Israel may soon take path U.S. can't follow

[Classical_Liberal]

Bookman

Israel stands today at an important crossroads, trying to decide which of three roads it will travel.

If it chooses one road, the United States will be able to walk proudly alongside Israel as its friend, ally and, if necessary, its protector against any that threaten its security.

But if Israel chooses either of the remaining two routes, it will repudiate the shared values and strategic interests that have united Israelis and Americans for decades. Those Americans who count themselves as friends of Israel have an obligation to make that danger clear.

The issue, of course, is the fate of 3.5 million Palestinians on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Ever since the Camp David accords of 1978, official U.S. and Israeli policy has been based on the expectation that land could be exchanged for peace. Under that formula, Palestinians would recognize Israel's right to exist and live in peace; in return, Israel would abandon settlements in the......

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/bookman/index.html

[bluesoul]

1. Good

article!

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. Or things could just continue until the Palestinians offer peace

nt

[brainshrub]

21. The ball is no longer in the Palestinian court.

The Palestinians cannot offer collective peace because there is no centralized authority to assert cohesion in the ranks. Asking some "Palestinian Authority" for peace at this point is like asking a Mafia don to end all drug smuggling in the United States. It may look nice on the news, but the reality is that the Mafia don has no power beyond his own faction.

The Palestinians are a conquered & broken people. Israel does anything it wants to the people of Palestine with impunity: Take land, destroy homes, enforce collective punishment, lock whole communities into ghettos or assassinate leaders...it doesn't matter, because Israel holds all the cards.

The two-state solution is dead since it is not politically viable for Israel to uproot the Jewish settlements in Palestine. What little land is left is not large enough to have a viable state for the Palestinians...and is therefore meager reward for surrendering to the occupation.

Therefore, Israel must decide what to do with it's conquered people. If the state incorporates Palestine, Israel will compromise it's racial purity unless it embraces apartheid. If the Israeli army relocates Palestinains, they face little backing from the United States.

[meti57b]

31. The settlements do *not* mean the two-state solution is dead .....

"The two-state solution is dead since it is not politically viable for Israel to uproot the Jewish settlements in Palestine."

The settlers get a choice. They can all relocate back to Israel or they can all stay in the settlements and become legal residents of the new Palestinian state. Where's the problem? And we all know from reading the arguments in this forum in favor of the one-state solution that the Palestinians would more than love to have Israeli Jews living in their midst.

There is no reason to say the two-state solution is dead.

[brainshrub]

35. The settlers will refuse to leave

and the Israeli people will refuse to turn over the land they are on to ANY Palestinian state. Period. The Jews will never abandon their own people. Never. Every peace-plan put forth ignored this.

The Palestinians are in the same state the Native Americans experienced in 1880: They are screwed.

[Darranar]

36. No, that is sadly not true...

a group of foreign extremists is not what a young state needs.

And stolen land is stolen land; if I take a section of your yard for my own purposes, it should be returned, whether we are both citizens of the same state or not.

[Classical_Liberal]

44. That attitude poses a problem for the original land taken

when Israel was founded. The settlers should be offered full citizenship or resident alien status.

[papau]

3. A good analysis

But the transfer option is the counter-part to the right of return

not morally - but in its effect on keeping a Jewish State of Israel.

If the PA will not accept a Jewish State of Israel, transfer - something the region does rather often - as in the 1.5 million Greeks transfered out of Turkey, etc. - will become the only option.

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. I disagree

I don't think transfer is needed or correct.

There are only 1 million Israeli Arabs. The 3.5 million Palestinians will get a state as soon as there leadership settles for peace. In the meantime, the Palestinians remain Palestinians are not incorporated into Israel nor are they expelled from the territories.

[Classical_Liberal]

10. It isn't the leadership. It is the people

The leadership doesn't govern squat and should just disband.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. That is up to the Palestinians

Not me. They need leaders who will bring peace and tackle terror. Right now they appear to have none.

