Israeli Palestinian peace process- one idea and Congress' non-starter

The Impending Collapse of Israel in Palestine

http://mwcnews.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5563&Itemid=126

Don't sign anything; wait for Israel to collapse.

I don't know that I agree, but it is certainly a different take on this issue. I agree in that at least then they'd be on more equal footing and more likely to come to a viable agreement...

The CIA has recently given Israel 20 years before this would happen, if the article’s claim is correct. They’ve all wasted 22 already. Can they wait out another two decades?

Interesting article, though. Not that the US would let Israel collapse without draining our resources first...so this is not really a real option anyway.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

And on that note, we have the most recent unhelpful (and uninformed) move by Congress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue:

http://peacenow.org/entries/feinstein_letter

Pro-peace Senate letter ( I take issue with this title :) )

It opens like this:

“As steadfast supporters of Israel and the U.S.-Israeli relationship, we are writing to express our support for the start of proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on ending the Israeli-Palestinian dispute with the active participation of U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell.”

Why must everything start this way?? Members of Congress must pledge or demonstrate their state’s undying love and ties to Israel before they can say anything about the region. It must be in the orientation proceedings. It never fails. They must reaffirm Israel’s right to self-defense before saying anything about Palestinians rights to even things like food and water. Is this really where our priorities should be?

The first problematic piece: “It will solidify Israel's identity as a Jewish, democratic state by giving it safe and secure borders.”

Here, we fall right in line with Netanyahu’s and other right wingers’ demands and prejudge or rule out a path to peace. Why should we ignore the one secular democratic state idea? This is the best chance for all to have access to holy sites, freedom and equality. I am sympathetic to the idea of a Jewish homeland as the UN set forth originally. It was, however, never intended for Jews to set up an exclusive state, probably for good reason. In order to keep that majority in this region, there will have to be legalized ethnic cleansing of some sort(s). I am all for having a provision or guarantee in any one state agreement that makes sure that when either Jews or Palestinians are the minority, that they are protected, represented, given rights and guaranteed a certain minimum of land or something like this. Guaranteeing Israel’s Jewish character is as good as campaigning for ethnic cleansing. Or it will be soon.

Attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah are mentioned as obstacles in this letter, but attacks are often in areas not controlled by the PA; they are Israeli controlled. This is often blamed on Abbas, though. Interestingly, Netanyahu's foot dragging isn't alluded to, nor the fact that he chose to embrace such people like Lieberman who are in fact settlers (part of the problem) and terrorists who make public statements that undermine peace and call into question Israel's desire for peace and value placed on human life and rights.

This probably sums up the Congressional mood, bias, and distance from the facts the best:

“We applaud Prime Minister Netanyahu for committing to direct talks and we urge you to press President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to reciprocate. “

It makes no sense, but this is the way the Israeli Palestinian conflict is always depicted in the US and Israel. Israel is the one looking for a partner, always stretching out the hand of peace, always has the men of peace; Palestinians are refusing generous offers, returning good faith with terrorism, always the last ones to the table.

This time it was different. Palestinians have a very pro-US moderate in Abbas, they have been working on institutions of government- as best one can under occupation, they have been ready to come to the table since Obama was elected, if not before. Netanyahu, on the other hand, only recently conceded to the two state solution, if you can call his version (permanent occupation) a real solution. He also chose some very strange allies in Lieberman and others from that end of the spectrum if he is truly looking for peace. They are settlers and terrorists; part of the problem.

If they are part of this, then why not let Hamas in and legitimize them? Israel in many cases is doing what Hamas does to innocent people. The only difference is, Israel’s operations are on a large scale, they are UN members, they have a state, they call it security, and it is anti-Semitic to criticize them. None of these things actually make what they do any more right than Hamas, but I guess they are reasons we can’t call them on it and make them as accountable as Hamas.

For related posts on Avigdor Lieberman and Benjamin Netanyahu, see the right side key words...

The Thumb in the Chili of Middle East Peace Talks

Or the fly in the ointment. Or the fly in the chili.

