Roadblocks to a Two-State Solution
My friend Bernie's comments about my comment are spot on.
The Palestinians have earned a reputation for being chronic opportunity missers. For Palestinians the delay results in continued suffering and deprivation. The problem is that there is a heavy price to be paid by Israel as well if a two-state solution is not achieved soon: over time it will become an existential question. Writing recently in the New York Times about the urgency of a two-state solution, Tom Friedman said that "Israel is becoming permanently pregnant with a stillborn Palestinian state in its belly."
I take the point that a vast majority of Israelis favor a two-state solution more or less within the Clinton parameters or the Geneva initiative. The same is said of the Palestinians. However, we must allow for the possibility that people respond positively to polls about a two-state solution against the background of knowledge that a two-state solution is not attainable any time soon.
Be that as it may, there are large obstacles that stand in the way of a two-state solution. One is the division between the Palestinians which is the manifestation of a fundamental challenge to the Palestinian paradigm as embodied at Oslo, and the unwillingness of the international community to understand that, as Aaron David Miller puts it, it is not possible to make peace with one half of the Palestinians while making war on the other half. Unappetizing as it may be, Palestinian reunification, which was on the way to being achieved under Saudi auspices in the first half of 2007, is a prerequisite for a two state solution.
The other obstacle is that the political system in Israel allows small, one-issue sectors to effectively prevent the government from following the wishes of the majority. A problem of this magnitude can only be overcome if the Israeli leader is a giant behind whom the people can rally. Israel needs, in effect, what Spanish speakers call a 'Caudillo'. Absent such a leader, it is essential for Israelis to receive, and act upon, the kind of wake-up call that Olmert tried to issue in his Haaretz interview (which I mentioned in my earlier comment) after the Annapolis conference, which apparently went unheeded.
My hope is that The Hebrew Republic can help achieve the kind of consensus that is needed in Israel because it does not approach the roadblocks via pressure or threats but rather by the argument, which should be extremely persuasive, that the basis on which Israel's spectacular success rests is portable and elusive and therefore fragile. I hope it works, even if it is a long shot. The alternative is either Friedman's festering diagnosis prolonged over time or a three-party solution, as Bernie hints, with a loose federal centre -- more or less what the UN proposed to the Cypriots in 2004 but much more combustible.
As were Bernard Avishais two pieces on his book this was an interesting and thoughtful contribution.
It was marred, however, by its second sentence "[t]he Palestinians have earned a reputation for being chronic opportunity missers." This is one of the hoary chestnuts trotted out all too regularly by the anti-Palestinian crowd in an attempt to dissolve rational discussion.
I am not suggesting Alvaro de Soto is anti-Palestinian but I do suggest he avoid parroting those who are. It is unfair to blame the weaker partner in negotiations for rejecting bad-faith offers from the stronger partner. After all, even de Soto writes "that a two-state solution is not attainable any time soon."
September 9, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . chronic opportunity missers (Is that "mishers" in Yiddish?) . . . .
I'm not discounting your overall criticism, ColoreOscuro, but would be interested in your thoughts of whether Black September in Jordan (the "era of regrettable events") wasn't just one of those "chronic opportunity misses"?
How would the West Bank look today had the Palestinians integrated themselves, politically if not culturally, into the Hashemite Kingdom?
September 9, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
How would the westbank look if Israel didn't illegally occupy it and ethnically cleanse the Palestinians in the first place?
September 9, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ hass
How would the Middle East look without Israel? How would the world look without Jews? How would humanity look without scummy, vile, lying, ignorant, anti-semitic pukes like you?
September 10, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
For those who support the two state solution it seems to me that they are deceiving themselves on how difficult it will be to convince the Israeli people. Polling data most definitely does not show that a "vast majority" supports two states. The numbers I have seen are in the 50 to %60 range.
But more importantly, is that those who do support this solution seem quite apathetic about it. The opponents on the other hand have real fire in the belly on this issue. Also it appears as if a majority of the officers in the IDF and career intelligence employees are also opposed.
My read on these polls is that many Isaelis will say they support two-states because it is politicaly correct, but in the privacy of the polling place they will vote Likud. Sort of an Israeli version of the Bradly effect. The fact that polls right now show that the next prime minister will be Natanayhue if an election was held today supports this conjecture.
