Personally, I tends to agree with Dr. Norman Finkelstein mother’s interpretation of Holocaust: “Jews or anyone else doesn’t has the monopoly over Holocaust.”

Jewish religious text mention two Jewish Holocausts carried out by Romans. According to Jewish holy book Talmud (Gittin 57b): “Four billion Jews were killed by the Romans in the city of Bethar – While Gittin 58a claims that sixteen million Jewish children were wrapped in scrolls and burned alive by the Romans. The Book of Esther tells the story behind Jewish festive holiday of Purim, which is based on the slaughter of 75,000 non-Jewish Persians on the order of King Ahasueros (Xerxes) on the advice of his Jewish Queen Esther and Jewish prime minister Mordecai.

After entering Jerusalem on July 15, 1099 – the Christian Franks under the command of Godfrey of Bouilion slaughtered the entire Muslim and Jewish population (over 70,000) during the next three days. ……….

http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/holocausts-too-many-to-remember/

There is no institutional backing I can think of for one-state. This could change and glacial forces have been known to move over time – or perhaps make a leap – but at this point, and for the last 30 years, and likely for the forseeable future – there is no reason to believe there will be much movement on this. If Palestinians make it known that one-state (with Jews intact) is what they want – I will follow their lead if I am still alive. In the meantime, the voices promoting one-state are largely those of activists and intellectuals. Doesn’t make them bad people, just people without portfolio.

I am not now nor ever have been a supporter of Oslo. (I long ago critiqued Oslo for the Friends Committee on National Legislation – the Quakers). My biggest fear with Oslo was that Arafat had given away the entire store – always a danger with him. Pretty close to it as it quickly turned out.

The major difficulty is getting Israel to negotiate as a people interested in the long-term interests of the region. That requires a paradigm shift on the part of Israelis, one they cannot accomplish without considerable political pressure from the US (accompanied by pressure from other players) – a nation we know full well to be under the spell of the Israel-First crowd. That, in turn, requires Jews in US to actively re-evaluate their positions – whether “Jewishly’ interested in Israel’s survival or as humanitarians. For the most part, only Jews can lead other Jews out of their racist mindset, the rest of us are ignored and abhorred. The establishment of soft-zionist and non-zionist Jewish orgs as a counter to the reactionaries who control this realm gives US congress members an alternative outlet for their vote (remembering that senators and reps largely have no more love for Israel than does the average talking parrot) – and there is some evidence that many would like another option but live in fear. Those non-reactionary orgs are growing on so-called J-street in DC. In a nutshell, this is a domino scenario, with some things playing out simultaneously, with varying importance, that could result in political movement on the issue. It could play out something like this or not, the winds of change can’t be precisely known.

As I see it, Palestine and the world has to insist on a Palestinian state with all the rights accorded states – and that means a bona fide military, control over water and other resources, communications, borders, etc. Gotta resolve the refugee issue too. There are many other full-state requirements as well that Israel has to relent on – but will do so only under true pressure.

By 1920 Jewish efforts at colonization and hegemony were not only manifest on the ground and in the lives of the native people, but were openly avowed by the WZO. Naturally, the natives resisted, and the Zionists, protected by the British army, struck out at the natives.

Britain had no legal right to ‘lop off’ Transjordan. This is all Arab land. Britain’s only obligation was to remove itself from the region as promised.

The Jews, in order to conquer the country, organized terror militias. These militias are the ancestors of today’s IDF (actually IOF). Arab resistance to the British was due to Britain being the occupying power whose open declaration was to set up a Jewish enterprise in this Arab country. Jews responded by biting the hand that fed them – carrying out terror attacks on their benefactors, the Brits.