The terrorist the US wants to embrace. If there was an Avigdor Lieberman on the Palestinian side, there would be no talks, the US would cut them off an demand they get rid of him, they would allow and facilitate attacks on his life even! Since he's a Jew, we'll "embrace" him.

I'm talking about Avigdor Lieberman.

"I do not believe that a comprehensive agreement with the Palestinians is possible within a year, nor even during the next generation,"

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/09/20109654947618925.html

***

And if this isn't a self fulfilling prophecy, I don't know what is!

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has promised to veto any extension of the building freeze, and said that not only is peace with the Palestinians unachievable, but that it an unattainable goal that would not be reached within a year, or even within a generation.

http://www.linktv.org/scripts/episode_transcript.php?episode=mosaic20100907


He doesn't think peace is possible in his generation because he's working for the opposite.

We can't say that Israel doesn't want peace, but when faced with leaders like this, what other conclusion can one draw? Combine that with the good standard of living, freedom (for Jews) of Israelis vs Palestinians and you have a good recipe for the status quo. Can we say no partner for peace? No. That would be a non-starter. I'm a pessimist and trying to shut down discussion. And besides we're talking about Israel, not Palestinians. There are certain things you can and have to say when talking about one or the other.

This speaks to his lack of leadership skills. On top of being a terrorist, that is. And by terrorist, I mean a more recent variety than the run of the mill Jewish terrorist turned Israeli statesman of the Irgun/Stern Gang/etc type. If leaders can't inspire hope and say peace is possible now, the public certainly will follow suit.

Israeli foreign minister's "peace plan": stripping Palestinians of citizenship

Israeli foreign minister's "peace plan": stripping Palestinians of citizenship
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11358.shtml


Lieberman is still FM with no complaint whatsoever from our government. This is really kind of shocking. He's a not so reformed former terrorist for whom ethnic cleansing is still a viable option for peace. Oops. Not so much peace as a final solution to the "Palestinian problem."

His peace plan highlights a major problem with the two state solution. Would you split up the land and require Jews on one side, Palestinians on the other? Is that ethnic cleansing? Two wrongs making a right? Would you allow settlers and native Palestinians alike to choose to stay in the "other state" where their homes end up being? If the latter, wouldn't this require a secular binational state and defeat the purpose of having two states?

One state gets my vote. No, Jews wouldn't have a Jewish state, but then, you should have thought about that before taking over someone else's land and kicking them out and holding them captive. On the positive side, Jews and Palestinians both would get right of return, all could visit holy sites, settlers could stay, Palestinians could travel and live where they wished (except for getting all your old land back and displacing Israeli Jews, of course), all would have equal rights and everyone could visit or live and have the capital be in Jerusalem if they wished.


Good news and bad news:
(The good being that he's not much interested in Lieberman's plan, the bad being that he's not into any peace plan...)

However, Warschawski said there were few indications that Netanyahu wanted to be involved in any peace process, even Lieberman's.

I've been hearing more support for negotiations by Abbas and Washington and there have been reports of non-violent resistance to occupation coming to the forefront and violence against Israel seems at an all time low. Despite this, we hear things like this from Israel (with no complaints from the US, generally):

Apparently reflecting Netanyahu's own thinking, he said: "The more you market Palestinian legitimacy, the more you bring about a detraction of Israel's legitimacy in certain circles. [The Palestinians] are accumulating legitimacy, and we are being delegitimized."

And this:

In early 2009, Lieberman, who lives in the West Bank settlement of Nokdim, upset his own supporters by advocating the creation of "a viable Palestinian state," though he has remained unclear about what it would require in practice.

Can't wait to see how these things fall out. I hope some of this can shake us awake do we can hold Israel accountable:

Other looming diplomatic headaches for Israel are the return of the Goldstone report, which suggested Israel committed war crimes in its attack on Gaza, to the United Nations General Assembly in late July, and Turkey's adoption of the rotating presidency of the Security Council in September.