I have always supported peace along the lines of the Clinton parameters but I believe the opportunity to convince the Israeli people of this is gone. But I feel even stronger that the US should not fight another war on Israel's behalf. We should simply admit failure and let the warring tribes of the ME sort it out themselves.
September 9, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The numbers I have seen are in the 50% to 60% range.
Couple that with the problem of measuring what percentage of that 50% to 60% possess the modest measure of political will required to make even a single Israeli move from the West Bank settlement he lives in. Israel has never been able to stop the settlement movement since 1967. Why should anyone think they will stop it and reverse it in the future?
Israel was formed by dispossession. It nourishes itself on dispossession. It has never ceased its remorseless pattern of dispossession throughout its history. (Or maybe I should say "remorseful pattern of dispossession" - Israelis like to cry a lot about their ceaseless need to take.) The country's people and defenders seem to have dispossession woven into their deepest political habits. I don't see that changing.
The great Israeli "center" is a bunch of lying hypocrites. They claim not to endorse the settlement movement, but dream up every excuse they can think of not to really oppose it, or find some way to support it as a supposedly temporary tactical maneuver. The prattling is just a stinking pile of lies. It's a scam Israelis play on themselves to disguise their thieving behavior from their morally vainglorious self-image. Rather at best it's a scam. More likely, the "centrists" aren't deceiving themselves at all, and fully support the settler ideology in their hearts. But unlike the settlers they just lack the guts to say so publicly.
Israel could end this whole thing tomorrow, with hardly any need for "negotiations" with the hapless Palestinians. They could simply withdraw from the lands that they took in 1967, declare their eastern border along the green line, declare themselves in compliance with UN 242, and call on the international community to recognize that they have now done their part. The effect would be akin to the removal of the Berlin Wall, and later collapse of the Soviet Union. The world would view the situation as settled, and international support for the Palestinian movement would dissipate and evaporate overnight. The border would be recognized almost everywhere, and no one would have any problem about sending in international forces to defend it. The Palestinians would be left without a cause.
The standoff in Palestine has nothing to do with not being able to get the Palestinains to "negotiate", or with any "missed opportunities". There is nothing to negotiate. Israel is an outlaw state, that's all.
September 9, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The notion that Israel could end this whole conflict simply by withdrawing to the pre-1967 borders is odd given the experience in Gaza. Granted, it was only half the pie, but it didn't work at all. In fact, Israel is now roundly criticized for unilateral withdrawal.
Your comments on this thread are sad. It never ceases to amaze me how Israel is portrayed, especially in comments like this:
"Israel was formed by dispossession. It nourishes itself on dispossession. It has never ceased its remorseless pattern of dispossession throughout its history. (Or maybe I should say "remorseful pattern of dispossession" - Israelis like to cry a lot about their ceaseless need to take.) The country's people and defenders seem to have dispossession woven into their deepest political habits. I don't see that changing."
Good grief, man. Israel, with ALL the land it has 'grabbed,' is the size of New Jersey. It is a mere 60 years old. It was born from the ashes of 6 million dead--one third the world's entire Jewish population. It's taken in millions of Jews from every corner of the globe.
Do you really think any rational person can take seriously a characterization like yours? Frankly, if Israel manages to resolve its conflict with the Arab world--and Avishai's proposal is an interesting one--they will have solved one of the world's thorniest problems in record time. Much faster than the US has "solved" its racial conflict, for example.
But somehow, the mere mention of "Israel" turns otherwise rational people into raving idiots. To be honest, I don't get it. With all the truly horrific regimes in the world, nothing quite satisfies like hating Israel.
September 12, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we please stop repeating the cliche that Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity? It's simply a snide way of blaming the victims -- a way of dismissing Palestinian grievances by implying that the Palestinans' "deprivation and suffering" is a problem of their own making. The reality is that the Palestinians have been presented a situation in which there are very few good choices for them. These "opportunities" that the Palestinians allegedly keep missing always seem to be merely opportunities to legitimize Israel's seizure of Palestinian territory and its expulsion of Palestinian refugees in return for some meager consolation prize. If the Palestinians have missed "opportunities" it is only because the opportunities presented them were opportunities for the Israelis first and the Palestinans second.
