PA people speak of reparations in the neighborhood of $40-50 billion. That may be impossible. But Palestine will obviously need billions in investment.

an interview with a holocaust survivor, Hajo Meyer.

In the long-run the country is destructing itself this way by inducing their Jewish citizens to become paranoid. In 2005 [then Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon illustrated this by saying in the Knesset [the Israeli parliament], we know we cannot trust anyone, we only can trust ourselves. This is the shortest possible definition of somebody who suffers from clinical paranoia. One of the major annoyances in my life is that Israel by means of trickery calls itself a Jewish state, while in fact it is Zionist. It wants the maximum territory with a minimum number of Palestinians. I have four Jewish grandparents. I am an atheist. I share the Jewish socio-cultural inheritance and I have learned about Jewish ethics. I don't wish to be represented by a Zionist state. They have no idea about the Holocaust. They use the Holocaust to implant paranoia in their children. LINK

The current rubric being pushed by the Obama folks is "two states for two peoples".

OK! The first state, obviously, is the "Palestinian" state. And that, presumably for the "Palestinians".

But based on your argument, Bernard, just who is the second state for? Not, according to your argument, for the Jewish people.

Much of this argument is patently academic. LIKUD's agenda is to ultimately transfer all Muslims and others out of the whole of Palestine/ Israel to achieve a 100% political Zionist entity where no freedom grows, nor anything else other than Uzi machine guns and other weapons of destruction for export to regimes around the world.

Netanyahu is the LIKUD leader. There will be no Palestinian state.

An excellent post, Bernard. For peace to occur, I think it is absolutely necessary for the Palestinians to recognize the right of Jews to be in Israel (your point 1). While some "official" statement of recognition might be nice, the reality is that any political agreement that both sides can accept will do this tacitly if not overtly, and the political agreement is all that should be expected of the Palestinians. I think I agree with your point 2, though I am worried you are saying that the Palestinians have a right to claim a a right of return, but no actual right to return to Israel if Israel refuses. For a fair solution to be achieved on the refugee issue, the actual return of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel must remain on the table as a real possibility. Only if that is a real possibility will Israel be forced to take the Palestinian demands seriously and negotiate a fair compromise. The compromise might indeed be compensation rather than return, but the compensation won't be significant enough to get a deal signed if the Palestinian right of return is first devalued by making it a "theoretical" right rather than an actual right.

We are, I think, in complete agreement on point 3.

I do think the discussion between Tintin, JDLedell, and BradtheDad about the need for a refuge for Jews is interesting and quite relevant. I think as long as Jews maintain an intensely strong sense of ethnic identity and distinctness, then a refuge for Jews will be necessary. Human nature simply is such that those who remain different will remain subject to discrimination and persecution. To end racism of any sort (including anti-Semitism) one must get the various "races" to see each other as belonging to the same group or community. As long as we see each other as essentially different and separate, we are doomed by our basic nature to be suspicious of each other and in conflict with each other.

While the history of the Jews provides a strong argument for the need for a refuge for the Jews, creating such a refuge also heightens the sense that Jews are distinct and different. In this way, the existence of Israel as a refuge for Jews perpetuates the need for such a refuge because it emphasizes the separateness of Jews. Ultimately, the way to make Jews safe is not to isolate the Jews behind a hafrada barrier but to somehow work to integrate Jews and non-Jews into a common community whose members identify with whatever unites them much more strongly than they identify with their Jewish or non-Jewish backgrounds. If one accepts this idea, then the best refuge for the Jews would not be a Jewish state (which perpetuates the root cause of discrimination--separateness) but a pluralistic state that unites and intermixes the Jews with Others. To this point, it's not a coincidence that many argue that the safest place in the world to be Jewish is not Israel, but the United States.

re YBD, I am not responsible for the paranoid circular reasoning you use in order to interpret what I and/or other posters say instead of simply accepting my/their words at face value. It would help if you didn't take everything so personally.

I think what Etzioni says is clear enough without your attempt to construct a parallel universe of meaning. Don't bother.

From now on, please provide quotes and links to the words of the accused if you wish to cite them, especially if they are not posting on the current thread or on TPM. But frankly, m'dear, I don't give a damn and could spend 24/7 posting egregious hateful bullshit that someone, somewhere on teh innerwebs has said. It means nada.

Just a few brief points to clarify my position:

Two quick responses:

But the rub comes when you have to identify which differences need to be let go and which traits will replace them.

I don't think that differences need to be "let go," I think they just need to be seen as less essential or significant to one's identity. Of course, once things are seen as less essential, they may indeed go away or at least be transformed into something different than what they were when they were seen as essential. Some things will be lost, but other things will be gained. The change, however, is not one of culling out old things, but allowing new things to evolve organically from the interaction of those old things.

You identify two innate tendencies: 1) the tendency to divide into tribes, and 2) the tendency to dislike and act violently toward foreign tribes. Why should it be easier (more workable) to overcome the first tendency than to overcome the second?

A good question. I think the answer is that tribalism really requires a desire to join together (into a tribe) as much as--probably even more than--it suggests a need to divide. Experience has shown that we can define our tribe flexibly and broaden its membership if we choose to do so. The US is a prime example: Irish, Italians, Blacks, etc. were all at some point in our history viewed as aliens (much as Latinos and Muslims are now). But we have continually demonstrated the ability to remove the barriers that separate us and merge into a common group. Some things are lost in that process, but (in my opinion at least) much more is gained.

