 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed--the Pals should do the courageous thing, and acquire high-tech attack helicopters and fighter jets, and do their killing remotely--then, hire a good PR firm to explain that the Israelis citizens killed were 'unfortunate.'
December 8, 2007 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure,
Egypt, Syria and Jordan did exactly that.
However, in spite of their best efforts they were not able to kill as many Israelis citizens as they wanted to kill. So they didn't need a good PR firm to explain that the Israelis citizens killed were 'unfortunate', Even if they
did manage kill a many Israelis citizens , they still woudn't need a PR firm. You don't need a PR firm to explain away sendind a Palestinian child to Israel to blow himself or herself in the mall and blow up as many Israeli childen as possible. There are so many appologists that would be glad to explain away such terrorist acts for free.
December 8, 2007 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
1967 and 1973 were a long time ago--get over it!
Also, lately the IDF PR wing has been too busy trying to explain how it 'won' the 'war' against Lebanon, and the 'heroic' act of blowing up an empty Syrian warehouse in the desert, and pretending it was a 'nukular' plant.
December 9, 2007 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is not a single word in the Oslo Agreements restricting Israel's right to keep building civilian housing in Judea/Samaria. There is a clause referring to prohibition of "changing the status of the territories" which people claim refers to building in the settlements but it refers to Israel possibly annexing the territories or, alternatively, the Palestinian unilaterally declaring an independent state.
December 8, 2007 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I am not worthy of the title you bestowed upon me, "Mr Settler". I live in a suburb of Tel Aviv. I only wish I had the merit of other, earlier settlers like Ben-Gurion, Yoel Moshe Solomon and his partners who founded Petach Tikva, the founders of Tel-Aviv, Benny Katzover who founded Elon Moreh, Rav Levinger who founded Kiryat Arba, etc, etc.
December 6, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bar,
All settlements you mentioned will have to go
to endorse the kind of compromises, the most TPMers (including MJ, obviously) will accept.
December 6, 2007 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the first time that you've made a post that I can actually agree with.
...and some said it was impossible!
December 6, 2007 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You apparently didn't read my posting very carefully... I included Tel Aviv and Petach Tikva in the list of "settlements" which is how the Palestinians refer to them to this day. Davai, like someone with a good Russian background, was speaking in ironical terms.
December 6, 2007 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it exactly what he wants. He is not kidding.
December 6, 2007 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Newsflash, Bar, Russian emigres are not the only ones capable of speaking in ironic terms.
davai, remember that you don't speak for anybody but yourself, so please shut your piehole, as you have no idea what I want, or if i'm kidding.
December 7, 2007 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot to mention Baruch Goldstein. He's always personified the Settler ethic for me.
December 7, 2007 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 6, 2007 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with giving Arab parts of Israel to the Palestinians is that (1) it strips a group of citizens of their citizenship based on ethnicity--always wrong; and (2) ignores the reality of Palestinian life. The Palestinian-Isarelis live in a modern state and being "de-citizened" they will become citizens of a rump non-state with no autonomy.
December 7, 2007 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I was in East Jerusalem in 1969 it was also defacto Palestinian.
Israel is a modern political state, not a biblically ordained one. The only issue is how can Israelis lively peacefully, safely, and prosperously in a Democratic Jewish State. That cannot be done, will never be able to be done with Palestinians almost as numerous or more numerous than the Jewish population. That is the demographic reality.
While Israelis are prospering, almost to the point of per capita incomes equal to Europe, the best way for this to continue is for a successful and peaceful Palestinian State forged alongside Israel which will have an economic interest in Israel's economic success and therefore Israel's welbeing.
The Palestinians have no right to the destruction, by arms or "return," of Israel and Israel has no right to the land "given" by God to Abraham but only what the United Nations delimited and by what Israelis can negotiate with their Arab neighbors.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 6, 2007 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that there's far too much faith & blame put into what the "leadership" on both sides says or does (or doesn't as the case may be). And while the "leadership" for both the Israelis and the Palestinians is indeed important and vital to the process there is a far more important group that in the end plays a far greater role in any success or failure - the citizens.