September 9, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ purplestate
If you don't like cliches stop repeating the canard that losers are always "victims".
September 9, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the real sense of the cliche for Israelis would be captured by reformulating it is something like this:
"The Palestinians never embrace an opportunity to bend over and submit to humiliating rape and defeat in a way that might prevent their later submission to an even more humiliating rape and defeat."
It's true that Palestinians seem unable to accept the necessity of surrender. They maintain a faith in miracles: such as the miracle that some day the "international community" is going to step up and demand that Israel abide by international law, and is going to take the steps necessary to make them do it.
Fat chance. Israel owns the international community.
September 10, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Dan K
Look at the history of the area. Look at the historical stance of the Arabs. Look at the geography. Look at the demographics. You're another Leftie who either mistakes his ass for his head...or has no head.
September 10, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell are you arguing about? I know the history of the region, and I've already conceded that you and your buddies win. Israel can't be stopped. So why don't you just go ahead and cleanse and kill more Arabs until you're done with your dirty business? That's what you want anyway, isn't it?
September 10, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Dan K
You've got it all wrong. Israel can be stopped. That's why they're considering desperate and risky measures like ethnic cleansing and an attack against Iran.
From the beginning this has been a war to the finish between two peoples, who can't share, for control of a small piece of land. By now, after more than a 100 years of fighting, it's impossible for them to trust each other. The only possible resolution is complete separation.
Each side can claim that it fights for justice, that its action and policies are right, that the other is cruel and aggressive. The only justice I can see is that this is the only Jewish state while Arabs have a vast area in which they can impose their ways, rules, beliefs and customs.
The Palestinians, as you and others have pointed out, have not given up. They continue to try to regain their homeland, the land of their fathers. Look at a map. Israel within the green line is not defensible. They have no choice but to expand. How far? As far as is necessary, endlessly if the Arabs don't give up and accept their presence.
It's a shitty situation, not at all like the peaceful world we are told is just around the corner if only evil people would listen to reason.
September 10, 2008 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel within the green line isn't defensible? Well I regret to inform you that Israel extended out to the Jordan won't be defensible either. Either way, Israel will be a tiny country that could be wiped out in a flash with a handful of nuclear or chemical weapons. The whole 100 year war in Palestine is based on an illusion of territorial safety conceived by people like Herzl in an era before human beings had even invented cars and airplanes.
Religions are faddish. How long before the crazy Christian Zionists in this country decide they have had a new revelation or awakening, and conclude that God is now telling them to destroy Jews instead of Arabs, or that its the era of a new anti-Israel dispensation, or time to "rapture" Jews up to their maker? How much security will the Jordan River then provide?
We're all in the same boat, bud. The rednecks don't like me either, because I'm a secular non-believer. There was a time when politically active Jews throughout the western world invested their energies in working to diminish the remaining power of ignorance, tribal nationalism and religious kookiness, and in trying to build a world based on universal values of peace, civility, sharing and human brotherhood. Now they spend their time fussing about control of a little scrap of land in a hostile corner of the world, and have worked throughout the west to build a sick political alliance that indulges and empowers the very forces of ignorance, fear and group difference that are the fundamental sources on insecurity in the first place.
Jewish thinkers abandoned the only game in town, and helped destroy progressive thinking all over the west, all for an illusion of security based on ethnic nationalism residing on a small chunk of indefensible land. Short-sighted, futile and tragic.
September 10, 2008 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Dan K
On one level you're absolutely correct. Unfortunately, it's the level of utopian fantasy.
Much as we would like it not to be so human beings are tribal, religious, ethnic. In the real world the Zionists are right; expanding the size of the state won't make it absolutely safe, only more so.
That counts a great deal.
September 10, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K, there is a good deal of bait in your comment, which I think I'd be wise not to rise to. But I would like to reinforce the main point you are making, which is that it is wrong to think that Israelis have a military solution to their raft of security problems. Back in the period after the Six Day War, Moshe Dayan coined the term "security borders," as if sitting in a particular way in a particular place, would ultimately deter any attacks on Israel. That idea was blown to bits in 1973. Yet some Israelis--particularly people on the right, for whom the security issue is a convenient way not to talk about the settlements--continue to confuse holding fast to an enlarged border with deterrence. My working hypothesis is that fewer and fewer Israelis think this way since the Lebanon war of 2006, when the permeability of Israel's border by missiles (and missile launchers who feel they have nothing to lose) was made obvious.
