Does Israel Really Have a Right to Exist?

Following Netanyahu’s much anticipated policy speech, politicians and journalists, like mindless automatons, have set about repeating Israel’s tired mantra that Palestinians should recognize Israel’s right to exist. Never mind the fact that the PLO and Palestine Authority have obliged this ludicrous call, not once, but four times. And never mind that Israel has always denied Palestine’s right to exist, not only as a nation, but as individuals seeking a dignified life in our own homeland.

Does anyone find it interesting that Israel is the only country on the planet going around with this incessant insistence that everyone recognize her right to exist? Given that we Palestinians are the ones who have been dispossessed, occupied, and oppressed, one might expect that we should be the ones making such a demand. But t hat isn’t the case. Why? Because our right to exist as a nation is self-evident. We are the natives of that land! We know we have that right. The world knows it. That’s why Palestine doesn’t need Israel or any other country to recognize her right to exist. We are the rightful heirs to that land and this can be verified legally, historically, culturally, and even genetically. And as such, the only true legitimacy Israel will ever have must come from us abdicating our inheritance, our history, and our culture to Israel. That’s why Israel insists we declare she had a right to take everything we ever had — from home and property, cemeteries, churches and mosques, to culture and history and hope.

Israel is a country that was founded by Europeans who came to Palestine, formed terrorist gangs who set about a systematic ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinians from their homes on 78% of Historic Palestine in 1948. Those Palestinians and their descendants still languish in refugee camps. Israel attempted a similar scenario in 1967 when they conquered the remainder of Palestine, but Palestinians then couldn’t be dislodged from their homes as easily. This remains true, despite 40 years of Israel’s violent and oppressive military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Despite home demolitions, land confiscations, rapacious building of Jewish-only colonies, endless checkpoints, targeted assassinations, bombings of schools, hospitals, municipal buildings and malls, closures and denials; despite the massive human rights abuses, the imprisonment and torture of men women and children alike, the separation of families, the daily humiliations; despite the massive killings — Palestinians remain. We still resist. We still live, love, and have babies. As much as we can, we rebuild what Israel destroys. Such are rights!
Rights are inherent and inherently just, like the right to live with dignity and to be masters of one’s own fate. It is a human right not be persecuted and oppressed because you happen to belong to one religion and not another.

That Israelis simply take property belonging to Palestinians is not a right. That is theft. That Israel cut off the movement of food, medicine and other basic goods to the Gaza strip, causing massive malnutrition, economic collapse and misery because Palestinians elected particular leaders is not a right. That is an affront to humanity. That Israel rain death from the skies on an already battered and starved Gaza, murdering over 3000 human beings and maiming thousands more in a single month is not a right. It’s a war crime. That Israel has employed every imperialistic tactic to subjugate, humiliate, break, and expel an entire nation of principally unarmed civilians because of their religion is not a right. It is a moral obscenity. That every Jew from Europe, Africa, Asia, the Americas, and Australia be entitled to dual citizenship, one in their native country and one in Israel, while the rightful heirs to the land linger as refugees without citizenship anywhere is not a right. It is an outrage.

I’m sure my words will be twisted in some way to imply that I’m advocating pushing Israelis “into the sea” or some other asinine claim. So let me be explicit: We all have the right to exist, to live, to be masters of our own destiny. We all have the right not to be oppressed by others. Such rights are inherent to every individual living in that land: Jew, Muslim, or Christian. But Israelis do not have the right to create particular religious demographics by causing the demise of the natives. To be a Jewish [or Muslim or Christian] state, where privilege is accorded to those belonging to a particular religion at the expense of those who do not is not a right.

A nation that discriminates against and oppresses those who do not belong to a particular religious, racial, or ethnic group is not a light onto nations. It is a blight. And to recognize such racism as a human or national right goes against every tenet of international law. It defies the basic sense that the worth of a human being should not be measured by their religion, any more than it should be measured by the color of their skin or the language they speak.

Susan Abulhawa is the author of Mornings in Jenin, a work of historic fiction and the founder of Playgrounds for Palestine. Read other articles by Susan, or visit Susan's website.

176 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Ismael said on June 15th, 2009 at 5:56am #

    The True Identity of the So-called Palestinians

  2. bozh said on June 15th, 2009 at 7:01am #

    ‘zionists’ may be intentionally stupid by demanding that a phantom country be recognized by yet another fantom but diminishing region occupied by the first ghost country.

    can it get eerier that this? yes, you can bet on it! Just wait till we hear of obama’s ultimatum. Is it gonna be the worst ever? The ghastliest ghostliest set of dozen or so statelets?
    and even this ‘solution’ may be delayed for a long time since 60 yrs of preparation for the ‘new’ talks may leave ‘zionists’ unprepared? tnx

  3. Barry99 said on June 15th, 2009 at 7:13am #

    An excellent summary of Palestine’s Israel problem. Yet, has the question been answered? – Does Israel have a right to exist? Ms. Abulhawa is not clear on this. I would answer that Israel DOES have the right to exist because the UN says it has that right. That it does exist was, of course, a mistake by this very same UN – albeit a UN controlled by the 1st and 2nd world powers of those post-WWII days. But in recognizing the UN’s bad decision on the disposition of Palestine, we should also understand that ALL other UN resolutions also apply – mainly, that Israel should withdraw entirely from lands conquered in June of 1967, and that Israel is legally obligated to justly resolve the Palestinian refugee problem it created via its ethnic cleansing campaign of 1947 – 1949 (a stipulation of its very admission to the UN). That is to say, Israel needs to reaffirm that it understands the right of return (of the refugees) is an inviolable right – and begin to act on a good-faith remediation.
    From this basic truth, we then understand that Israel must be the state of its citizens – not the state of the Jews. Something that has gone largely unnoticed is that Netanyahu has changed the Israeli demand of Palestinians – and presumably of all 22 Arab League states that have offerred full recognition since 2002. Netanyahu now demands that Israel be recognized as a “Jewish state’ – a new formulation designed to be wholly unacceptable to the people cleansed of their country, land, property and very lives. So it is no longer enough to have recognized (four times as Abulhawa indicates) Israel’s right to exist – but that Israel is the state of Jews everywhere. (It was e. e. Cummings who wrote: “There is some shit I will not eat.” Palestinians will not be licking the Mogen David any time soon.)
    But what to do about Israeli Jews. At this point in time, most Jews in Israel were born there. After sixty years, Israel now has a population that is largely native. They cannot be forced to leave – no more than Palestinians should have been forced to leave. Of course, Jews of other countries should not have been allowed to settle in Palestine without permission of the native population – but that is now water under the bridge. But the Jews of Israel need to understand that they must live with others as equal citizens in a fully democratic state.
    The proper solution as I see it:
    1) A state of Palestine in all of pre-67 West Bank and Gaza
    2) East Jerusalem as Palestine’s capital.
    3) The Jewish Quarter of the Old City will go to Israel, the Muslim and Christian Quarters to Palestine, the border being the Western Wall of the Temple Mount. Inhabitants of the Armenian Quarter will vote their wishes as to whom to join.
    3) Full statehood for Palestine means ALL rights and responsibilities routinely accorded nation-states
    4) A secure corridor connecting Gaza and the West Bank
    5) Israel to remove its settlers and its Apartheid Wall
    6) The return of 700,000 refugees (or their self-designated descendents) expelled by the Jews in ’48 -’49 and in ’67 – including restoration of land and propery.
    7) Monetary compensation (calculated by a neutral body) for refugees and descendents choosing not to return to what is now Israel.
    8) Palestinian citizens of Israel reserve the right to work peacefully for a change in Israeli law to the effect that they are full and equal citizens of that state.
    9) Jews wishing to live in the West Bank of Palestine must apply for residency/citizenship from the state of Palestine
    10) Holy sites in both states are to be respected – and visitation to these sites remain unemcumbered.

  4. KR said on June 15th, 2009 at 9:21am #

    No state has the “right to exist”, it’s a false debate; that’s exactly why you never hear the phase in any other context. Maybe in US antebellum slavery times in the context of a “white man’s government” having the right to exist. Israel is entitled to the same “right to exist” that the Confederate States of America and the Soviet Union had.

  5. Michael Dawson said on June 15th, 2009 at 10:23am #

    I agree with this analysis, Susan. All humans are created equal and hold equal rights, and theocracy is a violation of those rights, as it deprives the individual of choice and equality before the law.

    But, strategically speaking, I truly don’t understand why those fighting for Palestine don’t deprive Israel of this “recognition” ruse by trumpeting that they recognize Israel, but want to talk about Palestine. Failing to do that merely keeps the struggle confined to a peripheral matter.

    To my eye, that’s the key to why Israel keeps repeating this trope. Why not call their bluff? Why not recognize Israel 4 times an hour, rather than 4 times total? Refusing to do so merely keeps the real bragaining chips from reaching the table.

  6. anti-Semit said on June 15th, 2009 at 10:44am #

    look who is talking when was the muslim religion funded? When was judisim funded? When did the arabs arive in Israel? when did the Jews arrive in Israel?

  7. Barry99 said on June 15th, 2009 at 10:45am #

    Its not so much about theocracy – no one is counting how many Jews in Israel go to temple – most don’t. The fact of being a Jew is determined largely by ‘blood,’ not by observing the faith.

    The Palestinian recognition of Israel is a matter of record in all three languages. It would not matter how many times recognition is uttered – it does not rate media attention in the US, and is dismissed as a lie, because as we know, Arabs are liers. And the fact is, Israel has upped the ante – now demanding recognition as a ‘Jewish state.’ In so doing, Israel has put itself beyond the limits of what any self-respecting people will swallow.

  8. Max Shields said on June 15th, 2009 at 10:57am #


    There a chinq in your thinking. If Arabs, including Hamas, have claimed to recognize Israel and the US/Israel keep their hands over their ears and the media repeat ad infinitum the opposite, what is the value of “recognizing Israel”?

    I see you acknowledge the fact that Israel is not interested in such recognition when uttered; but it’s essential to close the loop: such denial can never be the basis for a “negotiated” resolve.

    I don’t think Israel wants peace, never has and as it stands never will. It will fight against peace. It is peace that will dissolve the state of Israel faster than an a-bomb from a neighbor. Such is the crux of this deal.

    You can never negotiate in bad faith.

    So does this state who is built not on peace but endless conflict have a right to exist?

  9. Al said on June 15th, 2009 at 11:02am #

    Does Israel Really Have a Right to Exist?

    Israel is a terrorist state built on stolen Palestinian land.

    The answer is NO!!!!

  10. Gideon said on June 15th, 2009 at 11:14am #

    Israel recognition – this is a basic step to know that the other side to negotiation is living in and acknowledging Reality.
    You do not want to provide an excuse for Insanity defense ( “I was insane when I signed these agreements, look I even did not acknowledge that you exist!”)

    Accepting the UN partition and creation of Jewish state and Arab state in Palestine. This happened over 60 years ago … Talking about reality!

  11. Barry99 said on June 15th, 2009 at 12:06pm #

    Max – Well, Hamas has not literally recognized Israel. It has however, called for a long-term (decades perhaps) truce with an Israel within its pre-67 borders. That’s a face-saving way to get past this hurdle – because everyone knows that Israel is going nowhere any time soon. Fatah, on the other hand, has recognized Israel over and over – they are, in fact, negotiating partners. Fatah originally recognized Israel because Israel and the US insisted upon it, and Arafat realized that the Palestinians could not win back their country through force. Arafat hoped that recognition would win some concessions – but alas, it gained Palestine not one acre of land. They’ve instead lost plenty of land since – and do so every day. Ultimately, recognizing Israel wins sympathy for the Palestinian cause, some European aid, and an observer seat at the UN. But it had to be done, as Palestinians are basically alone in their struggle.

    Israel, I think, wants peace of a sort. Its the peace that the spiritual/political ancestors of Likud wanted. Jabotinsky’s goal was the physical removal of the non-Jewish population and their understanding that resistance was futile. It’s Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall. The Arabs were at some point to come to terms with their new circumstances. This is the position of all major Israeli political parties today – that Judea and Samaria will largely remain in Israeli hands and the Palestinians will have to come to terms with that. It’s the sort of peace that exists in North America today between Native-Americans and their successors on the continent (or that of Australia, Japan, New Zealand, etc. ).

    Israel has a right to exist as other states do that were carved out of another’s country. It is now 61 years old, and a number of generations of people have been born there. Israel has been recognized in its pre-67 form by almost all of the world, including several Arab states.

    Israel, however, is NOT entitled to any land whatsoever outside of its ’48 borders. Israel is also required by the UN to repatriate the refugees it created. And Palestinians in and out of Israel have every right to work towards an ‘Israeli’ state that honors human and civil rights with complete equality for all citizens. Polls of Palestinians continue to show that they support a two-state solution. I’m not going to be more radical than the victims themselves – that’s too easy from an armchair. I would say however, that no one can speak for Palestinian refugees in the diaspora except those they annoint. Neither Hamas nor Fatah have authority to speak for them – and if refugees are not happy with whatever – if any – agreements are reached, they they have every right to continue to press for their right of return.

    I would say that if the UN gave the OK to have Israel physically removed from the West Bank – I would, of course, support that. But what are the chances of that happening?

  12. bozh said on June 15th, 2009 at 12:27pm #

    michael dawson,
    i think i have undestood you correctly. You suggest, i think, that it wld help obtain a peace if palestinians {and arabs} wld more often recognize israel and in whatever shape/size it eventually ends in and which wld be recognized by judeo-christian world?

  13. RH2 said on June 15th, 2009 at 12:33pm #

    Does Israel have the right to exist?

    Who determines rights? We cannot undo the colonial demarcations of the last centuries on the world map. Israel does exist and will always exist. Israel exists as do for example Saudi Arabia in the Arabian Sahara, Kuwait in southern Iraq (British colonial creations) and Lebanon in northern and eastern Syria (a French colonial creation). So Israel is an irreversible reality. Any other notion, any other policy is a cognitive disorder and would bring more Palestinians into refugee camps. Before dissidents have raised their voice for dismantling the Jewish state, the Arabs had been “liberating” Palestine in their daily media for decades. Their liberation movement and hollow heroism have finally lead Palestinians to a dead end. The Arabs care today for CIA offices and U.S. military bases on their soil protecting the Saudi Allah, the almighty, against Universalism/Socialism/Marxism and all the dangers to democracy and prosperity. Today Palestinians are suffering more than ever. A satisfactory solution to their suffering and to other problems in the world would be best attainable through some substantial reform within the corridors of the White House, which is not in sight.

  14. Max Shields said on June 15th, 2009 at 12:36pm #

    Barry99 my argument is premised on our disagreement. I do not see peace as the ultimate objective for the State of Israel, except in the most abstract sense.

    I think Israelis, collectively, would be pleased if Palestinians would simply wander about and move in with Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Syria; leave Gaza, and the West Bank.

    This is not simply about a people who wish to live in peace; this is about land and water access; to the very sustanence of the area; ports, etc.

    Palestinians are a threat to a Jewish state. The “violence” from Hamas is a nusience compared to what Israel feels it wants and needs. Add to this a persecution complex and you have a forumla for endless murder; for genocide.

  15. bozh said on June 15th, 2009 at 12:56pm #

    euros have killed off most indigenes and stole almost all of their land, but it doesn’t follow that we shld be doing this.
    and land robbery of centuries ago is not a land robbery of ‘1917-’08.

    the latest one endangers the whole world and not just red people. The ‘jewish’ robbery most likely will end poorly for ‘jews’. For one thing, ‘jews’ are not an ethnicity.
    ‘jews’ simply share a cult of dead and living ‘jews’.
    to allow to this cult to have a country, wld amount to grievous error or even the gretest crime against humanity ever perpetrated.
    in addition, 5mn israeli cultists cannot forever dictate to muslims and the rest of the world the terms of war and peace.
    it can be noted that red people are dead but 5bn of ‘jewish’ enemies are alive and teaching hatred towards the abomination that israel or ‘jewish state is.
    tnx bozhidar balkas vancouver

  16. marge, said on June 15th, 2009 at 1:01pm #

    What Netanyahu really offered the US and the Palestinians in his speech today was ‘occupation now and occupation forever’.

    Nantayahu agreed to a name change for Israel’s brutal occupation of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. The occupation will be passed off deceptively as an independent state for the Palestinians.

    Netanyahu’s so-called concession to the Obama admin. and the Palestnians on statehood is laughable and an insult to the Palestinian people. Netanyahu stated his conditions for accepting a Palestinian state as follows: 1)Jerusalem will remain under Israeli control. 2) Israel will tighten its control over Gaza and the West Bank by stationing Israeli troops on all Palestinian borders. 3) Palestinian state must be demilitarized. 4)Palestinians cannot sign treaties with other countries. 5)Israel will continue to control Palestinian airspace. 6)No Right of Return for millions of Palestinians driven into exile by Israel. 7)No end to colonization of Palestinian land.

    The preconditions for Palestinian statehood proves that Israel does not want peace with the Palestinians, and is trying to sabotage any possible peace agreement with the Palestinians, as it has done for many decades. It is up to the Obama admin. to use its leverage to force Netanyahu to negotiate a just and lasting peace agreement with the Palestinians. The Obama admin. can start by tying US aid to Israel’s progress on the peace agreement with the Palestinians.

    If the Obama Admin. fails to take action to ensure a fair and just peace agreememt with the Palestinians, the Palestinians and Arabs should refuse to engage in endless, nonproductive, peace talks with Israel, or give legitimacy to Israel and its brutal occupation. The Palestinians should resolve their difference with each other reunite, and work on ways free themselves of Israel’s occupation. Hamas forced Israel to withdraw from Gaza and they can do it again. It will takes time and lots of planning without the distraction of the rift with Pres. Abbas.

    As for Israel’s right to exist, I believe Israel has the right to exist only if Israel respects the lives and property of non-Jews. Israel has to respect the Palestinians’s right to live on land of their ancestors that dates back thousands of years. Otherwise, Israel should be removed from the Middle East by any means necessary, regardless of the consequences. Israel should also not be allowed to remain the only country in the Middle East with nuclear bombs. Iran and the arab countries should get nuclear bombs to conterbalance those of Israel and equalize the balance of power in the Middle East. Then, no country will be embolden to do as it wishes without fear of consequences, as Israel does today. Iran and arab countries must act on principle that one country with nuclear bombs necessitates the need for all countries to have nuclear bombs.

  17. Max Shields said on June 15th, 2009 at 1:20pm #


    What you are calling for (and I agree) is Right of Return. Such a condition is a moral imperative and it is the only way to an enduring peace.

    But, Israel would not be a Jewish state. And that is the fundamental issue; and one that will keep Israel doing what it does: cat and mouse “winking” with flash invasions and murder.

    Genocide is not about winning a “war” or “conflict”. It is about annihilation. It is premised on a real or (usually) fabricated fear of an existential threat. Israel operates as a victim no matter its murderous ways because there is a deep pathology that is not based on a rational sense of right and wrong or morality. It creates bad faith because the Palestinians are “evil and vile” and they are “subhuman” and want to do “us”/Israeli’s harm. Iran is yet another faux enemy as has been Syria and Lebanon. But this pathology/paranoia creates its enemies and then attacks with total abandonment; free from consequences of “war against humanity” of “legal tribunals”. The US is an enabler (and the Europe has its enabler faction as well).

  18. KL5 said on June 15th, 2009 at 2:02pm #


    “in addition, 5mn israeli cultists cannot forever dictate to muslims and the rest of the world the terms of war and peace.”

    Who are Muslims and who is the rest of the world? Your immature fictions are wined, senile and boring. Can you feel reality sitting all the time behind your laptop? Have you ever felt reality? You have been popcorning on DV for a long time. Do you think you have changed anything? Educated anyone?

  19. James said on June 15th, 2009 at 2:06pm #

    History does not start at your convenience. The Jews lived in what is known today as Israel, Syria, Iraq and part of Egypt for thousands of years before Islam was incepted. History tells you that even Jesus Christ was jewish. Islam inception occurred in the sixth century. After the last crusader’s invasion of the Holy land (Due to the Islamic persecution) Selah Eddine, an Arab warrior and his army kicked the Jews and the Christians out of Israel. This is when the true Arab occupation started; in 1948, the Jews returned to their motherland and claimed it back. Who is occupying whose land?