Far too often I've seen people (the citizens) take hostile positions and attack then use the leadership of either one or both sides in order to justify it. This strikes me as not only disingenuous but also counterproductive to any sort of mutual understanding. It is however rather illuminating. Even with your eyes closed you can still feel the sun if it's shining on your face. The came holds true with hate.
I'm always apprehensive about blaming an entire people if by chance they have really lousy leaders. I do this because I'm an American and I have to, it's self defense. Because I'm not nearly as arrogant or ignorant as my leaders are so it only stands to reason that similar sorts of "representation" may very well happen elsewhere.
December 6, 2007 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 6, 2007 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only plan I feel is hopeful is to make Jerusalem an international city run along the lines of the Vatican with its own security, its own currency and its own city administration.
Get the Canadians to set it up - if anyone can play curling as a national sport, they have to have patience in abundance.
December 6, 2007 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bev, Do you have a clue what you are talking about? What's Jerusalem ? Old city? Big Jerusalem? Who will have a right to live in that city? Who will pay for the medical insurance for the citizens of that country? Is that city is going be self sustained by tourism? How many people will live in that city? Who will provide security for that city? Will goverment of Israel including knesset have to move out of Jerusalem?
December 6, 2007 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most important question: Who will provide security in the city? If, for example, Arabs attack Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall, will it be necessary to convence the UN Security Council in order to take action?
December 6, 2007 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would that be necessary when Jerusalem would have its own security force?
Interesting that you should be so sensitive to Arabs attacking Jewish worshippers - it was quite the opposite a few years ago, wasn't it?
December 7, 2007 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
What event are you talking about ?
December 7, 2007 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, this is why I don't have much hope for any solution in the Middle East. The proponents of both sides are inclined to forget the misery they have caused and focus on the misery they are suffering.
Alan Goodman.
December 7, 2007 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still curious what event you are talking about
December 7, 2007 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Snotty comment aside, davai, something of which I have never done to you, anything that calls itself the city of Jerusalem today would be considered the city of Jerusalem. Anyone will have the right to live in Jerusalem - that's the point of an international city. Services will be paid for by taxes, just as any other city services are paid for. The security of the city can be provided much like the Swiss Guard provides security for Vatican City. I have no doubt that the city could be almost self-sustained by tourism if the violence was halted. It is amazing that the city still draws the amount of tourists that it does, in the midst of the daily carnage and mayhem it endures. Yes, the govt. of Israel would have to move out - that's the whole point - so would the Palestinian govt.
You know, for a city that is considered the holiest of holies for three major religons it has become one of the most ungodly places on earth. Instead of the three religons feuding and fighting over it, if they really believed in their various gods, they'd be down on their hands and knees, praying and washing the streets clean of blood with their tears of shame. There's another source of funding - all three religons can put their money where their mouths are and commit to contributing an equal share to the management and upkeep of the city. They all seem to have enough money to contribute to the pain and suffering of the city.
December 7, 2007 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 7, 2007 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's quite alright. No, you're correct - not just anyone can live in Vatican City. My point is that Jerusalem can be administered "like" Vatican City, not that it be Vatican City.
December 7, 2007 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that Jerusalem can NOT be administered "like" Vatican City, if anybody can live there.
December 7, 2007 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
(1) Who would command this "neutral force"? The British Mandatory regime claimed to be neutral and generally put severe restrictions on Jewish rights. We will not tolerate a return to that situation.
(2) What "daily carnage and mayhem" is there in Jerusalem? There certainly was carnage when the Palestinians, under Arafat' direction carried out numerous suicide bombings in Jerusalem, but fortunately, due to the IDF's forward defense, this has been reduced, Thank G-d.
December 8, 2007 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bev, Your thought is pretty close to what the UN recommended in '47.