Helen Thomas retires because of controversial comments?

Edit: 6/14/10- I found this article and that 3rd paragraph I could have written myself. I probably have, it's just not as nice and succinct. :) And, she gives more examples of bigoted statements by Jews against Arabs that didn't provoke so much as a story.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-oe-makdisi-palestinians-20100613,0,3488415.story

Also here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/06/17/536557/anti-palestinian-comments-too.html

I will say that the soundbite was rough. Especially the portion that keeps getting replayed. When you hear the whole thing, you get a bit more context and those who are keeping up with events in the Middle East see that it’s not quite as bad as it first seemed.

Edit 6/10/10: I have a bit of the comments below. They provide more context than "tell them to get out of Palestine", but this transcript of sorts explains it better. It seems it was a pretty lighthearted exchange and Thomas was definitely calling attention to the Occupation, not showing her anti-Semitic cards or that she was senile.

BBC's story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10259646.stm

She's not really calling for Jews to leave, but calling attention to the Occupation and blame that no one ever wants to mention in these parts. She was kind of getting at the fact that Israel and it's "democratic values" are a bit of a joke until it lets Palestinians go back home, just like Jews can go back to their homes in Eastern Europe, Europe, America, etc or stay in Israel as they please. The idea was totally in character and I totally can get behind her saying Israel is occupying Palestine, but the wording was oh so wrong.

I wish she hadn't gone out on that note. She's done a lot for women in journalism and has been the only one asking the hard questions at various times- about Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel.

Thomas’s point was that Palestine is occupied and no one will say that in the US. Perhaps one approach is to say something a little stronger or more provocative than one’s actual opinion. People certainly are taking notice. Ideally, since Jewish terrorists took over parts of Palestine, kicked out the inhabitants and won’t let them go back home (and the ones who managed to stay don’t have the same rights as Jews), one could think the just thing to do would be to send Israelis packing or force them to allow the inhabitants to go home and have rights. Regardless of whether or not one thinks sending Jews packing is just or not, it is not realistic. Everyone knows this. Helen, I would imagine, knows this. This is the only fact on the ground I’d say that we have to honor. All other things Israel has done to create certain facts on the ground to prevent a Palestinian state, provoke violence, etc are absolutely on the table, however.

She probably did choose the wrong venue to express herself in this fashion. It was a Jewish heritage celebration at the White House in May. Prominent Jews were in attendance. If they included the likes of Pipes and Dershowitz, you can bet Thomas had heard more than a few incendiary things about Arabs, not to mention the rewritten, sterilized history that normally accompanies high praise for Israel. Even so, it was the wrong venue and poor choice of words. She really should have passed when asked "any comments on Israel?" by the good Rabbi wielding a video camera. A "no comment" would have done nicely.

In her defense, it kind of sounded like people with video cameras were baiting her and waiting for her. They begged her to go on. Everyone knows who she is, so it’s not like they were just asking random people. She wasn’t speaking for the White House or any publication. Not to mention that in context, she was talking about the fact that Israel is an Occupier and how many don’t even think about it that way anymore- if they ever did.

The two quotes are from this site:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127538667

THE comments:

(Soundbite of Internet video)

Rabbi DAVID F. NESENOFF (Founder, RabbiLIVE.com): Any comments on Israel? We're asking everybody today, any comments on Israel?
Ms. HELEN THOMAS (Former Columnist, Hearst News Service): Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.
Rabbi NESENOFF: Ooh. Any better comments on Israel?
(Soundbite of laughter)
Unidentified Woman: Helen has one.
Ms. THOMAS: Remember, these people are occupied, and it's their land. Not German. It's not Poland.
Rabbi NESENOFF: So where should they go? What should they do?
Ms. THOMAS: They can go home.
Rabbi NESENOFF: Where is their home?
Ms. THOMAS: Poland...
Rabbi NESENOFF: So the Jews...
Ms. THOMAS: Germany.
Rabbi NESENOFF: You think Jews should go back to Poland and Germany?
Ms. THOMAS: And America and everywhere else.

