Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Please tell me, where is Israel headed?
By John J. Mearsheimer
Benjamin Netanyahu is in the final stages of putting together Israel's next government, which will be opposed to a two-state solution. Most importantly, the new prime minister and his Likud Party are firmly against a Palestinian state. The Labor Party, which will be part of the governing coalition and which has been identified with the two-state solution for the past two decades, did not insist that Likud support that policy as a condition for joining the government. Its leader, Ehud Barak, merely asked for and got a vague statement saying that Israel was committed to promoting regional peace. Avigdor Lieberman, who heads Yisrael Beiteinu, the other major party in the ruling coalition, is not likely to push to give the Palestinians a viable state of their own. His main concern is "transferring" the Palestinians out of Israel so that it can be an almost purely Jewish state.
So Israel will continue expanding its settlements in the West Bank. In fact, the Israeli press is reporting that Netanyahu and Lieberman agreed in their negotiations to form a government that Israel would build 3,000 housing units in an area between Jerusalem and Maale Adumim (a huge settlement bloc) known as E-1. Once that is accomplished, Israel will have effectively cut the West Bank in half, making it almost impossible to create a viable Palestinian state. This deal was supposed to be secret, because the United States is opposed to Israel building in the E-1 area.
The Palestinians, of course, will remain locked up in Gaza and a handful of enclaves on the West Bank. In essence, Netanyahu and his two key ministers -- Ehud Barak (Defense) and Avigdor Lieberman (Foreign Affairs) -- are committed to creating a Greater Israel, which will cover all of the territory that was once Mandate Palestine.
The Obama administration will surely try to push Netanyahu to change his thinking about a two-state solution and work to give the Palestinians a real state of their own. The Israel lobby, however, will adamantly defend Israel's right to do whatever it wants in the Occupied Territories and make it impossible for the president to put significant pressure on Israel. Netanyahu, like all Israeli leaders, understands this basic fact of life. He knows that he will just have to say a few nice words about the "peace process" and blame the whole thing on the Palestinians, who he believes are a bunch of terrorists anyway, and he will be pretty much free to do whatever he wants in Gaza and the West Bank.
It seems clear to me and to many smart people I know that this story does not have a happy ending. Indeed, it looks like a disastrous ending. Greater Israel cannot be a democratic state, because there will soon be -- if there aren't already -- more Palestinians between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea than there are Israeli Jews. So, if you give each person one vote, Israel becomes Palestine. That is not going to happen anytime soon, if ever, which leaves two possible outcomes: apartheid and expelling the Palestinians -- and there are more than 5 million of them -- from Greater Israel. Talk about repulsive options. It is worth remembering that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said that if there is no two-state solution, Israel will end up in a South Africa-like situation and that will mean the end of the Jewish state. In effect, he is saying that Israel is turning itself into an apartheid state.
My bottom line is that Israel, with the backing of the lobby, is pursuing a remarkably foolish -- Ehud Olmert would say suicidal -- policy towards the Palestinians.
I would appreciate it greatly if Israel's American backers would explain what I am missing here. They must think that there is a happy ending to this story that Olmert and I simply fail to see. Otherwise they would not be backing the Greater Israel enterprise. There is no need for Christian Zionists to respond, because I know what their happy ending is: the Battle of Armageddon and then the Second Coming of Christ. Israel's Jewish backers do not buy this story, which, in fact, many consider anti-Semitic. But they must have an alternative explanation for how Greater Israel is good for the Jews. What is it?
Uriel Sinai/Getty Images









One-state Solution
Dr. Mearsheimer,
Isn't it time for thought leaders like yourself and Dr. Walt to begin advocating a one-state solution? How can any moral person promote the idea of a 'Jewish State'? Shouldn't you be promoting the right of Jewish individuals to live alongside non-Jewish individuals in Palestine, in a secular democracy, like we have here in America?
Best Regards,
Ahmed Moor
Shouldn't you be promoting
Yeah, that would serve better to save the "state";->>
But the IL is not serving to save the "state". That is what Mearsheimer and Walt don't want to understand. They are for to save the "state".
The IL is after full right to law. if they can't achieve it within the US, why wouldn't they try it within Israel.
Apartheid?! they can get away with it honestly locking Gentiles out rather than hypocritically trying to assimilate them like secularo-fascists try to achieve.
Grand Sen~or.
Solomon's Kingdom without Solomon & Solomon's Justice (updated)
If you Guys keep thinking(?!) interms of "state", of course there is no solution;-> Realistically speaking, you guys are not after solution, you are after to save the "state".
It is not difficult to understand, like you have a dream, Israel has a dream of her own to establish the Kingdom of Solomon without Solomon by the support of the EUS = (EU + US).
The question is;->
Why wouldn't they have a dream ?
You have one.
Realistically speaking they must have a similar expectation of some-body's coming, why not Solomon ?! He is a good candidate to come back. But what is going to happen when he goes back ? And so far we don't see Solomon's Justice coming around there, forget about Solomon;->
Grand Sen~or.
Simple solution
The US should publicly state that for every Jewish Israeli living in one of those illegal colonies, one Palestinian will be allowed to return to Israel and reclaim his or her properties. We'd be pleasantly surprised at how fast the colonies disappear.
23 State Solution
Shouldn't Arab League absorb Palestinians? 22 nations with like over 250 million ppl could certainly benefit from rec'ving the most literate, PHD's per capita Arabs on the face of the earth with a history of voting in free, fair and transparent elections.
If Western Europa could absorb 8 million refugees then surely Arab League could handle it.
Hit up Palestine's dual daddies of Pyramidland and Jordan to finance the move and even Syria could pony up cash.
After all, losing every war you start against democratic members of the UN bears certain costs.
Shouldn't Arab League absorb
What if Palestinians don't want to be absorbed?
Jews don't want to be absorbed by others that's why they are trying to create a purely Jewish State. Their Aim is to attract 14M+ Jews around the world to Israel, they don't want to be assimilated/absorbed by others, do they? Otherwise they would immigrate to the US - the Paradise of Absorbtion /Assimilation - rather than Israel;->>
Grand Sen~or.
Wants, Desires and Facts
Alas, Palestinians lost that concern after losing turf on the battlefield and being used, abused and betrayed by Pyramidland and Jordan.
(Not to mention the horrific lives they are forced to endure in slave trading Syria)
This is all digression though. Dr M's bit was how to stop apartheid and the 23 State Solution would certainly put paid to that.
Ah, well, the USA could
Ah, well, the USA could absorb them better than anybody else could. But we haven't volunteered either.
Kind of like nobody wanted to take the jews when germany offered to send them away....
LOL!
Why not Arab League? Palestinians are Arabs after all.
The arab league is poor and
The arab league is poor and they don't feel like they should pay israel's debts.
The USA is rich and we definitely ought to pay israel's debts if anybody other than israel should.
Debts.
That's the rub sir. Those debts were created by certain Arab League memebers and aided and abetted by the entire League. The "3 No's of Khartoum" for example, or Ba'Athist Iraq offering booty to suicide bombers families.
Arab League poor? Better recheck those stats.
23 State Solution is the way to go.
Ba'Athist Iraq offering booty
Ba'Athist Iraq offering booty to suicide bombers families.
People keep bringing up this libel.
Iraq did not offer money to families of suicide bombers.
Iraq offered money to families that were victimised by israel.
Israel made a policy of persecuting the families of suicide bombers. Collective punishment.
If your brother or your cousin went out and became a terrorist, and as a result your house got bulldozed away, you would be a bona fide victim. But of course the israeli government didn't want those victims to get any charity, it wanted to victimise them.
Weak
Thats a very weak case. Face it - Arab League has a substantial burden in Palestine. Time to admit it, man up and handle it.
Rewriting history, boring, incorrect handwringing doesn't help. Ending Arab Leagues own apartheid - like Kuwait expelling nearly 300K Palestinians after the 1st Gulf War - against their own brothers and sisters in Palestine, owning up to the fact that Arab Leagues intolerance has actually brought us to this entire sorry state to begin with is an important step.
Time to stop sucking up to and defending Arab Leagues illegit, intolerant regimes about Palestine.
Jewish interests in the US is more than in Israel
Of corse this is your dream, but what you don't want to understand is semi-political structures (SPS) cannot be defeated by organised military operations. In fact those operations it works for the benefit of the SPS. In the long run it really starts hurting the organised army by politicizing it. It is a big mistake to chase SPS by military means. And once the organised army is politicized, then that is the end of it, it is reduced to SPS and is ready to eat its masters;->
SPS knows very well its shortcomings and it has nothing to lose, that is why when organised army hits it always misses the target. Remember Vietnam how the US day and night bombarded Mekong Delta.
Now it looks like it is your turn to sing;->
Wam, pam, thank you ma'am
But if I were in your boots, I would get ready for the exodus in any case.
I gave you good advice what you have to do as a Jew in Israel and a Jew in the EUS, give heed to my advice, stop dreaming, read your history carefully. If you don't understand what I am trying to say, go ask your Rabbi to explain it to you. And in the mean time keep asking yourself "where does the majority of our interests lay as Jews?" as Dr. M by this blog item guides you to question and look for an answer, don't make mistakes.
If you ask me, you already become like your adversary - an SPS who thinks that he also has nothing to lose;->
You guys are reduced;->>
Here is the question again:
"Is Greater Israel good for the Jews ?"
Mark Dr M's question, he doesn't ask
"Is Greater Israel good for Israelis ?"
And also mark that less than 36% of Jews are Israelis. There are more Jews living in the US than Israel about 45%. The assets of Jews in the US is perhaps 100 times more than what they have in Israel.
For the Jews Israel is just another poor state. So, it is realistic that they should protect their interests in the US rather than in Israel first. That is what Walt & Mearsheimer trying to remind you and you don't like it?! You must be non-Jews rather than non-Americans;->>
Grand Sen~or.
Why should the Arabs states pay the price for Israel?
Asking the other Arab states to pay the price for Israel is like asking the rest of North America to absorb all the Native Americans we have shoved into reservations. The Palestinians were there first. The Zionists came to them, not vice versa (regardless of Joan Peters' hoax).
As for starting wars, Israel has started every was other than 1973. Israel attacked first in 1947, 1956, 1967, 1980, and 2006. These were wars of conquest and destruction, not wars of self defense.
As for certain costs, there are certain costs for engaging in ethnic cleansing. When you use mass terror to purify a region of people committing the crime of being part of the wrong ethnic group, you must bear certain costs.
Why Not? They started it!
YAWN. Look, no diss meant but face it. How did the entire sorry mess start?
Oh, yeah right. Egypt, Syria and Jordan started and lost several wars against Little Satan.
Nothing Magic about it.
Compare a map of Deutschland in like 1909 with one today. What the heck happened? Das Reich shrunk by like 25%!
Unlike intolerant Arab League cats - Europa absorbed those refugees and they became loyal productive citizens.
Never hear about rowdy Deutschers panzerschreking
G'Dansk and crying about Danzig. Or Greeks firing homemade rockets about right of return to Smyrna
Incorrect about the "Summer of Love War" too - closing the Straights and kicking UN out of Sinai were acts of war.
Essentially the afore named cats bear great responsibility for Palestine.
If they are so tore up about it, their regimes cry out it must be solved, then man up and handle it.
why does not Louisiana absorb the population of Texas & Florida?
What sick logic is this? It follows therefore according to your logic that Louisiana should absorb the population of Texas and Florida and turn over both states respectively to illegal Mexican immigrants and Cuban exiles to set up their own states!!!!!!!After all America has 50 states twice as many as the Arab states!!!!!!
Arabs can set up as many states as they please so long as it is on Arab land including a Palestinian state in Arab Historic PAlestine. It is not a great advantage for the Arabs to have 22 states at all and there should be no more than four states:The Fertile Crecsent(Greater Syria which includes occupied Palestine and Iraq,the Nile Valley (Egypt and Sudan),the Arabian Peninsula (all gulf states,saudi and Yemen)and the Magharib (Libya,Tunsia,Alegria,Morocco and Mauritinia).No one benefits from the a divided Arab World into tiny entities about the size of a county except "israel."
The jews have no such right to set up a state on Arab Land especially when their overwhelming majority are illegal immigarnts allowed by treacharous mandate Britain to Arab PAlestine between the two great wars.
jewish claims based on bizare and mytical biblical fiction such as G..d gave us this land can not be taken seriously and have no credibility in fact: such false claims are an invitation for a religious war with the occupied and exiled Palestinian Muslims and beyond BECAUSE the Quran does not recognise nor accepts such false claims-they would be blasphemy as a true GOD would never choose one race over another.
Even the name "israel" is a false choice dug up from biblical mtyhs to invent some kind of ligitimacy and as such "israel" is a racist,apartheid,militaristic,ethno-religous colonial settler entity.
"israel" was born dead and is on its way out-as was the case with apartheid white nuclear south africa.
You got me.
It looks to me like the victory of ideology over common sense. In that, the Israeli conservatives are not alone, but few others have such high stakes. I can only see this ending badly and bloodily. I hope against hope that Mr. Obama shows the intestinal fortitude to play hardball with Israel regarding new settlements. And he needs to start doing it *now*, and not wait until he's a lame duck, like most presidents seem to do.
the state vs the nation
If you're going to write as John Mearsheimer, then change the picture in the right margin so dolts like me know who we are addressing - sir.
Where is Israel headed? Certainly not HERE
Which is where some of you Israel bashers should be headed, to finally get your heads around why Israel, and not Wahabism.
@Senor and Mearsheimer.
Prior to the "state" precede the "people", a people who constitute a state are generally known as a "nation". One raeson Somalia will never be a state, is because it never had a nation - or so claimmed someone either here or on another policy blog.
Israel is fighting for its nationhood - the modern state as such, is deprived of a nation - and look for it to expire, sooner than the milk in your fridge.
Because for all practical purposes - it died with Lehman Brothers. The modern state didn't know how to live otherwise than on leverage.
What Niall Ferguson missed, as perspicatious as he might be - is the death of the modern state, more so than an axis of instability.
The Goal of Israel should be, to forge a nation - Arabs can help Palestinians lead better lives in their own Arab states. Those who want to live in Israel, will do so after loyalty oaths. As for the West Bank - it should be as much a part of Israel, as Jerusalem.
Why we have to negotiate this with anybody - is beyond me. There is no legitimate claim to Arab or Palestinian statehood of these lands. They may be disputed territories, but the dispute bends in Israel's way, as it is a legitiamte state, while Palestinians, are legally vagrants. Jordan, I can see that - but Jordan gave up its claims some time ago.
It's for the Islamists and Jihadist, to push their agenda, that keeps Palestinians on a life-line. Otherwise they woul would have been living well decades ago - in peace.
If you're going to write as
Professor Walt informed his readers of his departure and that guest bloggers should be expected late last week.
I am a simpleton - I can't
I am a simpleton - I can't write "John" when I see a picture of Walt staring at me every time I type a comment :)
We disagree on nearly
We disagree on nearly everything, but I doubt you are a simpleton. Rather, you are probably not interested in Singapore and missed the post. :)
Where is Israel headed?
They'll be headed straight for a non-Jewish Israel in the next 50 years if they don't stop planning everything on doing what they've been doing in the past for the next two years.
That's the real problem with the Israeli leadership, and particularly the conservative/religious leadership in Israel - they basically have no long-term vision on what their actions are actually leading to. There are a few exceptions, but that's it.
This has nothing to do with what Israel wants - this is about where Israel is headed. The truth is that the Palestinians have created a distinct national identity if not state. Should Israel continue on this path of increasingly making it impossible for a Palestinian state to emerge due to a mix of short-term security needs and nationalist-based unwillingness to let go of territory, they will not have a Jewish state in Israel in the next fifty years short of either a miracle (i.e. all of America's and Russia's Jews choosing to suddenly immigrate to Israel, unlikely to say the least), or a massive change in the popularly-held acceptable ethics for action (read: without them being able to get away with ethnic cleansing).
I hope you enjoy having a secular, democratic Israel, then. I certainly don't mind, but there are plenty of Israelis and Likudniks who dislike the idea.
Sure there is. They hold and dwell within most of the West Bank and Gaza, and in the West Bank's case, increasingly have at least some limited control. Just as importantly, virtually the entire world recognizes their right to have an independent state within the areas in question.
Vagrants? They live and lived in the territory in question, and their claim to the Occupied Territories is recognized by most of the world. The Israelis are the vagrants, wandering into the territory in question over the years.
It's rather appropriate that you labeled yourself a simpleton, then, seeing as how you have no understanding of the history of the Palestinians. The traditional body of resistance - the PLO - was a secular nationalist group, and has been so since its formation. The latecomers in the form of Hamas (a group which Israel cultured, by the way, so as to divide the support of the PLO, and who coalesced in the 1980s) emerged only as it became clear that the secular nationalists were willing to simply give up and let Israel create Apartheid II in the West Bank in exchange for prospect of some authority and autonomy.
Prior to the "state" precede
Not according to the SATFP, why don't you bring your theory?
You mean like the Jews do in the US...
then the Palestinians in Israel will form a Palestinian Lobby to get a Palestinian State established by the support of Israel and the EUS somewhere outside of Israel;->>
That sound an attractive solution for all;->>
I bet even Dr. Mearsheimer and Prof. Walt wouldn't say no to this for it saves the state with a prospect of creating another imaginaty state "Palestine" like "Israel". Son't worry about the nation Mate!, once you create the State from out of the blue, you can fill it up with a nation from here and there easily;->>
Grand Sen~or.
You mean like the Jews do in
No, he means like the MacDonalds of Glencoe were made to swear to King William II of Scotland.
I think this would turn out about as well as that did.
You mean they will be
You mean they will be "extirpated";->>
I must be too optimistic than realistic;->>
Grand Sen~or.
No, not extirpated,
No, not extirpated, slaughtered.
It is hard to understand the Palestinian connection to the land. As I have said before, I believe the primary identity from the time of the Ottomans, until the time of the Occupation was that of city state, then again, most of my study and experience has been of Christian villages like Nazareth, Taybeh, Bir Zeit, and Ramallah. Certainly, Christians were the first to take on the Western idea of nation state and accept it, for it is their writing in al-Filistin that is indicated. Then again, one could equally argue that it was intellectuals in general. Thinking on this, it may well be the first example in this case, because Christians lack state structure in their religion, and probably had their own identity formulations given that the Islamic conception of identity and state would have been formulated beyond their belief system. Well, that gives me something to think about, and probably lends well to your SPEE arguments.
Either way, by this point in history, Palestinians have figured out, moving means losing their rights to their ancestral home. So, they will likely say they respect the Israeli state, no matter how they feel.
If there is a 2 state solution, I am pretty certain that for many it will be genuine. Prior to "Summer Rain" I think it would have been higher for a non-two state solution. Things have rather disintegrated since, though support for the Israeli state has been on a decline for a while. I still feel that is a reflection of a need for a civil rights movement. I do realize that you disagreed with this, when we discussed it prior.
But, what does it say about Israeli ability to accept their fealty, if this groups is not in the street bearing arms and calling for revolution, and they are asked to swear fealty when many of their complaints are no different than that of other Israelis who won't be asked about their loyalty because they are Jewish.
Aside from that, I find the idea outside the nature of social contract. If Arab Israelis are to participate in and have a contract with the state, the state needs to provide them with certain protections in return for surrendering certain of their rights. If not, they have the right to call the contract illegitimate.
BTW, the MacDonalds swore fealty, and were slaughtered for it anyway, hence my example. Given your wink, you probably knew that.
BTW, the MacDonalds swore
But the order given by the state was not "slaughter!", it was "extirpate!" to save the state.
As I have explained on my other messages I don't see a solution for Jews with one or two state. The solution is no state and I know many Jews agree with me who were in the beginning against the creation of a dummy state Israel there. It is pschycotic and waste of energy to fight for the state in the ME while most of the Jews cosily living with no right to law in the EUS. The IL's and other Lobbies should see this reality and make to gain the right to law their first priority, before dreaming higher political structures to realise, they should better work to dissolve the state of Israel, rather than trying to save it.
Grand Sen~or.
But the order given by the
Well, I am beyond knowing how to "extirpate" a people without slaughtering them, given that one of the words definitions is totally destroy/ exterminate. :-|
The rest of your argument I cannot see without some change in other nations. I can agree that the idea of nation state, and even "state" itself, is a social/cultural construct as there are societies that have existed without the construct. But, I don't see survival in a world using one system, and another group trying to use another because circumstances don't fit. Perhaps one day, you will elaborate on how that would work for the skeptics.
"state" itself, is a
"state" as it is used today is just a by-product of French Revolution. It doesn't work any more, it is time to develop better concepts to replace it.
It is not a matter of elaboration, it is a matter of "will". If you will to use "state" you will always find some arguments to save it, like you are trying to do on this message. It is you who will not to use it and invent other concepts which will serve you better with the problems you have to deal with. I can't help you to "will";->
All I can do is to show you why you end up in this confusion - problems with no solution. To show you that it is not a real problem if there is no solution. When I try to attract your attention on "state", trying to show you that the pseudo problems with no solutions you are struggling with is caused by your choice of concepts and the main one is "state".
The survival you are after will and can be achieved if you have a functional language to communicate with your kind of people. A language which won't drag you into problems which have no solutions what-so-ever. A language which will serve you to observe/account and express the reality, rather than make you try to save non-real as real for convenience that you have inherited from your fathers.
As I have told before, I am not here to supply solutions, I am here to show you how you end up with such problems(?!) that you really have no solutions;->
By doing this I am trying to show you that if you change your concepts and your way of life accordingly you may avoid such confusions. So, the solutions depend to your will, not my trying to convince you to change. I mean, if you are happy to keep arguing about your pseudo problems and think that you will reach some sort of solutions eventually just to save the concepts that you have, it is your choice, like a fly in a bottle keep banging its head to the glass wall rather than flying through the mouth of the bottle that I am trying to show;->>
Here is my message to Jews:
Forget the "state", you'll be alright Mates!
Struggle for your rights to law, that is what you need first and foremost. Don't forget, majority of you are not living in Israel. Israel is just another state with mono-law structure which most of you don't see as your laws to live on, otherwise you would mass immigrate there to feel at home. It is just a Fantasy Land for you which you want to keep it going with your tips. You are at home where you are and there struggle for your right to law if you are that keen and fond of them. Don't cheat yourselves by people in Israel will live your laws and you will be just proud of it without willing to experience them yourselves.
Grand Sen~or.
"I don't see survival in a
"I don't see survival in a world using one system, and another group trying to use another"
The survival you are after will and can be achieved if you have a functional language to communicate with your kind of people.
This is where you are kind of vague.
When people have *incompatible* ways of thought, something breaks. When they have *compatible* but distinct ways of thinking they can coexist.
States are based on the idea that they gather force and then use it to force people to do things. In general they want a hefty majority that approves to force a smaller minority, but still it's about force.
SPEEs get subjected to state force when one SPEE is a large majority, or when multiple SPEEs agree in coalition to force another. And of course to force isolated citizens.
A state could allow its SPEEs to have their own laws. To a large extent the USA and canada do that today. There was a controversy in canada about allowing muslims to use sharia law in canada, and it was agreed they can do that as long as the muslims who are having disputes among themselves agree to do so. If in a lawsuit among muslims one side prefers to use canadian law, then they can.
I can see that for example turkey would be better off if they allowed kurds to have their own laws etc. The turkish government could become an administrative agency that regulates trade (subject to the agreement of the smaller ethnic governments), and handle arguments between SPEEs, etc. This is the sort of thing that some of the better empires used to do.
But the problem is that the turkish majority does not want to do that, correct?
In the USA we have black rule in many US cities where blacks are the large majority. The cultural differences here are not large, but some of them are jarring. For example, in the majority white culture it is expected that government corruption should be carefully hidden and completely deniable. It's considered a big scandal when a white politician is caught getting money from the government. It's understood that politicians who were not very rich to start with become rich after a time in office, and that rich politicians become very rich, but it's considered completely wrong if you can prove how they did it.
But the black population accepts that politicians help their friends and their friends reward them for it. They consider corruption normal. So whites continually get outraged at black politicians and persecute them for being too open about it. Blacks then feel that whites are persecuting their leaders for no good reason, for racism.
Why would people put up with a state that will not persecute despised minorities for them? If you can solve that problem you'll be well on the way to getting results.
Different laws for different groups...
Family law is actually run this way today in Lebanon. One has to wonder at the efficacy of this idea given the political tensions between minorities there. Ideally, this would allow more liberty, but in practice, it may well reinforce differences that can be exploited by those that are not well intentioned.
Equally, it sets out problems when laws are applied in this way. In modernizing nations, it is not unusual for people of different cultural and religious groups to intermarry. Whose set of laws governs those people and their children? Do they pick and chose; is it what is more convenient; is it patriarchal? Some cultural groups allow divorce, others do not. Some allow polygamy, and others not. What happens at the fringes? What keeps tensions from building when to obey one group's laws means violating the other group's laws? What of crimes across groups where vengeance is allowed by one groups, but not by another?
What is more I am unclear on how this protects minorities. What restrains majority groups? Constitutions are one thing. It is the power to execute them that maintains the order of laws imposed on society. Without a state, who ensures the various laws are executed? Who protects one group from the other since power is decentralized, or is it just general war? Who protects all of them from a neighboring group that may be more homogenous, more powerful, and is seeking resources or expansion.
I, like you, end up with many questions about such a plan. But, I am glad that some are thinking outside the mode of "states", each leap in social make up, seems to provide more stability.
In modernizing nations, it is
"modernizing nations" is a state oriented concept, in fact it would be better if you said "assimilating SPEEs". For the problems you have posed above they already exist in different degrees in so called modernized nations. But if you ask how this type of problems can be handled in a theoretical SPEE environment, I could remind you another protocol holding together the SPEEs which is:
Members of SPEEs have the right to resign from an SPEE and also have the right to form their own SPEEs. As they need SPEEs can develop inter SPEE institutions to solve inter SPEE problems. As you see, here also "state" made redundent, unless SPEEs need to find it a new role to play. In other words SPEEs decide what "State-like" institutions need to do with the limited power they will appoint them, not the visa versa.
Remember the rule "by the people, for the people";->
not "for the state by the state";->
or not "by the state for the people";->
actually while we are discussing the feasibility of SPEE way of political structure, the IL trying to practice to curb the state power to her benefit(?!) so why not legalize the damn whole thing and recognize other SPEEs to share the power accumulated in the hands of the Monopoly - the State?
Grand Sen~or.
States are based on the idea
"use force on people to do things" ??
yeah that is what state is;->>
That is why it is tyrannical and that is why it is useless monopoly, that is why it is archaic, that is why they see their own citizens the enemy. I couldn't put it better Mate!
Exactly, you created a monster and you don't know how to handle it;-> And when some smart guys like the IL and Co. know how to manipulate it you get offended rather than learning something from them;->>
SPEE is a draft theoretical concept, by definition it has the right to make and implement its laws to its members only and by definition an SPEE is not to have the right to impose/force its laws to other SPEEs. In other words by definition if an entity is imposing its laws to others it is not en SPEE anymore, it is a secularo-fascist state. So it is according to the draft theory it is meaningless to say
"SPEEs get subjected to state force when one SPEE is a large majority, or when multiple SPEEs agree in coalition to force another. And of course to force isolated citizens"
Of course it is meaningful to talk like that according to the SATFP;->>
That was a clever offer from the state as a transitional act for the full hand over the monopoly power to SPEEs. But it didn't realise, because the Monopoly is not ready yet to break up and give up the power, it must be waiting for a desaster to happen;->
Sorry, but I am not talking about ruling using state laws, I am talking about the right to law. So, don't tell me that in the US and Canada some groups of people have their own independent constitution and right to law to establish their own institutions independently from the state constitution. When I talk about SPEEs' right to law. I am not talking State should give the right to law to the SPEEs. Rather I am talking that "state" will be redundant unless SPEEs give them a new job, not the visa versa. Of course I am talking according to a draft protocol for SPEEs which has to be developed. I can supply you the draft protocol if you wish for the sake of clarity. But it is just a draft. As you know I have asked Professor Walt to develop a TE based on a different constitution to see how it will change the FP scenery, a similar study can be done for SPEEs. I don't have the means to further develop the draft that I have already publicized on the Net.
Grand Sen~or.
"use force on people to do
Sure. So how do you kill the dragon? People usually figure that to beat an army it takes another army, to beat an air force it takes another airforce, to beat tanks it takes tanks. To beat a government it takes another government. By the time you get things organised to the point you can get rid of an oppressive government you've built a new government that is potentially just as oppressive.
What's the difference between the government and the Mafia? Both of them collect money from people who don't want to give it, with threat of force. Both of them offer "protection" from other mafias. Both of them do things to help the businesses they control to become more profitable, with the intention of sucking out some of those profits. The difference I see is that the government is more powerful, and so the Mafia has to hide from it. The government declares it has a monopoly on force, and the Mafia breaks that monopoly but only by hiding from the government.
If the government were to disappear, what would keep the Mafia from replacing it? Perhaps there aren't enough loyal Mafia "soldiers"? But give them a small share of the profits and there would be....
Exactly, you created a monster and you don't know how to handle it;->
Yes. For a very long time people had kings and they didn't know how to get rid of them. Now *some* nations have gotten rid of their kings, and they find they have more impersonal governments that pay even less attention to what they want. A king might see that an idea is monstrous and choose not to enforce it. A Congress is less likely to reflect, and then the bureaucracy just cranks out results....
At a minimum you need the large majority of people not to give the government legitimacy. But that isn't enough. There aren't all that many people who consider the Mafia legitimate, and yet it trundles along without that.
Maybe you could find a way to replace various government functions with something that works better without involving government, and then somehow get the less useful government functions to wither away without replacing them? I dunno. I can sort of imagine such things but I don't see how to make them work or make them happen even if they would work. Various science fiction writers have considered the topic. One that comes to mind is Vernor Vinge in a novel titled The Peace War.
Sure. So how do you kill the
Why kill?!
Make it redundant;->>
Look J.Thomas! as long as you keep thinking "state" oriented I can't help you. You have to cleanse yourself from the bewitchment of state to think clearly.
You see, you always think of state, you think that when you get rid of one, another in the queue will take its place;->
Why do you think like that Mate?!
Think like this, if it helps:
Suppose you are the owner of a company and advertised to employ people, all sorts of people as your business require. Many people applied for the job, and one particular people wearing t-shirts printed on them "STATE" also applied for a position. You checked their qualifications and found out that you don't need them in your business at least at this stage. You interviewed the first one and decided not to employ him/her and the next "STATE" in the queue comes, you thank him for the application but you don't have a position for the time being, you get his address tell him "Don't call us, we'll call you", then say "Neext!", and you treat the next "STATE" the same way...
You are the BOSS! you see, you have the business and the money and you know what to do with it, you don't need the advice of some smart guys calling themselves "STATE". You want to run your business yourself. Don't worry about "STATES" Mate! let them find themselves a better, more useful, more productive occupation, you are fed up with them you want to run your business as you will!
How about that for a change;->>
Make the damn states redundant!
Remember how we made some kings redundant - like the King of the UK, many African Kings, King of Sweden...the same way we can make the states redundant.
To make such things happen you have to develop concepts and a conceptual system and demostrate how you relate them to reality, also demonstrate how the concepts and the conceptual system you are going to replace lost relation to reality and became useless source of confusion. And don't lose faith that there are people who use intellect to understand and express reality.
Grand Sen~or.
huh?
You lose me as always - I can't follow it - because of the acronyms. How do I search for them in your past comments? Its very difficult, and I am lazy.
Fill the state with the nation? How do you do that?
You lose me Its not me Mate!
Its not me Mate! It must be the photo of Prof. Walt haunting you with that certain smile;->>
Grand Sen~or.
ha ha ha. I actually like
ha ha ha. I actually like that one. Made me laugh. ;)
Yes, and a smile it is ...every time I comment! He's there, on the right.
I call it Mona Lisa
I call it Mona Lisa smile;->>
Grand Sen~or.
Where is Israel headed?
Israel is fast catching up to Apartheid South Africa.
In another 30 years we can expect sanctions.
Whereas it is un-PC to be racist against blacks and Jews, it is great fun, and all the rage, to be racist against Arabs and muslims.
This gives you more insight into the Israeli mind than anything else -- from an Israeli newspaper:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072466.html
Dead Palestinian babies and bombed mosques - IDF fashion 2009
By Uri Blau
Tags: Israel News, IDF, Gaza
The office at the Adiv fabric-printing shop in south Tel Aviv handles a constant stream of customers, many of them soldiers in uniform, who come to order custom clothing featuring their unit's insignia, usually accompanied by a slogan and drawing of their choosing. Elsewhere on the premises, the sketches are turned into plates used for imprinting the ordered items, mainly T-shirts and baseball caps, but also hoodies, fleece jackets and pants. A young Arab man from Jaffa supervises the workers who imprint the words and pictures, and afterward hands over the finished product.
Dead babies, mothers weeping on their children's graves, a gun aimed at a child and bombed-out mosques - these are a few examples of the images Israel Defense Forces soldiers design these days to print on shirts they order to mark the end of training, or of field duty. The slogans accompanying the drawings are not exactly anemic either: A T-shirt for infantry snipers bears the inscription "Better use Durex," next to a picture of a dead Palestinian baby, with his weeping mother and a teddy bear beside him. A sharpshooter's T-shirt from the Givati Brigade's Shaked battalion shows a pregnant Palestinian woman with a bull's-eye superimposed on her belly, with the slogan, in English, "1 shot, 2 kills." A "graduation" shirt for those who have completed another snipers course depicts a Palestinian baby, who grows into a combative boy and then an armed adult, with the inscription, "No matter how it begins, we'll put an end to it."
There are also plenty of shirts with blatant sexual messages. For example, the Lavi battalion produced a shirt featuring a drawing of a soldier next to a young woman with bruises, and the slogan, "Bet you got raped!" A few of the images underscore actions whose existence the army officially denies - such as "confirming the kill" (shooting a bullet into an enemy victim's head from close range, to ensure he is dead), or harming religious sites, or female or child non-combatants.
Advertisement
In many cases, the content is submitted for approval to one of the unit's commanders. The latter, however, do not always have control over what gets printed, because the artwork is a private initiative of soldiers that they never hear about. Drawings or slogans previously banned in certain units have been approved for distribution elsewhere. For example, shirts declaring, "We won't chill 'til we confirm the kill" were banned in the past (the IDF claims that the practice doesn't exist), yet the Haruv battalion printed some last year.
The slogan "Let every Arab mother know that her son's fate is in my hands!" had previously been banned for use on another infantry unit's shirt. A Givati soldier said this week, however, that at the end of last year, his platoon printed up dozens of shirts, fleece jackets and pants bearing this slogan.
"It has a drawing depicting a soldier as the Angel of Death, next to a gun and an Arab town," he explains. "The text was very powerful. The funniest part was that when our soldier came to get the shirts, the man who printed them was an Arab, and the soldier felt so bad that he told the girl at the counter to bring them to him."
Does the design go to the commanders for approval?
The Givati soldier: "Usually the shirts undergo a selection process by some officer, but in this case, they were approved at the level of platoon sergeant. We ordered shirts for 30 soldiers and they were really into it, and everyone wanted several items and paid NIS 200 on average."
What do you think of the slogan that was printed?
"I didn't like it so much, but most of the soldiers wanted it."
Many controversial shirts have been ordered by graduates of snipers courses, which bring together soldiers from various units. In 2006, soldiers from the "Carmon Team" course for elite-unit marksmen printed a shirt with a drawing of a knife-wielding Palestinian in the crosshairs of a gun sight, and the slogan, "You've got to run fast, run fast, run fast, before it's all over." Below is a drawing of Arab women weeping over a grave and the words: "And afterward they cry, and afterward they cry." [The inscriptions are riffs on a popular song.] Another sniper's shirt also features an Arab man in the crosshairs, and the announcement, "Everything is with the best of intentions."
G., a soldier in an elite unit who has done a snipers course, explained that, "it's a type of bonding process, and also it's well known that anyone who is a sniper is messed up in the head. Our shirts have a lot of double entendres, for example: 'Bad people with good aims.' Every group that finishes a course puts out stuff like that."
When are these shirts worn?
G. "These are shirts for around the house, for jogging, in the army. Not for going out. Sometimes people will ask you what it's about."
Of the shirt depicting a bull's-eye on a pregnant woman, he said: "There are people who think it's not right, and I think so as well, but it doesn't really mean anything. I mean it's not like someone is gonna go and shoot a pregnant woman."
What is the idea behind the shirt from July 2007, which has an image of a child with the slogan "Smaller - harder!"?
"It's a kid, so you've got a little more of a problem, morally, and also the target is smaller."
Do your superiors approve the shirts before printing?
"Yes, although one time they rejected some shirt that was too extreme. I don't remember what was on it."
These shirts also seem pretty extreme. Why draw crosshairs over a child - do you shoot kids?
'We came, we saw'
"As a sniper, you get a lot of extreme situations. You suddenly see a small boy who picks up a weapon and it's up to you to decide whether to shoot. These shirts are half-facetious, bordering on the truth, and they reflect the extreme situations you might encounter. The one who-honest-to-God sees the target with his own eyes - that's the sniper."
Have you encountered a situation like that?
"Fortunately, not involving a kid, but involving a woman - yes. There was someone who wasn't holding a weapon, but she was near a prohibited area and could have posed a threat."
What did you do?
"I didn't take it" (i.e., shoot).
You don't regret that, I imagine.
"No. Whomever I had to shoot, I shot."
A shirt printed up just this week for soldiers of the Lavi battalion, who spent three years in the West Bank, reads: "We came, we saw, we destroyed!" - alongside images of weapons, an angry soldier and a Palestinian village with a ruined mosque in the center.
A shirt printed after Operation Cast Lead in Gaza for Battalion 890 of the Paratroops depicts a King Kong-like soldier in a city under attack. The slogan is unambiguous: "If you believe it can be fixed, then believe it can be destroyed!"
Y., a soldier/yeshiva student, designed the shirt. "You take whoever [in the unit] knows how to draw and then you give it to the commanders before printing," he explained.
What is the soldier holding in his hand?
Y. "A mosque. Before I drew the shirt I had some misgivings, because I wanted it to be like King Kong, but not too monstrous. The one holding the mosque - I wanted him to have a more normal-looking face, so it wouldn't look like an anti-Semitic cartoon. Some of the people who saw it told me, 'Is that what you've got to show for the IDF? That it destroys homes?' I can understand people who look at this from outside and see it that way, but I was in Gaza and they kept emphasizing that the object of the operation was to wreak destruction on the infrastructure, so that the price the Palestinians and the leadership pay will make them realize that it isn't worth it for them to go on shooting. So that's the idea of 'we're coming to destroy' in the drawing."
According to Y., most of these shirts are worn strictly in an army context, not in civilian life. "And within the army people look at it differently," he added. "I don't think I would walk down the street in this shirt, because it would draw fire. Even at my yeshiva I don't think people would like it."
Y. also came up with a design for the shirt his unit printed at the end of basic training. It shows a clenched fist shattering the symbol of the Paratroops Corps.
Where does the fist come from?
"It's reminiscent of [Rabbi Meir] Kahane's symbol. I borrowed it from an emblem for something in Russia, but basically it's supposed to look like Kahane's symbol, the one from 'Kahane Was Right' - it's a sort of joke. Our company commander is kind of gung-ho."
Was the shirt printed?
"Yes. It was a company shirt. We printed about 100 like that."
This past January, the "Night Predators" demolitions platoon from Golani's Battalion 13 ordered a T-shirt showing a Golani devil detonating a charge that destroys a mosque. An inscription above it says, "Only God forgives."
One of the soldiers in the platoon downplays it: "It doesn't mean much, it's just a T-shirt from our platoon. It's not a big deal. A friend of mine drew a picture and we made it into a shirt."
What's the idea behind "Only God forgives"?
The soldier: "It's just a saying."
No one had a problem with the fact that a mosque gets blown up in the picture?
"I don't see what you're getting at. I don't like the way you're going with this. Don't take this somewhere you're not supposed to, as though we hate Arabs."
After Operation Cast Lead, soldiers from that battalion printed a T-shirt depicting a vulture sexually penetrating Hamas' prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, accompanied by a particularly graphic slogan. S., a soldier in the platoon that ordered the shirt, said the idea came from a similar shirt, printed after the Second Lebanon War, that featured Hassan Nasrallah instead of Haniyeh.
"They don't okay things like that at the company level. It's a shirt we put out just for the platoon," S. explained.
What's the problem with this shirt?
S.: "It bothers some people to see these things, from a religious standpoint ..."
How did people who saw it respond?
"We don't have that many Orthodox people in the platoon, so it wasn't a problem. It's just something the guys want to put out. It's more for wearing around the house, and not within the companies, because it bothers people. The Orthodox mainly. The officers tell us it's best not to wear shirts like this on the base."
The sketches printed in recent years at the Adiv factory, one of the largest of its kind in the country, are arranged in drawers according to the names of the units placing the orders: Paratroops, Golani, air force, sharpshooters and so on. Each drawer contains hundreds of drawings, filed by year. Many of the prints are cartoons and slogans relating to life in the unit, or inside jokes that outsiders wouldn't get (and might not care to, either), but a handful reflect particular aggressiveness, violence and vulgarity.
Print-shop manager Haim Yisrael, who has worked there since the early 1980s, said Adiv prints around 1,000 different patterns each month, with soldiers accounting for about half. Yisrael recalled that when he started out, there were hardly any orders from the army.
"The first ones to do it were from the Nahal brigade," he said. "Later on other infantry units started printing up shirts, and nowadays any course with 15 participants prints up shirts."
From time to time, officers complain. "Sometimes the soldiers do things that are inside jokes that only they get, and sometimes they do something foolish that they take to an extreme," Yisrael explained. "There have been a few times when commanding officers called and said, 'How can you print things like that for soldiers?' For example, with shirts that trashed the Arabs too much. I told them it's a private company, and I'm not interested in the content. I can print whatever I like. We're neutral. There have always been some more extreme and some less so. It's just that now more people are making shirts."
Race to be unique
Evyatar Ben-Tzedef, a research associate at the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism and former editor of the IDF publication Maarachot, said the phenomenon of custom-made T-shirts is a product of "the infantry's insane race to be unique. I, for example, had only one shirt that I received after the Yom Kippur War. It said on it, 'The School for Officers,' and that was it. What happened since then is a product of the decision to assign every unit an emblem and a beret. After all, there used to be very few berets: black, red or green. This changed in the 1990s. [The shirts] developed because of the fact that for bonding purposes, each unit created something that was unique to it.
"These days the content on shirts is sometimes deplorable," Ben-Tzedef explained. "It stems from the fact that profanity is very acceptable and normative in Israel, and that there is a lack of respect for human beings and their environment, which includes racism aimed in every direction."
Yossi Kaufman, who moderates the army and defense forum on the Web site Fresh, served in the Armored Corps from 1996 to 1999. "I also drew shirts, and I remember the first one," he said. "It had a small emblem on the front and some inside joke, like, 'When we die, we'll go to heaven, because we've already been through hell.'"
Kaufman has also been exposed to T-shirts of the sort described here. "I know there are shirts like these," he says. "I've heard and also seen a little. These are not shirts that soldiers can wear in civilian life, because they would get stoned, nor at a battalion get-together, because the battalion commander would be pissed off. They wear them on very rare occasions. There's all sorts of black humor stuff, mainly from snipers, such as, 'Don't bother running because you'll die tired' - with a drawing of a Palestinian boy, not a terrorist. There's a Golani or Givati shirt of a soldier raping a girl, and underneath it says, 'No virgins, no terror attacks.' I laughed, but it was pretty awful. When I was asked once to draw things like that, I said it wasn't appropriate."
The IDF Spokesman's Office comments on the phenomenon: "Military regulations do not apply to civilian clothing, including shirts produced at the end of basic training and various courses. The designs are printed at the soldiers' private initiative, and on civilian shirts. The examples raised by Haaretz are not in keeping with the values of the IDF spirit, not representative of IDF life, and are in poor taste. Humor of this kind deserves every condemnation and excoriation. The IDF intends to take action for the immediate eradication of this phenomenon. To this end, it is emphasizing to commanding officers that it is appropriate, among other things, to take discretionary and disciplinary measures against those involved in acts of this sort."
Shlomo Tzipori, a lieutenant colonel in the reserves and a lawyer specializing in martial law, said the army does bring soldiers up on charges for offenses that occur outside the base and during their free time. According to Tzipori, slogans that constitute an "insult to the army or to those in uniform" are grounds for court-martial, on charges of "shameful conduct" or "disciplinary infraction," which are general clauses in judicial martial law.
Sociologist Dr. Orna Sasson-Levy, of Bar-Ilan University, author of "Identities in Uniform: Masculinities and Femininities in the Israeli Military," said that the phenomenon is "part of a radicalization process the entire country is undergoing, and the soldiers are at its forefront. I think that ever since the second intifada there has been a continual shift to the right. The pullout from Gaza and its outcome - the calm that never arrived - led to a further shift rightward.
"This tendency is most strikingly evident among soldiers who encounter various situations in the territories on a daily basis. There is less meticulousness than in the past, and increasing callousness. There is a perception that the Palestinian is not a person, a human being entitled to basic rights, and therefore anything may be done to him."
Could the printing of clothing be viewed also as a means of venting aggression?
Sasson-Levy: "No. I think it strengthens and stimulates aggression and legitimizes it. What disturbs me is that a shirt is something that has permanence. The soldiers later wear it in civilian life; their girlfriends wear it afterward. It is not a statement, but rather something physical that remains, that is out there in the world. Beyond that, I think the link made between sexist views and nationalist views, as in the 'Screw Haniyeh' shirt, is interesting. National chauvinism and gender chauvinism combine and strengthen one another. It establishes a masculinity shaped by violent aggression toward women and Arabs; a masculinity that considers it legitimate to speak in a crude and violent manner toward women and Arabs."
Col. (res.) Ron Levy began his military service in the Sayeret Matkal elite commando force before the Six-Day War. He was the IDF's chief psychologist, and headed the army's mental health department in the 1980s.
Levy: "I'm familiar with things of this sort going back 40, 50 years, and each time they take a different form. Psychologically speaking, this is one of the ways in which soldiers project their anger, frustration and violence. It is a certain expression of things, which I call 'below the belt.'"
Do you think this a good way to vent anger?
Levy: "It's safe. But there are also things here that deviate from the norm, and you could say that whoever is creating these things has reached some level of normality. He gives expression to the fact that what is considered abnormal today might no longer be so tomorrow."
Israel is fast catching up to
What is wrong with Apartheid, let them head on to it, it is the next stage to the State like you have one in the SA today;->>
It would be interesting Jews' exodus back to the EUS, WMDs in their suitcases;->
But maybe that is what our Professors worried about more than anything else;->>
Proessor here is another song for your repertoire Mate!
River Road
Here I go, once again
With my suitcase in my hand
And I'm running away down River Road
And I swear, once again, that I'm never coming home
Yes I'm chasing my dreams down River Road
:
how can you forget this Mate?!
Grand Sen~or.
racism?
That delicious word again "Racism".
"It's ok to be racist against Arabs and Muslims."
??
Um since when are Arabs a race?
Last time I looked up my Cavali-Sforza, Arabs seemed to be in the same genetic bucket as most Jews and Turks...hm...
Since when are Muslims a race?
I thought Islam was a religion.
Am I missing something here?
***
When it comes to islam sir, we are as free as birds to denounce its barbarity. And no amount of "religion of Peace" bs is going to change the fundamental rapport Islam indoctrinates in its followers between themselves and the world. So that is game.
As for the anti-Arab sentiment among some - yes, there are levels of pure hatred and discrimination, which are unfortunate. I am sure your allies Freeman and Walt and Mearsheimer, who love the Saudis, have expressed a great deal of outrage over the Anti-Semitic filth taught publicly in Saudi Arabia, and found in every corner of the Arabic speaking world...generally bankrolled by Saudis.
Tell Me How This Ends
The only way out of this Chinese water torture style bloodbath is a 2 state solution, with a US led multinational peace force to oversee the whole process. And by process, I mean at least a decade.
This assumes many things, not least of which would be the cessation of hostilities by Palestinian extremists. No Israeli leader is going to support a Palestinian state along its border as long as the likes of Hamas is around.
Does anyone think there is a realistic chance of US support for peacekeepers in Israel?
I wish it will be
I wish it will be possible,
but a country sending troops there will become a stakeholder (as is the U.S. now), and will be held responsible of the evolution of the conflict.
As soon as some of its blue helmet will die, there will be a lot of pressure at home to withdraw, and this painful role of buffer will bring the risk of acts of terrorism in the homeland.
I don't see which country will commit itself to get sunk in such a mess.
Netanyahu
Netanyahu's strategy is to control the West Bank permanently, NOT to annex it.
He won't go as far as annexation as that will illustrate the apartheid analogy. He'll probably end up though going that far, which in effect is the single-state solution.
The two-state solution is so obviously the only prospect for peace or for justice, as to be silly.
A single-state results in civil unrest, leading to civil war, with Israel as the dominant military controlling a LARGER portion, with the justification that it is partition of a civil war (NOT an occupation).
Or, the laws of title would have to be open to the marketplace if it is to be a civil democracy, in which case, Jews would buy more and more of the land until it is a single Zionist state, legally.
RE: "But they must have an
RE: "But they must have an alternative explanation for how Greater Israel is good for the Jews. What is it?"
ELLIOTT ABRAMS SPEAKING TO THE REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION IN FT. LAUDERDALE THIS PAST SATURDAY:
On the subject of Israel, Abrams predicts some friction in the near term between Obama and Netanyahu because the Obama administration believes that the main problem in brokering an Israeli/Palestinian final status agreement is Israel’s settlement expansion. This, according to Abrams, is false. “I can illustrate why [this is false] very simply,” said Abrams. “Look at what [Ehud] Barak proposed ten years ago. Look at what Olmert offered recently. Olmert offered more.”
MY COMMENT: This is a beautiful example of neocon ‘logic’. Olmert offered more? Oh really! The neocons have been insisting for ten years that Barak offered everything (including the kitchen sink) to Arafat and that it was all Arafat’s fault that there was no peace agreement under Clinton. Was this all just a ‘BIG LIE’?
SOURCE (ENTIRE POST) - http://www.heatherrobinson.net/blog/2009/03/23/elliott-abrams-predicts-obama-bibi-faceoff/
You're assuming things
Dr Mearsheimer:
You said that "if there is no 2 state solution, Israel wil end up in a South African-like state and that will mean the end of the Jewish state." Aren't you making a little assumption here? Just because S.A. could not survive doesn't mean the same thing has to happen to Israel. Maybe the white South Africans were too few, maybe they didn't try hard enough, maybe they didn't have a lobby as strong as the Israel lobby, they certainly didn't have world-wide support from the Diaspora community of white South Africans like Israel does, and they didn't have a Holocaust to drum up sympathy. And I don't see an Israeli DeKlerk anywhere on the horizon. I think Netanyahu, Lieberman, et al are fine with apartheid, as long as there is Jewish control of the land. There can be democracy too but for Jews only. They don't see the long-term threat to Israel that you do and they might be right. I for one think they're sitting on a powder keg that will one day blow up into WW 3 but I can't prove it either.
Dr Mearsheimer:You said that
Dr Mearsheimer is talking according to the theory. According to the theory the only solution is State. And again according to the theory Apartheid is not state. Therefore it ended up in SA and replaced by State.
In ither words on Israel's case Dr Mearsheimer is not deciding based on the SA case that Israel will end as another Repoblic of SA, but according to the theory it will end like that. Once it is according to the theory like that some unnatural interferences (miracle makers) like lobbies cannot change the nature of the "state", the natural laws governs the "state". Unless of course someone comes with a better, more comprehensive theory replacing the theory Dr Mearsheimer uses, by eliminating the concept "state" altogether and perhaps replacing it with more realistic concepts, demonstrating that the new theory is more useful than Dr Mearsheimer's one.
You see those Doctors amd Professors don't open their mouth unless they talk according to a theory.
If you don't believe me ask him;->>
John!
I think you are right Mate! Israel is headed towards one State - Palestine;->>
Grand Sen~or.
Mr. Mearsheimer misunderstands our position
First of all, I really appreciate Mr. Mearsheimer's request to hear from the "other side." I know it's hard for many to understand, but the vast majority of Israelis, including very many Likud voters (me, for instance), fervently desire land for peace along the lines of UN Resolution 242. We reluctantly support the occupation purely for national interest - security - and not for ideological reasons. We simply are not convinced that Palestinians are willing to surrender their claims to all of their homeland in exchange for just a part of it. The armed struggle to liberate all of Palestine will continue, we believe, after a peace agreement and after statehood, even if only a minority of Palestinians actively support the struggle.
Speaking for myself, I think you are misreading the whole "apartheid" issue. Morally, you seem to believe that it's significantly more moral ("democratic") for a Jewish majority of 51% to exercise sovereignty against the will of a 49% Arab minority than if those percentages are reversed. I don't understand this reasoning. If it will be immoral when Arabs west of the Jordan reach 51%, then it's no less wrong today. And that includes "democratic" Jewish sovereignty within the State of Israel proper.
Politically, I think you have it exactly backwards. Palestinian statehood would not defuse the "apartheid" rhetoric; it would only intensify it, but in a different direction. After statehood, Palestinian political efforts will become focused on making Israel a "state of all its citizens" rather than a Jewish state. Israel will be called an apartheid state because of the fact that it's a Jewish state, i.e., because it has a 19-century style Staatvolk.
The "apartheid" threat is serious, and I don't want to discount it. But there are a couple factors which will mitigate it over time. First of all, fewer and fewer people remember the days of apartheid South Africa. Second, as the situation for whites in South Africa continues to degenerate, calls to follow the South Africa model will be less persuasive.
To answer your main question, what is our "happy ending"? There is none. The conflict is tragic in the true sense of the word; it's insoluble, even when one understands its causes and its dynamics. The only "solution" right now is conflict management. But there is hope, in the form of military technology. If Israel is able to develop a real missile/rocket defense system, then unilateral withdrawal will suddenly become a real option. We could, in Martin van Creveld's words, "build a wall so high birds can't fly over it."
If this were to happen, then the West Bank settlements would be dismantled in the blink of an eye, just as the Gaza settlements were. Palestinian statehood would become a real option. Statehood wouldn't end the war, but it would end the occupation. That is a goal desired by a large majority of Israelis, who do not want to occupy Palestinian territory. Please believe me that Israelis do not want to send their children into the army to police a hostile population.
Finally, some questions for Mr. Mearsheimer and others who agree with him.
Once again, I really appreciate the spirit of dialogue in which Mr. Mearsheimer's post was written.