Canadians are amazing. The very idea that they have a country whose southernmost point is 300 miles north of Albany, NY is terribly impressive.
December 6, 2007 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I was being somewhat sarcastic, but Canadian diplomacy can be very effective - they brokered some amazing deals and held together some pretty contentious coalitions in the U.N. and are in my opinion, the "disinterested" third party needed to broker any deal - more so than the U.S.
December 7, 2007 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 6, 2007 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Davai, I agree. My posts are useless! So why don't you not waste everyone's time by going away and not driving the number of responses to my posts up to 250 a pop. Thanks to you. I'm an internet superstar. I'd prefer less stardom and less mindless drivel from you.
As the kids say, you are SO NOT welcome around here.
December 6, 2007 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you start posting posts that have some original thoughts and not that misleading? The other posters are able to do that. What prevents you? Some other posters are able to get good internet traffic while maintaining some integrity. Why can't you?
December 6, 2007 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It’s true, For most TPMers (including you obviously), a kind of compromise that preserves Jewish majority state of Israel is unacceptable, however, most TPMers (including you obviously) are extreme marginal minority totally outside The Jewish Mainstream , The Democratic Party Mainstream or The American Mainstream
All of us here at the TPM Cafe know MJ's bona fides, including his time spent 'on the ground' in Israel; what we know about you is that you are a Russian Jew who has emigrated to the US. Please inform us as to a.) your own personal time spent in Israel, and how it qualifies you to speak for said people, as well as your experience with the US Democratic Pary and the 'American mainstream,' and how said experience b.) anoints you to speak for so many people.
Thank you for contributing such meaningful information to this forum.
December 6, 2007 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't speak for anybody.
However, there is nobody in The Democratic Party Mainstream or The American Mainstream advocate views that are popular among TPMers, such as resolution of I/P conflict that will lead to a single Arab majority state or two Arab majority states.
December 6, 2007 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just did, in your earlier comment that I quoted, and your response doesn't answer a single question that I asked, and instead, you respond with the all the ammunition you have at hand.
Truly, a hammer defining nails as solutions.
Again, for credibility's sake, how much time have you personally spent in Israel, and how much time have you spent in the rest of America? (outside of the ethnic enclave that you belong to)
Thank you for continuing to provide needed context.
December 6, 2007 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does it matter? Even if I live in Siberia, the undisputed fact is that there is nobody in The Democratic Party Mainstream or The American Mainstream advocate views that are popular among TPMers, such as resolution of I/P conflict that will lead to a single Arab majority state or two Arab majority states.
Even if I've spent all my American life living in an ethnic enclave, it doesn't matter. The facts are the facts.
December 6, 2007 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your concept of the 'facts' is hilarious--for one, i've never seen anybody here advocate for 'two Arab majority states,' so you apparently made that one up out of whole cloth.
Perhaps you were a famed clarivoyant in your native country, with such amazing powers that you just *know* what large groups of people are thinking--even if you've never actually met them, or have some kind of real connection, beyond the propaganda that you've been fed by your benefactors.
Your strong language is an indication that your marginal status in this forum is a sore spot, so in an effort to avoid cognitive dissonance, you've created a fantastical narrative whereby you yourself are the voice of reason, and everyone else, including your fellow Jews, most of whom have actual connections and history with Israel, are wrong if they dare to disagree with you. Perhaps you are a king in this imaginary realm, as opposed to the troll that you appear to be in this shared reality we call TPM Cafe.
December 7, 2007 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, what do you advocate,
One state solution, two Arab majority states,
One majority Jewish state and one Arab state?
December 7, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about two democratic states? What a shocking proposal. If the Settlers in Hebron want to become Palestinian citizens, I certainly wouldn't oppose it.
December 7, 2007 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about 5 million or so Arabs who claim to be refugees. Which state they would be allowed to return?
December 7, 2007 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they should wait about 2000 years, claim that God is their real estate agent, and then get the British Foreign Secretary to award them some one else's land. That is about as just as the "Right of Return" currently practiced.