  20. lichen said on June 15th, 2009 at 2:22pm #

    Hamas has said they accept the internationally recognized two-state solution; that should really be all they somehow “need” to do; it is Israel who are the criminal, rogue state who refuses that solution; so yes, Hamas has already done enough, has put out an olive branch, but instead of taking it, Israel has cut off their hands, driven them out, and built a wall in order to steal the Palestinean’s olive trees. Israel has to recognize that the Palestinean’s have a right to exist, and back off; Palestinean’s have no obligation at this point that they have not already met; the IDF is a war criminal, terrorist, racist organization.

  21. bozh said on June 15th, 2009 at 2:54pm #

    to all zionists my comments are senile and nonsensical. ‘Jews’ handle lies much better than the truth.
    your personal attack proves that. You avoid what i say because what i say is true and my expectations of what is to become of ‘jews’ just may come to pass.
    ‘jews’ are in trouble and they know it. Thus, in their helplesness almost always dwell on personality of the truth sayer and not on truth.
    a ‘jewish’ state will not be accepted even by most right wing christians let alone some 5-6bn people with the ‘wrong’ skin color and cults.

  22. bozh said on June 15th, 2009 at 3:18pm #

    the only precondition for a negotiation btwn pals and ‘jews’ that is valid is the immediate withdrawal of ‘jewish’ troops from palestina.

    all other preconditions wld be valid or discarded only after israel ends occupation.
    does abbas know this? I think he does! But what can he or fatah do?
    Say: No talks before end of occupation. And that moment cash flow stops; US/israel picks s’mbody else to talk to.
    seeing clearly the writing on the wall, fatah says: Israel does not want any peace; so we will go along with the charade for a few decades longer, get some cash and let new generations of palestinians take over and do what they think is best.
    fatah seems to be smarter than hamas; armed resistance plays into ‘zionist’ hand. tnx

  23. Barry99 said on June 15th, 2009 at 3:19pm #

    KR – If you recognize a state system of governance – or even if you don’t, the state system is what the world has – then states have a right to exist when recognized by the world’s others states – namely through their own supranational body – the UN. The UN, i.e., the world, has recognized Israel now for six decades. Wishing that were not so, does not wish it away. The Soviet Union had that same right – but it dissolved itself. The Confederate States of America would have earned that right had it won the war and gained recognition of others.

  24. Barry99 said on June 15th, 2009 at 3:22pm #

    anti-semit – It is not particularly relevant as to when a religion was founded. Suffice it to say that the Palestinians were the people of that land when the Zionists arrived from Europe. The ancestors of the Palestinians had been on that land since the Neolithic Age or earlier.

  25. Barry99 said on June 15th, 2009 at 3:27pm #

    Gideon – There is no such thing as an insanity defense in state relations. That Palestine negotiates with Israel is sufficient recognition. If Israel insists in recognition, the recognition must be mutual and Israel must openly acknowledge the Palestinian right to live in that land and that their exodus was due to ethnic cleansing on the part of the Jews.

  26. Barry99 said on June 15th, 2009 at 3:33pm #

    RH2 – There is no reason to believe that Israel will exist forever. Who among us is that good at prognosticating? Israel is a state and has the rights and responsibilities of state. That does not preclude other arrangements coming down the pike – whether forced on Israel by demographic exigencies, or by its own choice, or by losing in war. Israel is not an irreversible reality. We do know that it obligated to behave in a civilized manner – and in this is falling woefully short.

  27. Max Shields said on June 15th, 2009 at 3:40pm #


    I think you’re confusing human rights with a “state’s right”.

    A state may exist; it may vanish as many have; portions may separate from the original state as has happened a number of times throughout history. States have been “absorbed” (invisibly dissolved) and re-emerged in whole or part.

    There is nothing sacrosanct about the existence or non-existence of a state.

    As a starting place, I would add that Israel has demonstrated during its 60 plus years of existence to be a predator state. Unlike the American genocide of indigenous people; Israel exists in a world that claims International law and crimes against humanity which have been perpetrated by the state of Israel on a regular basis. It is not a “Hitler”; it is an entire state during its entire existence that such acts have been committed and are to this very day. Germany had never acheived that level of non-stop violence.

    Israel is not simply a state among states. It is a rogue state which only escapes sanctions and tribunals because it is a client of a member of the security council – USA.

    So, let’s not be so quick to say that what the UN has provided is some kind of agreement on the behavior of the State of Israel. But the composition of the UN has allowed for the creation and then the continued disregard for General Assembly resolutions against the state of Israel. The UN has not lived up to its end of the bargain as a body.

    Does Israel deserve to exist? Well there are murders. They exist. Should there be sanctions and tribunals against it’s leaders past and present? In a just world that believed in the Charter of the UN: Of Course.

    That Israel exists does not mean it should. That it has been around for 60 odd years does not mean it should continue on indefinitely. Will it go away? Not anytime soon. But it’s existence is not certainly a “right”.

  28. Barry99 said on June 15th, 2009 at 3:41pm #

    Yes, the goal of the Jews in Israel has been to drive as many Palestinians into the desert as to make the rest follow in their tracks. And yes, the violence of Hamas is deemed good by Israeli leadership, as it enables Israel to justify its expropriation of the balance of Palestine. That is why Israel attacked Gaza just after Hamas had called for a Hudna and rocket attacks were at a minimum. Israel was afraid the world would see that there are plenty of peace partners – so Israel acted to wratchet (sp?) up the conflict.

    I do believe that if the US had the balls to change its policies vis a vis Israel, that is, end the money transfers and end diplomatic cover in the UN, Israel would not feel so heady about making war in its neighbors and indigenous population.

  29. Barry99 said on June 15th, 2009 at 3:50pm #

    Bozh – Right you are – that the Europeans got away with land theft, does not mean that Israel should get away with land theft. That’s why Jews have to return to their country’s pre-67 borders, the borders that the world recognizes. And it must repatriate the Palestinians it violently expelled.
    Yes, it does endanger the whole world – 9/11 happened because of US policy in support of Israel.

    I disagree that Jews are not an ethnicity. If a people see themselves as an ethnic group – then they are. That’s self-identification. I would qualify that however, to say that Jews are from several to many ethnicities, none cut in stone because ethnicity is something that evolves over time. In Israel Jews are not an ethnicity – they are a majority – that makes them a national group.

    As to the rest of your comment, I’d have to say that I for the most part do not find Jewish culture – at least Ashkenazi culture – to be an attractive one. I don’t hate Jews however, I take extreme exception to Israeli practices and policies.

    euros have killed off most indigenes and stole almost all of their land, but it doesn’t follow that we shld be doing this.
    and land robbery of centuries ago is not a land robbery of ‘1917-’08.
    the latest one endangers the whole world and not just red people. The ‘jewish’ robbery most likely will end poorly for ‘jews’. For one thing, ‘jews’ are not an ethnicity.
    ‘jews’ simply share a cult of dead and living ‘jews’.
    to allow to this cult to have a country, wld amount to grievous error or even the gretest crime against humanity ever perpetrated.
    in addition, 5mn israeli cultists cannot forever dictate to muslims and the rest of the world the terms of war and peace.
    it can be noted that red people are dead but 5bn of ‘jewish’ enemies are alive and teaching hatred towards the abomination that israel or ‘jewish state is.
    tnx bozhidar balkas vancouver

  30. Max Shields said on June 15th, 2009 at 3:59pm #

    Let’s not forget the whole notion of a state is extremely new in human history. Again, we invent these things and we think they must go on forever.

    Looking at this idea of a state is completely backwards. It is not the state of Israel; it is the collection of a full military apparatus; an army, airforce, navy; missiles of every stripe and an overall arsenal which is many times that of any of it’s neighbors; coupled with the intent and regular use of these war materials that makes this collection of people dangerous. It is a dangerous entity that seems to know no bounds; like a mad dog that must be yelled back by its master only to temporarily retreat before charging out again with teeth gnashing.

    Call it a state, call it a predator on the shores of Galilee.

  31. lild said on June 15th, 2009 at 4:14pm #

    well that was a good summary but did you answer the question

  32. Barry99 said on June 15th, 2009 at 4:19pm #

    Max – I’m not confusing states rights with human rights. We DO have a state system in effect, now for many centuries. The States of the world recognize Israel and that has to count for something or else states or other entities could make a state violently disappear and no legal argument could be made against that. States don’t really ‘vanish’ though, as best as I can tell. They can be made to disappear, as I say above, or they can be voluntarily dissolved as was the Soviet Union. But to make a state dissolve against the will of its people is a tall order – and not one to be advocated. The vast majority of Israelis (virtually all of its Jewish population) do not want their country to disappear.
    Nazi Germany was not just Hitler – not even just Germany. Germany embarked upon two world wars killing far more souls than Israel did. I am in no way excusing Israel but Germany is the perfect example of a state gone wild – yet is still FULLY constituted as a state – and is a fully fledged citizen of a quasi-united Europe. The Soviet Union dissolved of its own accord. Indeed, Israel is a rogue state, one that can likely be brought under control only by the very superpower that makes its behavior possible. And yes, the UN has fallen very short of ideal on Palestine, the system of granting so much control to the superpower in that body has made that possible.

    Behaviorally, Israel is a colonialist settler state whose natives were not vanquished as they largely were in other imperial efforts that we all know about. Thus the colonists continue to make war – and the US permits it. This can be changed.

    In sum, Israel’s right to exist is no more or no less than any other state. If we don’t understand one people’s right to a state then no compelling moral argument can be made for another people to obtain one. Israel is a duly constituted state and as long as its citizens do not want to have it dissolved into something else, then there is no compelling reason to force them to do so.
    On the other hand, Israel is required by international law – the laws you don’t appear to depend on for argument – to vacate the rest of historical Palestine and make restitution to those it expelled. Beyond that, we should support a movement to make Israel a state of its citizens rather than of the Jews. AND, very importantly, when Palestinians make it clear that they want a one-state solution rather than two, we should support that effort. But our support should be for securing mutual agreement on one state, not a war.

  33. Barry99 said on June 15th, 2009 at 4:31pm #

    Max – Yes, the state system has not been around forever and it may be replaced by some other political form at some point. But it IS the system now. You cannot selectively argue against the state system but advocate that Palestinians have a state. Or are you arguing that the stateless society be built on the backs of the Palestinians?

    My position is that the Palestinians have a right to a state – and as present and former inhabitants of what is now Israel, they have every right to advocate and work for a wholesale makeover of that state – including a new state of all its citizens. But Palestinians have not made that their goal (yet).

    So are you advocating a state for Palestinians in Israel against the will of the Israelis? Are you arguing for the military destruction of Israel? Are you arguing for their forced removal to other countries? I’m not sure where you stand.

  34. Barry99 said on June 15th, 2009 at 4:40pm #

    James – do you have any idea of what you write? When the Hebrews arrived in Canaan (from elsewhere), Jerusalem had been a city several thousand years old – built by the ancestors of the Palestinians. Same for Jericho, same for a dozen other towns.
    This is not about Islam. Palestinians are Muslims, Christians and secularists of all stripes. You should know this – Palestinians were in that land when the Hebrews arrived, when the Jews largely left, and when the Zionists shipped-in in the 20th century.

  35. Max Shields said on June 15th, 2009 at 4:44pm #


    People like the idea of a “two state”. It’s a simply response to the unknown.

    Materializing such a solution becomes extremely problematic. What will Israel give up? What resources must a state have to be self-sufficient? Who will win and who loses. How do you split the baby?

    This negotiation would go on indefinitely.

    The right of return brings hope for a resolve. This journey of two states has no end.

  36. bozh said on June 15th, 2009 at 5:41pm #

    a bit more about the label “ethnos”. I think that we can pin the label “ethnos” on greeks, norwegians, bavarians, austrians, finns, slovaks, et al.
    the word “ethnos” is used in europe but not in n.america. A group of people that speak the same langauge and are in physiognomy alike and live in one region, such as finns, can be considere as of same ethnicity.

    how about ‘jews’ who appear to be composed of about 100 different ethnoses? Does the label “jew” not mean a person who s’mwhen-s’mwhere-s’mhow connected to a person who s’mhow-s’mwhen-s’mwhere became a ‘jew’ or was born to people of judaic faith but of unknown ethnicity?

    in this connection let us recall the jones cult. I think he had a following of some 700 people. All commited suicide rather than to disband and return to US.
    now i don`t know of what ethnicity these people were. However, to be free they left what amers consider the best country in the world: US and setteld i think i guaiana.
    in other words they repudiated own country in favor of practising a cult.
    and if one wld read just torah, one wld conclude that that book is extremely cultish.
    and some of the `jewish`cultists are giving up on america so that they can better practise the judaic cult.
    possibly there are 5mn judaists. So, if a cultist is a `jew`, how can also a non-judaist be a `jew`
    a non-judaist can be then a jew only because his or her kin had been or is a judaist.
    but it wld be nice to hear from scholars on this topic. I am not. I actually finished last in my class. tnx

  37. Barry99 said on June 15th, 2009 at 6:30pm #

    Marge -While you are entirely correct on the vileness of Netanyahu’s ‘offer’ your solution of war in the Middle East is a recipe for mass murder. For starters, the Arab states (not necessarily Arab peoples) have offered only lip service to the Palestinians. There is little or no intent to stir up a hornet’s nest of problems for themselves. Israel can bomb and destabilize most any government in the region. Besides, many of these gov’ts are in the employ of the US which provides the very aid they use to hold down their own citizens. Others are deeply invested in the West. There is little chance of Arab states taking collective action any time soon. If they withhold oil, they will be bombed like Iraq was bombed – and Israel is guaranteed its oil even before US supplies.

    With regard to nuclear bombs – Iran is taking a bold but risky step in advancing its nuclear program. Very few other states will go that route – as Iraq and Syria (if the intelligence is accurate) found out – you build reactors, you get bombed.

    The best we can hope for is that Palestinians hold out as they have done so for almost a century, that they make allies where they can, and that conditions change enough in the world that a Palestinian state becomes an imperative. Obama, who seems to take half-way measures (when not wrong way measures) in everything, may just possibly be advancing the process along in the long run.

  38. Barry99 said on June 15th, 2009 at 6:52pm #

    Max – Truth is, I would not wish it on anyone to have to live with Israeli Jews in a single state. Its a domineering and self-serving culture. That said, if the Palestinians want that, then so do I. But they’ve not gone down that route since Arafat held out the olive branch in the mid-seventies. So it’s pointless for me to be more radical than the victims. Besides, there is no way in hell they can live together. The gulf between them – and it is entirely the fault of Israel – makes the gulf between US blacks and whites seem like a lover’s quarrel. As you know and say, these are a psychologically damaged people – the travails of centuries of abuse in Europe are refocused on Palestinians. This psychoses is used by the Israeli government and media to keep Israelis in a constant state if paranoia about non-Jews, and in this view, Arabs are sand-niggers – lying, conniving sand-niggers. There is zero chance of them living together. Jeez, they are on the verge of expelling their own Palestinian citizens.
    I think the gist of the conversation on here is that many want Israel punished by seeing it disappeared. It seems to be more of a vendetta against Israel and perhaps Israel-First Jews than true support for Palestine. I’m not saying people don’t believe in justice for Palestine, but Palestine and Palestinians have apparently taken a back seat to the need to wipe Israel off the map.

  39. ivg said on June 15th, 2009 at 7:01pm #

    No, you racist Arabs, only Arabs have a right to “exist” in the M.E…. Israel vs Genocide

  40. Barry99 said on June 15th, 2009 at 7:13pm #

    Bozh – Ethnicity I believe has little to do with physiognomy. Hitler, for example, did not resemble in any manner, the ideal of the ‘race’ he was championing. That’s because a goodly percentage of all peoples are not stereotypical. The blonde-ness of Finns is not a difference in kind, but only a difference in degree from other groups. Irish are sometimes green-eyed red heads, brown-eyed blondes, or blue-eyed and raven-haired. That the Irish see themselves as one people is because of a shared culture and history. And even the Finns, some small percentage have a look that betrays Asiatic ancestry, akin to the Sami or some other similar group. They are one people because of a shared history and culture, not so much looks.

    Jewish ancestry is varied, and not nearly as much by blood as they would like to think. They were an ethnicity because they viewed themselves as such, as a group apart from the gentile national peoples of Europe. It’s possible that the Jews of Lithuania saw themselves as different from the Jews of say, Romania – and certainly of Germany, etc – but Ashkenazi difference have disappeared (not entirely) in Israel – and for that matter, the US. And of course, religion is something many Jews abandoned long ago – for many or most its either a cultural bonding practice or a relict of the past.

    Jew should not be confused with Judaism. Jews are an ethnicity or ethnicities or in the case of Israel – a national group (with ‘Israeli-Arabs’ as that country’s ethnic group). Judaism is a religion that many Jews subscribe to. It is sort of like if one is of the Hindu religion, one is likely an Indian – but if one is an Indian, one is not necessarily an observant Hindu. (The Indian comparison is of course complicated by other faiths in that country.)

  41. Barry99 said on June 15th, 2009 at 7:16pm #

    Bozh – It occurs to me that people of Brazil, Puerto Rico, and many other countries see themselves as one people whether one is black, white or part Indian. Not saying that racism does not exist there, but there is no doubt they see each other as one national group. Or take Puerto Ricans in New York City. They run the racial spectrum – but see them selves as ethnic Puerto Ricans.

  42. liz burbank said on June 15th, 2009 at 8:08pm #

    Interesting that there’s been silence in imperialist-zionist usa about this book on the isreali bestseller list for ages by Tel Aviv professor Shlomo Sand, When and How Was the Jewish People Invented? that decimates the basis and ‘justification’ for USRAELI genocide.

    Judaism is religion, zionism is fascist politics. Imperialism & zionism are inseparable: u.s. needs its regional proxy and state terrorist partner — which
    depends on u.s. for existence.

  43. Carlyle Moulton said on June 15th, 2009 at 8:10pm #

    Israel does not want peace unless it is peace on Israel’s terms and comes after Israel has annexed the remaining pieces of Palestine and completed the necessary ethnic cleansing or genocide of the remaining Palestinians. Israel has never negotiated in good faith. Its purpose has to keep the Arabs enraged by the steady theft of land and then use the inevitable consequent terrorism as an excuse not to negotiate and to steal yet more land.

    However Israel could not have succeeded with this strategy but for the acquiescence of the rest of the world gained by the USA’s use of the veto on any UN resolution that Israel did not like. Only with very considerable pressure on it by the US will Israel agree to any terms that self respecting Palestinians could accept.

  44. Carlyle Moulton said on June 15th, 2009 at 8:57pm #

    Underlying the Israel/Palestine problem is an irreconcilable opposition of interests. Both peoples want the same land and the reason they want it is that they need it so that they can survive and reproduce. They are engaged in a zero sum contest.

    According to Israel the Palestinians should forget any land that they or their ancestors owned in Israel or occupied Palestine and forget compensation for its loss and migrate away and settle somewhere else. Of course having been dispossessed of all assets, they have no means of buying land elsewhere so they must rely on charity of neighboring arab states or perhaps they should emulate the Israelis and simply take the land that they need.

    According to the Palestinians Israel should vacate the land that it has conquered and or allow the Palestinians to return or pay them just compensation.

    None of the above is possible. Other Arab states are not going to give up any land in favor of the expelled Palestinians and Israel is not going to give up any of its conquests, allow Palestinian refugees to return or pay just compensation because it does not need to and could not afford it anyway.

    It seems to me that the only possible solutions involve either genocide or ethnic cleansing. The only question is who is to be the perpetrator and who the victim. Will Israel implement a final solution to the Palestinian question or will the Palestinians find a final solution to the Israel question.

    Neither of these prospects is fair or just, but then neither has the establishment of older colonial settler nations, Australia, Brazil, The USA for example involved either fairness or justice for the indigines who whose genocide or ethnic cleansing was a prerequisite.

  45. Alex said on June 15th, 2009 at 9:33pm #

    Personally, I’m for human rights and believe that the Palestinians should have those rights. Though, the notion of a states “right to exist” is meaningless – it is either there or it is not. A state functions for as long as its military can defend it. Same as a mature male lion defending and expanding his territory.

    It appears as though most of the content on this page is negative. There have been significant advances in human morality over the last 2000 years. For example, I believe that when John Adams took office it was the first time power changed from one party to the other without violence. Furthermore, there are larger and larger zones of peace. It would be unthinkable that war will break out in Western Europe, yet that area has been a conflict zone for almost 2000 years, same with North America.

    Not only that, who said war was a bad thing? Is a wild fire a bad thing? War is the greatest driver of human invention and progress. The fear of death is the greatest motivating factor.

    Not to sound disagreeable, just my two cents.

  46. john andrews said on June 15th, 2009 at 11:06pm #

    Zionists could claim a right to exist – as could Nazis or any other fascist group. They can steal land and buy legal support for doing so. But that doesn’t make it right. However, if you have the toughest kid on the block as your best friend, who cares if its right?

    The US/Zionist pact is unbreakable for as long as the US says so. The Zionists absolutely depend upon it whilst the US just uses it as their principle agent for destabilising the Middle East. When that no longer suits US policy they’ll just walk away and leave their Zioinist partners to their fate.

    Hopefully it will be a painful one.

  47. ajohnstone said on June 16th, 2009 at 4:17am #

    Not so much should Israel have the right to exist but more appropriately, has it failed as a state to protect Jews ?

    The terrible experience of the Second World War convinced many European Jews to embrace the idea of a Zionist State

    The establishment of Israel did not end anti-semitism. In fact , it has actually caused it to spread to where it had seldom existed before – to the Arab-speaking parts of the world. For centuries Jews had lived in peace and security, integrated and speaking Arabic, in these parts of the world.
    Now, as a direct result of the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine,, they came to suffer the same persecution that the European Jews had. The result was that centuries of integration was undone in decades. Today there are virtually no Jews living in Arab countries: most Arab Jews are now in Israel where they form an underprivileged group.
    And those Arab Israelis who remained within the state of Israel suffered the same fate the Zionists sought to free Jews from: being a minority in someone else’s “nation-State”.

    As Socialists we re-affirm that all peoples should seek their emancipation, not as members of nations or religions or ethnic groups, but as human beings, as members of the human race. They should unite to abolish the division of the world into so-called nation-states and to establish a World Cooperative Commonwealth of which we will all be free and equal members – citizens of the world, not subjects of nation-states.

  48. Max Shields said on June 16th, 2009 at 4:57am #

    We have an asylum in the Middle East. It is called Israel; and the problem with this asylum is that it is stocked with nuclear missiles, and every kind of modern miliary munitions imaginable.

  49. Max Shields said on June 16th, 2009 at 4:58am #

    Should such an asylum exist?

  50. bozh said on June 16th, 2009 at 5:55am #

    max, i agree,
    israel or ‘jewish’ state shld not exist. Only palestina shl exsist and people now living there shld have the right stay in palestina.
    this solution is better for the world and diaspora ‘jews’. tnx

  51. Max Shields said on June 16th, 2009 at 6:09am #

    The right of return would re-integrate the region that is now a “Jewish-state” and the apartheid lands surrounding that “state”.

    While, it is true, that this “Jewish-state” neither wants a two-state solution nor the right of return – why not go for what is really morally called for – one “state” as it had been prior to the invasion and ethnic cleansing that began in 1948?

  52. Bryantim said on June 16th, 2009 at 6:18am #

    “Israel is a country that was founded by Europeans who came to Palestine, formed terrorist gangs who set about a systematic ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinians from their homes on 78% of Historic Palestine in 1948.”

    The terrorist gangs who set about a systematic ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinians were JEWS, NOT EUROPEANS. Jews are not my relatives! I have no doubt the Europeans who played any role in forming the Jewish state simply wanted Jews out of THEIR countries. Jews have been expelled from one European country after another over the last 2000. No surprises here

  53. bozh said on June 16th, 2009 at 6:18am #

    may i point out that the people who call selves “jews” [justifacation/causes aside] have no connection whatsoever with israelites and only marginally or not at all with the judeans.
    thus, these people have not only adopted judaism but also taken over the name of other people.

    i have been aware for long time that all folks are an admixture of two and more peoples.

    it is the ‘jews’ who insist that that this fact does not s’mhow apply to them; i.e., that they are solely “jews” and as such have a special priveleges and rights.

    sure, ‘jewishness’ may mean to a ‘jew’ this or that or change the meanings of it at will but not to me.
    to me, being ‘jewish’, is being cultish and in such an antihuman way that makes people wish to destroy that cult.
    most other nations adhere to at least two cults. In US, brazil there may be as many as a dozen cults.
    in israel only one cult is allowed or as max says, “one asylum”
    this is the difference that makes a huge difference bwtn ‘jews’ and nonjews.
    tnx bozhidar balkas vancouver

  54. Barry99 said on June 16th, 2009 at 6:24am #

    Carlyle – I disagree in part. The reasons Palestinians want Palestine is it is their home – and has been, since Canaanite tribes moved into the area 7 or 8 thousand years ago (or emerged out of a pre-existing Neolithic population). When the Jews began arriving in numbes from Europe in the 20th century they found the land fully inhabited – or at least the land that was habitable at all. So its not really a matter of reproduction – both Jew and Palestinian reproduce where ever they are. As for survival, Jews have been THE major success story of immigration to America. And they are thriving in Canada and Western Europe as well.
    Also, polls of Palestinians over the years indicate a majority favor a two-state solution. That is the de jure position of Fatah as well, and we should add, the de facto position of Hamas. Israelis, however, are torn between pulling out of most of the West Bank and their racist hatred of Arabs.
    Other Arab states are not expected to give up land to the Palestinians. Those who favor Israeli hegemony expect the Arab states to absorb their Palestinian refugees into their populations. Jordan has done this in some measure. But Palestinian refugees largely do NOT want to be absorbed into their host states – they have the keys and deeds to their properties in Israel and they want to go home – a right guaranteed in international law.
    Israel understands that it must pay compensation to refugees to get off the hook for them. It also expects that the US and others are going to pay this bill for them. Israel already has had economists and accountants working up figures to minimize the pay out.

    Israel has, of course, been engaging in ethnic cleansing since even before day one. The effort is to make life as difficult as possible for Palestinians so that the rest will leave – and to do this just under the radar of world opinion, so all can look the other way.

  55. Barry99 said on June 16th, 2009 at 6:32am #

    Alex – States exist outside of military defense as well. Otherwise there would be no Leichtensteins or Lesothos on the planet. Strange as it seems, borders of states are generally considered inviolable – even if the other state has virtually no army to speak of. The reason for this is that ruling political and economic elites find it in their best interests generally to abide by political borders (though not capital penetration). Having said this, it is certain that many a war has been fought over borders, but every state understands it has transgressed when it enters another country. Even male lions have a concept of home territory.

    and uh, war IS a bad thing. It is devastating to individuals, families, communities, societies. It is very rare that any good war does outweighs the bad.

  56. Barry99 said on June 16th, 2009 at 6:35am #

    John andrews – I think Israel accomplishes nothing of a positive note for the US (and certainly not for the American public). You can get more flies with honey than with vinegar – and Israel is vinegar. US-Israel relations is a matter of the tale wagging the dog. Americans pay a huge price for that perversion.

  57. Barry99 said on June 16th, 2009 at 6:40am #

    ajohnstone – a capitalist dream come true scenario – this World Cooperative Commonwealth idea. Multinationals would love to see a borderless world.
    As soon as it was set up, devolution revolutions would break out in 20 corners of the world.

  58. Barry99 said on June 16th, 2009 at 7:04am #

    Max – When the Palestinians nixed partition, that should have been the end of it. UN 181 was only a recomendation, and if either party rejected it, it was supposed to be a dead letter. The Jews, with the active acquiesence or participation of the 1st and 2nd worlds overrode that and established a state. THAT was the time to create a just solution even if it meant resettling European Jews elsewhere. Now, Israel is 61 years old, a number of generations have been born there, Israel is integrated into the world’s political and economic systems at the highest levels, they are an extremely nationalistic people and will consent to living with no one. You know, if you go to any Israeli market, Jewish shoppers ask if this is an Israeli fruit or an Arab fruit. They won’t buy the Arab fruit. This is the level of race hatred. A unified state would fracture virtually overnight – in fact, it would be a novel idea – not so much a ‘failed state,’ but possibly the world’s first ‘failed pre-state.’ I would go so far to say that a unified state is not only a naive approach, it is every bit as dangerous to the world and even more dangerous to the Palestinians.

  59. Bryantim said on June 16th, 2009 at 7:19am #

    The title of your article should be “Does Everyone Else Have A Right To Exist”?

  60. Barry99 said on June 16th, 2009 at 7:22am #

    Bozh – The genetic record to date indicates a relationship of Ashkenazi Jews to the region. Not only on the Y-chromosome but on mitochondrial DNA as well. Jews have championed the M-DNA findings which show that almost half of female ancestry can be traced to four women who came from the middle east. Of course, that means just over half of M-DNA may eventually be traced to women outside of the middle east. That remains to be seen. Certainly Jews have various ancestries. This is of course, also true of almost all population groups as lines of genetics wax and wane, ebb and flow over the generations.

    I do not think todays Jews are substantially the same as biblical Hebrews. And the Jewish claim to Palestine based in genetics is not nearly as valid as that of the Palestinians. Besides, most Jews voluntarily (the Roman expulsion is exagerated) left the region or later converted to Christianity or Islam and so largely voided their own claim to Palestine. But for me, the deciding factor is that Palestinians were the people on the ground when the Zionists arrived.

    This fact does not require labeling Judaism (to the extent practiced) a cult, nor does it require assigning a term usually reserved for the deranged (asylum) to what is essentially a political power struggle.

    I mean, how would you or Max seriously present these notions to a wider audience. Let’s say you wrote an article based on these ideas. What journal would you offer it to? If you ran for office, how would you phrase such an approach?

  61. Max Shields said on June 16th, 2009 at 7:56am #

    I am not calling for a “unified” state. I know all to well what we are dealing with regarding the state of Israel and have stated so above.

    61 years of nothing but hell is hardly a legacy of “state-hood”. Germany had been cut in two after WWII. Eastern and Western Europe were re-aligned. All had been part of a world economy and each nation-state had it’s history of people. Even today, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the re-emerging states are not identical to the original.

    It is just plain silly to say that Israel is a sustainable state. Whether Jews (of this ilk/Zionist) need a “homeland” is rather arbitrary. It is clear that this state of Israel is no less a predatory in the world than was Hitler’s Third Reich. The conditions to bring about a new integrated region are obviously not in the offing. I am not claiming a re-constitution of those lands with diverse heritage is easy or even practical. I am saying that there is no other alterternative that is any more practical.

    My argument is at once for re-constitituion/right of return on moral and sustainable grounds; and against the notion that the “cat and mouse” joke called a “two-state solution” is even more delusional and no more likely to happen.

  62. atiya said on June 16th, 2009 at 7:58am #

    Dear Susan,

    Of course, Israel has no right to exist at all in Palestine. Unfortunately the Arabs were too weak and disunited to fight back when it was created by the Americans and the British who had their own interests in setting up a Jewish state in the heart of the Middle East. As long as Israel remains, nothing will change for the Palestinians. The Israelis will always find some excuses to terrorise the Palestinians with.

  63. Max Shields said on June 16th, 2009 at 8:02am #


    This notion of a one-state alternative as the real solution is not new and has many “fathers”.

    “One Country”: A new book from EI cofounder Ali Abunimah

    As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on with relatively new leadership on both sides, we are led to ask what has become a perennial yet only more urgent question — will this conflict ever be resolved in a way that will finally bring peace to the region?

    The son of Palestinians who fled the country in 1948, Electronic Intifada co-founder Ali Abunimah makes the radical argument that what is needed is one state shared by Palestinians and Israelis in his new book, ONE COUNTRY: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse.

  64. KAK said on June 16th, 2009 at 8:06am #

    Israel is NO Friend to America or the World..!!

    Congressional members with dual American / Israeli Citizenships are TRAITORS, they should be lined up against a wall and SHOT…!!

    Israel / Zionist Jews are the Blood Sucking Parasites of the World.
    They are nothing more then Leeches, feeding on Humanity and sucking the life out of Mankind.
    The sooner this World is rid of them the better we all will be.

    “What’s the difference between an Israeli and a Catfish”?
    One’s a Scum Sucking Bottom Feeder and the other is a Fish”

    “Die You Scum Sucking Bastards, Die”

  65. Kapoore said on June 16th, 2009 at 8:44am #

    I have no hope that the current Israeli state will give up an inch of land. The Westbank settlers have confiscated the water resources that Israel needs. I have no hope that any American president is going to persuade Israel to make a just peace, such as a retreat to the 67 borders. I have no hope that the U.N. will enforce its rules, even though it granted statehood to Israel. Perhaps the one thing that can make a difference in this hopeless situation is for the U. S. to stop all financial and military aid to Israel, and for no other nation to become a replacement donor state. Sooner or later the U.S. will have to stop anyway because American vets are homeless on the street and the American Empire cannot sustain itself. When aid stops we’ll see how spunky Israel deals with its neighbors. My guess is that 100 years from now Israel will be a Middle Eastern state with the same ethnic population as its neighbors. Whether this process of ethnic merging will be peaceful or violent is up to the people who choose to live there. Geography is the most important factor for marriage. Maybe the hope for the region is in intermarriage.

  66. Barry99 said on June 16th, 2009 at 10:57am #

    Max – So you are calling for a bi-national state?

    Germany was divvied up by the winning side for reasons having more to do with competing ideologies than with breaking up Germany for the good of humanity. The three allied sectors quickly came together – and the west longed for the day when Germany was whole again – which of course happened.
    Yes, states are not cut in stone, so to speak. They do evolve, disappear, change shape and constituency. I can’t think of a situation, however, where a people were told to fold up their state and desist.

    Zionist Jews wanted a homeland for Jews for several reasons, some less admirable than others. But as there are no inhabitable places that are not already inhabited, and the gentiles of Europe were not willing to part with land – they did what conquerers before have done – they conquered and stole a country. Would that they were given Austria after WWII. What could be better than giving them the land that spawned Hitler? Alas, it is easier to give away someone else’s land.

    Israel is no more or less sustainable than other states. They are likely to last longer if they give up land expropriation and war – but that is not likely to come until the US has the cojones to say no to Israel-First Zionists in our own country.

    That the Jews now have a homeland is not arbitrary – it is a six decade fact. You pull the rug out from under their financial support, military guarantees, and diplomatic cover – and we’ll see a different Israel.

    The only practical solution – and the likely one – it is only a matter of time, and it always has been a matter of time since the Palestinians made it clear that Israel would have to kill all of them – is a two-state solution. One state is not in the cards. If the Palestinian state is not viable, chances are good that trouble will continue and eventually it will be absorbed into Israel and Jordan (and Egypt re Gaza). But if a viable Palestine is created, it will have its own dynamic, and if the US corrects its own behavior, Israel will face a new reality and eventually demographics and the need for labor and markets in Israel will likely lead to a new relationship. Only then will a one-state solution possibly be in the cards.

    Moral grounds are very moral indeed and they serve to set the upper limits of change. Palestinians have largely given up on reconstitution (though far from entirely and it can re-emerge). They have not given up on the right of return. Nor should they, but the likely eventual outcome is that only a token number (if that) of Palestinians will be allowed to return to their homes and property. The rest will be given a small set of options. Some Palestinians will hold out for justice – but they will not be the first people deprived of justice.

    But I do believe a state of Palestine is and has been in the cards – Ariel Sharon knew that – he said that Jews should grab as many hilltops as possible, that which they fail to take will be Arab. So either Obama makes a viable state a reality or the struggle will continue or remerge long after we are dead.

  67. Barry99 said on June 16th, 2009 at 11:03am #

    Max – I read Abunimah and EI all the time. As a good Lebanese friend of mine said to me – if you read EI you need read nothing else to know what is going on.
    The one-state threat is a reminder to Zionists here and there of the ghastly alternative (in the Zionist view) to the two-state solution. Its akin to the notion that the Zionists used to slam Arafat every chance they got. Now they have Hamas because they failed to cooperate with Arafat. Israel never fails to fuck itself over and over.

  68. bozh said on June 16th, 2009 at 11:03am #

    barry, thanks for your imput.
    respectfully, i suggest, that ashk’m cld not have any connection, save the cult, with israelites who vanished ca 728 bc.
    if israelites did not vanish completely but a large group moved north to caucasus they wld have not ever abandoned the langauge in which, by claim, yahweh spoke to moshe.

    dna proof must, therefore, be an imposition. That is my firm conclusion!
    in addition, you, too, use the word “indcation” to describe the test!

    on the other hand, if judeans fled judea, no one can prove how many fled for dear life and if for dear life; how many remained or how many of those that remained clung to their cult.
    in short, not knowing what went on and possibly never learning what went on, i’d rather err on the side of the victims than perps.

    i have labeled all major religions as cultish. Torahic, talmudic teachings and practises of most judaists i label “cultish”

    cults are not only extremely intolerant of one another; they are shamefully antihuman and anti other cults.

    ‘jewish’ cultishness or mass paranoia/hatred of anything nonjewish occludes peace in the world and not just in ME.
    there are,of course, sectarian differences in intesity of hatred and fear of others in the three major cults.
    in my thinking a belief system to earn the label religion must at least be henotheistic and have just a few basic dogmas and not contain as bible, quran, and torah thousands upon thousands of an endless number of [mis]teachings, commands, promises, etc.
    and worst of all is the claim that all that is from god, who somehow can’t speak now nor ever to latvians, apachees, incas, et al.
    go figure.

  69. Barry99 said on June 16th, 2009 at 11:10am #

    Atiya – We can blame the US for many things but not for the establishment of Israel. That was Britain’s doing. Not saying the US fought for the right side on this issue – just saying it’s really only Britain’s baby. The US became unequivocably on the side of Israel only with the Johnson Administration.

  70. Barry99 said on June 16th, 2009 at 11:42am #

    Bozh – I suspect that the tribes of Israel and Judea may have had different origins. Semitic-speaking populations had been moving out of the Arabian peninsula for centuries, what with the drying of the region (related to the ice age much further north). Some settled in Ur in today’s Iraq. There they may have been joined by Kurdish/Armenian ancestral populations to some degree, and they moved on to Canaan, where recognizable Judaism emerged out of the existing Canaanite population. They may have been joined by a tribes coming out of Egypt. And then they interbred with other Semitic-speaking and non-Semitic populations (Philistines for instance) in Canaan. So I think it is a relative hodge-podge to begin with.

    Many were exiled to Babylon, some returned – likely with new gentile ‘blood’ in their veins. Most left during Roman rule of Palestine to make their living in more fruitful corners of the empire. Some went to Khazaria where they mixed with the already Slavified Khazars. Others went up the Italian peninsula, many settling among Germans where they picked up that language and merged it structurally with Slavic languages. (Speaking of language, Jews in Palestine had already largely abandoned Hebrew for the language of the marketplace – Aramaic. Hebrew was reserved for ceremony.) Still others joined the Muslim conquest, spreading across North Africa and into Spain. Much earlier, Jewish tribes had moved back into the Arab peninsula, many congregating in western Arabia, especially Yemen. A few others made it to Cochin, India, and to Iran and a handful to China. So it is definately a mix. Yet DNA shows a connection to each other and to the Levant or points beyond in all but Ethiopian Jews.

    But as I say, the Palestinian claim to the land is because they were the inhabitants when the Zionists arrived. They are still lurking in the immediate vicinity and they want justice. Jews largely ( a few stayed on) left the region for a variety of reasons – none of which after a thousand years or two entitles them to sole possession of the country.

    As an atheist, I have no problem calling religions as cults. I don’t single Judaism out for that though. Anti-Semitism in Europe was a very palpable thing however. It was violent and deadly and we all know how it culminated – and not so long ago! Twern’t the Palestinians though. Anti-Semitism is a European Christian thing – not Islamic or Middle Eastern. A mistake the Zionists made was giving up on the modern Western democratic state. They should have fought for integration of Jews into the fabric of these nations instead of cultivating benefactors to provide them with a Jewish state. They should have urged emigration to America – which many Eastern Jews did (and where many may wind up as this century advances). Instead, they colonized another’s country.

  71. Aldred said on June 16th, 2009 at 12:03pm #

    The World should insist Israel live by the standards Israel demands of others. If Israel wants to be recognized, Israel must recognize the EQUALITY and HUMANITY of ALL People. Quit calling NON-Jews SHISKA, GOYIM, GENTILE. If Israel wants Hamas to ‘repudiate’ their charter, Israel must REPUDIATE their manual of hate, the TORAH, which openly proclaims that all ‘gentiles’ should be ‘Hewers of wood, and bearers of water’ …….. for Israel. Israel must recognize the Native People’s RIGHT to a Palestinian state
    Anti-GENTILISM is the problem. There IS no such thing as “anti-semitism”.The Old Testament of the Bible, especially the Torah created anti-GENTILISM, and sensible NON-Jews said: “Hey! since you HATE ME for NOT being one of you, I am going to be PRO-GENTILE!”. They codified hatred of all NON-Jews (GENTILES) in their religion, and now wonder why Gentiles defend themselves. “antisemitism” DOES NOT EXIST. Self-defense is the normal reaction of any SANE person to a Group that openly preaches IT’s hatred of You. Judaism has been preaching it’s Hatred of NON-jews for thousands of years, and THAT is why any NON-jew with self-esteem, and self-respect, is PRO-GENTILE. Go research the instigators of the First Christian SHOAHs, that is RIGHT, instigated and carried out by Jews, what was Saul of Tarsus doing, HUH?!
    March 2000
    Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of Chabad-Lubavitch.
    “The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the common expression: ‘Let us differentiate.’ Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather, we have case of ‘let us differentiate’ between totally different species. This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of (members) of all nations of the world… A non-Jew’s entire reality is only vanity. The entire creation (of a non-Jew) exists only for the sake of the Jews.”

  72. Nathan Snail said on June 16th, 2009 at 12:14pm #

    no. not at the expense of palestinians it doesn’t.

  73. bozh said on June 16th, 2009 at 12:23pm #

    barry, thanks,
    history does say that arabs and canaanites have infiltrated mesopotamia some 4K+ yrs ago and shemitized peoples such as assyrians, akkadian, chaldeans.
    and even hitites may have been shemitic.
    still, as you say, palestinians may have continuouls resided in canaan for at least 7K yrs and palestina belongs to them. tnx

  74. Max Shields said on June 16th, 2009 at 12:49pm #

    Barry99 “Germany was divvied up by the winning side for reasons having more to do with competing ideologies than with breaking up Germany for the good of humanity.”

    I would disagree that this was purely about competing ideologies. Germany had twice been in the centre of two world wars.

    But regardless, the point isn’t why Germany was divided but the fact that it was reconstituted at all.

    I am calling for a single country. State-hood is not exactly the same thing. I’m calling for a place to be free of nationalism but that accommodates a self-sufficiency for the people who live there. This is not an unusual vision. Accommodating a quasi-nazi regime (even when if offers a dovish exterior) seems unacceptable if one is searching for peace and justice.

    A two state solution is a pact with the devil and as such will demand a price that exceeds whatever may at first blush seem desired. I understand the arguments (practical) for a two state solution. I don’t buy it on the very premise that it will not bring peace and justice and it is not practical because the state of Israel is hegemonic. As such what little there is of precious life sustaining resources will be a major bone of contention and the powerful will win. The demonization of the Palistinans will be used as the premise for regional hegemon. That is the DNA that is the state of Israel.

    Could it change? If there was a right of return. If there was a free flux of people and trade, there could be change. But structurally Israel is a warring nation-state; sustained (over the short term) by war and conflict.

  75. Max Shields said on June 16th, 2009 at 1:43pm #

    The one-state solution is the most visionary AND the most sensible

    Behind the headlines

    Publicly, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and every major Western government all support the two-state solution. Vociferously and unbendingly. But behind the headlines, the one-state solution is gaining traction. Here’s what Hobart College political scientist and democracy activist Virginia Tilley recently discovered (n.b.: ALL sources are cited and linked-to in the “Re:Sources” section at the end of this article):

    My own recent experience in [Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Europe, and South Africa], not to mention extensive Internet activism, has confirmed that the death of the two-state solution has become the elephant in the room for diplomats, human-rights activists, and the “Arab street” alike. Judging by confidential reports, belief that a one-state solution has become inevitable is circulating within the Palestinian Authority. . . . Nor is this analysis confined to Palestinians: broad layers of diplomats and other staff from European states and the U.N. are privately discussing the one-state solution. Moreover, some of the most eloquent endorsements for such a solution are from prominent Jewish professionals in Israel and abroad.

  76. RH2 said on June 16th, 2009 at 2:31pm #


    “There is no reason to believe that Israel will exist forever.”

    This thread is getting hazy. No, there is no reason to believe that Israel will exist forever, neither there is reason to believe that any state will exist forever. Actually there is no reason to believe that human beings will exist forever. I have only tried to draw attention to current realities. Israel does exist and does get active help from 2 continents, North America and Europe, to exist and kill. The key to a satisfactory solution to the Palestinian problem is in Washington, not in Tel Aviv. But the filth in Washington must be cleaned first, which is not in sight. It does not look good for Palestinians.

  77. jn said on June 16th, 2009 at 3:03pm #

    The whole premise of the article is incorrect- and downright dangerous. Thank you, Ismael, for finally raising the true archeologically proven history of the Middle East. (

    Many of the people of Gaza is from Egypt. Even though there are “Palestinians” who just want to live a life without fear and with basic needs (and I SUPPORT THEM), Gaza still is a rallying place for anti-Jewish sentiment or “the final solution”- the continuation of Hitler’s work. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was good friends with Hitler. He went to Egypt to rally up people to go to Gaza:

    Now bringing it to today’s world…

    The people who call themselves “Palestinians” should have a right to exist, as do ALL people in this world. I do think that the GOVERNMENT of Israel has crossed some lines as do ALL GOVERNMENTS. We should NOT hold Israel to a higher standard. It is VERY incorrect to say that Israel is committing genocide, by definition and intention. Yes, there are extremists on BOTH sides, but the majority of people want to live in peace.

    – Israel should stop expanding settlements and let Gazans be in control of the land’s resources.

    – Gazans should assist in removing militants who want the destruction of Israel and not acquire weapons of mass destruction.

    Remember that Israelis are refugees too (in their own historic lands), put in an interment camp surrounded by countries who don’t want them there. How would you feel?

    Still, the answer is to not encourage extremism on either side.

  78. truther said on June 16th, 2009 at 3:11pm #

    I assume that Nazi persecution of the Jews was greatly exaggerated. ( I refuse to use the “H” word. ) Even if it were true, that doesn’t give them a right to the Holy Land.

    Their other claim is that they used to occupy the land, so that gives them a right to come back there. Yeah, right.

    And finally there are the misinterpreted prophecies from the Bible they don’t believe in. (Note: most orthodox Jews who believe in the divinely-inspired Torah, reject the Zionist state.)

    After all, they are “the Chosen People.” Or are they?

    Study history and you’ll realize that many scholars believe that the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Germanic people are descendents of the originial twelve tribes of Israel. This makes sense because civilization migrated westward.

    Most people who call themselves “Jews” today are Mongolian-Turks who were forced to convert to Judaism by their King Joseph around the 8th century AD. They are not descendents of Abraham nor are they semitic people, which gives them no claim to the Holy Land whatsoever.

  79. Barry99 said on June 16th, 2009 at 3:20pm #

    Rh2 – I only said that Israel will not exist forever because you said: “Israel does exist and will always exist…. So Israel is an irreversible reality.”

    I agree that the answers – almost ALL the answers lay in Washington. If and when the US cuts of Israel’s ‘roids supply – that state will transform from Barry Bonds to Spike Lee (or more accurately, Woody Allen).

  80. Barry99 said on June 16th, 2009 at 6:13pm #

    Max – One good reason Germany was reconstituted was because the Germans very much wanted that – they see themselves as one people. If they had not wanted reunion, it would have been a crime to force them . But if the Czechs and Slovaks could not make it together, the thought of the Jews volunteering to be a minority to Muslim Arabs in whatever political entity you are describing is pie in the sky.

    Its all a pact with the devil, there is no just solution in the near future – and in the not so far future, most of those originally made stateless by the Jews will be dead. But there is no DNA involved here, Jews historically have been doormats and they’ve been – are – racist overlords. The answers are political, not genetic, and they largely lie in Washington.

    You say, ‘could it change? If there was a right of return, a free flux of people….” That’s just the point. Its no accident the right of return has not been acted upon and the only flux going on is Jews in, Palestinians out. I don’t get your mechanism for achieving even this change you mention – that would be a miracle in itself.

  81. Barry99 said on June 16th, 2009 at 6:23pm #

    Max – Yes the intellectuals are talking one-state, these are largely ‘thought experiments’ as the phrase goes. As you know, this is not a new idea, Ahad Haam thought it was a good idea a century ago, and so did Arafat until he realized it was a pipe dream. Palestinian intellectuals, being very frustrated, hold it out as an alternative to the two-state effort which to date has not netted them one acre of land – and the remains of Palestine whither away. So the frustration is understandable, every one wants a solution in their lifetime. Leftist Jewish intellectuals also push the limits, and I applaud them for doing so. However, they hold virtually no sway over the Israeli public, which is force fed dogma by the government and the lap dog media – all sustained by the largesse of Uncle Sam.

    There may someday be a one state solution. But the route is through a two state solution. And by then, so many Israelis will have left to live in Germany and the US that all that remains will be to put out the lights. And Palestine will be restored.

  82. Max Shields said on June 16th, 2009 at 6:31pm #

    Two state solution seems to be at least as much a pipe dream. Dream on…

  83. Barry99 said on June 16th, 2009 at 6:40pm #

    JN – Most Gazans are Palestinian refugees from what is now Israel, driven out by the Jewish ethnic cleansing campaign of 47 – 49. The towns they occasionally send home-made rockets into were Palestinian towns – Jews now live in their homes and enjoy their property.

    Gaza is a center for anti-Israel sentiment because it is the Israel that did the deed in the first place and it is Israel that still holds Gaza under siege. It is Israel that is carrying out Hitler’s work, this is not surprising given the historical geneology of Zionism.

    The Grand Mufti was not good friends with Hitler – that’s a ridiculous statement. You’d think they went clubbing together. The Mufti was a British appointee who did the bidding of the Brits. While he was doing so, the Zionists were meeting with Mussolini and Austrian/German Nazis. You know the brown-shirts the Jewish youth movement, Betar, wore in palestine? The shirts and the movement were modeled on Hitler Youth.

    Israel is not held to a higher standard – it is not held to any standard. Israel is the last state to illegally occupy another’s land – and is the world’s only Apartheid ruler. How’s that for standards? Israel’s practices in Occupied Palestine easily meet the UN definition of genocide.

    Palestinians have NO weapons of mass destruction. As you can see by Israel’s massacre in Gaza, the WMD all belong to Israel – there was virtually NO resistance by Palestinians – they had no weapons of any worth to resist with.

    When the Zionist began to colonize Palestine there were no Jews in interment camps. Almost no Jews wanted to go to Palestine – they wanted to go to America, which they did by the millions, to become America’s most successful immigrant group.

    Because the Jews could not strike out at either their gentile enemies or their gentile benefactors they have chosen the Palestinians to vent on. And you wonder why they resist. Just take your troops and settlers and go back to Israel.

  84. Barry99 said on June 16th, 2009 at 6:48pm #

    Max – I may be dreaming but we know what the outlines of a viable two-state solution are. The basis for a one-state solution requires a leap of faith hitherto unknown in human history. If it comes to that, Jews will either readily opt for two states or set about mowing down palestinians by the thousands.

  85. truther said on June 16th, 2009 at 7:43pm #

    Liars usually lie to get attention or to destroy the lives of those around them. As I’m reading these posts, it’s insane how much time we as a nation devote to analyzing, discussing, delving into the history of Israel & the Jews and the Jewish problem and the “H” word. That’s what they want. They love that we have to be consumed with them. We have no choice because they’re in our face and they rule our world and as the two goons in the white van on 9/11 said, “Our problem is your problem. The Palestinians are your problem.”

  86. Max Shields said on June 17th, 2009 at 4:21am #

    There is no leap of faith with re-integrating the area. The road block is the same as the two-state. A two state is actually much more complicated and that outline with 2 bucks will get you a coffee.

    This history stuff you keep throwing around Barry99 is sounding rather strange. Such as “The basis for a one-state solution requires a leap of faith hitherto unknown in human history.” And the state of Israel was more likely to happen than bringing the people who lived in the area back? Come now.

    I think the media has so hyped the two-state solution that you actually believe it is more feasible.

    If a two-state solution happens so be it. That’s not my point, my point is such a scenario has little chance of happening in a mutual way and so will exaserbate the problem at best. The Zionists who have driven out Palestinians and performed ethnic cleansing may offer a “Native American reservation” solution, but little else.

  87. Max Shields said on June 17th, 2009 at 5:50am #

    I tend, Barry99, to agree with this statement: ““They [Palestinians] are not looking for a solution, they are looking for justice and when you look for justice there are no compromises.”

  88. Max Shields said on June 17th, 2009 at 5:54am #

    To quote Marian Kromkowski of Northern Michigan, Mideast: Just Peace:
    “The Two-State Solution is not just. It is no solution to the turmoil in historic Palestine because at its core it does not undo any wrongs. It is unjust because it is premised on the continued acceptance of the Zionist claim to at least three quarters, if not all, of Palestine as being the exclusive land of the Jews. It is fundamentally flawed as it denies Palestinians the Right of Return; it abandons the Palestinians living within Israel; it does not provide Palestinians any semblance of an independent sovereign state and it allows the US to maintain its role as the main imperialist occupier of the entire Middle East.”

  89. bozh said on June 17th, 2009 at 6:17am #

    to be short, US has changed its mind: it, along with israel and europe, wants a onestate ‘solution’ of the worst kind.
    of course, judeo-chritsian world calls its ‘solution’ a “twostate” ‘solution’.tnx

  90. Max Shields said on June 17th, 2009 at 6:36am #


    You are right. There is no real “two-state” there is some meager separated territory (Gaza and West Bank) which is pure and simple aparteid).

    I don’t recall, ever, the discussion of a two-state “solution” in South Africa to end it’s apartheid. It would have been a reinforcement of the racist apartheid state to make such an “offering”. The same is true here. The dominate oppressor is Zionism and the Zionists are racists. A two-state solution allows for this mighty injustice of racism to have succeeded or justice for the people of the area.

    What is so different between the invasion of Europeans to South Africa, forcing the indigenous people off their land and holding them hostage to a white racist European law; and what has happened in setting up the state of Israel?

    Let me be so bold as to answer: NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER!!

    You can not “solve” this problem by pretending it doesn’t exist and providing a state beside a vile Zionist occupier.

    There are other reasons why a two-state is just wrong headed. For instance: A Palestinian State on 22% of the land is ecologically unfeasible.
    The State of Israel includes the coastal regions and the most fertile lands. The Palestinians are left mainly with mountainous and arid regions. For example, in Gaza, 5,000 Israeli settlers, comprising less than 1% of the population control 40% of the fertile land. The 1.2 million Palestinians, comprising 99% of Gaza get the rest. This is simply unsustainable from an ecological perspective for the Palestinian people.

    For more you may want to become familiar with this site and many others on why one country is essential for lasting justice and peace.

    You cannot right a wrong by pretending that the wrong never happened. Two-state solution tries to do just that.

  91. AntiAntiSemite said on June 17th, 2009 at 7:24am #

    James – please get your facts right – history does not say that Jesus was a jew, the bible does, and that can hardly be taken to be historical fact. If you do however want to go down that path, then surely you should read all of the religious scriptures. And upon doing so i think you’ll find that the Talmud (the true “jewish” book) refers to Jesus as the “bastard born of a whore”. Also do some research as to what the word “Jesus” means in Hebrew. What you may find is that the Talmud (which i am currently reading and assume that the majority of people have not read) is without a doubt the most racist piece of literature i’ve ever laid my eyes upon. The most worrying thing is that 6 chapters of the Talmud have never been written as they are to remain a secret only among the upper echelons of rabbinical circles and are to never be disclosed to “goyim” (non-jews). Please do a little research and then give your opinion…please.

  92. AntiAntiSemite said on June 17th, 2009 at 7:33am #

    Furthermore, the jews that now occupy palestine were never a semitic people and have no roots, culture, ancestry,etc in that land. They originated from Asia and were once known as Khazar Jews. Because they learnt Hebrew does not make them a semitic people, the same way that if i learn Japanese, it doesnt make me a japanese person!
    (Hence it can be argued that the zionists are the true anti-semites)

  93. Barry99 said on June 17th, 2009 at 7:38am #

    Max – The basis for my beliefs is really not so much the media but because I am a social science researcher and activist for Palestine whose area of decades-long interest is just that region. I’ve spent quite a bit of time in Palestine and Israel. I haven’t brought this up because I want to have a discussion – but when you suggest I get my views from a hyped-up media then I have to make this clear.
    Truth is, the main-stream media is only coming around to a two-state solution of late. This media still accepts the Israeli version that there is a ‘dispute’ over land – not that it is occupied except in a most technical sense. “Occupied” is a word hard to find in American corporate media.

    A state of Israel was virtually a foregone conclusion since the Balfour Declaration, its exact borders indeterminate at that time. The use of the term ‘homeland’ was merely a euphemism – there was never any intention of living amongst the Arabs, certainly not under Arab rule. Britain, the reigning power of the day, declared there intention for this ‘homeland’ in no uncertain terms. By the end of WWII, the weight of both the West and the Eastern Bloc was four-square behind it. So this was no throw of the dice.

    As I have written here and elsewhere, there is a very good chance the two-state solution will be no long-term solution – and history will evolve from there. Indemic political and cultural changes, the regional and global balance of power, demographics, even global warming – may alter the course of events – and attitudes. What is most likely to fail is a two-state solution whereby Palestine is a disjointed rump state with no semblance of statehood as we understand it. What is more likely to work is a Palestine in all of the WB&G, with all the rights and responsibilities of full statehood. It is this such state that Israel will have to come to livable terms with, with its sheer force of six million or so Palestinians living there and in Israel.
    But because a one-state solution is not in the cards any decade soon what needs to be worked for posthaste – is the best possible two-state solution – in no small measure because the majority of Palestinians favor that as do a large minority of Israelis. The longer one holds out for a one-state solution the more likely the proability that there will be just one state – and it will be Israel in ALL of historical Palestine.

    There is always compromise – there is never full justice. It’s already too late for full justice – for African-Americans, South Africans, Native-Americans, or for Palestinians. You can’t rewind history – you can only do your best to make amends.
    Regards Kromkowski, supporters of Palestine must insist on the Right of Return, must insist that Israel be the state of its citizens, not the state of the Jews, must insist in full state sovereignty over the state of Palestine. She is wrong on the role of the US – Israel is an extreme liability for the US in the region – US behavior is the result of the Israel-tail wagging the dog, largely due to the strength of organized Zionist Jewry in the US. We got nailed on 9/11 because of this.

  94. Max Shields said on June 17th, 2009 at 7:57am #

    Barry99 you are simply representing the imperial colonial outcome.

    In the 21st century there are those who are not looking for a US/Native American solution.

    There is just too much that is now known. The two-state solution is not a bridge to a just solution anymore than Obama’s healthcare “solution” is a bridge to single payer.

    In the case of the healthcare, the insurance companies know this; in the case of the two-state solution, the zionist know this. You cannot simply divide the baby and say you’ve got a tolerable solution.

    Your assessment of what an Obama administration can do or not (tail/dog) is simply wrong. What he is willing to do is another thing. The US does need to get out of Israel. To stop shipping weapons and funding for such weapons to the Zionist; and thus providing some consequence. To not block UN resolutions at the Security Council level short-circuiting the rule of international law at every turn.

    Researching a matter simply adds you to the lot of all of us hear at DV. It’s no more special. Reason and logic and justice is not simple the outcome of research.

    You are simply skirting the real point of South Africa. Was the solution a two states (separate but equal to use the phrase of our own racist history)?

    You cannot simply pretend that history did not happen. You cannot simply insist on another story for the convenience of the dominate aggressive and racist zionist regime and not suffer the continued consequences.

    There simply is no just outcome, nor a bridge to one, with a two state-solution. Just more of the same, more divide and rule; more genocide, more ethnic cleansing; more fighting over water rights and arable land, etc.

    Like it or not such is the situation created with the hoaky “birth” of Israel.

  95. AntiAntiSemite said on June 17th, 2009 at 8:14am #

    Reparations to the palestinian people (as the germans still pay today to the Jews) may be a start.

  96. bozh said on June 17th, 2009 at 10:06am #

    i don’t like to be a teach: it is ok to compare s.afrika, US with ‘zionism’ or israel.
    but one must posit all salient [dis] similarities that pertain.
    cherry picking facts or similarities to explain what eurasiansafrikans did with and to red people and what the judeo-christian bloc is doing to pals cannot, i asert, bring an or the elucidation.

    simialarities, if my menory serves me correctly, had been posited/stressed numerous times and mostly by ‘zionists’ or their supporters.
    it is the differences/dissimilarities that are more imortant than similarities in discerning what is going on and what might transpire.

    if one uses non-identidy principle in one’s thinking, then one is aware that the situations in amerika of 16-1900, s. afrika 1960, and israel 1897-09 are different.
    re israel’s [in, inter]dependency, i can say, as far as i know, israel is a near-total dependency.
    can israel make a spoon if left to own devices? Does anyone know the answer?
    how about a tank? Can israel mine iron ore in israel, smelt it in own refinery, and make steel from it in own steel mills?
    does israel have even one mine? In fact, israelis do not even have yet a country of their own.
    and one cld go on and on. I’ll end this post with the observation that to be is to be interdependent. tnx bozhidar balkas vancouver

  97. truther said on June 17th, 2009 at 10:18am #

    To whoever compared Netanyahu/palestinians to the US/native population: unfair. Indian territories are actually sovereign nations on US soil. They do not pay taxes, have their own education, justice system even passports. And we are not trying to control or bomb them out of existence.

    Israel is a big fat stinking Jewish ghetto. No Ashkenazi who was lucky enough to leave would ever want to go back there.

  98. Max Shields said on June 17th, 2009 at 11:08am #


    I brought up the Native American, but like most analogies made here, it gets blown out of proportion for someone else’s (yours in this case) agend. That doesn’t mean I don’t agree with your assessment of Israel.

  99. Jozeph Roche said on June 17th, 2009 at 12:25pm #

    Does Israel have a right to exist? Philosophy questions are sometimes nice, but when dealing with the psychopathic criminal enterprise known as Israel, it really is much more of a rhetorical question.

    Simply put, Israel has the right to exist as long as it has the ability to continue to exist. The world is ruled by hook and claw, and on the world stage of realpolitik, power speaks to power.

    So long as the world zionist network enjoys its current status as financial and political powerbroker second to none, Israel will have the de-facto right to exist within a sea of enemies. When this ceases to be the case, then Israel, practicall speaking, will no longer have the right to exist.

  100. RH2 said on June 17th, 2009 at 12:41pm #


    your description of Israeli natural resources is correct. We already know about total dependence of Israel on supply from abroad. Why do you concentrate on Israel and forget the motherland, namely U.S.A. and European cohorts? You are old and wise enouph to know that a child is at the mercy of its parents or foster-parents.

  101. Barry99 said on June 17th, 2009 at 12:45pm #

    Max – South Africa is not parallel to Palestine/Israel. South Africa was one state with its minority trying to herd the majority into Bantustans within the original borders of the state.

    Israel/Palestine is one state trying to annex the land of another while dispersing its people into the hinterlands or beyond. That both SA and Israel practice Apartheid is not enough to consider them comparable.

    As for the ‘mighty injustice of racism’ succeeding – the establishment of Israel, its admittance to the UN, and its 61 years of existence are testaments to the success of racism. You can’t just undo that by way of an admirable intellectual position. Freedom for Tibet, too – but what are the chances of that?

    I don’t know that a Palestine on 22% of its historic land is unfeasible. It depends on its connections to Gaza, on the world’s insistence that Palestine have all the rights other states have and expect, and on any alliances/union it may make with Jordan. It even depends on the degree of commerce with Israel. And nothing stops the continued evolution of the situation.

    And for you to quote without source (that’s wrong) or make up (also wrong) a statement about there being 5000 Israelis in Gaza controlling 99% of the land does not lend credibility to your argument.

    What is your two-feet on the ground mechanism for getting whatever political entity you are calling for?

  102. RH2 said on June 17th, 2009 at 12:53pm #


    “Max – South Africa is not parallel to Palestine/Israel. South Africa was one state with its minority trying to herd the majority into Bantustans within the original borders of the state. ”

    South Africa was one state? Since when? How did the minority get in to herd the “stateless” majority? I cannot follow your “social research” any more.

  103. Max Shields said on June 17th, 2009 at 1:03pm #

    What is Gaza? What is the West Bank? These are not “countries. There are Israeli settlers moving into these territories. They are strips of land with 1.5 million people. The water is controlled by Israel. Access to the sea is controlled by Israel land for farming is controlled by Israel.

    Settlers, a fraction of the population in the Palestian outlier area consume most of the water compared to the far more populous Palestinians.

    The square miles between all of this is relatively small (including Israel).

    Israel has the prime real estate with all major resources at their disposal. And you think a “two-state” solution will resolve this. This “compromise” with the most vile of zionists? You’re joking.

    RH2, good to see that what Barry99 is passing off as historical research sounds funny to you too.

    Always look for first principles. These will prove the root causes and thus the solutions to the hardest of problems. There is no two-state solution that works for the Palestinians. Therefore it does not remedy the problem which is deep and cannot be wished away by giving the prime land and resources to the racist Zionists.

    Only the integration, the right of return by the Palestinians to the fertile land they had occupied for millennia can reverse this injustice and create peace. If you are dealing with a bully who want to annihilate you and take from your the very sustenance of life, you don’t negotiate a settlement!!

  104. Suthiano said on June 17th, 2009 at 1:19pm #

    This discussion is all over the place.

    RH2 says: Why do you concentrate on Israel and forget the motherland, namely U.S.A. and European cohorts? You are old and wise enouph to know that a child is at the mercy of its parents or foster-parents.

    What makes you think that Israelis are the children in this instance, that many of the “foster parents” aren’t themselves zionists?

    Far right Dutch minister Wilders told the J Post that Europe was always against Israel and that Israel cannot defend itself against Iran if it waits on the EU…. funny stuff. The day before Gordon Brown placed a pro-Israel lobbyist in charge of mid-east policy.

    The Zionists came from Europe, to think that they don’t have enough representation within the “foster parents” group to ensure zionist policy is foolish.

    As for comparing the sit. to SA I don’t see what the big issue is… obviously a comparison is not to say that things are the exact same… One can a top hat to a baseball cap, that does not mean they have an identical FORM.

    Both were staunchly supported by the US… SA and Israel had an extensive history of cooperation, such as their joint detonation of a nuclear weapon in the Kalahari Desert in 1977… Israel also supplied a lot of weapons to SA even after the embargos were in place. SA was also repeatedly condemned by UN SC (enforcement blocked by U.S.) for the illegal occupation of Namibia, much as Israel has been repeatedly condemned by UN SC (enforcement blocked by U.S.) for the illegal occupation of land stolen in the 6 days war.

    Their is an educational purpose to drawing these lines of comparison…

    “What is your two-feet on the ground mechanism for getting whatever political entity you are calling for?”

    What is the “two-feet on the ground mechanism” for the two state solution?

    The two state “solution” will never happen. Israelis may allow puppet regime to administer low level decisions over day to day operations…. Any “Palestinian state” would be enslaved by western hegemony, big bankers, big corporations etc…. that is not freedom, it is just slavery with smiling face…. just like Obama and Bush have very little in the way of tangible differences in policy.

    to quote bozh,

  105. bozh said on June 17th, 2009 at 1:31pm #

    i often speak of the israeli-palestinian conflict as christojudean-palestinian conflict and peg US as an agent that cld bring peace in the region in a blink of an eye.

    it seems you haven’t read too many of my post; else, you’d not have concluded that i dwell only on israel.

    i also believe that not much is known about palestinian natural wealth or lack there of.
    knowing this is crucial to understanding judeo-christian alliance for the destruction of palestine.
    as far as i know, it is wretchedly poor land. God ‘gave’ hebrews canaan as punishment.

    i also think that ‘zionists’ know all this but most people don’t. And without knowing this or taking this into account, one wld be disinformed.
    your criticism appears to me petulant and without any merrit. tnx

  106. jn said on June 17th, 2009 at 1:39pm #

    To the posters who are the “Occupiers” of this comments column- if you cross out the words “Jewish”, “Jews”, “Israel”, “Palestine”, “Palestinians”, etc. associated with addressing a particular peoples, you will find that you are obsessed racists- of the extremist sort. I’ll let you stew in that. Seriously.

    Where you all get your selective “facts” are scaaaaaaaary!

    Susan Abulhawa, look at the people who you are attracting by your writing…

  107. bozh said on June 17th, 2009 at 1:49pm #

    barry, respectfully,
    i think that both max and i make the same point that you make of not knowing whether palestina can become a viable state.

    that is the crux of the matter: that we nor pals know that nor that judeo-christian lands give or wld ever give guarantees that it wld be viable and above all else INTERDEPENDENT.

    and i am certain that this time around pals will obtain a diktat; probabl,y the worst one yet. Talks, started recently by US, and later by israel, occludes any agreement.
    ‘solution’ that judeo-christian world wants is a onestate entity an din name only a twostate entity. tnx

  108. Max Shields said on June 17th, 2009 at 2:00pm #

    your comments are frivelous in that they do not bare on a particular point.

    I think you may want to start with your definition of what a “racist” is.

  109. RH2 said on June 17th, 2009 at 2:03pm #

    bozh, Suthiano,

    I have read and understood. Than you.


    We are obsessed racists, but only against enemies of humanity.

  110. Suthiano said on June 17th, 2009 at 2:18pm #

    Jn’s comments are even more than frivolous, they’re outright dangerous. To accuse someone of a “hate crime” is a serious accusation.

    Jn I don’t take kindly to such smears, which can have very serious consequences. I suggest you cease and desist or I might sue you for character assassination/libelous comments.

    Glad I was somewhat clear RH2, cheers.

  111. Barry99 said on June 17th, 2009 at 4:08pm #

    RH2 – South Africa became an independent state in May of 1961. It’s not a difficult concept.

  112. marge, said on June 17th, 2009 at 8:33pm #

    Barry 99

    ” Israel can bomb and destabilize most any government in the region. Besides, many of these gov’ts are in the employ of the US which provides the very aid they use to hold down their own citizens. Others are deeply invested in the West. There is little chance of Arab states taking collective action any time soon. If they withhold oil, they will be bombed like Iraq was bombed – and Israel is guaranteed its oil even before US supplies.”

    “With regard to nuclear bombs – Iran is taking a bold but risky step in advancing its nuclear program. Very few other states will go that route – as Iraq and Syria (if the intelligence is accurate) found out – you build reactors, you get bombed. ”

    You portray Israel as if it is a colonial power with Iran and the arab countries as its colonies. Israel has acted out this delusion through its abuse of power, atrocities, and war crimes on the Palestinians and its arab neighbors. Israel has the most powerful military in the Middle East and uses it to commit genocide, land stealing, terrorism, and to maintain its brutal occupation of the Palestinians. Israel’s use of intimidation and violence to control the Palestinians and arab neighbors must be stopped, as it has bombed Iraq and Syria at least once, bombed Gaza countless times, and started 3 wars with Lebanon.

    Hopefully, the US is turning a new leaf and will no longer give Israel the support and protection in the UN that it needs to continue its brutal occupation, atrocities, and war crimes against the Palestinians and arab countries. However, no matter what the US does, Iran and the arab countries still need nuclear bombs. They should not allow Israel to remain the only country in the Middle East with nuclear bombs. Iran and the arab countries must get nuclear bombs to counterbalance those of Israel, and equalize the balance of power in the Middle East. Otherwise, Israel will continue its reign of terror while its neighbors stand on the sideline complaining and powerless to do anything about it. This was highlighted in the most brutal way when Israel massacred of over 1450 defenselee Palestinian civilians in Gaza in 2009, with over 1/3 being children. Israel also massacred over 1300 defenseless Lebanese civilians in 2006, with over 1/3 being children. In sum, Israel must be stopped by any means necessary, regardless of the consequences.

  113. Suthiano said on June 17th, 2009 at 9:47pm #

    From the Ha’aretz ticker: Dutch MP Geert Wilders: Israel is West`s first line of defense against Islam (Haaretz).

    This is not first time this has been said, I think Herzl wrote something quite similar.

    Don’t be fooled by the “settlement freeze” rhetoric, it’s diversionary.

    “Lieberman to Clinton: Settlement freeze not an option”

    That doesn’t sound like a “client state” to me.

    Look at Barack’s prolonged detainment and the looming trade deficit crisis. Look at the forced vaccinations coming this fall, which will likely start in schools, and the hours upon hours of Iran protest propaganda on CNN et al. …The post Von Brunn calls for more monitoring for internet “hate speech” and the Philadelphia Inquirer went so far as to call for jail sentences for hate rhetoric “so as to prevent the crime before it can be committed”.

    The the powers that be are getting ready for a new war.

    Why are ppl still writing articles asking questions with such obvious answers?

    Why isn’t anyone talking about what’s just around the corner?

  114. bozh said on June 18th, 2009 at 6:40am #

    marge, right,
    one can also buy a n-bomb. We can expect that many lands without n-umbrella have but one choice: arm selves with nukes or be servants to other. Few lands wld accept probable ?eterne servitude.tnx

  115. Barry99 said on June 18th, 2009 at 7:57am #

    Bozh – (your comment below mine) I would suggest with regard to the present predicament that it is not relevant what the ancient history of a people is. The salient point is that European Jews were able to establish a colonial state in 1948 – now 61 years ago – (albiet a poor decision by the world community to permit this). The important political point regarding Palestinians is that they were the inhabitants when the Zionists arrived in country. This is why the Palestinians are entitled to redress – ancient histories are pretty much irrelevant except as window dressing.

    respectfully, i suggest, that ashk’m cld not have any connection, save the cult, with israelites who vanished ca 728 bc.
    if israelites did not vanish completely but a large group moved north to caucasus they wld have not ever abandoned the langauge in which, by claim, yahweh spoke to moshe.

    dna proof must, therefore, be an imposition. That is my firm conclusion!
    in addition, you, too, use the word “indcation” to describe the test!

    on the other hand, if judeans fled judea, no one can prove how many fled for dear life and if for dear life; how many remained or how many of those that remained clung to their cult.
    in short, not knowing what went on and possibly never learning what went on, i’d rather err on the side of the victims than perps.

    i have labeled all major religions as cultish. Torahic, talmudic teachings and practises of most judaists i label “cultish”

    cults are not only extremely intolerant of one another; they are shamefully antihuman and anti other cults.

    ‘jewish’ cultishness or mass paranoia/hatred of anything nonjewish occludes peace in the world and not just in ME.
    there are,of course, sectarian differences in intesity of hatred and fear of others in the three major cults.
    in my thinking a belief system to earn the label religion must at least be henotheistic and have just a few basic dogmas and not contain as bible, quran, and torah thousands upon thousands of an endless number of [mis]teachings, commands, promises, etc.
    and worst of all is the claim that all that is from god, who somehow can’t speak now nor ever to latvians, apachees, incas, et al.
    go figure.

  116. Barry99 said on June 18th, 2009 at 8:51am #

    Max – the ‘imperial colonial outcome’ is not a virtual outcome – it’s now a long-term reality and firmly institutionalized

    While we can’t know the far future with any certainty it is certain that a Palestinian state gives some redress (a century overdue) while the pursuit of some amorphous bi-national combo entity will merely be resisted by Israel until there is nothing left for Israel to absorb.

    I was not assessing the Obama administration but instead assessing what US policy has been over the decades since Kennedy began providing aid to Israel and Johnson began providing diplomatic cover.

    I offered that I have researched in Palestine/Israel because you had projected your method of obtaining info on to me – namely that you read/listen to the media. While the media is indispensable, there are other ways of arriving at clarity.

    South Africa was one state to begin with – the Apartheid regime tried to create Bantustans in pretense of ‘home rule.’ This was rejected by the world. There was, in fact, an effort by South Africa to colonize and absorb Namibia. That too was rejected by the world. The state of South Africa, in its colonial borders, was accepted as such, no more, no less. South African blacks, the overwhelming majority, eventually accomplished majority rule, whites had to settle for control of resources and the economy, in a political climate (reluctantly at first) of reconciliation. These are particulars that make South Africa different to Palestine. There will be no truth and reconciliation commission in your hybrid entity.

    I’m afraid it is you who is pretending that history did not happen – or at the very least pretending it has no bearing. I think you have let your anger at Jews get the better of you.

    The solution awaits serious pressure from the US – the rest of the world is awaiting to jump on board. The closer the deal is to what I outlined at top of page – the more likely it will stick. And history will continue to unfold in unknown ways – but the Palestinians will have a state of their own – 100 years overdue.

  117. Max Shields said on June 18th, 2009 at 11:18am #

    “South Africa was one state to begin with – the Apartheid regime tried to create Bantustans in pretense of ‘home rule.’”

    We are going circles. Gaza and West Bank are not (as I’m sure you’ll agree) a country for the Palestinians. The state of Israel, as I’ve said before, is an expanding state. Settlers are expanding grabbing both precious land and water access (drinking and waterways). Even if they were to stop today, they would have exceeded and idea of a nation state boundary.

    I would liken this expansionism to that of the early American expansionism that drove the indigenous people from millions to a tiny population of reservations. Though there are differences, even Israeli historians have seen what the Zionist have done as modeled on that of the US conquests in North America acted out again in the 20th and now 21st centuries. There are now international laws (in some cases serve given the destruction of human lives and property) which prohibit what Israel has been and is doing. (Such laws and treaties did not exist during American expansion in the US and the tribes in the US were many with differing traditions and cultures unlike the Palestinians.)

    A single area where Palestinians and others live is a vision of the 21st Century. Even from a practical perspective, a two state outcome is impractical. It’s easy to “talk” about these things in the abstract, but if you simply play out the very notion of a two-state “solution” it begins to fall apart. It sounds nifty, “we’ll just give you a piece of land, and you can have the other piece of land. Now play nice.” It won’t work!!

    Again, 61 years is less than a blink in time. It’s nothing. People of 61 years, today, aren’t even considered old. And, 61 years, and all the seconds, minutes, hours and days that make them up, have been nothing but turmoil. Israel is NOT a resolved state. It exists as an imperial outcome, just as much of the other nation-states of the ME, with one major exception: It exists AGAINST the will of all of the people in the area. Such is not the case of Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, Jordan and Syria. For good or ill, these states are not contested by anyone.

    You cannot close the books on the existence of a state which is has been contested since its inception.

  118. Max Shields said on June 18th, 2009 at 11:42am #

    Barry99 while Zionists deny that the Palestinians live with an apartheid set up; most observes agree that it is in fact an apartheid state. In fact, I would argue there is, today, only one state.

    Let me clarify the point about Gaza and West Bank just so this is not further distorted. The bits of land where 1.5 million Palestinians barely exist (including the number of Palestinians that exist as second class citizens within Israel) is no different that the Africans who lived in outlying territories as well as within the major cities of South Africa. Gaza is not a country. West Bank is not a country. All together these are pieces of land that are nestled around the “state” of Israel. West Bank on the complete opposite side of Gaza, with Israel in the middle.

    You talk of these outlying pieces of land as if they were really separate from the state of Israel. There are labels but the boundaries are ignored by the Israelis, while the Palestinians must exist within ever reduced parcels. Apartheid exists; just like, if not worse than, what existed in South Africa. Only Zionists have disagreed with this claim as best I can tell. Again, Barry99 are you siding with the Zionists and saying Israel is not an apartheid state? If you agree that it is, than logically…are you with me?…Gaza and West Bank are not really separate states but an extension of one state. The fact that that state has created ever receding refugee camps does not diminish the fact that we have no natural two-state. And I would add, that there is no agreeable way to split this tiny territory up. It is of a piece. It is like a bioregion; but the resources are being consumed by the node – Israel.

  119. Max Shields said on June 18th, 2009 at 11:44am #

    By the way, I have absolutely no anger toward Jews. Perhaps this is a reflection of your own projection. No?

  120. Barry99 said on June 18th, 2009 at 12:42pm #

    Bozh – in reply to your statement (part of which at bottom)

    Israel has an advanced high-tech economy, near the top of the world. It is a major exporterof high-tech goods – and likely controls much of eavesdropping equuipment used in the US It makes Merkava tanks, other lethal equipment – it even makes guns that shoot around corners. The country has two steel mills – both small – Israel consumes much more than it can produce – due to lack of Iron and coal. Israel has a number of mines, it produces bromine and phophates for internal use and export. Israel is independent where it can be, but uses the US as its guarantee. The four billion dollars that goes to Israel in some years is probably about 2 to 3 percent of its GDP. Of course, Israel gets a lot more in terms of financial and other benefits from the US and Americans.

    re israel’s [in, inter]dependency, i can say, as far as i know, israel is a near-total dependency.
    can israel make a spoon if left to own devices? Does anyone know the answer?
    how about a tank? Can israel mine iron ore in israel, smelt it in own refinery, and make steel from it in own steel mills?
    does israel have even one mine? In fact, israelis do not even have yet a country of their own.
    and one cld go on and on. I’ll end this post with the observation that to be is to be interdependent. tnx bozhidar balkas vancouver

  121. Barry99 said on June 18th, 2009 at 12:56pm #

    Max – (your comment at bottom here.) Repeating the basic facts is useful for some people but does not get at the fundamental problems. Firstly – Israel is a state and its people will not dissolve that state any time soon. Once again, what is your mechanism for dissolving states against the wishes of its citizens? Secondly, Palestinians have repeatedly voiced their position (more positively than Israelis) for a two-state solution. What is your mechanism for convincing them to hold out for some amorphous entity we might call Palestein? How will you convince them to wait any longer than they have to?
    Basically, your best shot in the next decade or so is if Obama does a 180 on Israeli policy. Are you holding your breath?

    What is Gaza? What is the West Bank? These are not “countries. There are Israeli settlers moving into these territories. They are strips of land with 1.5 million people. The water is controlled by Israel. Access to the sea is controlled by Israel land for farming is controlled by Israel.

    Settlers, a fraction of the population in the Palestian outlier area consume most of the water compared to the far more populous Palestinians.

    The square miles between all of this is relatively small (including Israel).

    Israel has the prime real estate with all major resources at their disposal. And you think a “two-state” solution will resolve this. This “compromise” with the most vile of zionists? You’re joking.

  122. bozh said on June 18th, 2009 at 1:06pm #

    thanks for your input. It does seem that israel or even palestina has very littel natural wealth.
    when i said that israel is a near-total dependency i shld have stated that without US veto, sanction wld have been imposed on it which wld haev put an end to all its industry.

    high tech industry in israel, i’m told, is actually american. tnx

  123. Barry99 said on June 18th, 2009 at 1:09pm #

    Suthiano – (your comment at bottom). For a very long time, Israeli Jews could not utter the name Palestinian. They said there was no such thing. Because of the Palestinians persistence – Israel now must say that name – and even negotiates with the PLO. Also, for a very long time, no Israeli politico would admit to the concept of a Palestinian state. But then, first Labor crossed that line in the sand, and now the arch-Likudnik Netanyahu has muttered the words as well. This all happened because Palestinians have insisted and resisted for a century now and because Obama really does want to restore some balance to the Middle East equation. He does not have the balls or support to get his way entirely – but he is making Israel squirm a bit. If Obama Admin could or would impose its will, they would accomplish a state with all the rights and responsibilities of any other. Its likely to fall short of that, however. But that is not the end of history. Palestinians make up a growing proportion of Israel citizenry and soon Pals between the Jordan and the Med Sea will be a majority of historical Palestine. The currents of change will likely grow stronger as the decades go by.

    As far a Palestine being a state under the thumb of Western capitalists – what else is new? That’s who runs the world (at least until the Chinese capitalists take over).


    “What is your two-feet on the ground mechanism for getting whatever political entity you are calling for?”

    What is the “two-feet on the ground mechanism” for the two state solution?

    The two state “solution” will never happen. Israelis may allow puppet regime to administer low level decisions over day to day operations…. Any “Palestinian state” would be enslaved by western hegemony, big bankers, big corporations etc…. that is not freedom, it is just slavery with smiling face…. just like Obama and Bush have very little in the way of tangible differences in policy.

  124. Barry99 said on June 18th, 2009 at 1:17pm #

    Bozh – with regard to Palestinian resources – the WB hills are reasonably well watered, considering the region. Rain fed agriculture goes on in the north, sufficient for internal use and export. There are major aquifers under the WB – now usurped by Israel. There are also minor mineral deposits, especially so if Palestine can access the Dead Sea. Fishing is an industry of Gaza though the Israelis shoot them for fishing. More importantly, it seems there are major petroleum deposits in the eastern Med off the coast of Gaza. Israel is even right now finagling a way to steal and develop the deposits for its own use. Palestine has always had mills and factories, small to be sure – practically cottage industries. And there is always tourism – Gaza, Jerusalem (East), Bethlehem, Jericho – are all tourist destinations in the best of times.

  125. bozh said on June 18th, 2009 at 1:37pm #

    i don’t know about max, but i am limiting my talk only to israel and not the jewish state.
    i have concluded that palestinians wld never recognize a a state for jews only.
    if a jewish state is imposed on palestinians then all talk about one state solution is waste of time.

    US/Israel have not been robbing palestinians of their lands for entertainment purposes. This robbery is not a passing fancy. from this i conclude firmly second state is no longer avbailable if it ever had been.

    even churchill had explicitly okayed it. Christo-judean alliance oks it tacitly.
    i am also seeing israel or a jewish state as it wld exist a century from now. It wld be still a pariah; hated, resented, etc.
    or there may be more palestinians than jews in israel decades from now.
    what can palestinians gain with a two-state solution? a gazan result? Sieges, provocations, invasions, etc?

  126. Max Shields said on June 18th, 2009 at 2:08pm #

    I am NOT talking about “dissolving” a state. I’m talking about the fundamental right of return. That is the right of Palestinians to begin to integrate into the region as a whole. The region includes Gaza/West Bank and the areas occupied by the state of Israel.

    This is a simple notion. The zionists who control the political if not the economic narrative in the region (I don’t care what religion or ethnic background they hold) have an agenda which you seem to ignore.

    That agenda does NOT allow for a viable two-state solution (I don’t think one is possible but you seem to). As such we must both confront the fact: it is NOT the two-state or the one-state that is the issue – it is a racist Zionist regime.

    You seem to hold on to the overarching compromise of a two-state solution. That is not the fundamental solution nor does it get us to a fundamental solution; even if the Zionist run state allowed that to become a reality.

    That’s the issue; and you seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room: Zionism as it is manifested today in that region (and here).

  127. KL5 said on June 18th, 2009 at 2:10pm #


    What would you suggest as a solution?

  128. Barry99 said on June 18th, 2009 at 2:23pm #

    Marge – In Israel’s relatively short history it has bombed Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq – some of them several times or for prolonged periods. It has occupied (or occupies) parts of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan – and now holds a captive population of several million in occupied Palestine – and has done so for 42 years. These are fact – just as I was reporting the facts which you commented on. We are not in disagreement but for one point – we definitely should NOT use ‘any means necessary, regardless of consequences.’ There ARE prices too high. I would have no problem however, if the UN treated Israel as it did Iraq’s invasion/occupation of Kuwait and removed it bodily and thoroughly from Palestine. That would be a wonderful day.

  129. Barry99 said on June 18th, 2009 at 2:29pm #

    Suthiano – Yes, the early zionists presented a Jewish ‘homeland’ as a western bulwark against the barbarians of the East.

    And yes, Israel is not a client state of the US. As has been noted many times, the tail is wagging the dog. Things would change quickly if the dog’s took back control of its tail.

    Could be a catastrophe around the corner, or an opening – or the status quo. Who knows?

  130. mary said on June 18th, 2009 at 2:36pm #

    The Canadian Ambassador to Israel, Jon Allen, has been honoured for his family’s donation to the establishment of a park built illegally on Palestinian land where their homes were razed to the ground. Donations for the creation of this park were made to the Canadian branch of the JNF.

    Notice the planting of fast growing conifers to obliterate the origins of ‘Canada Park’.

    Shame on all those Zionists responsible.

  131. Barry99 said on June 18th, 2009 at 2:52pm #

    Max – WB& G are not the sole home of Palestinians – they make up 20% of the population and rising. Yes, the expansion of Israel needs to stop and be rolled back totally – and its expansion is similar to that of US history. And indeed, there is an impressive body of international law, which enforced, would send Israel reeling. There are however, no laws calling for the forced dissolution of a state – these laws after all, where drawn up by states in the present state system (for better or for worse). Your summation about the 2 state solution as sounding nifty and being one where the two must play nice is, to be kind – simplistic. There are 12 million lives involved here.

    61 years is a very long time – its older that either of us. It’s older than almost every African state, its older than the modern Indian state, or Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh. Dissolving states against the will of its people is quite a precedent you’d be setting. That it exists as an imperial outcome puts in a league with many states. That something can be done out about it because the Palestinians have resisted up to this very moment is a very good thing. The best thing that could have happened, even if we grant all that went down before 1947, would have been if the UN forbade the partition of Palestine. Instead, the UN accepted Israel as a member and Israel is now a major power and player in the world. It’s not going anywhere until demographics or events now unseen overtake it.

    As far as contesting Israel’s existence, Pals favor 2-state solution. They need all the material support they can get to achieve this before it is too late. Leftist principles won’t do it for them.

    *****************************************************************“South Africa was one state to begin with – the Apartheid regime tried to create Bantustans in pretense of ‘home rule.’”
    We are going circles. Gaza and West Bank are not (as I’m sure you’ll agree) a country for the Palestinians. The state of Israel, as I’ve said before, is an expanding state. Settlers are expanding grabbing both precious land and water access (drinking and waterways). Even if they were to stop today, they would have exceeded and idea of a nation state boundary.
    I would liken this expansionism to that of the early American expansionism that drove the indigenous people from millions to a tiny population of reservations. Though there are differences, even Israeli historians have seen what the Zionist have done as modeled on that of the US conquests in North America acted out again in the 20th and now 21st centuries. There are now international laws (in some cases serve given the destruction of human lives and property) which prohibit what Israel has been and is doing. (Such laws and treaties did not exist during American expansion in the US and the tribes in the US were many with differing traditions and cultures unlike the Palestinians.)
    A single area where Palestinians and others live is a vision of the 21st Century. Even from a practical perspective, a two state outcome is impractical. It’s easy to “talk” about these things in the abstract, but if you simply play out the very notion of a two-state “solution” it begins to fall apart. It sounds nifty, “we’ll just give you a piece of land, and you can have the other piece of land. Now play nice.” It won’t work!!
    Again, 61 years is less than a blink in time. It’s nothing. People of 61 years, today, aren’t even considered old. And, 61 years, and all the seconds, minutes, hours and days that make them up, have been nothing but turmoil. Israel is NOT a resolved state. It exists as an imperial outcome, just as much of the other nation-states of the ME, with one major exception: It exists AGAINST the will of all of the people in the area. Such is not the case of Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, Jordan and Syria. For good or ill, these states are not contested by anyone.
    You cannot close the books on the existence of a state which is has been contested since its inception.

  132. KL5 said on June 18th, 2009 at 2:53pm #


    “Notice the planting of fast growing conifers to obliterate the origins of ‘Canada Park’.”

    And? What are you going to do against that? Israel does exist and the “Canada Park” is ever green. Can you change the world? Your name sounds English. You have voted for Tony Blair. Have you not? It is a matter of democratic elections, mam! Cheeeeeeeeeeeeeers

  133. Barry99 said on June 18th, 2009 at 2:54pm #

    Correction: -WB& G are not the sole home of Palestinians – they make up 20% of the population OF ISRAEL and rising.

  134. Max Shields said on June 18th, 2009 at 2:57pm #

    Barry99 stay focused. Your wondering around this site and you are not meeting the level of scrutiny needed to sustain one discussion and you are off hither and yon. When you do approach this issue you exemplify the proverbial “not seeing the forest for the trees” in spades.

    Stay focused, or is it that your argument, such as it is is so confoundedly weak that you must rush off to inundate us with more and more detail.

    Truth lies not in those microscopic details, “measuring your life in coffee spoons” as TS Eliot would have it. It is right in front of us.

    The land was stolen. It will not be returned by a regime that has not only kept the land but expanded on it to meet its needs, its agenda (not yours). The can has been kicked down this road and that with this two-state notion. It’s a game without end. There is no two-state solution for the Zionist regime. And there is no viable two-state that can (or should) be negotiated with a fascist and racist state.

    It is an apartheid state.

    But to the point about polls. Ahhhh polls. So what did the poll ask? It asked if Palestinians preferred a bi-national or two state. But alas, in February 2007 NEC found that around 70% of Palestinian respondents backed the idea when given a straight choice of either supporting or opposing “a one-state solution in historic Palestine where Muslims, Christians and Jews have equal rights and responsibilities”.!!!!

    The resolve is an open society in the area, fully integrated which does not create needless boundaries of have/have nots which comes with both the status quo and your two-state solution.

  135. Barry99 said on June 18th, 2009 at 3:08pm #

    I’m on record, maybe in this very thread, of describing Israeli rule in Occupied Palestine as Apartheid – while it treats its own Palestinian citizens in a manner of Jim Crow – updated to the 21st century, to be sure.

    I only differ on the particulars of their histories and the solutions. South African whites, a tiny minority, finally saw the light – even if that light made them very uncomfortable. They were in an established state together, it was only a matter of majority rule (if one may simplify). That’s quite different from Israel/Palestine for reasons outlined several times.

  136. Barry99 said on June 18th, 2009 at 3:12pm #

    Bozh – High-tech industry is usually American, indeed. American Zionists. Its an Israeli firm that has the franchise and provides the technology to snoop on every American telephone. When Eliot Spitzer got busted for visiting prostitutes on company time, it was the Israeli company that provided the taped conversation. These aren’t stupid people, you know. Their technology is in the forefront of the world – that’s what the Pals are up against.

  137. Suthiano said on June 18th, 2009 at 3:19pm #

    Well said Max,

    Uri Avnery has an article on today in which he says the following:

    Every time David Ben-Gurion announced that his hand was stretched out for peace,” the Egyptian told him, “we were put on high alert.”

    And indeed, that was Ben-Gurion’s method. Before every provocation he would declare that “our hands are extended for peace”, adding conditions that he knew were totally unacceptable to the other side. Thus an ideal situation (for him) was created: The world saw Israel as a peace-loving country, while the Arabs looked like serial peace-killers. Our secret weapon is the Arab refusal, it used to be joked in Jerusalem at the time.

    This week, Netanyahu wheeled out the same old trick.” (Read the rest at counterpunch).

    The two state “solution” is as old as Israel. UNGA Res 181 (II) of 1947 called for the establishment of the State of Israel within the area known as Palestine.

    oh and just to keep y’all updated:

    ISPs must help [Canadian] police snoop on internet under new bill

    America accused of spying on millions of emails

    The database system, called Pinwale, is used by America’s National Security Agency to intercept and examine huge volumes of email passing through American telecommunications networks.

    The NSA has confirmed that Pinwale exists, although it will not comment on the latest allegations or give further details on how the system operates.

  138. Barry99 said on June 18th, 2009 at 3:19pm #

    Mary – Yes, this fine park dedicated to Canada. Many, many national parks in Israel were placed on the 400 or so Palestinian towns that were emptied by the ethnic cleansing of 48 – 49. If one wonders off the beaten track, maybe down a hill to a creek or spring, and maybe through a stand of trees, one often finds the shrub and tree covered rubble of homes, mosques, shrines, and wells. Irony does not get any ironic than that. Proud American Jews usually have no idea of the ground they tread on and the tales it holds.

  139. Barry99 said on June 18th, 2009 at 3:30pm #

    Well, its about time Max you got specific on what you envision.

    The right of return is inalienable. That exists regardless of agreements between Fatah/Hamas and Israel. That’s why, as I outlined at the top of this thread, that Israel must accept this in principle and negotiate a just outcome – more than 700,000 were evicted in the 1940s alone.

    The Zionist agenda is of course hideous. And it will remain so until the US gets off the toilet and does what’s in the US’s best interest, not Israel’s. Zionism may be an elephant in the room – but it will be missing its tusks – if the US pulled the plug on it.

    Now, for the record with regard to Jews, you have made a number of references to what sounds like inherent evil – that it is in their DNA. So I’m not projecting – just reading.

  140. Barry99 said on June 18th, 2009 at 3:48pm #

    Max – What you see as unfocused, I know to be a larger spectrum than just attaching left principles to a very gritty situation. Israel has killed many scores of thousands of Palestinians over the decades, maimed for life multiples of their kill figure, and imprisoned without trial many hundreds of thousands. Try thinking real-politique sometimes, instead of making it up as you go based on what you think would be ideal. Now that you’ve come clean on your solution – right of return – you have to know that Israel is not going to fire a gun into its own head. I think you spoke about a one-state solution before you realized that there is no way to implement it. So why do you want to do the Pals out of what real estate is left to them? Outside of cataclysmic events we cannot foresee, the best weapon the Pals have going for them is demographics. They may get their one state – but only when the Jews of Israel are worn down – you’ll be fortunate to see it in your lifetime.

  141. bozh said on June 18th, 2009 at 4:12pm #

    to be short and with economy of words: christo-judean alliance will not permit a peace let alone the peace.
    THE PEACE wld allow return. And even if pals give up on it, the best ever diktat [be certain of one] wld be rejected! tnx

  142. Max Shields said on June 18th, 2009 at 7:29pm #

    Barry99 “I’m on record, maybe in this very thread, of describing Israeli rule in Occupied Palestine as Apartheid – while it treats its own Palestinian citizens in a manner of Jim Crow – updated to the 21st century, to be sure.”

    The very fact that you consider Iraeli rule apartheid concedes that there is no real Palestinian territory differentiated from Israel. The land is treated by Isreal as if Israel holds claim on all of it; attacks, settlements at will, with complete impunity occur regularly. Israel does not see the boundaries when it sees and advantage to grabbing land or when it wishes to terrorize.

    Human boundaries are arbitrary. They exist through treaties and agreements and conquests, but the earth is not owned by any of us and so we put stakes down here and there and lay claim. Nevertheless my point is that this strip of land that is composed of a region jointly called Gaza/Israel/West Bank is really a bioregion. It is naturally one. It has only been subdivided to accommodate the state of Israel and that accommodation is imposed on the Palestinian people.

    It is therefore natural that the land be occupied by people to accommodate their mutual needs and wants in a sustainable fashion. I would not guess what the carrying capacity of that bioregion is, but let us assume that if the land and water is treated properly that the population is within the capacity of the total land area to support this life. But you cannot support the life of x million people if resources are hoarded by a fraction; and consumed in irresponsible ways. And I think most Palestinians understand better than we that this area is indivisable by its nature.

    This is as much an ecological issue as it is a human rights issue. We are at a different point in time – we eclipsed that modernist time around 1950. That region and the people that inhabit it (without exception) must think differently. Israel is a state based on an old paradigm, coupled with the fact that it is ruled through domination, fear and racism which makes it a dangerous state to the region as a preditor rather than as one behaving toward the land in a way that understands the fragile conditions of that region.

    So, Barry99, Israel is really a kind of mythology. It is real as long as we continue to accept it on its terms as you seem to have. Those terms are to propose a two-state solution which is unsustainable for all, and in bad faith, because the Zionists, as I’ve said, have no desire to give an inch; while they continue to take and take and take.

    As far as how “I” plan to change this…well “I” don’t have the audacity to claim to be able to change that situation. “I” am simply stating first principles which are not the official line. The official line is to pay no attention to those truths and to follow the Zionist narrative. Zionism dictates the terms. “I” refuse to surrender to Zionism. And the “two-state solution” is a false solution which allows the discussion to go on and on and on with no end in sight.

    The resolution is evident. As far as Zionists allowing the resolution to unfold, that’s another matter. Palestinians have held strong. They have not surrendered as a group. They have not let themselves forget in order to surrender as you seem to have (though you are probably not a Palestinian and so it’s easy over here in the USA to settle for a compromise with the devil. We do it every 4 years.)

  143. Max Shields said on June 18th, 2009 at 8:22pm #


    I’ve taken the unnecessary, but curious, trouble to go through the use of the word “Jew” or “Jewish”. You by far hold the record of any poster here. You literally seem incapable of talking about this subject without talking about Jews.

    I’ve only mentioned a few time during all my posts here (thousands of words). I refer to Zionists who I don’t simply equate to Jews but to those from European descent who have laid claim on this land and followed the Western pattern of conquest, fear and domination and colonization.

    This has never been a “Jewish” issue. I am not particular interested in religion of any kind, but I repect spirituality that connects us in the larger web of life. I’m more interested in the human species than those creatures of who use ideology and religion as a pretext for greed and destruction and conquest (and that goes triple for the Zionists who hide behind a faith and tradition to press their hegemonic agenda).

  144. Michelle said on June 18th, 2009 at 8:23pm #

    The whole debate is stupid. “Israel” is an imported military base with imported civilians in the Arab world. They are boat people are crying out loud. Arab Jews aside the Ashkenazim Jews don’t have ancestors from the Holy Land, they are not Arab, they are surrounded by Arabs who don’t want them there. The Israelis are like a Chinese military which has taken over Vermont, funded by greater China. They meddle into everything, they manipulate, they buy traitors to spy for them, they are trouble makers and ruthless killers which is what the U.S. pays them to be. This is so the land can be usurped by the Western powers while they pay off the traitors in charge. Of course Israel has a ” right to exist” if you are basing principles and legalities on what the Western Powers have themselves created! If I am a Western Power and you ask me how’s it going in Iraq I will tell you they are enjoying their new found freedom and democracy! But don’t go there because you won’t understand what you see! Just stay home and listen to me!

  145. marge said on June 18th, 2009 at 8:26pm #


    I wish there was an alternative to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict other than “by any means necessary regardless of the consequences.” However, i don’t see another way and doubt one will be found. Israel is a miniature Nazi Germany and the Israeli Jews are using nazi tactics to annihilate and terrorize Palestinians off their land for the purpose of expanding the borders of Israel. I don’t see them abandoning their plan for a Greater Israel which is part of the Zionism ideology, unless their existence is threatened. The US has the means to threatened Israel’s existence but i am very doubtful the US will do this, which would entail the US cutting off aid and withhold its veto protection for Israel. I also do not see the UN forcefully returning Israel to pre-1967 borders. Therefore, the only option left is for the Palestinians, Iran, and the arab countries to be willigng to go after Israel with a commitment to conquer or remove by any means necessary regardless of the consequences. Otherwise, Palestinians will continue in occupation under Israel until Israel annihilates them all.

  146. Michelle said on June 18th, 2009 at 8:32pm #

    I’m sure my words will be twisted in some way to imply that I’m advocating pushing Israelis “into the sea” or some other asinine claim.

    Susan, I will say it. Israel needs to be pushed into the sea and all the fascists with it. Let ALL who wish to be good Palestinian citizens remain. There. viva la Palestina!

  147. mary said on June 19th, 2009 at 12:01am #

    The same mentality that was found at Abu Ghraib is at work here. A few steps later on, it becomes torture. It is sickening to view it.
    Israeli troops’ own Youtube clips show abuse of Palestinians

  148. mary said on June 25th, 2009 at 12:32pm #

    Israeli threats are met by a brave response.



    (25 June 2009, LARNACA) – This is not the statement we in the Free Gaza Movement intended to release today. We had hoped to announce that our two ships, the Free Gaza and the Spirit of Humanity, departed from Larnaca Port on a 30-hour voyage to besieged Gaza, carrying human rights activists who have travelled to Cyprus from all across the world for this journey, 3 tons of medical supplies, and 15 tons of badly needed concrete and reconstruction supplies.

    Nobel peace laureate Mairead Maguire, returning for her second trip to Gaza aboard one of our ships, said “[The people of Gaza] must know that we have not and will not forget them.”

    That was our hope, but that is not what happened.

    Instead, our ships were not given permission to leave today due to concerns about our welfare and safety. Our friends in Cyprus tell us that the voyage to Gaza is too dangerous, and they are worried we will be harmed at sea.

    Cyprus has been a wonderful home for the Free Gaza Movement over these last 10 months. Cypriots know first hand the terrible consequences of occupation. They too know what it is to suffer from violence, injustice, and exile. Since our first voyage to break through the siege of Gaza, the Cypriot authorities have been extremely helpful and understanding of our goals and intentions.

    The journey to Gaza is dangerous. The Israeli navy rammed our flagship, the Dignity, when we attempted to deliver medical supplies to Gaza during their vicious assault in December/January. Israel has previously threatened to open fire on our unarmed ships, rather than allow us to deliver humanitarian and reconstruction supplies to the people of Gaza.

    The risks we take on these trips are tiny compared to the risks imposed every day upon the people of Gaza.

    The purpose of nonviolent direct action and civil resistance is to take risks – to put ourselves “in the way” of injustice. We take these risks well aware of what the possible consequences may be. We do so because the consequences of doing nothing are so much worse. Anytime we allow ourselves to be bullied, every time we pass by an evil and ignore it – we lower our standards and allow our world to be made that much harsher and unjust for us all.

    In addition to the concerns expressed by our Cypriot friends today, the American consulate in Nicosia warned us not to go to Gaza, stating that:

    “…[T]he Israeli Foreign Ministry informed U.S. officials at the American Embassy in Tel Aviv that Israel still considers Gaza an area of conflict and that any Free Gaza boats attempting to sail to the Gaza Strip will “not be permitted” to reach its destination.”

    Former U.S. Congresswoman & presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney responded to this warning by pointing out that, “The White House says that cement and medical supplies should get into Gaza and that’s exactly what we are attempting to take to Gaza.”

    “Instead of quoting Israel policy to us,” McKinney continued, “…the U.S. should send a message to Israel reiterating the reported White House position that the blockade of Gaza should be eased, that medical supplies and building materials, including cement, should be allowed in. The Free Gaza boats should be allowed to reach their destination, traveling from Cyprus territorial waters, through international waters, and straight into Gaza territorial waters.”

    “The State Department has chosen to advise us to take the Israeli notification seriously. Our question is, ‘Can we take President Obama seriously?’ Will he stand by his own words and allow us to provide relief for Gaza or will he back down?”

    Tomorrow we will deliver a waiver, signed by all going to Gaza, that we absolve Cyprus of all responsibility for our safety. We would like to tell our friends here in Cyprus that though we understand and appreciate their concerns, we will not back down to Israel’s threats and intimidation.


    Greta Berlin
    Free Gaza Movement
    357 99 081 767

  149. B99 (formerly Barry99) said on June 30th, 2009 at 12:45pm #

    Max – Yes, Israel treats the West Bank as if it owns it – although its fair to say that Palestinian citizens of Israel have more rights – Jim Crow rights – than do Palestinians in the WB.

    Right you are that boundaries exist through treaties, agreements, conquests – i.e., they are NOT arbitrary.

    Actually, what I would call historical Palestine is not one bioregion, but several. The environment – the fauna and flora of the north near the Lebanese border is quite a bit different than the Sinai Desert, the Med coast is quite different to the Judean Hills. So we really cannot use bioregion definitions. I envision, in the long-term, a reconstituted Greater Syria, which in fact Palestine was removed from by the Brits after WWI. It includes Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan. Will that ever come to pass – who can say? In the meantime, we have a state system, and a state system does not dissolve countries willy-nilly, if at all.

    For Israel/Palestine to function ecologically over the coming decades, the water issue will have to be resolved. That means not attempting to live at a level of Western-style comfort in this arid to semi-arid environment. It means not mass producing citrus fruits in the Sinai for propaganda purposes (‘making the desert bloom’) , it means water sharing agreements between upper and lower riparians. As it stands now, Israel argues both, in and out of court – that as lower riparian it is entitled to the headwaters of the Jordan, and as upper riparian (to the West Bank) it is allowed to dispose of the Jordan as it wishes. It’s scumbaggery either way. So Israel must come to terms with a regional agreement and sharing of precious water resources. To do so, it must also come to terms on other issues as well. Israel’s option is that Turkey has been willing to ship or pipe water to Israel from its port in Ceyhan. The continuence of that is, of course, dependent upon reasonable relations with Turkey. Israel’s other option is desalination. Still very expensive, but they’ve got one up and running. But its doubtful that this technique is a way to provide the entire nation with ample water. In the meantime, Israel usurps the aquifers under the West Bank while denying same to the Palestinians. It is of course, illegal to do this. A viable Palestinian state needs guarantees on its own water supplies, Israel would have to negotiate as no more than an equal partner.

    Israel is indeed built on mythology – as are many countries – including ours. It is just now that Israel’s ‘new historians’ are gaining the upper hand on the pre-state’s history of ethnic cleansing. This comes grudgingly and is resented – but it does represent change. The official line DOES change – as it has obvioiusly changed elsewhere. And it’s really not a matter in me accepting mythology, it’s a matter of what people on the ground believe in and strive for. It really matters less than zero if me or you do not surrender to zionism. Our not surrendering to zionism just a matter of typing. And as there is no end to history it should go without saying that indeed, there is no end in sight to the discussion. I know you want to see things happen in your lifetime, but evolution takes time.

    Indeed, the Palestinians have not surrendered as a group. When they, as a group make it known that the two-state solution is no longer viable or acceptable, then those who support self-determination for all people should follow suit. There’s no point in trying to lead them to the promised land. This is not about compromises with devils nor about what’s in Israeli DNA – such talk is gobbledygook and hazily racist. This is about self-determination, genocide, and ethnic cleansing in a nation/state system.

    I’ve not revealed my ancestry – it is mixed.

  150. B99 (formerly Barry99) said on June 30th, 2009 at 1:05pm #

    Yes, I do use the term ‘Jewish ‘ at times. Who do you think constitutes the Israeli government and military? Palestinian-Israelis?

    I also think it is quite obvious that if Palestinians can be referred to as such – though millions of Palestinians live outside of Palestine – then Israelis can be referred to as Jews – in fact, it is likely more accurate!! As one-fifth of Israelis are NOT Jewish. There’s no point in falling into the trap that you can’t say ‘Jews’ because not all Jews are *whatever,* but you can say ‘Palestinians’ despite knowing that not all Palestinians are *whatever.*

    The notion of focusing on European Jews as the perpetrators of Zionism no longer has much merit. To the extent that Jews in Israel subscribe to Zionism, it spans the several origin backgrounds. (There is however, a small group of ‘Arab-Jews’ in Israel that works hard at establishing affinities to Palestinians. ) Granted, the movement started with European Jews, and they still dominate the country economically and to a slightly lesser extent, politically, and inter-Jewish racism is still in obvious evidence – but when it comes to the Zionist paradigm, it’s no longer just about Ashkenazis.

    Its NOT about religion per se. Being a Jew does not mean one is a believer in Judaism, nor observent, nor temple-attending. A Jew is an ethnicity (or ethnicities) in other countries – in Israel, its the dominant national group. But Jew is not the same as Judaism. The use of the religion to further colonialist and imperialist policies was/is largely a marketing ploy.

    But to say it is in their DNA is to take it to a far more sinister arena.

  151. Max Shields said on June 30th, 2009 at 1:29pm #

    “Right you are that boundaries exist through treaties, agreements, conquests – i.e., they are NOT arbitrary.”

    B99 aka Barry99 aka Barrry,
    Human systems are arbitary if you followed what I said. We can agree on “this is yours, this is mine” terms, but while the agreement by its nature is mutual such is not the case with the Palestinians and the Zionist state. This was not a mutual agreement, a treaty. It was a form of conquest. But conquests are do not legitmize “ownership”.

    But the larger case I was making, you seemed to miss, is that this strip of land which is a composition of Gaza, WB, and Israel are really indivisible. If you look at the land, at the drinkable water, at access to air and sea, this strip cannot be sliced and diced to make it multi-national.

    A resolution is one state or region which allows for multi-ethnic and religious groups minus theocratic governance. That is the condition that pre-dates the European Zionist exodus to this land.

    The genocide the American colonists induced can in no way justify the same; and the indigenous people, though they’ve been pushed back and pinned down, have not surrendered to this condition as did the indigenous people here. Additionally we have laws which prohibit these acts against humanity.

    I already addressed the issue of Palestinians preferring overwhelmingly the one state solution (by 70%). See above.

    It seems b99 you have now climbed into the hole calling those who claim a zionist racist policy and behavior racist.

    Next time, we’ll be “talking” to b folks formerly b99, barry99, barry.

  152. bozh said on June 30th, 2009 at 3:49pm #

    anyone who calls anyone else a name, practices voodoo cult or believes in magical powers of mere namecalling.
    this trade, belief in power of words, wld have killed/maimed bns of people if words wld have that much power.

    it is still the living people who have to do that and not words.
    yes people are commanded to do that, but the commanders are backed not by words but by tanks, artillery, jets, police, etc.

    instead calling one “racist” it wld behoove one to actually quote adequately/accurately another person and then refute what the other person wrote or said.

    or even better yet, simply juxtapose own facts that show or prove the other person wrong.
    that wld be a sane thing to do. However, a liar avoids sanity like a plague. tnx

  153. bozh said on June 30th, 2009 at 4:11pm #

    water issues indeed have to be resolved but u neither supply an HOW nor a WHERE?WHEN?BYWHOM.
    but i wld supply at least a WHEN: in centuries, if ever, or after US/Israel oust all palestinians from palestina.
    there, i even supplied how.
    and while at it, i say it will be solved like everything before by US/Israel.
    while u call a nonshemitic or nonsemitic people “jews” and by that implying that they have a connection to judeans, u have not presented even a sliver of evidence that ashk’c voelken are descendants of hebrews.

    to date not a shred of evidence had been uncovered to even show let alone prove that even shemites of judaic cult are descendants of the judeans.
    on the other hand, there are at least slivers of evidence that shemo-canaanitic people of excanaan or palestina may be an admixure of canaanites, arabs, and judeans.

    still, all this is a mere curioso and especially to people whom nonshemites have badly hurt, dispossessed, etc.
    so, go, persuade them to give up their struggle for own land and not us on DV; we can’t help you.
    and i don’t want to help robbers! tnx bozhidar balkas vancouver

  154. B99 said on July 1st, 2009 at 11:53am #

    Bozh – Water issues between Israel and its neighbors have been negotiated off and on since the 1950s – the US brokered Johnston Plan, to name one major attempt, Lowdermilk plan (Also US) was another. The Johnston Plan was an attempt to divvy up the various waters of the Jordan watershed. They broke down after engineers from all parties essentially came to agreement – the sticking point was that ratifying such a treaty would be an acknowledgment of Israel by the Arab states. Israel, of course, was pleased that the Arab states nixed the deal – it then went on with its own plans eventually building the National Water Carrier. Since then, unilateral efforts by Arab states to harness water in their own country has been met with sabotage by Israel – bombing the Maqarin Dam between Syria and Jordan, bombing the East Ghor Canal in Jordan, and prohibiting Lebanese villagers from diverting a Jordan tributary for irrigation. More recently, Jordan and Israel have been negotiating the construction of a pipeline from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea (Red-Dead pipeline) along their joint border in order to refill the Dead Sea, which is seriously endangered, and also to provide hydropower created by the drop in elevation from the mountains to the Dead Sea (lowest point on surface of earth). As is always the case, engineers can work things out – its the politics that gets in the way. Israel has no ‘good neighbor’ policy. In any case, negotations are possible, an outside mediator is likely necessary for regional sharing arrangements. A major difficulty is that Israel negotiates very aggressively and other parties have to push back just as hard. The headwaters of the Jordan River (Hasbani, Banias, Yarmuk, etc.) are largely in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan – and less so in Israel (Dan). All sides use international law to buttress their cases, Israel uses law plus threat of military strikes – a very good reason to cut Israel off its arms addiction to US. And just as important as the Jordan, are the aquifers under the WB. Any negotiations between Israel and Palestine will include the disposition of these subterranean waters – Palestine must stand tough to control this resource in the manner of all states anywhere.

    There really is no such thing as a Semitic people (and the use of the term Shem, is too biblical and archaic to be employed here) with the possible exception of some Arabian Peninsula bedouins or perhaps some isolated East African tribes. Semitic is a LANGUAGE subfamily in the Afro-Asiatic language family. Not since the earliest migration of such speakers has language equaled population group. Thus for several thousand years Semitic speakers have been of any race or ethnic origin – a pattern that is increasing over time.

    The genetic connection of Ashkenazi Jews to the Levant/Palestine area, while not nearly as strong as other population groups, does however, exist. There have been numerous studies showing both a Y-chromosome or mitochondrial connection to the region. These studies also show Ashkenazi affinities to the Upper Mideast (loosely speaking, today’s Kurdish regions, and the Caucasus) and of course, to Europe. However, whatever their connection, it does not supercede the fact that Palestinians (primarily Arabs) were the people of that land when the Zionists arrived. Who was on the ground in 1880 is of far more import than who was on the ground in the ‘biblical’ era.

    But on that issue, today’s Palestinians are the descendents of Canaanites (including Phoenicians), Philistines, Greeks, Africans, Jews, Arabs, Persians, Turks – and others. Genetic studies indicate that recent Arabian Peninsula genetic input is minimal – and that Palestinian ancestry is closely related to other indigenous neighbors in the region.

  155. B99 said on July 1st, 2009 at 12:34pm #

    Max – the borders of virtually any country in the world were not arrived at through mutual agreement. Poland has migrated westward over the last century – and Poland certainly did not gives its consent for the moves. The national borders of today’s Africa were drawn up in Berlin in 1884. The borders of the US came at the expense of Canada and Mexico, and were certainly not made with the assent of native peoples. Same for the borders of Latin America, and China and…. The borders of the world largely reflect power considerations. The borders of Israel were ‘legitimized’ through the international body that is the United Nations. It was a mistake – but so too are all of the above mentioned borders. So the world recognizes Israel’s legitimate borders as those realized in the armistice agreements signed by Israel and its Arab neighbors subsequent to the 48/49 war. All other Israeli-held land beyond those borders is deemed ‘Occupied’ – and is illegal.

    This land of Palestine will HAVE TO BE sliced and diced to make it livable to both parties. Don’t underestimate the race-based hatred of Israeli Jews for Palestinians. It will take the better part of this century to get Israel to treat Palestinians as equal partners in the world system – never mind to live with them in one country. And Israel will not dissolve itself nor change its racist ‘charter’ any time soon. You are asking for an unworkable arrangement.

    Now you are talking sense when you talk of a REGION that allows for multi-ethnic and religious groups. That region may be said to include Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine and Israel. They are all multi-ethnic and multi-confessional. They all, of course, are free to choose whatever combined political arrangements they AGREE upon. However, it is unlikely they will choose to return to Ottoman Empire arrangements as you suggest. As for theocratic governance, that’s not for you to decide. If the Palestinians (doubtfully, but if so, unfortunately) choose theocratic governance – they are within their rights. You cannot stipulate this anymore than I can stipulate they choose a 2 or 1 state approach.

    You won’t find Me comparing the need for Palestinians to comply with their conquest just because Native Americans have largely done so regarding theirs. I usually employ the comparison to illustrate similar colonial histories.

    Indeed, Palestinians may ultimately move to a one-state solution as their majority position. If that becomes so, then they must be supported in that effort. Until then, and we should understand that much depends on how a question is worded and how soon the survey follows a particularly heinous event, and which population subset was asked, etc. The historical position of Palestinians for several decades now – especially since it became the position of the PLO (along with recognition of Israel) is that of a two-state solution.

    What hole??? Zionism is racism. I concur with the original findings of the UN that Zionism is racism. As was Manifest Destiny and the Nazi policy of lebensraum, etc.

    I switched to B99 to make it less likely that my emails would be confused with another Barry who replied on an animal rights issue. I know YOU know who I am – if you want to get into that.

  156. B99 said on July 1st, 2009 at 12:41pm #

    Oh, I get you. Well, I disagree. It’s entirely possible for one to be against Zionism and yet make a racist remark. For instance, someone who said that it was in the Hutu DNA to slaughter Tutus would be making a racist remark, or that it is in the genetics of Germans to organize the systematized slaughter of non-Germanss would be a racist statement. Recognizing racism and making racist remarks are not mutually exclusive. Or have you granted yourself that exalted position?

  157. bozh said on July 1st, 2009 at 4:08pm #

    thanks for very useful information. From what you say, it appears that US/israel negotiate with jordanians and syrians over water usage as they do over ‘settlements’, borders, or the palestinian enclaves.

    as for the genetic pool, i think i wldn’t be here if it wasn’t for blacks of afrika; so, altho of a slavo-romano-illyrian origin, i also must be genetically connected to the darkest afrikani.

    as for one being against zionists and at the same being a racist, the conclusion that one is racist rests on the conclusion/accusation that one is an antizionist.
    theory proving theory won’t do!
    no sane person with evaluative, analytical, and predictive education can be an antizionist or antijewish and thus racist.
    an enlightened individual is solely against what a zionist does or says.

    in short, such use of language is mere name calling; a kind of voodoo magic. And in my ignorant days i had used namecaling as much as anybody else.

    this analyses proves that even ‘zionists’ are not racist; or, rather, it being waste of one’s energies and time in enganging in such behavior.
    but even calling s’mone wrong is waste of time. It is much better to simply adduce own facts that wld contradict s’mbody elses facts, conclusions, etc.
    in any case, language is important, but only theoretical and cannot ever be proved by more theory, analyses, etc.
    theory can be proven only on existential level; on level of doing things. tnx bozhidar balkas vancouver

  158. bozh said on July 1st, 2009 at 4:48pm #

    i also wanted to say that a well-educated person wld not ever blame murderous behavior of an individual or nation solely basing the blame on genetics.
    organism-in-an-environment is influenced by lore, social structure, misteachings, lying, [ab]use, laws, etc.

    genetics play a role. But to what degree in any field of panhuman behavior, including mass murder?
    and we can’t say that an ethnos is genetically more prone to mass murder than its neighboring ethnos or any other.

    so, just perhaps, one cld be called ‘racist’ [or just stupid] if one wld say that russians are genetically more prone to be genocidal than uzbeks.
    but i don’t think anybody thinks that deep yet and if one did , one wld then not say such a thing.
    it is better to think that we all are genetically screwed up and capable of mass murder.
    this may be ‘racist’ since gorillas don’t murder other apes. tnx

  159. Max Shields said on July 1st, 2009 at 4:54pm #

    I suggest you live there. In your 2-state solution and report back on how it feels.

    We’ll be waiting. Lots of reports, B99. Pronto.

  160. Barry99 said on July 1st, 2009 at 7:54pm #

    Bozh – What ever can be said about malignant behavior of any population group – to attribute same to DNA is a racist statement. You didn’t say that, Max Shields did.
    I wouldn’t go so far to say that gorillas do not murder other apes. Of course, gorillas are a most peaceful bunch generally. In any case, it is safe to say that chimps will murder – that is well documented.

    And you are of course, correct about our descent from Africans. And so too are today’s Africans. We’ve all evolved out of these ancestors.

    One can be anti-Zionist for a number of reasons and hate Jews or blacks or whites or whomever. People can be rather selective in their rationalizations, whether typed explicitly on these pages or merely couched in other terms with an occasional slippage in verbiage.

  161. B99 said on July 1st, 2009 at 8:01pm #

    Max – Just got back from Jordan. Admittedly, that’s not the same as living in Palestine – but I think it’s safe to say that the amount of time I’ve spent in the region, which is considerable – and under the visible gun of Israel – is infinitely more than say, someone who has not set foot there at all.

    While I can’t give you a personal report on Gaza at this time, I can tell you stories about Jordan. Lebanon next.

  162. Shabnam said on July 1st, 2009 at 10:55pm #

    [One can be anti-Zionist for a number of reasons and hate Jews or blacks or whites or whomever. ]

    You present a Zionist = a Jew. Are you an Israeli agent?

  163. bozh said on July 2nd, 2009 at 6:13am #

    when a person kills in rage another person, it is called “manslaughter”. When a person first thinks of killing s’mone and then kills, it is called murder.
    when an empire or land kills lotsof of people it is called genocide.

    a gorilla may have killed another gorilla but does a gorilla plot to kill another gorilla? Or a tribe of gorillas plotting to eradicate another gorilla tribe?
    no documented case exist, as far as i know, which testifies that a gorilla had killed another.
    just like a human, a gorilla cld be psychotic, brain injured and thus cld kill?
    but a clazed gorilla cld only kill with bare hands; however, wld other apes, who are very gregarious, stand by and not help break the fight?
    methinks, this analyses shows that it is extremely unlikely that a gorilla kills its own.

    nature is multivalued; we are part of that nature; thus, we also are multivalued in all of our behavior.
    Nature did the best it cld for us and biota. Our genetic pool is part of that nature.
    everything shld be alright with ‘jews’ as long they do not compare goyim as part of the nature and selves as a part of supernatural ‘nature’.
    whether that is racist or not, it is up to each person to decide what they call such comparison.
    but to me, such behavior is antigoyim and this bodes unwell for ‘jews’.
    we, being part of nature, and thus innately at least partly ‘evil’, does not occlude probability that we can do less of it.
    and the way out is enlightenment. tnx

  164. B99 said on July 2nd, 2009 at 6:42am #

    Shabnam – It seems you are the only contributor here that has stated “Zionist = a Jew. ” I have to ask in return: “Are you an Israeli agent?”

  165. B99 said on July 2nd, 2009 at 7:31am #

    Bozh – I can’t say for sure if gorillas plot to kill other gorillas, internecine gorilla killing being a rare thing, but who can say precisely what is in the mind of the gorilla that kills one of its own. And behavior expectations vary by sex, age, status – and perhaps geography. However, our closest relatives are chimpanzees and bonobos. In the former, murderous forays are not uncommon. Some primatologists suspect that such behaviors are of recent vintage and have to do with disturbed (by humans) habitat. In any case, these killings are initiated with malicious intent – I think these would have to be considered murder if we consent to such a label in non-humans.

    I’m not sure why you put ‘Jews’ in quotes yet use their Hebrew term for gentiles – goyim.

    I am once again submitting that cultural attributes should not be construed as genetic attributes. Jews are not a different species (as are gorillas and chimps), in fact, Jews have various ethnic origins, very much Caucasian in origin, and thus behavior of Jews – even Zionist Jews , cannot really be considered apart from other human behaviors – it’s all cultural. And that would include notions of being a ‘chosen people’ or that the Jewish existential condition is exceptional. These are malleable cultural characteristics.

  166. Max Shields said on July 2nd, 2009 at 8:35am #


    Jordan is not, as you say living under Israeli apartheid as the Palestinians are.

    I know many people who take pleasure trips to Jordan and they might as well have gone to Alaska in terms of what’s happening in the occupied land.

    But perhaps your stories about what’s going on in Jordan would be enlightening.

  167. bozh said on July 2nd, 2009 at 10:16am #

    i put the word “jew” under single quotes to indicate to the readers that symbols under single quotes denote their dubious, false, or inaccurate/inadequate value.
    judeans, according to ?all historians existed. Thus one need not or must not put it under single quotes.
    words like aliens, foreigners, bankers, bakers are valid symbols.

    however, the words “goy” and “bastard’ may have been at one time valid symbols but over time have been imbued by our ignorant ancestors with many dysphemistic traits.

    “bastard” may have symbolized the fact that the male was born out of wedlock. If it wld have not been imbued with false to fact notions, the word wld be valid symbol.

    may be you are right, i shld write ‘goy’ and ‘bastard’ to alert people that the two words limn a false reality.
    perhaps we shld be along with ‘jews’ called “nonhebraic” . This label is not corrupted nor pejorative. tnx

  168. Shabnam said on July 2nd, 2009 at 10:18am #

    You cannot play the same game with me as you are playing with others, not answering the question, directly, instead, rising a new one to confuse the issue. Your desire to keep the ‘Jewish state’ is very obvious indeed, but you are not saying it in words. Your position is exactly like those who are known as Zionist Liberal, and we know who they are and how they argue to protect the interest of the “Jewish state.” So why don’t you be honest with yourself and tell us your true feeling about one state solution, the ONLY solution left regarding the facts on the ground, where Zionists have forced them on Palestine for the past 60 years to fool international community and of course with help of the closet Zionists who have power over the ‘left’ or ‘liberal’ organization of the WEST to influence opinion. I have noticed number of pro Israel rushed to this website after the Gaza genocide in January 2009 to comment to change facts on the ground and modify Israel’s image amongst people but they were not taken seriously due to their right wing interpretation. You as Barry, on the other hand, argue from a different position closer to people’s political make up on this side but not revealing your true position on One State solution and pretend you want it if it works and then will give us many reasons that is not going to work.
    Israel was established by European Zionists who had nothing to do with the land, that’s why we call them Zionists, European colonists. They may have accepted Judaism or not, is beyond the point, the facts remain that these people have no connection with the land. You argue that we cannot uproot them since they have been on the land for the past 60 years. B99 or Barry, if the Zionists have forced the indigenous population out of their land for the past 60 fucking years, why is not possible for the Palestinians to kick them out of the region and send them back to where they have come from. You and people like Chomsky cleverly argue that no one wants one state, or this is just an idea, or the Jews become MINORITY again. Are the Jews not a minority group in every single western country and non-western country now? Is it terrible to be a minority? Did people of the region agreed to partition of Palestine? Did any state in the region, including Turkey and Greece, vote for the partition of Palestine? The answer is NO. The western powers were influenced by the Jewish aristocracy, Roth shield family, to make a ‘homeland’ on other people’s land to make room for Zionists in Palestine although there were not enough votes in the beginning at the UN.
    Rumy Hasan in Al Ahram regarding Soviet Union’s position writes:
    In March 1947, the Near East Department of the Soviet UN delegation accordingly argued for a “single democratic Palestine that ensures that the peoples living there will enjoy equal national and democratic rights”. A month later, there was a dramatic U- turn. At the extraordinary session of the UN General Assembly, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Gromyko was instructed to present the new line. For the first time the USSR advocated the creation of a Jewish state. The new line was duly presented to the General Assembly on 29 November 1947 in the historic vote to partition Palestine. A two-thirds majority was needed and here the role of the USSR was again decisive when it pressured Byelorussia, Ukraine, Poland and Czechoslovakia to also vote “Yes”.
    Thus, without a change in the official USSR position no Israel would have been established.
    The changes of the past 60 years are nothing compare to dispossession of Palestinian from their land after thousands of years bondage with their land. The only solution left is One State for all.
    Good luck.

  169. B99 said on July 3rd, 2009 at 12:53pm #

    No game playing here Shabnam! On this issue I am dead serious so all you get are my my well-considered judgments. I would like to see what is now Israel evolve into a state of all its citizens rather than remain the self-described ‘Jewish state.’ I would like to see US aid to Israel halted and US diplomatic cover for Israel in the UN ended. Eventually, I would like to see a successor state to Israel that is integrated into the region – with its Jewish population remaining as they are now largely born there. And I would like to see a state of Palestine in every inch of the West Bank and Gaza before Israel annexes virtually all that remains of them. And with Arab-Jerusalem as its capital, including Haram al-Sharif. All of this is outlined above as one of the early responses to this article.
    So – I don’t believe in the ‘Jewish state’ – period. Yet I don’t believe you can force Jews into a one-state arrangement against their will. I am entirely for the principle of self-determination for all people, the subset of that here is self-determination for Palestinians – and the long term record for Palestinians is that majorities or large pluralities favor a 2-state solution – so in effect – and in reality – I back Palestinians 100% on this. Same can’t be said for supporters of the so-called one-state solution (although you may get your wish if Israel continues to expropriate and annex the rest of Palestine, in which case Israel is your one state.) If and when the Palestinian people decide as a majority they favor a one-state solution I will be with them on this – and if you think you can lead them to this solution you by all means go right ahead. I have been consistent on this since the 1970s because Palestinians have been consistent on this since the 1970s. You are free of course, to take a more radical position if you like, yours – like mine, is cost-free – but you are not free to posit your position as morally superior to that which Palestinians have professed for generations now.

    That European Zionists had no connection with the land there is no doubt. They now DO have a connection to the land, soon approaching the century mark – and most Israelis have now been born there. Palestinians evicted by the Jews are entitled to all their land and property in what is now Israel whether evicted in 47 to 49 or in 67 (or in the constant low level stream of evictions that has continued over the life of that state). That’s international law. The same international law that forbids the removal of the Jews from Israel. I can invoke the right of return because I believe it applies to all parties. If you think Israeli Jews can be removed, then why should the law apply to the Palestinians? Unless you subscribe purely to power politics in which case the Palestinians are surely on the losing end.

    I have never argued that no one believes in the one-state solution – only that a minority of Palestinians historically support such a solution. I HAVE argued that Israeli-Jews will not accept being a minority. Politics, economics and demographics may work eventual magic in this regard however so one can’t rule out Jewish acquiesence (sp) later in this century. After all, Jews have a number of immigration options these days and may exercise them. The remainder may have to come to terms with their neighbors.

    As I have said many times, the British-led effort to colonize Palestine was wrong (as per the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, for starters), the UN effort at partition was wrong (and by rule, rendered moot by Palestinian rejection), only to have the Jews implement it anyway as much of the world either looked on or supplied the Jews with guns and ammo. The recognition of Israel as a state (never mind ‘the Jewish State’) by the West and East (as you noted – and to be sure, Soviet arms flowed to the Jews thru Soviet occupied Czechoslovakia) was wrong. The admission of Israel to the UN was wrong as Israel failed to repatriate the refugees it created thru ethnic cleansing – their repatriation and recompense a requirement for admission. So there is a century-long history of odious judgment by the world community – or those who pull the strings of the world community.

    Thus we are long presented with a situation in need of major repair. I say, let’s not try to twist Palestinians to a view that pleases some inner need for true left justice. The Palestinians have resisted their demise now for more than a century. I back them fully in their resistance. That’s why I made ten necessary points to a just solution at top of the reply section.

    If you could outline your points similarly, that would be interesting.

  170. B99 said on July 3rd, 2009 at 1:00pm #

    No Max – you can’t go to Jordan – especially Amman – without being aware of Palestine. Palestinians are 60% of Jordan’s population and hold significant economic power. And Palestinians never go to bed without understanding how they wound up in Jordan.

    What I was doing in Jordan had to do with Jordanian views on recent events in the wider region. Really, Max – despite what you may think, Alaskan views on these matters are not interesting.

  171. Max Shields said on July 3rd, 2009 at 1:22pm #

    B99, if you stayed in NYC in a section of the city where Palestinians live, you would not experience the apartheid on the West Bank or Gaza.

    I have no interest in Alaska beyond making the point.

  172. B99 said on July 3rd, 2009 at 2:58pm #

    If one stays in NYC one could however learn a lot about the situation in Palestine. In fact, I grew up in NYC and it was a NYC-Egyptian who first taught me about Palestine in 1973. And that’s why I went to Palestine – and that includes Gaza. Been there – done that. Know its geography virtually intimately.

  173. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on July 3rd, 2009 at 4:26pm #

    well, i am for one state solution. But i am not suggesting that the ‘jews’ be removed from a binat’l country.
    perhaps, even euros can stay let alone shemites of the judaic ‘faith’.

    when palestinians OK’d a two state solution, there weren’t 500K ‘settlers’ in the second state.
    there was no wall built on their land, siege of gaza, slaughter in gaza of a few mo’s ago, 11K abductees in jails, etc.
    also no US prez had proclaimed that j’lem remain undivided.

    if this doesn’t prove to you that the second state is not available and to make sure of that ’67 war waged so that the second state never comes into being then i don’t know what other indications do u want to be convinced that US/israel will never allow the second state.
    instead of that, you actually accuse us of not caring enough for palestinians because we want one state which wld merely cause more of ‘settling’ and thus loss of land for palestinians.
    so, if israel continues its crimes and stealing land, it is critics of irsael
    who are guilty for these crimes and not ‘jews’.

    by extension one cld even argue that we shld stop exposing israeli crimes because if we don’t, ‘jews’ will take their rage on palestinians.
    now i know you are a zionist! And not a small one like chomsky but s’mwhat bigger.

  174. B99 said on July 3rd, 2009 at 6:25pm #

    Bozh – the idea that Jews should or could be removed from the region was suggested by Shabnam – that they should be sent back to where they came from – as if the majority of Israelis were not born in Israel. Forced population removal is not only reactionary, to endorse it is to endorse what the Jews did to the Palestinians. It becomes not a question of morality but of might.

    Arafat and the PLO – wildly popular among Palestinians in the 1970s (though there were groups outside the PLO) – endorsed implicitly and then explicitly, the 2-state solution. You are correct of course, that there were not a half-million Jews colonizing the West Bank at the time. Nonetheless, the same principle holds. As the world almost unanimously decided back in 67 that Israel belongs behind its pre-67 borders, the world still holds to this position. That is to say, Israel must repatriate its settlers on the WB. Likewise, your other noted Israeli transgressions.

    But you’ve put the cart before the horse. These transgressions came AFTER the ’67 attack on Palestine, not before it. Be that as it may, if the US and Israel will not allow a second state – then you are suggesting they will allow one state of Jews and Pals? That’s a very confusing and unlikely argument. So if you are arguing this then it seems you are really arguing for full Israeli hegemony. In the final analysis, you are willing to sacrifice what’s left of Palestine for some positive or negative principle you have yet to outline.

  175. Melissa said on July 3rd, 2009 at 6:39pm #

    Seems to me that USAers should just gather the huevos to pull economic and military “aid” away from Israel and leave these decisions to the people who actually live there and have the disease of religion plaguing their cultures. One state, two state . . . the idea of “chosen” and killing for deity isn’t solved on a map.

    The extent of information shared by all here is impressive, nonetheless.

  176. B99 said on July 3rd, 2009 at 8:57pm #

    Melissa – Yes it would be great if the US would pull its aid away from Israel. But the conflict in Palestine is essentially not a religious one. Its about economic resources and land aggrandizement (on the part of Israel). For the Palestinians its about not being wiped off the face of the Earth (and getting something approximating justice). Religion, and it is largely the Israelis that employ this device, is used as a cover for their very secular and unwholesome philosophy.