This is from the NPR Talk of the Nation link above-
My view exactly. Good points. Thank you, Lina:

LINA: First of all, I think that Helen Thomas is a human being before being a columnist or before being into whatever job she is doing, so she has the right to say her opinion. And we live in a free country. And, you know, she was hired to say her opinions and to be seated in that first seat. And everybody knew that she was controversial, but everybody liked her opinion. Plus, I would like to add a little bit about my opinion. You know, Palestine has been Palestine until 1948, until Israel existed. And it is an occupation. And I really feel that it is unfair that people don't recognize that it is an occupation.

CONAN: Do you think the analogies some drew, including Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary, was how would you have responded if she had substituted the words, African-Americans should go back to Africa?

LINA: Well, you know what, African-Americans did not occupy the United States of America. They were brought here as slaves. And they - if they would like to go back to Africa, that is their prerogative, but it is not the same - you cannot analyze apples based on oranges. It is not the same situation.

***

This blow up reminded me of an article I read with a quote by a film maker ( a Jew in fact) in a similar vein to Thomas’s recent soundbite. It probably didn’t hit as hard because it’s telling the person to go back to Israel instead of vacating it, but the idea is the same- it’s not theirs; they are occupiers.

It is pretty ironic that Thomas’s quote hit harder because of the idea of “transfer”. Israel is engaged in this form of ethnic cleansing and many are becoming more outspoken in endorsing it. It is seen as one of the keys, besides murder, to maintaining the Jewish majority that the Jewish state thinks it needs to “survive” as such.

How Israel Gives Jews a Bad Name
http://www.counterpunch.org/landau03132009.html
By SAUL LANDAU

“Long Live Israel,” scream the US fans. “Anyone who doesn’t like our team is an anti-Semite.”

I want to shout: “Go Back to Israel where you didn’t come from.”

--

The world is condemning Helen Thomas for her poor choice of words. But what about Israel’s supporters who say equally incendiary things? Are they asked to resign? Do we end their careers? Do we back away from them? No. On the contrary, we embrace them and appoint them to the US Institute of Peace! We meet with them (Avigdor Lieberman) and share and discuss as though they were some human rights champion- or at least not cautiously as an egregious human rights violator.

--

Daniel Pipes

And unlike Helen Thomas, this guy is a virtual fountain of slurs and inflammatory language about Palestinians and Muslims. He compiles/compiled "dossiers" on all University professors that were "pro-Palestinain," were critical of Israel, taught or said anything in speeches that was "against" the Israeli hard line view. Why not call for his resignation from all things related to the Middle East? End his career?

"The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people. "

“The Palestinians are a miserable people,” he added, “and they deserve to be.”
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/july01/0107057.html

About his USIP recess appointment by Bush:
http://www.slate.com/id/2086844/

--

Alan Dershowitz

“Palestinians invented terrorism”

Is this so absurd, there’s no need to comment? Or do people take this in stride?
It certainly didn’t ruin this joker’s career.
http://www.counterpunch.org/atapattu1014.html

Nothing can, apparently.

--

I had never heard about this one. Where was the ruckus about that? Why not banish this guy and force the famous Dershowitz to denounce him?

“Hoenleie suggested that if Arab students are to be admitted to US universities their studies should be confined to "Liberal Arts, not physics and nuclear science". “

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/3156

--

Remember what Rahm Emanuel's dad said about Arabs?

"Obviously, he will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."

No one really considered it beyond the pale and a quick apology fixed everything right up. Was it because father and son have different views or because no one was bothered by a slur against an Arab? Honestly, I don't know. True, Emauel and his dad are different people, but I really don't know how different Emanuel's views are from his dad's at all.

--

Golda Meir, 4th PM of Israel, once said “there’s no such thing as Palestinians” and instead of denouncing her, many people embrace this nonsense. She’s considered a hero. Not a crazy lunatic.

--

Avigdor Lieberman (Israel's FM and Deputy PM):

Israel bans Arab parties, embraces ethnic cleansing
http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2009/02/much-is-made-of-israel-being-only.html

A step backwards for Israel; a step forward for EU
http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2009/03/step-backwards-for-israel-step-forward.html

Clinton's meeting with the terrorist
http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2009/06/clintons-metting-with-terrorist.html

If Hilary were KKK, what would our reaction be?
http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2009/06/against-settlements-or-not.html

Palestinians stop rockets; Lieberman threatens against a Palestinian state
http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2010/04/palestinians-stop-rockets-lieberman.html

Palestinians stop rockets; Lieberman threatens against a Palestinian state

Gaza groups agree to stop rockets
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=172485


Good news, right?

Maybe we can expect peace and goodwill from Israel as well?


Israeli FM warns Palestinians not to declare state
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians


Wrong!


Israeli FM warns Palestinians not to unilaterally declare a state??

You know, this would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that the US backs whatever Israel decides. So, as dumb as this sounds coming out of this bigoted (former?) terrorist’s mouth, it matters. ☹

Israel was allowed to declare a state on mostly Palestinian land.
Whose permission did they get?
Israel is allowed to unilaterally “disengage” from Gaza and try and dodge responsibility. Israel is allowed to do whatever in the name of security.

Palestinians, however, aren’t even entitled to basic necessities, let alone national aspirations!

Most free nations consider freedom and national identity a God-given right. Not Israel.

http://tinyurl.com/yzql4qn

If Hilary were KKK, what would our reaction be?

If she got to be the Secretary of State, there would be outrage, and rightly so. She wouldn't make it that far, thankfully, in this country. But in Israel...

We, however, are much more forgiving when it comes to foreign terrorists. We apparently have lost our discretion. George W. Bush took it too far, but this same old pattern of marginalizing elected Palestinian leaders on the basis of terrorism while schmoozing with Israeli terrorists and racists is really sending the wrong message. Or perhaps we don't really want freedom and justice for Palestinians and Israelis. It is possible I have superimposed my own hope for the region on our government. Maybe peace isn't really the goal.

I have continued to see pictures of Clinton and Lieberman together this weekend and today and it makes me mad and at the same time hopeless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QzmC9-SLvs

This picture of the two of them together undermines our position on illegal (all) settlements. He's a settler and represents Netanyahu's government, who doesn't acknowledge the authority of any UN Resolution unless it is the part that created Israel or ones that condemn Arab states.

Having Clinton meet with Lieberman both personally as a settler and bigot and politically as a terrorist representative of his hard line government kind of makes our so-called strong language disappear in thin air. Does anyone know why we are recognizing the legitimacy of this guy, his agenda and beliefs? By talking and standing next to him, Clinton and Obama are essentially saying that we will talk the talk, but could care less if they walk the walk (as usual). Possibly most importantly, we are accepting his status and legitimacy of being able to represent Israel even though he doesn't live there (he is in violation of the very thing we are speaking against) and is illegally staking a claim to Palestinian land. We are talking to a terrorist, but won't include democratically elected Hamas. I guess it's ok to talk to Jewish or Western terrorists. Those Arab terrorists, or those Israel designates a terrorists, are the ones that are off limits. That picture of Lieberman and Clinton together says we are giving legitimacy to the horrible things Lieberman has said about Arabs. This is not the way toward peace. Justice is the only way, but this Netanyahu/Lieberman government only wants to secure Jewish majorities, hegemony, and superiority in every way possible. They can't be bothered with peace at a time when American constituencies are educating themselves on Israel's war crimes and are increasingly against settlements and occupation.

If we want peace, why are we talking to or standing anywhere near this guy? I mean, when we have found Palestinian leaders unacceptable, we have gone in search of ones we feel are more moderate, so why not do that with Israel?

Clinton's meeting with the terrorist

So, Clinton met with the terrorist FM of Israel yesterday. We won’t meet with a Palestinian government that includes (democratically elected) Hamas, which we have labeled terrorists, but that is debatable, but a card carrying honest to goodness Israeli terrorist and bigot who is a living example of the policy we oppose (himself being an illegal settler of Nokdim) is perfectly welcome on official visits. Makes no sense. Guess it’s the unbreakable bond. But, when that bond is tied to a weight that is determined drown you, it’s time to break out the bolt cutters.

***
It’s always about demographics, Jewish majorities, politically correct ethnic cleansing (transfer, absorbed by another Arab country, etc). The UN and international law means nothing. Except the part that legitimizes Israel’s existence. That they want to uphold, but that stuff about equal rights, borders, etc for others? It’s all garbage. Or a mirage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8106580.stm

"We really don't have any intention to change the demographic balance in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank]," he said.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/06/2009617192532456427.html

"As President Obama, Senator Mitchell and I have said, we want to see a stop to the settlements," she said.

Stopping and freezing is nice, but dismantling, bulldozing, chasing settlers back to Israel or Europe or Russia or where ever they’re from is more like it. That would be justice. That would make a Palestinian state a reality rather than just talk and stall tactics.

***
I found this bit rather interesting. Israel doesn’t have to abide by international laws and agreements to which it is a signatory because why? I wonder how we are responding to this tidbit? Israel- a country of law. That’s becoming a bit of a joke. Who really believes that now?

From June 17, 2009 Democracy Now:
1979 State Dept Ruling: Israel Settlements "Inconsistent with International Law”

Meanwhile, new attention is being paid to a State Department opinion issued during Jimmy Carter’s administration regarding Israeli settlements. In 1979, a State Department legal adviser issued an opinion that stated the establishment of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories is “inconsistent with international law.” The opinion cited Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that an occupying power “shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The legal opinion has never been revoked or revised. On Tuesday, Israel’s newly appointed ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, claimed that Israel does not have the ability to halt all settlement building.

Michael Oren: “This is a country of law, and citizens of the state of Israel have rights under that law. And if a person has purchased a house, if a person has taken out a contract for building a house, if a corporation is involved in a construction activity, the Israeli government does not have the right under Israeli law to stop them. And if it tries to, they will appeal to the (Israeli) supreme court, and my guess is, the supreme court will view in favor of those appellants.”

The future of the Israeli settlements is expected to be discussed at today’s meeting in Washington between Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman lives in the West Bank settlement of Nokdim.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/17/headlines#11

***
This article might shed some light on the "laws" Oren is talking about, but it is still clear that many more violate even Israel's laws than they will ever admit.

Lawsuit brings murky West Bank land deals to light
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_ISRAEL_DISPUTED_DEAL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-06-20-11-09-52

***
Another blog
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/06/18/lieberman-meets-clinton/

A step backwards for Israel; a step forward for EU

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/16/avigdor-lieberman-israel

Hardliner Avigdor Lieberman set to become Israel's foreign minister

"Israel needs to explain that the demand for a Palestinian state and the refugees' right of return is a cover for radical Islam's attempt to destroy the State of Israel." Lieberman was a member of the current Israeli government, but walked out in January last year as soon as peace talks restarted with the Palestinians. (from the article)

You can see more gems from Lieberman in my Feb 16, 2009 post.

Sometimes "no partner for peace" is thrown around without much thought. For example, if Israel wants Palestinians to lay down arms, accept occupation, inequalities, injustice and apartheid, but Palestinians hold out for human rights, food, shelter, safety, and justice; Israel declares it has no partner for peace. In the new Israeli FM, Avigdor Lieberman's case, the term is more than adequate!

Solana and the EU are light-years ahead of the US here. Even though the statement is pretty mild, predictable and entirely reasonable, this is no doubt considered radical, biased and maybe even anti-Semitic. The EU appears to have actually set a boundary for this rogue state! We are far too terrified of the repercussions ("Will I get re-elected if I'm on AIPAC's blacklist???") to do any such thing to promote peace and justice.

"We will be ready to do business as usual, normally with a government in Israel that is prepared to continue talking and working for a two-state solution," he said. "If that is not the case, the situation would be different." (from the article)

Heaven forbid Israel should be held accountable for anything or held to any standard whatsoever! This isn't even talking about accountability. They just have to commit to work for peace. Guess that is too much to ask.

One might argue that the EU statement is more biased toward Israel if you buy into the thinking that a two state solution is now impossible. All they have to do is commit to the two state solution and -poof!- we have political formaldehyde just like the Gaza disengagement (looks like a goodwill gesture, actually is the opposite). Opposing the EU/Quartet/Roadmap/US in the two state solution is making them look kind of silly and belligerent at the moment even though agreeing to it would get them what they want without exposing themselves. Guess the current leaders are no Sharon or Weisglass. But they weren't exactly great at hiding motives all the time- I'm still trying to reconcile surgical precision and 1 ton bombs.

Israel bans Arab parties, embraces ethnic cleansing

Much is made of Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East, a country over there with our values, their freedom, their equal treatment of Arabs despite what Arabs do to them, etc, but is it past time to re-examine Israel's status both democratically and as an entity we are supporting? It seems to me they are less democratic than people in America want to believe. I believe we just can't come to terms with the US supporting such a regime, so believe Israel’s lines about security, necessity and collateral damage. They have a right to defend themselves. They are under attack like we were on 9/11, except continually and existentially. The truth is that this is code; they don't have our values- unless apartheid and racism are American values. What people are saying with the “Israel has a right to defend herself” line is that Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves, let alone have their own sovereign country. I know, some folks who think Israel’s actions are reasonable are going to say they support a Palestinian state, but think about the logic and facts on the ground- the two ideas are practically incompatible.

Israel was founded by terrorists using terrorism. This perfectly acceptable to us and it is something many Americans think we should defend to our financial and moral detriment. Somehow, the Palestinian struggle for statehood and rights in general is not the same; the context always manages to get separated from the actions in the US and Israeli coverage. These are savages attacking Israel for the sake of “pushing Israel into the sea”; hatred of Jews.

In lists of reasons to support Israel, democracy always is near the top.
In the recent elections in Israel, two of the major Arab parties were banned in Israel for not supporting the Gaza massacre of Dec08-Jan09. What if we banned the Democratic party because too many of them didn't support or had questions about the Iraq invasion?? Is that democratic? Is that free?

Israel disqualifies Arab parties
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7825032.stm

These are just two of the contradictions of Israel as a democracy.


Another code to decipher in this is the Israeli left. It’s not as leftist as you’d think or even perhaps as it used to be. A recent test or proof of this is the popularity and success of well-known racist Avigdor Lieberman.

For those of you who don't follow these things and want to know what the big deal is with this guy, here are three items that should raise the red flag, so to speak:

1. He has proposed a loyalty oath for Arab Israelis who wish to be or remain citizens, which means citizenship can be revoked for those not deemed to be in full support of Israel's policies, etc. You aren't allowed to criticize the government lest you put your citizenship in jeopardy?? Somebody please remind me why they are called the only democracy in the Middle East and why do we support them?? Does this remind anyone of anything?

• Also problematic is that they are swearing loyalty to a state that only really guarantees the safety, security and rights of Jews. The Declaration of the Establishment of Israel speaks to Jews. It does mention that it will ensure the rights of others, but all the talk of the natural right of Jews to the land and justice based on Israel’s prophets, etc are kind of a slap in the face to aforementioned non-Jewish inhabitants. Why would or should they swear allegiance to that? To agree to that is to deny one’s own God-given rights as though God gave rights and land to Jews and they will generously grant you some of it – if “security” (read: from the whim of an 18 year old soldier to actual terrorist threat) warrants it.

2. He is also the guy who said this:
"It would be better to drown these prisoners (~11,000 people!!) in the Dead Sea if possible, since that's the lowest point in the world." (Avigdor Lieberman, 7 July 2003)
This is the rule rather than the exception for this guy. He is openly for ethnic cleansing where other government officials in recent years have only made veiled threats and cloaked action in some well-meaning and acceptable term like "security measures."

And this:
"At the end of the Second World War, not only the criminals were executed at the Nuremberg Trials, but also those who collaborated with them. I hope that this will be the fate of the collaborators in this house." (May 2006- Lieberman talking about Arab Knesset members who negotiate with Hamas)

Other quotes here:
http://www.peacenow.org/pr.asp?rid=&cid=5933

3. He's a neo-fascist. And you thought Obama was a threat to peace, freedom, and everything good. The “Obama’s a socialist” was a rather trumped up pre-election charge (scare tactic). Lieberman’s for real. No exaggeration.

OK, he's a curious character. But, he's a fringe element and can't possibly be a serious mainstream competitor, right? A few years ago I thought this, but not now. And what’s worse is Israel's election front-runners fought to be more extreme than he! This speaks to the direction Israel is going and why we should reconsider our “special relationship”.

Netanyahu said Lieberman's loyalty policy didn't go far enough because there wasn't a way to enforce it.

Barak, the “leftist”, about Lieberman, said, "This is a lamb in hawk's clothing. And when did he ever shoot anybody by himself?" First, this, from the center left?? Second, transfer and revoking citizenship aren't good enough, you have to have killed Arabs to be a contender??

Due to the loyalty oath requirement for citizenship for Arabs and the fact that two Arab parties were banned from the election, apartheid like situation, neo-fascists like Avigdor Lieberman rapidly gaining popularity I think Israel's racism will become more entrenched, accepted and institutionalized a lot faster than a just peace will be negotiated.

Where I had once believed most Israelis desired peace, but the government was preventing it, I now seriously doubt it. The people are driving the trend toward apartheid and embrace racism. This is in no one's best interest.

Yes, these are government officials I just discussed, so you might say I can’t rule out the Israeli public that way. It just bothers me that they felt they had to be more extreme than the guy who wants to drown Arabs to appeal to their public. Given the reaction (or lack thereof), they are right. The Israeli public voted and either way, Lieberman will probably be asked to form an integral part of the coalition. I thought there was no way this guy would be a force to be reckoned with – ever. His popularity surprised me. In the Democracy Now podcast I reference (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/11/palestinian_lawmaker_mustafa_barghouti_on_the), they mentioned a student election (or several?) which he won. Maybe it doesn’t matter officially, but it tells us what direction things are going. Students have been more open to the left in the past, they have refused service in the Occupied Territories, but now they are embracing racism and ethnic cleansing en masse.

Transfer?

There has been talk of Jordan fearing Palestinian refugees will become their problem if Israel continues along the current course and does not allow for a state to be created... LinkTV/Mosaic video

Livni sparks Arab 'transfer' row
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7779087.stm
"And among other things I will also be able to approach the Palestinian residents of Israel, those whom we call Arab Israelis, and tell them: 'your national aspirations lie elsewhere.'"

This one references Avigdor Lieberman (you know, drowning prisoners, advocate of bombing crowded areas, etc)
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=17740


Moshe Feiglin, a candidate:

He insists there is no such thing as a Palestinian people and that they and Israeli Arabs should relocate, media said, citing a text he had posted on the website of his "Jewish leadership" movement that was removed this week.

"They will have to seek the right to self-determination in Arab states. Israel will encourage the Arabs to emigrate to their countries and assist any Arab who wishes to do so," Feiglin was quoted as saying.

"Arabs don't live in the desert, they create it," he was quoted as saying in 2004.

When Palestinians talk about Israel in these terms, it is proof of Palestinian depravity. When it is Israel, we don't mind a bit and maybe we consider that a valid point of view. Drowning political prisoners, really?! These are government or aspiring government officials, not fringe elements that are discounted by the public.


And of course what was it the father of our Chief of Staff to Obama recently said?

"Obviously, he will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."

Son of a terrorist in the White House! And people got all hot and bothered about Obama's family having dinner with Rashid Khalidi's family and the terrorist plots probably hatched as a result!