Seriously, most people know that only a few Palestinians will be allowed to return to their often-flattened villages in what is now Israel. The right of return will be a symbolic gesture, like giving Japanese-Americans $40K for being interned during WWII. It is not "compensation." It is a an acknowledgement of history. (Would you take 40K to be penned in like an animal for being of the wrong nationality?)
But the Palestinians should not unilaterally drop that demand because,while return is impractical, it requires Zionists to acknowledge that The Catastrophe happened.
December 7, 2007 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Zionists don't acknowledge that The Catastrophe happened, what should Palestinias do?
Continue to fight and die for such acknowledgement?
What about Jews from Arab countries? Should Arab countries acknowledge that The Catastrophe happened?
December 7, 2007 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you care? Your mind is already closed, so why waste my time?
December 7, 2007 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based on reading of comments to MJ post I've concluded that for most TPMers (including you obviously), a kind of compromise that preserves Jewish majority state of Israel is unacceptable.
For some mysterious reasons you are trying to deny the obvious. I don’t understand why.
December 7, 2007 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice euphemism-- 'a kind of compromise' equals a Bantustani existence for the Palestinians on unwanted and leftover scraps of land crisscrossed with checkpoints and 'Jew only' roads.
Would you have been for designating the Warsaw Ghetto as a separate country for the Jews in 1940? After all, it would have been necessary, in order for the non-Jewish Poles to maintain their majority.
December 7, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Compare to what happened to Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, my answer would be Yes, Yes, Yes.
I don't want to argue about fairness of two state solution, one is Jewish majority and another is Arab. However, you as well as many people here don't support such solution.
We didn't really have to discuss my biography to establish this.
December 7, 2007 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The sad thing is that although what I've come to think of as the "davai and Howard Show" drives up the overall number of responses in your threads, I'm convinced it also drives away a good number of posters who are unwilling to wade through all the OT drivel in order to get to anything of substance. How long has it been, for instance, since DanK has posted here? There are a number of other people who also used to be regulars in these discussions but who only post rarely now. And how many new people are so turned off by all the detritus that they take no more than a quick look and never return again?
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
December 7, 2007 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, MJ. I hope it does indicate a shift. I know that the overwhelming majority of Jews want Israel to go back to the '67 lines, or pretty close to them, but since when have Jewish organizations cared what the majority wanted? I was in NY last weekend and was in a neighborhood called Brighton Beach to eat at a great Russian restaurant. I ended up talking to some of these Russian Jews. I'm glad they are here and not Israel. A country of 300 million can tolerate the kind of fascism I heard from these people. Israel is too small for these rightist Stalinists!
December 6, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
For many TPMers (including you, obviously) Bush is worse than Hiltler, so when you call Russian Jews fascists, what you really mean that they don't agree with extreeme Left wing minority of Americans who hate own country and love Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez. We new Americans, Russian Jews, love our new country, we are proud to be Americans and appreciate freedoms and opportunities this great country provide to all its citizens.
December 6, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your statement that
"the overwhelming majority of Jews want Israel to go back to the '67 lines, or pretty close to them"
is incorrect. Most might accept such an outcome under certain circumstances, but most agree that there is these circumstance do not now exist nor are likely too in the future.
December 8, 2007 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who ever said that dividing the greater Jerusalem into its Palestinian and Israeli parts will not result in an ideal Israel? May be if your ideal is war and controlling Palestinians. Peace is in the prayers and in prophecy and therefore, diving Jerusalem to the satisfaction of both peoples is the ideal.
December 6, 2007 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is positive news.
There is one thing that many of us feel make a two state solution impractical and that is opposition to it within Israel. What Americans think really does not mean that much. MJ repeatedly asserts that a clear majority of the Israelis support returning Israel to its 1967 borders. The polling numbers I've seen seem to show less than half support that position.