September 10, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jewish thinkers and activists still are--they aren't all Zionists.
Or are these thinkers just not "Jewish" in your book because they aren't focused on Israel or "things Jewish"?
It's really hard to see what you're talking about. You've got Israel on the brain.
September 12, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jewish thinkers and activists still are--they aren't all Zionists.
Or are these thinkers just not "Jewish" in your book because they aren't focused on Israel or "things Jewish"?
Josh Marshall is a good example. Todd Gitlin. Sy Hersh. Glenn Greenwald. Matt Yglesias. Marcus Raskin. MJ Rosenberg (even though he is a Zionist).
All investing "their energies in working to diminish the remaining power of ignorance, tribal nationalism and religious kookiness, and in trying to build a world based on universal values of peace, civility, sharing and human brotherhood."
It's really hard to see what you're talking about. You've got Israel on the brain.
September 12, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jewish thinkers and activists still are--they aren't all Zionists.
Or are these thinkers just not "Jewish" in your book because they aren't focused on Israel or "things Jewish"?
Josh Marshall is a good example. Todd Gitlin. Sy Hersh. Glenn Greenwald. Matt Yglesias. Marcus Raskin. MJ Rosenberg (even though he is a Zionist).
All investing "their energies in working to diminish the remaining power of ignorance, tribal nationalism and religious kookiness, and in trying to build a world based on universal values of peace, civility, sharing and human brotherhood."
It's really hard to see what you're talking about. You've got Israel on the brain.
September 12, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Palestinians never missed an opportunituy to miss an opportunity. My impression is that they were in "Damn if you do not, damn if you do" situations, so they really, really could not moss./
Israel's problem is that in the short run, there are really no reason to make any concessions to Palestinians. They are nicely isolated behind tall walls and thoroughly impotent. They have hardly any friends. The few friends that they do have can be dismissed as no-goodniks.
In the long run, say, 10-20 years, the situation can deteriorate. So how should we react to this possibility?
One way is to be simultaneously complacent and hysterical. Stay the course and bomb Iran -- or at least, kwetch about Iran. Make a cabinet level position in charge of kwetching about Iran. Politically, this position has very clear advantages.
Second way is to try to convince fellow citiczens of Israel that some longer --- and sober! --- view is needed. Simon Bolivar referred to this type of efforts as "plowing the sea".
The third way is to convince foreigners, be it Americans or Europeans, to force Israel to mend her ways for her own good.
Now I see a fourth attempt that perhaps, perhaps, has some chances, at least, after more applications. To wit, Putin (and Medvedev) attempt to copy Israel's methods. On the other hand, they are to coy about it. For example, tjeu should copy more boldly Israeli methods of obtaining moral superiority -- like the ratio between the number of killed civilians and the number of civilians they COULD kill. Hezbolllah and Hamas operate at a ratio close to 1, while Israel -- less that 1/1000! Now, how many Georgians did Russian kill and how many they could kill? The ration is perhaps like 1/10000! While Georgians operated in the area between 1 and 1/10.
Seriously, I see some hope in the Georgian affair. Suddenly, loosers are victims, not just loosers! Neocons start championing "proportionality"! With Russia peeved and looking for ways to get even in case of some sanctions, however feeble, the idea of attacking Iran lost any residual appeal (to turn Iran into Russian zone of influence? Makes no fucking sense!).
Israeli whiners are loosing one of the pet aarguments: "why only Israel is criticised for X" -- well, Russia is criticised too.
Finally, if "Cold War" is revewed. this "long term scenario" that Israel has to worry about will be much easier to imagine, and thus much easier to address.
September 9, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, the real problem with De Soto's comment about Palestinians' being chronic opportunity missers is it betrays a certain arrogance and dismissiveness to the Palestininans and their concerns. Unfortunately, too many of these supporters of Israel who propose peace plans have an attitude like this that essentially dismisses the Palestinians (and their grievances) as serious. Because of this, most of the peace plans (the "opportunities") proposed by these folks seem primarily designed to help Israel and only secondarily to help Palestinians. It's not surprising that Palestinians reject such "opportunities" on a regular basis.