[Classical_Liberal]

13. They don't have a government to crack down on terror

with. Sharon has seen to that, so let him handle it. It will ruin him politically, which would be the best thing. It would also ruin all the right wing nuts like Netenyahu.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Well, if they can't find leaders to offer peace

Then we will never have peace. That is not just Sharon's problem that is a problem for the whole region.

[Classical_Liberal]

15. If the PA disbands it is.

whether Sharon likes it or not. He won't have the PA to blame, so the security situation will be his fault, and the voters will blame him and any other right wing nut that thinks like him.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. It will be up to the Palestinians to pick new leaders

You can make a peace without people to negotiate for you.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. I want to defend Israel

Israel chose a military leader because it is fighting a war. When peace is closer at hand, it will choose a peace leader.

[Classical_Liberal]

43. Right, no question about it, which is why I want

Sharon to fail, and get defeated. Israel should have taken the road to peace and not have elected Netenyahu or any of the right wing thugs when Rabin died.

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. The road to peace

is not a one-way street. Israel needs a partner on the other side and it does not have one.

So, until it does, Israel has Sharon and the Arabs fear him, which is a plus.

[Classical_Liberal]

51. Israel had a partner, but it shit on him when it elected

Netenyahu and expanded the settlements.

[brainshrub]

22. See post #21

[papau]

54. I hope you are correct - my family went through "transfer" - quite

a few times - in the region.

And it really hurts every aspect of life.

But it may well be the only option if "right of return end of Israel as Jewish state" remains the PA demand, and the Eastern Wall is seen as bringing so much bad PR that they may as well go all the way and "transfer" arabs to other countries.

I really hope Geneva is picked up and replaces the "roadmap" - and folks on both sides sign the petition - and then the Governments follow the outline in the petition and use it to agree on a final settlement.

[Saudade]

6. Odd

"If the PA will not accept a Jewish State of Israel, transfer - something the region does rather often - as in the 1.5 million Greeks transfered out of Turkey, etc. - will become the only option."

It seems to me that you missed the point of the article. The author is obviously saying that Israel's making-permanent of the occupation via settlements and the Wall may have rendered (or soon will render) a Palestinian state impossible -- which is, after all, the thinly veiled purpose of those endeavors.

If that is the case (i.e., if Israel does not reverse its policies), the only options left (apartheid or ethnic cleansing) will result in a loss of American support, the only remaining obstacle to Israel being treated as the rogue state that it is.

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. Walls come down

If the Palestinians agree to a settlement with a different border, then a new wall can be built. There is nothing permanent about a wall.

[Classical_Liberal]

16. I think he was saying that transfer is a good thing.

.

[bluesoul]

7. Papau, do you support

ethnical cleansing or as you call it "transfer"?

[papau]

55. Of course not - Transfer is evil - but it may be only "solution" that

ends - or at least decreases - terror.

My family - many folks in many braches of my family - were hurt by "transfer"'s that occurred over last 200 years.

The right of return demand may leave few options if the a Jewish State of Israel is a must.

Those liberals suggesting right of return or one state, should be a bit more honest and say out loud that they want the end of a Jewish Israel. Code words do not advance the discussion.

[Classical_Liberal]

9. Israel will lose the US as a friend then

.

[Okole]

4. Excellent..

nt

[DuctapeFatwa]

11. The US could care less what the govt of Israel does to the Palestinians

or to the Israelis themselves.

This is a nice article, idealistic in its way, but it is based on the long-spun and sadly widely believed (at least in the US) lie that the US is Israel's great friend.

That is not the case.

The US keeps weapons in Israel for the benefit of US defense and energy companies. Peace does not increase revenue for those industries.

It is not a policy that is in the interests of either ordinary Israelis or ordinary Americans, not to mention the Palestinians and the people who live in the region as a whole.