I am afraid that bar_kochba132's beliefs are closer to the majority than many are willing to admit. It doesn't surprise me that he/she/it lives in Tel Aviv and I bet is not shunned by the neighbors for these views. It is why I believe the only useful thing the US can do today is to back away -- stop fighting her wars and stop financing her military and the occupation. This is Israel's problem so let them work it out themselves.
December 6, 2007 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me remind you that US doesn't fight Israel wars and doesn't finance Israeli military and the occupation.
Let me also remind you that issue is not bar_kochba132's beliefs , but the insistence on Palestinians to the "right of return", therefore
insistence of Palestinians on two Arab majority states solution that makes no sense.
December 6, 2007 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
But we do. 242 marines killed in Beirut in 1982 fighting for whom? Last summer the IAF ran out of bombs to drop on Lebanon. Who filled in the slack? Where did all of those extra cluster bombs come from? $5 billion dollars a year given to Israel is used for what? That is about $ 1 thousand dollars per year for each Israeli Jewish citizen. It is difficult to argue that these funds do not provide significant support for the entire Israeli enterprise (please look up fungible if you think this money is not used to support policies that we officially disapprove of). Then we have Iraq. I do not believe that we fight there only because of Israel but only the most naive or partisan would deny that if it was not for Israel this debacle would not have happened.
December 6, 2007 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 6, 2007 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Everett Dirksen, " A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money".
December 7, 2007 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
I think it will do no good to ban davai. Instead, I think we should find him a job. He spends too much time on here to possibly work. I think its in .everyones' interest--his included--that he do so
Not sure if many people will want someone in there office who trolls the hallways pestering people with useless, non-intellectual contributions, but we should try.
December 6, 2007 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot resist observing that you may be describing the perfect GWB political appointee.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 6, 2007 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is rather obvious why Davai was forced to live on welfare. Who would hire him. Poor Mrs. Davai, three jobs!!!!
December 7, 2007 4:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious Sean, what kind of job you do.
December 7, 2007 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I design roller coasters.
December 7, 2007 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not gang up on someone. It isn't right.
December 7, 2007 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
mmm... more not left, considering everything...
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 7, 2007 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
The truth is the truth, regardless of who says it. Anyone who has lived in Israel knows that a majority of Israelis would give up all the occupied territories in a heartbeat if that meant they could live in the Jewish state in peace, and the ones that wouldn't aren't going to start sending rockets and suicide bombers into a new Palestinian state. The gazillion dollar question, and this should be obvious, is the extent to which the undeniably large proportion of those Palestinians who are unwilling to forego a right of return under any circumstances will continue to support sending rockets and suicide bombers into Israel. And this is to say nothing of the very large rocket Iran wants to shoot into Israel (and if you don't think they'd do it, just look at what their leaders think of the Iran-Iraq war).
I understand Mr. Rosenberg's anger at mainstream Jewish leaders. But that's really just an issue that was born in '67 (actually really with Menachem Begin's election in 1977) and died with the Al-Aqsa intifadeh. The real issue isn't 1967, people. It was and remains 1948.
December 7, 2007 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
The most recent polls do not support this statement (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50575; sorry for the source but I read the original Haaretz article a few months back and remember this result), Not only do a majority oppose withdrawal but this same poll showed 60% supported encouraging all Arabs, including Israeli Arabs, to leave. Close to 40% supported the 1948 option or forceful transfer.
I presume that you have lived in Israel and I would also guess that your neighbors and social contacts were primarily among Ashkenzi who were from the first settlers prior to 1948. These people are becoming a minority. There are other groups that lean heavily against withdrawal such as Sephardim, the new Russians and of course the
the 400,000 settlers (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/932344.html).
I am not saying that attitudes can't change but I believe that the American people should consider the possibility that the two state solution may not be possible. It may simply be best for the US to back away and leave this mess to the natives to sort out.
December 7, 2007 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe Iran would pre emptively attack Israel, regardless of the rhetoric.