As per the UN General Assembly recommendation, (like all G.A. recommendations) the Palestinians were within their legal rights to reject the effort to give their country away to European interlopers. For the UN, that meant going back to the drawing board to come up with another arrangement. For the US, that meant withdrawing its support for partition. For the Brits, it meant abandoning the country to Zionist marauders. For the Jews, it meant drawing up plans for ethnic cleansing of non-Jews. For the Palestinians, it meant the violent expulsion of 750,000 from their homes, land, and country. They still have the keys and deeds to their property and want nothing but to return home.

Since then, Israeli-Jews have been under the constant barrage of the Zionist propaganda machine operated by the government of Israel with the co-operation of the media, both of which instill racial propaganda into the minds of forever paranoid Jews, who in turn raise their children to leave the country upon graduation of high school and shoot the cvilians of neighboring countries all in the interest of Erez Israel.

There are 22 Arab nations that have offerred recognition and full trade with Israel if it returns to its pre-67 borders. Israel has refused this offer of peace because it prefers a bigger Israel to peace. It can do this because it is armed to the teeth by the US and because its own Jewish population is brainwashed and paranoid.

Israel has no historic lands. In 1947 there was no one on Earth called an Israeli. However, there had been people called Palestinian for more than 2000 years. The notion of an ‘Israeli’ is a creation of whole cloth, one that had to be molded out of disparate Jewish groups from around the world – none of whom had any notion of being Israeli. Israel is ahistorical – it is a 20th century creation by Euro-Jews and Britain.

It should be understood that Arab nations predate Israel, and but for betrayals by the British and French, all of southwest Asia would be an Arab state (these same betrayals made Israel possible).

Until ‘Sabras’ were increasingly born in Israel, Jews could only make claim (and lived in peace with fellow Palestinian Arabs) on Jerusalem city and a few small communities. What Israel is demanding today is that Palestinians give up all rights – in fact, give up their very existence – to 100% of their ancestral land – and give it to colonists from abroad.

Weight of numbers. Israel kills the native people at a ten to one ratio – that is, to make Israel ever larger, Israel is willing to lose one Israeli for every ten Palestinians it kills.

Simply read every zionist charter in their history. They all call for a Jewish state in all of Palestine. There is no room for non-Jews in this racialized state. They back it up with bombs and missiles, poison gas, and collective punishment. In short, race-based ethnic cleansing.

Is it no wonder Israel is the routinely regarded as the most hated nation in the world? That its people are dreaded as visitors in Europe?

The clock is ticking on Israel. Tick-tock.

I appreciate your desire for a fair solution, but I see nothing of value (in fact, I think the two-state is more intellectual theorizing than a one state – the latter is a natural solution, I would argue.) It is people who stand between a just and viable solution, not intellectuals.

I understand your argument. There was this Oslo “agreement” and if we could just…. but it’s all a shame. It’s a road to nowhere. It sounds like a solution until you begin to take it seriously…than it evaporates.

I’m not much for states, but I don’t see an agreement whereby Palestinians would have, as part of a “two-state” agreement, a full fledged military

Likely, the only way to an eventual one-state solution is one-step at a time, as the Jews did it.

First, I’m not a “one-stater” telling anyone to “wait” or do anything.

I agree that Palestinians are not rolling over, which is why, as I’ve repeated elsewhere, Palestinians, when given a choice overwhelmingly see a single regional “state” as the only real solution.

A two-state is not a solution for the reasons I’ve repeated. You cannot “divide” what is there and have a viable “state”. Ecologically it is just unsustainable. Waterway access, drinking water, arable land all of which is under Israeli control…you cannot…divide the baby. It is one slice of inhabitable slice of Earth, not two.

Making this a case of simply negotiating two pieces of land may feel cozy and good…but the Palestinians would in the end be deprived of any kind of a chance at being made even faintly whole. Unrest would continue…

All of this is smothered in a stalemate with Israel continuing to steal more and more land. And the US simply says “don’t do that”. Where are the consequences? Who’s drinking all the water? You think this is going to change B99 with two-states?