[Classical_Liberal]

17. This is an under-reported fact

Many of the neocons work for the military industrial complex.

[Herschel]

18. Fantasies

Israel has been a close ally for many decades. There is no country with a closer relationship. Israel will deal from a position of strength, backed by the world's only superpower. Those that wish for a split will continue to be disappointed and will prolong the suffering of those they sympathize with.

[Classical_Liberal]

19. who wants a split

I want the PA to surrender and dispand completely and let Sharon lie in his bed!

[ThorsteinVeblen]

23. The author of this article is wrong about one thing

As Herschel so rightly points out - the US can and will follow Israel down its path to ethnic cleansing.

Israel will transfer the non-Israeli population through starvation, beatings and opression. To cleanse the remainder, Israel will start a war with bordering Arab states, seize territory and use trains to transfer the remaining non-Israeli Arab population out of Judah and Sumeria and the Gaza Strip to refugee camps on the siezed land.

The US will do nothing. The world will do nothing.

Herschel is right.

[Saudade]

24. Not Sure

I'm not sure about that, Thorstein.

Right now, Israel is able to maintain support because of the amazing stupidity of the Evangelical masses and by somehow (inexplicably, to anyone with a modicum of moral sense) casting its relentless colonial expansion as "self-defense."

While you may be right, there may well come a time when the "self-defense" lie just becomes too ridiculous to stomach for normal people, just as the overplaying of the "anti-semitism" victimhood card may wear itself out as it trivializes and degrades the victims of genuine antisemitism.

That time may be when Israel is unable to hide its reality from even the most naive and propaganda soaked mind by engaging in overt ethnic cleansing, as discussed in the article.

This BS cannot go on forever.

[brainshrub]

25. It doesn't have to go on forever...

it just has to last long enough until every Palestinian is dead or gone.
Then there will be plenty of time for 'Mia Culpas' and crocodile tears for future generations of Israelis...but by that time it will be to late.

[Classical_Liberal]

29. Even America can't support that

it would be obviously not in Israel's defense anymore.

[brainshrub]

30. If you were non-American, would you bet your life on

the compassion & intelligence of the American people?

I wouldn't. Lot's of non-whites did and they usualy lose that bet.

[Classical_Liberal]

45. That was before America took pride in saving the jews from extinction

in WWII. We'd have to take that off our resume if supported geneocide against the Palestinians.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

58. The problem is that "saving Jews" in WWII

was not the motive of America. Once the rumors were confirmed then the US became shocked and outraged, but our leaders knew it was going on and made no attempt to prevent it or address during the war.

Granted America should be applauded for its leadership against anti-semitism since WWII and as a place of refuge where Jews are welcomed, encouraged to participate and appreciated for their contributions to the society, but to attribute altruistic motives to US foreign policy (like George Will licking Bush's feet over his "democracy" speech) is a pastime of fools and knaves.

[beanball]

26. History repeats itself

there is nothing new under the sun.

[Classical_Liberal]

28. I don't think America can support this option

After Israel does that it will have absolutely no right to get huffy about the nazi comparison.

[RuB]

32. Anyone who thinks giving the Palestinians a state is the end of this issue

is naive beyond belief. In Jordon the poor families are having children sometimes numbering a dozen or more. The world doesn't even know how many Palestinians are in Jordon or don't want to admit it for political (or economic?) reasons. Where do you think those people are going to want to go if the Palestinians are granted a state within Israel's borders? In a decade or at the most 2 decades Israel would cease to be a Jewish nation. The same would be true for Jordon which is the motivation for wanting the Palestinians out of Jordon and into Israel.

[Saudade]

33. RuB

"Where do you think those people are going to want to go if the Palestinians are granted a state within Israel's borders? In a decade or at the most 2 decades Israel would cease to be a Jewish nation."

What are you talking about? How could there be a Palestinian state "within Israel's borders"?