December 7, 2007 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
If by "rhetoric," you mean the "wipe off the map" type comments that Ahmadinejad incessantly issues, that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm looking at are the number of casualties the Iranian regime seems to be willing to inflict on its own people to achieve its aims, based on what appears to be a culture of mass martyrdom that its leaders have relentlessly celebrated since the end of the 1979 war.
December 7, 2007 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
iharry,
I wasn't addressing you in particular, my comment was for the benefit of everyone here. How would Iran pre emptively attack Israel? Send an Army across Iraq, then through Jordan and Syria? Certainly not through Turkey. Maybe by rockets with a return address? I stand by the comment.
As far as I know, Iran has never attacked anyone, and that includes Iraq in the 80s.
I guess anything can happen, but the idea of Iran pre emptively attacking Israel is, to me, a stetch. If Iranians were into mass martyrdom as you suggest, you would see it already.
December 7, 2007 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is much less here than MJ is claiming.
In the first place, Gary Rosenblatt, like the newspaper he edits, is decidedly middle-of-the-road in the context of the American Jewish community. The New York Jewish Week is pro-Israel in the way that the vast majority of Jews, (excluding the fringe left (embodied by MJ) and the fringe right) are pro-Israel. The center of gravity in the pro-Israel community is with a position that is highly skeptical the Arabs are willing to make peace, but is willing to entertain the notion that it is possible. And if it is possible, that it will require compromise to seal the deal. As I and others have said, the level of support for MJ's position, i.e. that talks must go on no matter what and that talking is always better than not talking, is negligible within the American Jewish Community and Israel. To say that Rosenblatt's article represents something fundamentally new - that he is inching away from this position towards the MJ position - is wishful thinking on MJ's part.
In fact, the article is something of a lament that the Israeli government has a long-standing habit of talking out of both sides of its mouth. It says one thing to American Jews to keep them happy and to keep the aid dollars flowing. Then it turns around and says the opposite. Rosenblatt is merely warning that it is time to stop believing what the Israeli government tells you - the reality is different. He is saying American Jews need to get real about the Israeli government's rhetoric, not about the idea that Jerusalem needs to be divided in order to achieve peace.
December 7, 2007 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad, your love affair with MJ rivals Davai's. Give it a rest. Leave your ad hominem bullshit home.
December 7, 2007 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 7, 2007 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the phrase ad hominem applies to Davai,the site pest, or BradtheDud, the Aipac cutout.
December 7, 2007 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, this is one time I didn't say anything about MJ the person. I didn't say I thought he was an idiot or corrupt or anything else for that matter. I am merely saying I think his assertions are incorrect and that I think his position is out of the mainstream. If that is what you think is meant by "ad hominem" then you have a strange understanding of the term.
December 7, 2007 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
On December 7, 2007 -2:04pm BradtheDad said:
On December 7, 2007 -12:22pm BradtheDad said:
I guess claiming MJ is the embodiment of the fringe left is not exactly an ad hominen attack. I guess.
December 7, 2007 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. It's not. Some of my best friends are fringe lefties. I'm a graduate of Berkeley and Columbia. If I didn't like lefties, I'd be pretty lonely!
December 7, 2007 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 7, 2007 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me state for the record that I am highly sceptical that Israelis want peace. If by peace you mean and end to settlements and permanent "control" over Palestinians. If by "peace," you mean quiet; everlasting Israeli control over Palestinian movement and development; and the right to unilaterally draw borders with a Palestinian rump state, then it is true: Most Israelis want peace. The "withdrawal" from Gaza is a perfect example of what Israel means by leaving....
December 7, 2007 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
but On December 7, 2007 - 12:51pm Sean1979 forgot his own advice.
December 7, 2007 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
And now comes the announcement that the Israeli government plans 300 new houses in East Jerusalem, but wait, that's not part of the land at issue in the current negotiations and oh, we annexed this land or something like that. If this keeps up, maybe right of center Diaspora groups can begin to pressure the Israeli government to face reality, as well.