The "Hebrew State" seems to be another such "opportunity" for Palestinians. It's hard for me to see how a Hebrew state based on the Hebrew language and a Jewish-Hebrew culture presents any opportunity at all to Arab-speaking Muslims and Christians. Such a state may be less interested in settling the West Bank and Gaza because it is less religiously motivated, but I really don't see how it addresses the dispossession of the 4 or 5 million Arabs now living under Israeli rule.
September 10, 2008 5:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
De Soto said:
-----------------------------------------
A problem of this magnitude can only be overcome if the Israeli leader is a giant behind whom the people can rally. Israel needs, in effect, what Spanish speakers call a 'Caudillo'
------------------------------------------
Francisco Franco was called "Caudillo"--so that's what Israel needs, in the eyes of de Soto and the other "progessives"-a dictator. Get rid of democracy and use force to implement the policies the "progressives" want. What do you want the "Caudillo" to do, de Soto? Close down newspapers and other media that opposes a Palestinian state? Use force or even open fire against demostrations of Jewish settlers? Suspend the parliament if it doesn't have a majority for what you want it to do? Did it ever occur to you that a "Caudillo" could then turn around and expel the Arabs? Now I know why so many "progressive" opposed the war against Saddam Hussein...he was a "Caudillo" that "progressives" love...he babbled about being a socialist, he fired Scud missiles at Israel, he performed ethnic cleansing against the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south. De Soto-that's what the world needs, dictators that will implement your "progressive" policies. What are you all going to do if McCain wins the election? Call for a "progressive" military coup? Reinstitute "literacy tests" to be earn the right to vote?
Every one knows darned well that if the King Abdallahs of Saudi Arabia and Jordan, Assad of Syria and Abbas the Palestinian were to come to the Knesset and offer peace on the basis of a withdrawal to the pre-67 lines ANY Israeli gov't, including a "right-wing" one under Netanyahu would have to go along with it. So why don't the Arabs make such a Sadat-like gesture? Because the issue is NOT the territories Israel got in 1967, IT IS THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL within ANY borders that the Arab world objects to, in addition to many of the "progressives" I see posting here. That is why Israelis are not prepared to commit suicide and give up territory to have it used as base for attacks against Israel as happened in Gaza. You "progressives" can moan all you want, but the responsibility for the lack of peace between Jews and Arabs lies squarly on the shoulders of the Arab side. PERIOD.
September 10, 2008 5:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Every one knows . . . .
Oh, come on, now.
The settlers and the suburbanites aren't about to move from the West Bank. And they're not about to live under Palestinian control.
It wouldn't matter what the Arabs promised. As the settlers' representatives in the Knesset would be quick to point out "Who can trust an Arab?"
September 10, 2008 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then how do you explain Begin and Sharon destroying the Yamit settlements in the Sinai? How do you explain Sharon destroying Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip? Where were these "invincible" settlers then?
September 10, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't realize they were in the "West Bank".
I guess I need a geography lesson.
September 10, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Goodness. My last comment seems to have irked some people.
About the Palestinians as chronic opportunity missers: I did not make a value judgement on whether the opportunities offered were good or not or on whether they were in fact to blame for those opportunities being missed. My point was merely that they had earned a reputation for this, which might simply be the result of others being better at communications. Whether they deserve this reputation or not, I think it's undeniable that they have acquired it and have been on the defensive about it ever since.
Perhaps I used the term "caudillo" loosely, particularly given the Franco association. I certainly did not wish to suggest that democratic rules should be done away with. What I am suggesting is that in order to transcend the systemic obstacles to a compromise solution, Israel needs a leader with the stature and courage to rise above the melee and transcend those obstacles and forge ahead. As I said in my first comment on Monday, Olmert got the picture about time running out for a two-state solution and the dangers for Israel that this entails, but he didn't have the leadership qualities of, say, his predecessor Sharon, who, whatever one might think about his history, read the handwriting on the wall about the untenability of Israel staying in Gaza and vanquished the opposition to withdrawal.