The screening of a documentary film about Rachel Corrie at a Jewish Film Festival has provoked a huge row in San Francisco.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/25/BAHE18UIR6.DTL#ixzz0MXIvlXMc

Amid all the shrill accusations of ‘self-hating Jew’ and being ‘anti-Semitic’ which he has no doubt received, I applaud Mr Stein, the festival Director, for acknowledging the need for a wider discussion without the prejudice and spite – “The furor is much larger than this one film or this one speaker,” said Peter L. Stein, the festival’s executive director. “It reveals a rift in our community that we all need to help understand and hopefully heal.”

Hopefully there will also be a recognition of the injustice done to Rachel and her family and that eventually the person who killed her will be brought to trial.

PS I have not read any of the 1250 (and counting) comments below the actual article!

In 1919 both groups were offered their own states. The Arabs (i.e. “Palestinians”) were offered more than 70% of ALL land and nearly 60% of all arable land. At this time mind you, the “land” included Israel, Gaza, the so called “WB” AND Jordan!

The Arabs refused out of hand while the Zionists accepted unequivocally. In 1920 the Arabs launched terrorist attacks against Jews…

Due to the Arab refusal the Brits lopped off Jordan in 1921 and set up a client state for ‘Abdallah al Shariff of Mecca (Hashemite Monarchy).

All the while the Jews offered no organised or official response to the Arab terrorism which peaked in 1929 but continued until 1936, at which time the Arabs upped the ante by going into open rebellion against the British.

At this point the Zionists began fighting back.

All the while the Arabs refused offer after offer, so that when 1947 came, and the UN Vote on Partition, they decided to go for broke.

After losing their gambit, badly, and throwing 475,000 Arabs into flux they became “Professional Refugees,” with connivance of despotic Arab leaders who have pimped this dynamic for all it is worth.

The UNRWA is a huge money making machine backed by petrol dollars and an unimaginable ideological investment that precludes any real progress ever taking place. Why try and solve a dynamic that allows you to brutally terrorise your own nation with an almost carte blanche laissez faire attitude?

If you are being pressed for democratic reforms, simply go on the offencive with state run media, loosen up control on the right kinds of street demonstrations at the opportune times and like Mubarak and Assad you too can rape your own People.

There are 22 Arab Nations even without the PA or HAMAS. Israel’s historic lands include all of Gaza, modern Israel, the so called “WB, almost all of Jordan and much of Sinai and southern Lebanon and yet, Israel has ALWAYS agreed in principle to co-exist with the “Palestinians.”

This despite the cold hard fact that no nation named “Palestine” has EVER existed, nor has there EVER been an Arab Nation on ANY of the afore mentioned lands until almost the middle of the 20th Century, and then ONLY because of Colonialism (French and English).

What nation on the planet would even be asked to give up more than 81% of its ancestral lands? Yet Israel has ALWAYS been willing!

Does Israel ask too much? Recognition of its right to exist on that paltry 19%? The right to do so without having to have 400,000 of its citizens existing within 12 seconds of bomb shelters for 8 years?

Simply read the HAMAS Charter, you know, that cute book that claims that the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is non-fiction. THEN see if you think Israel should be concerned.

The state of Israel was indeed conceived as a zero-sum game. But that doesn’t mean that the Palestinians are playing that game. They have been fighting for a small share of the pie for decades (while simultaneously fighting for survival). And now the one-staters are telling them to wait wait a few generations until the balance of power or demographics or something changes so they can take advantage of the opportunity live with the Jews.

As important as US aid is for Israel, it won’t collapse from loss of this aid. Its but a small fraction of the total economy. They would surely feel the loss though. But it is not an existential threat. In fact, Netanyahu talked of dispensing with aid so that Israel is not beholden to the US. However, he couldn’t resist the handout.
It should go without saying that if Israel is not willing to part with any of Palestine it is certainly not going to pursue union with the Palestinians. Israel may indeed have to reorganize itself at some point for reasons we cannot pinpoint this far in advance but to jump from demographic or environmental pressures to one one-state is a speculative leap.