December 7, 2007 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 7, 2007 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, thanks for doing this.I know that it is never fun to stand up to the extremists in your own camp.
The Davais,Brads,BarKokbA's etc will always shout "traitor." Same in the Palestinian community. The Hamas supporters are always out there screaming traitor at people who want peace with Israel. As for the Christians, well, we all see those crazy fundies using our faith as a club.
Keep it up.You are the majority.Nobody honors the silent Germans.It's the ones in the resistance who we honor.
December 7, 2007 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would never call a Palestinian who wants peace with Israel a traiter. Unless you mean "peace" at any prize....as in, the Occupation still continues by other means, a la Gaza. If that is "peace," then epithets are allowed.
December 7, 2007 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not saying that MJ is a traitor. I'm saying that he is writing trivial but misleading propaganda posts.
Give me a break. MJ is not a silent German, He is a shouting Jew.
December 7, 2007 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, Davai.In the last week I saw MJ on network television, plus I heard him on NPR, BBC and saw him on Channel 10 in Israel.
I guess their standards arent as high as yours.
As I have written before, you are only a parasite who feeds on MJ's prominence.
December 7, 2007 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, they have very low standards if they invited him because of a a parasite who feeds on MJ's prominence.
December 7, 2007 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Madison. I get your point and appreciate it. I do not, however, really accept it. I am part of no camp with Dava'i, Brad, etc. I can't stand tribalism.
Still, I appreciate the underlying sentiment.
December 7, 2007 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 7, 2007 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post.
A little off-topic but given the extraordinarily high response count these posts always generate, my question is...
Why do right wing troll zealots come here to argue with us? Do they think something is being accomplished? Or is it fulfilling some unsatisfied childish desire?
December 9, 2007 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The trolls cannot stand the idea that these things are being said. The MSM never puts these ideas out and the trolls worry "what if the free expression on the Mideast that exists on TPM spreads?"
So they put out their silly propaganda points here but, of course, none of us care.
December 9, 2007 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 9, 2007 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Freedom of expression does not mean that all points of expression are equal; indeed, the rest of us have the 'freedom of expression' to mock you, if we so desire.
The marketplace of ideas is a collective valuation of individual expressions, and yours are clearly not being valued highly in this forum. Why do you think this will change?
December 9, 2007 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 9, 2007 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm open to a wide range of ideas, however, I don't suffer fools, which explains my low tolerance of you and yours.
December 9, 2007 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 9, 2007 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would it be a fair summary of your response to the "care to give a few examples" to say "No. I have read enough to find no value in any positions you have expressed. If you want me to listen to you, say a few things, which are not leading questions, to change my mind that you have things to contribute, do so. Otherwise, you may assume that I am interested in positions from informative people, a group that does not include you."
I suspect we are somewhat alike on this, but I did want to confirm. In a toddler, one can understand the constant stream of questions with nothing substantive. In a presumed adult, it simply produces an unwillingness to listen to anything from that source.
The individual in question seems to believe that he can define the rules of discourse for this context, and those rules include the constant asking of hostile or silly questions with no addition of information, and that he can define the means of "finding truth" in which others are willing to cooperate. Both beliefs are sadly mistaken.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 10, 2007 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hard...to...resist..., Howard, but you've tried hard?
December 10, 2007 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hard...to...resist...
Can you explain what are the point of views that are welcomed here and what are the point of views that are not welcomed here?
Res ipsa loquitur.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 9, 2007 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know Howard, it's hard for you to resist but you are trying hard.
December 9, 2007 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing speaks!
December 9, 2007 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your "point of view" is not very welcome here. If you haven't realized that yet, I suppose your posting habits kind of make sense in a mentally ill sort of way.
You're free to say what you like of course, but, at a certain point, most people would get the message...
December 10, 2007 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
What point of views are welcome here?
December 10, 2007 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink