Peace talks on Israel's terms

[IndianaGreen]

In late August, U.S. officials announced the resumption of "peace" talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). These talks are the latest stage in a so-called "peace" process, launched with the Oslo Accords, that began nearly two decades ago.

Naseer Aruri, author of Dishonest Broker: America's Role in Israel and Palestine and Palestine and Palestinians: A Social and Political History, talked with Ashley Smith about whether these talks will achieve the long-deferred national aspirations of the Palestinian people.

Peace talks on Israel's terms

September 2, 2010

WHAT DO the Israelis hope to accomplish through the talks?

THEY WANT to end this problem with a major victory for the Zionist movement and for Israel. Netanyahu thinks he can sell Mitchell and possibly the Palestinians an agreement that is based on the creation of a Palestinian Bantustan similar to the Bantustans that apartheid South Africa imposed on that country's Black majority.

Netanyahu does not intend to relinquish even a particle of sovereignty in the area that lies between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. He knows there is an Israeli consensus that includes the left, right and center, which is that throughout this area, there is room for only one sovereign state--Israel.

Of course, they might allow the Palestinians to have a "state." Everyone will call it a state, but it ain't a state--it will be a Bantustan with no real sovereignty. It will have the trappings of a state, such as uniforms, postage stamps and a flag--things that symbolize a state--but it will not look that different from the PA today.

The PA has no less than 60 undersecretaries in the administration, and you wonder for what? What is all this bureaucracy doing? In fact, there is no real sovereign state that they are overseeing. The Palestinians at best would be getting the trappings of a state and continue to suffer the denial of their right to self-determination.

http://socialistworker.org/2010/09/02/peace-talks-on-israeli-terms

[T Wolf]

1. IG - I think that is the perfect way to frame this - Israel, the long-time (and almost last)

friend of the apartheid regime in South Africa, will try and set up something similar for Palestine.

They have the model.

They have the attitude (Palestinians as sub-human).

They have the military might (backed up by the US).

They just do not have justice on their side. But that is the not important.

[Jim Sagle]

2. Yeah, I'm sure SOCIALISTWORKER.org is fair and balanced.

:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

3. It's a lot fairer than the publications YOU probably read

...like Commentary and The New Republic...

Please tell us why anyone should trust the intentions of the Israeli government, given that it is lead by a man who has repeatedly stated his opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state comprising the West Bank and Gaza(the minimum amount of territory such a state would HAVE to have to be viable)?

And please, tell us why, despite all the misery inflicted for decades in the West Bank by the IDF and the Israeli government, we should still accept your notion that its the ISRAELIS who are the victims and the vulnerable ones in this dispute?

[Jim Sagle]

4. I dunno, Ken. I guess that's just how I roll.

[shira]

5. Remember, Israelis can never be victims and there's no point empathizing with them.

That way, it's easier to focus on the mean IDF and the way they oppress Palestinians for no reason.

=====

Correction: Only non-Jewish Israelis are victims deserving of empathy, but only when they're seemingly oppressed by the establishment.

[Jim Sagle]

6. And always refer to it as "Apartheid Israel."

Because a security checkpoint is JUST like separate drinking fountains.

[polly7]

13. Well, not always ............

expectant mothers in need of urgent care don't die at drinking fountains, children don't get shot ......... actually, men usually aren't murdered at them, either. ???

[IndianaGreen]

8. Interesting how your side always refers to non-Jewish Israelis as Israeli Arabs

rather than as just plain Israelis. Language is a powerful thing.

Ready for the one-state solution, shira? It is already a reality, so let's make it a truly inclusive and democratic state, rather than an apartheid state.

[shira]

11. Always? Read the post you just responded to.

How do you propose making one-state a truly inclusive and democratic state without any change from Hamas or the PLO?

[Chulanowa]

9. Coming from someone who uses dead jews as political fodder

and insists that all Palestinian deaths are somehow justifiable.

HYPOCRISY RRRRRAAAAAWWWWKKKKKS!

[shira]

10. Right - I forgot. There are no dead Jews, only dead Palestinians in the I/P conflict.

And that's because the Jews kill Palestinians for fun.

:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

7. What does that statement even mean?

I hope you're not saying that you're constitutionally incapable of listening to any views on this issue that you happen to disagree with-because Commentary and The New Republic, when writing about the Middle East(and Commentary, as far as that goes, when writing about ANYTHING)are based on a rigid and outdated mindset.

They encourage their readers to avoid thinking about the realities of the Israel/Palestine situation.

They are obsessed with shutting down debate and discussion on the question of what can and what cannot be considered legitimate measures for Israel to take in regard to Palestine and Palestinians.

They insist on labelling anyone who disagrees with their viewpoint(a viewpoint that was basically carved into stone sometime between 1967 and 1973)as "anti-Israel" or "antisemitic", even when the people they are so labelling obviously aren't, and they slander Jewish critics of Israeli policies towards Palestinians as "self-loathing Jews"(as if Israel and the views of the most inflexible and paranoid factions in the Israeli government are the Alpha AND the Omega of Jewishness AND Judaism(as opposed to the reality that Israel is simply one aspect of the Jewish world and that many people within the world's Jewish communities feel free to debate what the Israeli government does and to criticize it when they feel that it is a betrayal of their principles and their identity).

You've expressed progressive and open-minded views on so many other issues. Why do you have to be totally intransigent, and to express this intransigence with such disrespect and vulgarity, on this one?

Why can't you accept that it's legitimate to discuss and debate what the Israeli government does to Palestinians, and that doing so will ultimately strengthen and improve Israel by helping to get its leaders to move away from the arrogant and self-destructive course they are currently committed to?

What harm can really come of letting people talk about these without fear of being falsely accused of being antisemites? And what harm can come of letting Jewish people criticize Israel without fear of being falsely accused of disloyalty to their own identity?

[shira]

12. Ken, it's not legitimate to discuss/debate what Israel does w/o acknowledging...

...what Israelis have been going through for the last 60 years.

[polly7]

14. All that free stolen land, the orchards, chasing people out, bulldozing

their homes so they can build in that area, etc. etc. etc. Sorta like what 'we' went through while driving off the NA Natives? Like those sorts of things???

[hack89]

15. I think she was talking about all the wars their neighbors started.

You know - all those attempts to destroy Israel.

[shira]

17. as well as the continued assault on Israel's citizens by enemies of the Jewish State. n/t

[backwoodsbob]

16. yeah I think the poster might be referring to those..umm..

5 or so wars against Israel?