Don't you understand the "two state solution"?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jack Rabbit]

38. Let us assume you are correct

Let's assume you are correct and "historical Israel" stretches from the Jordan to the sea.

That means that there are parts of "historical Israel" that are majority Arab. What keeps them from growing exponentially that in a couple of decades they simply outnumber Israeli Jews?

What is the status of these Arabs living in your "hisorical Israel"? Are they Israeli citizens? Of course, if they are citizens, they are full citizens; after all, Israel is a democracy and in a democracy there are no second class citizens. And of course, if Israel is a democracy, they are citizens, because in a democracy no one native born can be excluded from citizenship.

The only solution to the Palestinian problem is found within the borders of Jordon where in my opinion and the opinion of others a majority of Palestinians exist and prosper much to the chagrin of the Jordanians.

What is to be found within the borders of Jordan for people living outside Jordan? Would you like to elaborate on that?

[The Magistrate]

40. Indeed, Mr. Rabbit

Israel can only retain its character as a democratic and Jewish nation by maintaining borders approximating those in existance prior to the '67 war. Whether Mr. B is prepared to acknowledge it or not, expansion to the whole of "Greater Israel" must entail either disenfranchising or expelling the native populace. You are aware of my rather liberal standards for denomination as a democracy, and of the great latitude it seems right to me to allow for the use of force under impelment of practical necessity, but either of the above courses would require denunciation of Israel as no democracy, and a criminal state.

[Jack Rabbit]

52. Well said

My own standards for democracy are designed for Socratic dialog. They come in handy at moments like these.

Of course, reducing the Palestinians in second-class citizenship or even denying them citizenship outright is a violation of any form of democratic priniciple.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluesoul]

42. Your views are extremist

Rub and I really wonder in what way you are a progressive/liberal if you actually really are one...

[RuB]

46. Amazing. Where do get the idea your ideas are progressive/liberal!?!??!

Oh I know, you want this discussion to degenerate to name calling? How amusing but I won't bite.

[bluesoul]

47. "Transfer" alias Ethnic cleansing

are not progressive ideas or views. And yes, I do consider myself liberal/progressive in every possible way (one of the reasons why I don't support Sharon and his policy)

[Classical_Liberal]

48. I guess Melosovic was a liberal

gee thanks!

[Jack Rabbit]

53. Response to RuB's number 41

The obvious would be a flood of Arabs into Jordon leaving Israel

I doubt that flood will happen, sir. The Palestinians of whom we are speaking don't live in Jordan. Why should they move there?

That brings us back to my question that you avoided: What is the status of the Arabs who remain in the West Bank and Gaza?

Its the obvious answer but in actuality because you reject the very idea of historical Israel you enable Palestinians.

Enable? What am I enabling them to do? To continue to live in their homes?

(W)ith Jordan now Palistine, the Hishimite people would take up their rightful place as a minority probably flooding into Israel demanding Israel give them a state of their own.

Again, assuming you're right, it seems your solution causes more probelms than it solves.

[RuB]

62. My solution puts the onus on those whose problem this really is

"Again, assuming you're right, it seems your solution causes more probelms than it solves."

Besides that the Arabs for the most part still live in the 12th century and even more evidence of the backwardness of alot of Arabs; Bin Laden is their hero, enough said.

edit: not all Arabs think of bin laden as their hero so I changed the second half of the sentence to conform to the first half.

[Forkboy]

63. you dont like them Arabs do ya?

:freak:

[RuB]

65. Not true. We just disagree. Since when

does disagreement mean you have to be enemies? I fear Republicans more than I do those of Arab decent. Now those who dance in the streets at the deaths of American's and call bin laden a hero I don't like, and there are many of those and they are dangerous people. Even the general statement in this country is the Arab leaders and the mullahs could do more to stiffle hatred of Americans and the enabling of the bin ladens of the Arab world. Now where I live if I stood on a street corner and carried a sign that said what I believe, "George W. Bushie is a complete idiot, not a legitimate president and should be sent to the Hague and tried as a war criminal" the chances are I would be hurt seriously.

[Forkboy]

66. lol

Now where I live if I stood on a street corner and carried a sign that said what I believe, "George W. Bushie is a complete idiot, not a legitimate president and should be sent to the Hague and tried as a war criminal" the chances are I would be hurt seriously.

I'm kind of glad you haven't answered The Magistrate yet...I'm not sure how much more laughing my sides can stand.

[bluesoul]

64. Of course

and Adolf Hitler is Europe's hero. :crazy:

Talking about generalizing and demonizing...

[The Magistrate]

57. Your No. 41 Above, Mr. B, Is Pure Hogswallop

The "flood of Arabs into Jordan" would be a forcible expulsion, a grave crime, and one that cannot be accomplished without a good deal of exemplary murder: people do not just up and leave their native domiciles unless given a damned good reason, and in this sort of thing, a few quickly made corpses on each block is the usual method of providing one.

The government of Jordan would be, of course, under no obligation whatever to allow these refugees into its domain: it would be perfectly within its rights to close its border, and to maintain such persons as were allowed in in refugee camps, without citizenship, until the action of international bodies restored them to their original residence. These people are not, under any conceivable legal construction, citizens of Jordan, nor do they have any conceivable claim upon its government or lands.

Your ignorance concerning Jordan continues to astound, and to amuse. What you consider "the Hashemite people" to be would be interesting to discover. Hashemite refers to the ruling family, a clan formerly established in the environs of Mecca, who at the start of the last century held official hereditary posts there by grant of the Ottoman, and were taken up as clients by England during the Great War on offering to rebel against the Ottoman, then an enemy of England. Through many entertaining twists that need not concern us here, one scion of the family was gifted with an Emirate over Trans-Jordan by England, and his great grandson rules the place today.

The greatest proportion of Jordan's people are Bedouin: desert Arabs, wholly distinct from the people of either the Jordan valley, or the coastal littoral, whom they were accustomed in days gone by to raid and pillage. That was their sole connection to the people of those regions to their west. It is hardly the best foundation for a claim of national identity. The peoples of the valley and the littoral were agriculturalists, and settled pastoralists, very different from the desert nomads, and this difference has been distinct and pronounced through millenia. There is no warrant whatever, whether in ethnography or antient political arrangements, for any claim these disparate peoples are a single nation, and that the residents of the valley or the littoral properly belong in the desert.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

68. scary post

glad you can see through things for us though...I feel safer already!

[newyorican]

37. Not so sure about this...

The situation is going to have some parallels to South Africa, except for the timing in the US.

What really got the anti-aparthied movement rolling in the US was the simultaneous civil rights movement here, which had been going on for decades.

I don't know if those civil rights principles are fresh and prominent in American minds in this era. From my POV, I can't say one way or the other what the reaction of the average US citizen will be.

[Classical_Liberal]

49. americans still take pride in saving the jews from the Holicaust

that is why we went to war in Kosovo.

[papau]

56. "americans still take pride in saving the jews" because they do not

know of the ships turned away, and the anti-semites in the War Department in 1942 that refused to bomb the railyards - knowing they were being used to transport Jews to their death -

Priority Target - not in National interest - first things first - bad PR with US anti-semites that vote if found that we bombed to save Jews - are all on record.

We have a nicer country now - and I do not think we will allow the wipe out of a Jewish State of Israel.

[Gimel]

59. On the other hand

The US may soon take a path Israel cannot save them from:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31507-2003Nov12.html

[newyorican]

60. May soon?

C'mon, you know as well as I that Jr. jumped on that path (sight unseen) with both feet long ago. He will, of course, walk away when he is kicked out of the WH a lot richer for all of our blood.

[brainshrub]

61. Yeah...but it's not like Americans want to move to Iraq.

Once the oil is gone we will leave Iraq alone.