Is it possible, however, for two groups to preserve separate tribal identities and avoid conflict? Only, I think, if they physically separate and clearly define separate "territories" in which they operate in order to avoid direct competition with each other. In today's globally integrated world, however, this becomes logistically less possible, I think.

PURPLE WRITES: "I don't think that differences need to be "let go," I think they just need to be seen as less essential or significant to one's identity. Of course, once things are seen as less essential, they may indeed go away or at least be transformed into something different than what they were when they were seen as essential."

I still think you need to DEFINE the essential from the inessential in order to make your theory work and credible. Otherwise, you stay at the level of an abstraction and no one knows what you think needs to happen to get the desired result.

(Also, your theory starts to sound like a more reasonable- and scientific-sounding version of what people have said for ages, "Why do the Jews have to keep themselves separate"--despite all the work they've done and do to INTEGRATE themselves into any society where they live.)

For example, for centuries, the "essential" point was religion. Jews just wouldn't become Christians. (BTW, did you know the Inquisition lasted into the 20th century? I didn't.) Okay, so I'm assuming you think it's okay for Jews to keep their religion. But if not, you have to say so. You also have to say which religion(s) they should/must join if they want to live a religious life. But I think you'd have to admit that if Judaism were eliminated, we would be going a long way toward eliminating the "Jewish people"--there would be people who USED to be Jews, but there would be no more Jews. I think even non-religious Jews would feel this, for reasons I'll explain somewhere else (unless you want to get into it here, then I'm happy to).

If it's their separate language they must give up, I'll tell you Jews have done an exceptionally good job of learning the language of the land. My grandfather spoke seven languages in the little area he came from. My grandparents purposely did not teach their kids Hungarian just so they'd integrate into American culture. And Jews spoke German in Germany. Their brand of Judaism was heavily influenced by the Christianity they found there. Synagogues started to look like churches. And yet, when push came to shove, all that eliminating of differences didn't save them from anti-Semitism. So the essential cause couldn't be language, because they spoke German just like any other German or Austrian.

And--just to take a tangent here--what are we to make of all those ethno-linguists who are trying to SAVE languages around the world? Are they actually working against world peace?

Then, of course, there were those who complained that Jews weren't tribal enough! Henry Ford's International Jew, for example. But the International Jew would appear to be Purple many years in advance: Workers recognizing their commonality across tribal boundaries, for example, and dispensing with the things that separated them: religion, language, race. But somehow, anti-Semites interpreted this activity as Jews being tribal with Jews and sticking to themselves. Well, it wasn't, not unless all the factories in Europe were filled with Jews. Some were owned by Jews, but in this case, their international focus pitted Jew against Jew, and didn't lead to Jew helping Jew.

And what of the Jewish banker? You think he and the Jewish socialist or communist were members of one big happy tribe? They didn't, but Hitler did, and anti-Semites do.

Anyway, sorry for the brevity and disjointedness of this. But, bottom line, I don't find your theory as an explanation of the cause of anti-Semitism or racism compelling--there are too many counter examples disproving it --and it suffers from vagueness when used as a prescription for eliminating anti-Semitism or racism, in part because you haven't defined "essential."

(When I look at American Jews, it seems to me they've "given up" a lot. Most don't keep kosher. Most don't speak Jewish or Hebrew. Most don't go to synagogue. Most don't give or go to Israel. They all speak English. They all pay taxes. All our fathers were gung-ho military recruits. They all participate fully in the U.S. economy and legal and governmental and health care system. How much less separate do you want? Sure, many, though I don't know the percentages, care about what happens to Jews overseas and in Israel. That's because, the last time they didn't care, a whole bunch of those overseas Jews got killed.)

There are a number of strange results that occur when I try to think this through. For example, you have people giving up "essential" things and holding on to "inessential" things. But who would swap the essential for the inessential? Most people are willing to do the opposite. See, at the level of abstraction where you work, some of this makes no sense (at least to me).

Your theory seems to use a biological metaphor: If we intermingle enough, we'll all become what my wife most fears from my forays into the laundry room: a load of uniformly pink gray underwear. Through multiple interminglings, we'll all be more or less the same. This seems to me so fraught with problems that the ease with which it can be stated is unnerving.

For example, ANY divisions among people would seem to cut against this intermingling and, according to your theory, lead to hatred. Just to move beyond the Jews, why not eliminate the borders between Canada and Mexico...and then continue on down to the tip of South America. Make it all one big group. It sounds crazy, I know, by why not? Course, Canadians, who are always reminding Americans of their moral superiority, tend to want to hang on stubbornly to their Canadian-ness, even if it takes a microscope to discern it. At least one third of America once belonged to Mexico and Spanish is already a strong second language in the southwest and Caleefornya. Sure would solve the border and immigration controversy in a flash--but it would probably cause all those tribal Americans some heartburn.

They're happy for everyone to blend into one as long as it's the others blending into America's version of "one," and not the other way around. I mean some people are actually disturbed to hear Spanish spoken at Wal*Mart. I think they're just being tribal and want to stay separate from the folks piling across the river.