The state of Israel was conceived as a zero-sum game. It’s existence depends on the continuation of the status quo and even an escalation of fear-mongering and demonization…there is for such a pathological state enough demonization.

This is not a state that negotiates. Perhaps it saw a simple means of triangulation through Jordan and Egypt. But the Palestinians can never know that kind of “conclusion”. Israel will never “surrender” its stranglehold on Palestinian lands because it would be self-destructive.

Now, the alternative is a single-state, or call it no state solution which sees the implosion of the Zionist state, probabaly through a variety of circumstances: collapse of US support due to US economic collapse; the continued population inconcruities that tip the scale toward the Palestinians; the ecological peaks that do not allow the Zionist state to continue to exist and thus internal discontent.

It just does not seem probable that Israel can continue to sustain it the tension and the wherewithall to dominate over time. It could be precipitous or not. But two states is an illusion..it may seem nice and tidy, but it has no place in reality.

Things to change a bit over time. The nightly news shows used to handle the conflict with an Israeli (or sometimes American) Jew who would debate (if we could call it that) with a state dept hack. Now at least, Palestinians are usually allowed to represent themselves. Of course, the Israeli usually gets the last word – and on occasion when the Palestinian is unopposed (something that used to never happen) he is often spoken to in a derisive tone while a lone Zionist is spoken to in terms of deference.

I waste words and breath on the Palestinian issue as an academic exercise, an intellectual exercise, a moral exercise, and as a tax-paying citizen. Four good reasons I think. My efforts may be no more effective than that of a butterfly flapping in China – but I do get some satisfaction out of it. Essentially however, the Palestinians are on their own. They’ve known that for a long time. They are a brave people.

Point is, it’s not exactly self censorship anymore than saying Koreans calling Kim Jong-Il awfully good looking and a great guy, is self censorship.
I think it’s called, well, FEAR.

And this doesn’t apply only to “media” but also applies full spectrum, baby. From the man on the street to the General at the Pentagon, to the Congress, to Obama, to Sarkozy, to Merckel.
I’m sure you know this.
If you have any doubts, give it a whirl and you’ll soon see just how highly esteemed and valued a guy you are to “them” and yes, once again I said them.
Go ahead, disagree just once on Israel or the mass psychosis of their incredible overblown paranoia, among other things..

As for comparing and ratios, just try doing that when it’s not in Jewish interests to do so, as obviously your point is. I dare you. Point out, oh, lets say the enrollment at Harvard (or anywhere else), the banking industry, the porn industry, the slave trade of old, etc., etc. etc. Good luck!

One state, two state, is all baloney. You know it and I know it so why waste words and breath on this?
Want to guess the ratio of Arabs who agree the so-called Israelis are in no way serious?
Who cares, they’re not Jewish.

And therein lies the rub.

Thanks for your thoughts and especially your self control.

If I would have (and I have) offered the same links as Gary offers above, I would be shunned for sure. A specialty of so many self righteous intellectuals.

Jewish participation is high in pro-justice activist groups relative to gentile participation in those groups (remembering that Jews are now under 1.9% of population). It is a minority of Jewish-Americans that think Israel is wrong.

I don’t know what Jews will ‘defy’ Jews were not always Zionists, the notion of Israel got popular somewhere between the release of the movie Exodus (1960) and the 1967 War by which time Jews in NYC were ape-shit with happiness over the quick victory. Until this change, the Jewish concern was largely for the safety of world Jewry – and the US was felt to be the best guarantor of that. It could be at some point, that if Israel is thought to be too vulnerable, there may be another paradigm shift.

At demos it can be hard to tell who is Jewish. In activist groups the ethnic makeup of every person is readily known.

As for one in a thousand Jews favoring a one-state solution, we’d have to compare that to the non-Jewish ratio for it to be useful. We’d also have to know how many favor a two-state solution, how many want either Jew or Palestinian to disappear altogether, and how many are clueless.