September 10, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The notion that Israel could end this whole conflict simply by withdrawing to the pre-1967 borders is odd given the experience in Gaza. Granted, it was only half the pie, but it didn't work at all. In fact, Israel is now roundly criticized for unilateral withdrawal.
Your comments on this thread are sad. It never ceases to amaze me how Israel is portrayed, especially in comments like this:
"Israel was formed by dispossession. It nourishes itself on dispossession. It has never ceased its remorseless pattern of dispossession throughout its history. (Or maybe I should say "remorseful pattern of dispossession" - Israelis like to cry a lot about their ceaseless need to take.) The country's people and defenders seem to have dispossession woven into their deepest political habits. I don't see that changing."
Good grief, man. Israel, with ALL the land it has 'grabbed,' is the size of New Jersey. It is a mere 60 years old. It was born from the ashes of 6 million dead--one third the world's entire Jewish population. It's taken in millions of Jews from every corner of the globe.
Do you really think any rational person can take seriously a characterization like yours? Frankly, if Israel manages to resolve its conflict with the Arab world--and Avishai's proposal is an interesting one--they will have solved one of the world's thorniest problems in record time. Much faster than the US has "solved" its racial conflict, for example.
But somehow, the mere mention of "Israel" turns otherwise rational people into raving idiots. To be honest, I don't get it. With all the truly horrific regimes in the world, nothing quite satisfies like hating Israel.
September 12, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The notion that Israel could end this whole conflict simply by withdrawing to the pre-1967 borders is odd given the experience in Gaza. Granted, it was only half the pie, but it didn't work at all. In fact, Israel is now roundly criticized for unilateral withdrawal.
Your comments on this thread are sad. It never ceases to amaze me how Israel is portrayed, especially in comments like this:
"Israel was formed by dispossession. It nourishes itself on dispossession. It has never ceased its remorseless pattern of dispossession throughout its history. (Or maybe I should say "remorseful pattern of dispossession" - Israelis like to cry a lot about their ceaseless need to take.) The country's people and defenders seem to have dispossession woven into their deepest political habits. I don't see that changing."
Good grief, man. Israel, with ALL the land it has 'grabbed,' is the size of New Jersey. It is a mere 60 years old. It was born from the ashes of 6 million dead--one third the world's entire Jewish population. It's taken in millions of Jews from every corner of the globe.
Do you really think any rational person can take seriously a characterization like yours? Frankly, if Israel manages to resolve its conflict with the Arab world--and Avishai's proposal is an interesting one--they will have solved one of the world's thorniest problems in record time. Much faster than the US has "solved" its racial conflict, for example.
But somehow, the mere mention of "Israel" turns otherwise rational people into raving idiots. To be honest, I don't get it. With all the truly horrific regimes in the world, nothing quite satisfies like hating Israel.
September 12, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The notion that Israel could end this whole conflict simply by withdrawing to the pre-1967 borders is odd given the experience in Gaza. Granted, it was only half the pie, but it didn't work at all. In fact, Israel is now roundly criticized for unilateral withdrawal.
Your comments on this thread are sad. It never ceases to amaze me how Israel is portrayed, especially in comments like this:
"Israel was formed by dispossession. It nourishes itself on dispossession. It has never ceased its remorseless pattern of dispossession throughout its history. (Or maybe I should say "remorseful pattern of dispossession" - Israelis like to cry a lot about their ceaseless need to take.) The country's people and defenders seem to have dispossession woven into their deepest political habits. I don't see that changing."
Good grief, man. Israel, with ALL the land it has 'grabbed,' is the size of New Jersey. It is a mere 60 years old. It was born from the ashes of 6 million dead--one third the world's entire Jewish population. It's taken in millions of Jews from every corner of the globe.
Do you really think any rational person can take seriously a characterization like yours? Frankly, if Israel manages to resolve its conflict with the Arab world--and Avishai's proposal is an interesting one--they will have solved one of the world's thorniest problems in record time. Much faster than the US has "solved" its racial conflict, for example.
But somehow, the mere mention of "Israel" turns otherwise rational people into raving idiots. To be honest, I don't get it. With all the truly horrific regimes in the world, nothing quite satisfies like hating Israel.
September 12, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink