-
Best Defense
Robots: Killing Our Warrior Spirit?
-
The Cable
Whistleblower: I'm Being Bullied By State Dept.
-
Passport
Syria: Is It the Sunnis' or Shiites' Fault?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - 4:04 PM
Share
Former (future?) GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee has been on a visit to Israel this week, sponsored by a pro-settler organization. According to the Associated Press, Huckabee said "'there is no room for a Palestinian state' in the middle of the Jewish homeland, and Israel should be able to build settlements wherever it wants." He also said "The question is should the Palestinians have a place to call their own? Yes, I have no problem with that. Should it be in the middle of the Jewish homeland? That's what I think has to be honestly assessed as virtually unrealistic."
Given that current demographic trends suggest that Arabs will be a majority in the lands currently controlled by Israel in the not-too-distant future, Huckabee is either endorsing ethnic cleansing or calling for the permanent denial of democratic rights to the Arab residents of the Occupied Territories, which is a form of apartheid. Either way, he is no friend of Israel, and the policies he's endorsing will do great damage to US interests throughout the region.
I thought about writing at length about Huckabee's trip, but Glenn Greenwald, Richard Silverstein, and Spencer Ackerman already did, and I doubt I could improve on their insights. So I suggest you read them instead.
DAVID FURST/AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:OBAMA AND THE ISRAEL LOBBY, MIDDLE EAST, HUMAN RIGHTS, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, RELIGION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
"...endorsing ethnic cleansing or calling for the permanent denial of democratic rights to the Arab residents of the Occupied Territories, which is a form of apartheid."
Maybe not, Right of Relocation of the most literate Arabs ever on the face of the earth (with a penchant for voting in open and transparent elections) to any of the 22 members of Arab League would be an immense realignment of strategic proportions.
The Arab countries would never go for it.
They treat their Palestinians worse than the Israelis do.
Look at the camps they keep them in.
In Lebanon, they live under apartheid.
Look at how moderate Jordan is revoking the rights of Palestinians in their country.
While their treatment is despicable, other Arab countries hardly treat Palestinians "worse" than Israelis by any subjective measure.
Or do you mean OTHER than the military assualts on densly packed civilian populations?
Would Arab League really have a choice?
After all - pitiful despotries who lose every war they fight, fake any elections they have and provide nearly zero services for their own people would have precious little to counter such a deal.
OTOH, Arab League has much to atone for - like the "3 No's of Khartoum" and the nigh constant state of war - hot, cold or asymmetrical they have collectively aided and abetted for 6 decades against Little Satan - a democratic member of UN.
While Little Satan haters seem to lust to see Merkava panzers driving hapless Palestinians into the sea ala ethnic cleansing or creation of an apartheid state - Right of Relocation would solve far more problems than it would create.
Plus it would also have the happy benefit of allowing Arab League to create the solution rather than advocate failed, tired staus quo.
On its own merits - despite the inevitable barrage of the Israel vs. Palestinian comments sure to come - can we talk about how insane Huckabee's pronouncements are?
Did Huckabee detail where he thought the "Jewish Homeland"
is? Is it all of Eretz Yisrael?
Regardless of whether you support a one state or two state solution, if Huckabee is taken seriously as a candidate in 2012 the US will lose whatever is left of its legitimacy as an actor in the Arab world (and beyond). Insane.
I agree that Huckabee is a complete idiot, but your continued use of the term "Apartheid" makes you just as much an extremist as he is.
Consider these in reference to the time before the end of Apartheid.
1. Did other African countries invade South Africa three times to kill or expel all the white South Africans? No.
2. Did Mandela order buses and restaurants full of white South Africans to be blown up? No.
3. Did Mandela order white South African Olympians to be gunned down in cold blood? No.
4. Did Mandela order thousands of Rockets to be fired into white South African towns? No.
5. Was Mandela offered peace several times and turned it down because it didn't lead to the expulsion or murder of all white South Africans? No.
6. Was a black South African ever on the Supreme Court of South Africa? No.
The Palestinians are a people AT WAR with Israel not Israeli citizens. The use of the term Apartheid is as much a barrier to peace as Huchabee's idiocy.
This is a totally disingenuous argument.
While I concede the term apartheid has been used poorly in the discourse surrounding this conflict it has been used most explicitly - and for good reason - to describe the institutional structures of the Israeli Occupation. For instance: the separate roads for Israelis, the separate citizenship and identity cards for Palestinians, the separation wall itself...
When comparing the experiences of Palestinians with those of South Africans - or of one population with another - history will never line up the way you have suggested it should.
Now TheWestBank is being disingenuous
Apartheid is a system of race based laws.
Of course people outside of Israel have separate citizenship and consequently the attending paper work. That is the established rule around world.
Further and more to the point, I don't recall the US, Europeans or Soviets giving Japanese or Germans citizenship en masse in their respective countries, following their wars of Aggression and the subsequent occupation.
As for the separation you allude to it is based primarily on SECURITY not race.
But I am certain TheWestBank already knows all of this.
Well...
Israel DOES have separate, race based laws: the Law of Return, for instance. Then there is the “Citizenship and Entry into Israel” Law that has been criticized by foreign governments and NGOs for specifically discriminating against Israeli Arabs.
As for not granting citizenship to Palestinians under Occupation I’m only being disingenuous if I concede that the military occupation is somehow temporary. Israel continues to collect taxes annually from Palestinians in the West Bank yet refuses to govern or officially annex the territory beyond their ever expanding settlements. Post war examples are thus hardly appropriate. The longest military occupation you suggest as an apt comparison is the American occupation of Japan that lasted 7 years (Germany was occupied for 4 years). The Israeli Occupation of the West Bank has lasted 42 years.
And finally, yes, you are right – any discriminatory actions such as the ethnic separation between races are purely for “security” and nothing more. A favorite conceit of you on the right.
Jews are not a race. It is a nationality and it is on this basis the right of return is applied. Israel the same as every other sovereign nation has the absolute right to qualify it's citizenship and Immigration laws.
If "Right of Return" is your barometer for Apartheid then equally Greece, S. Korea, Japan, Germany as example of countries with right of return laws are Apartheid states.
Everyone in Israel as a matter of the Law is equal in the abstract. Like many countries certainly the US chief among them although they frequently fail to live up to that Ideal it in no way means they are Apartheid states.
As for my being on the right? I can't even begin to guess how far left you are to come to such a conclusion.
The states you have listed do not have "return laws" that deny applicability to the indigenous community of the land on which those states now exist. THAT is what makes Israel a special case.
Everyone in Israel is NOT equal in the law - even in the abstract.
By examining the specialized vocabulary that American journalists apply to the conflict over Palestine, Saree Makdisi's article entitled The language that absolves Israel ventures into territory already explored by Victor Klemperer's Lingua Tertii Imperii.
Klemperer's perceptive analysis of the language of Third Reich depended on his specialized linguistic skills and carefully controlled anger that helped him avoid slipping into reflexively Nazified though-patterns. In contrast, Makdisi like all Americans constantly bombarded by Zionist propaganda suffers to some extent from mental colonization, for he writes:
In the U.S., discussion of Palestinian politicians and political movements often relies on a spectrum running from "extreme" to "moderate." The latter sounds appealing; the former clearly applies to those who must be -- must they not? -- beyond the pale. But hardly anyone relying on such terms pauses to ask what they mean. According to whose standard are these manifestly subjective labels assigned?
Meanwhile, Israeli politicians are labeled according to an altogether different standard: They are "doves" or "hawks." Unlike the terms reserved for Palestinians, there's nothing inherently negative about either of those avian terms.
So why is no Palestinian leader referred to here as a "hawk"? Why are Israeli politicians rarely labeled "extremists"? Or, for that matter, "militants"?
Makdisi should have pointed out that the logic of supporting a Zionist territorial claim based on the etymological connection of the word Jew with the word Judea would give Irish Roman Catholics the right to steal and ethnically cleanse Rome because the word Roman is morphologically derived from the word Rome. In other words, Zionism is so extreme that it is psychotic, and the failure of Americans to show any awareness of inherent Zionist extremism strips the term extreme of any meaning in US political discourse.
Makdisi complains that US news reports invariably identify Israeli colonies in the Occupied Territories as settlements or even neighborhoods. In this case, the Hebrew media is more honest. During the British Mandatory period, the Zionist movement dispatched European Jews to establish hityashvuiot (settler-colonies) on land purchased by the Jewish Agency in Palestine. Today Israel as a nominally independent state within the Zionist imperial system seizes or steals land to establish its own hitnaheluyot (squatter-colonies) within Occupied Palestine.
Standard colonialist discourse associates settler-colonies with a colonial motherland, which dispatches colonists to regions under imperial control. In the case of Zionism, the British government was not dispatching its own citizens to colonize Palestine and does not fit the role of a traditional colonial motherland.
Identifying the colonial motherland requires understanding of the politics of historic Poland. The Polish government from the medieval to early modern period treated different ethnic groups functionally in a sort of caste system and gave them full autonomy as long as they fulfilled their designated role. Polish Armenians had a governing council called the Voit while in principle the Council of the Four Lands, to which the most important Jewish communities (kehillot) sent delegates, ruled Polish Jewry from the 16th until the 18th century when the Jewish Council failed to meet its tax obligations.
Thus Eastern European Jews or ethnic Ashkenazim had the habit of a sort of virtual state system. After Commonwealth Poland was divided between Prussian, Russia, and Austria, ethnic Ashkenazim developed transnational politics.
In historic Poland Jews had wealth, power, and status almost comparable to the szlachta (gentry). In divided Poland, Jews were a marginal population in the hinterlands of great empires. Jewish disaffection grew, and a small group within the Russian Jewish intelligentsia began to dream of creating its own empire by mobilizing Western European Jewish wealth for a colonial enterprise that would send lower class Russian Jews to Palestine and that Jewish intellectuals would direct from European capitals.
Even though practically no Western Jews had any interest in immigrating to Palestine and even though working class Russian Jews were much more interested in revolution than in colonialism, Zionist colonialist ideas were far from ridiculous. There were more Yiddish Jews than there were Danes or Croats while Western European Jewish wealth and effective GDP were far larger than those of Denmark, which was running a fairly respectable colonial empire at the time. With or without awareness the Zionist movement was proposing a low budget colonial empire that would be run from a virtual colonial motherland among the Jews of Central and Western Europe.
The Austrian journalist Theodor Herzl and his fellow Congress or Political Zionists found an effective marketing strategy in using the Dreyfus Affair to scaremonger wealthy Western Jews with fears of imminent pogroms at the same time Congress Zionism created a sort of liberal enlightened national Jewish identity that could substitute for the traditional religious faith and sacred law on which the Jewish networks of trust so strongly depended. Such networks of trust gave Jews immense competitive advantage in both business and finance as well as more recently in both the arts and academia.
Because all major European states encompassed multiple ethnic or national groups at the time of Herzl, the Congress Zionist concept of liberal Jewish national identity made sense in the Old World context.
Because citizenship and nationality are congruent in the USA, the famous German American Jewish lawyer Louis Brandeis developed and proselytized a form of Congress Zionism stripped of the idea of a separate Jewish national identity as a way of bringing liberal Enlightenment values to immigrant Yiddish Jews in order to Americanize the newest segment of the US Jewish population.
Thus, Brandeis originated the form of Zionist ideology that is called Refugeeism and that was compatible with the philanthropic politics that German American Jews practiced, that still characterizes the American Jewish community, and that expresses itself at its most hypocritical in the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Save Darfur movement.
More or less simultaneously with Brandeis’ conversion, the Zionist movement brought wealthy members of the British Rothschild family into the fold. There was a strong element of economic self-interest in the Rothschild Zionization because the British Rothschilds desperately wanted to invest in Mesopotamian oil. Members of the family could easily discern a value both to dismembering the Ottoman Empire and also to creating a Jewish colony in Palestine to which a pipeline from Mesopotamia could be directed.
The Zionist members of Rothschild family influenced some of the chief families of the Cousinhood of the wealthiest British Jewish to become Zionists. The combined Jewish wealth fairly quickly brought forth the Balfour Declaration possibly in part as an exchange for information about the Zimmerman Note that so enraged the US Congress and that brought the USA into WW1 on the side of France and Britain against Germany.
In effect by the end of WW1 and in the context of ethnic Ashkenazi transnational and virtual state politics, the Zionist intellegentsia had mobilized some of the most important members of the Cousinhood to help create the Zionist Virtual Colonial Motherland or Judonia, which effectively partnered with the British government to create settler colonies (hityashvuiot) in Mandatory Palestine. Eventually, Judonia's center of gravity moved to the USA, where its public face is commonly known as the Israel Lobby.
Because Zionism crystallized in late 19th and early 20th century Central and Eastern Europe, Zionist ideology incorporates both
- German völkisch nationalist concepts of Volk (race), Gegenvolk (anti-race), Nichtvolk (non-race), or Bevölkerung (population), and also
- Slavic extremist organic nationalist concepts of ????? (naród, nation) and ?????????? (narodno??, nationality).
Zionist Hebrew vocabulary exhibits the full range of völkisch and extremist organic nationalist concepts in am (race), leom (nation), neged-am (anti-race), i-am (non-race), leumanut (nationality), and ukhlasiyah (population).
From the standpoint of Zionist ideology Palestinians stand in more or less the same position as Jews do in German Nazi ideology. Hence it has been common for Zionists to argue that Palestinians only define themselves negatively in opposition to Zionism (i.e., as an anti-race) while other Zionists like Golda Meir would deny that Palestinians constituted a genuine people (i.e., they represented a non-race) but are rather a piece of the Arab nation, to wit, a nationality (narodno??), that should be absorbed into the Arab nation (naród) outside of Israel. The approach is similar to that of some Serb politicians, who wanted Albanian Kosovars to leave Kosovo in order to live in Albania.
In addition, just as there were occasionally liberal Nazis, who did view Jewry as a real Volk, there are now and then liberal Zionists, who accept the concept of a Palestinian people but would use some sort of binational subterfuge in order to avoid granting Palestinians full citizenship rights in the Israeli state. Binyamin Netanyahu does not belong to this Zionist subset. He is probably closest to the German Nazis, who viewed conquered Poles as members of a Bevölkerung (population) with no rights within the German Reich except existence as long as they groveled sufficiently. In Netanyahu's conceptualization the Palestinian "state" serves as a formal structure of control for the Palestinian Bevölkerung.
The above description is only half the picture of the Zionist or American Jewish mentality that characterizes American journalism.
From the standpoint of Zionist propaganda,
- which most Zionists typically believe with no reservations and
- with which the organized Jewish community, the Israel Lobby, and institutions of the US government like the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum indoctrinate the American public,
Palestinians are surrogate German Nazis against whom any form of terrorism or atrocity may be committed as retribution for the Holocaust, and Zionist authors produce a tremendous amount of literature to prove that Palestinian, Arab and Muslim leaders of the 30s and 40s were Nazis.
Even though this idea is patently ridiculous on many grounds, as Arabs say, "???? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????" ("Throw mud at a wall. If it does not stick, it leaves a stain.")
Thus, while Makdisi provides a useful service by identifying the presence of Zionist ideological and propaganda terminology in the US media, it is just the barest start of the struggle to tear up the Zionist web of control over America.
Because Zionist subversion is so strong, an effective strategy should probably focus on compelling the US government to enforce its own Israel-Lobby-inspired anti-terrorism laws by declaring the IDF to be a terrorist organization as the recent Gaza Rampage clearly shows it to be. Then the FBI will be obliged to round up racist Jewish Zionist terrorism-supporters so that they can be charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced each to at least 65 years in prison with concomitant seizure of all assets.
In addition, as long as Zionists are flinging epithets like Islamofascism, pointing out the congruence of large components of Zionist and German Nazi ideology is completely appropriate. In fact, even if Zionists refrain from name-calling, identifying Zionism as ethnic Ashkenazi Nazism is still unequivocally appropriate because it is true.
Because of the disproportionate influence of Zionist Jews in American culture, society and economics, Nazi ideas derived from Zionism have become a living force in American politics and made it possible for Neocons acting as a Jewish special interest to manipulate the USA into cutting a swath of destruction from the Sudan through Pakistan. In the process they wrecked the fractional reserve banking system and created the potential for blow-back that will make 9/11 look penny ante. To save the USA Zionism must be purged not only from our newspapers but also from our culture, from our society, from our economy, and from our politics. There is no other way.
Let's correct the story:
1. Did the other African countries send in troops to stop the Afrikaners from using state terror to expel the indigenous people? No.
2. Did Mandela order ANC militiamen and terrorists to execute in cold blood the inhabitants of Afrikaner villages so that the ANC could seize the land? No.
3. Did Mandela order the bombing of hotels and markets to encourage the Afrikaners to leave? No.
4. Did Mandela order his air force to drop 2-ton bombs on residential apartment buildings? No.
5. Did Mandela start wars of conquest in 1947, 1956, 1967, 1980, and 2006? No.
6. Did Mandela ever offer "peace" proposals he knew the Afrikaners could not accept, that he meant the Afrikaners to reject, that his own foreign minister said were shams, and then blame the Afrikaners for not accepting? No.
7. Did Mandela's Supreme Court ever rule that Afrikaners' home could be seized without compensation, that Afrikaners could be tortured, and that collective punishment of Afrikaners was legal? No.
8. Did Mandela ever say that 9/11 was good for South Africa? No.
9. Did Mandela ever order the South African Air Force to attack US Navy ships, killing 34, wounding 175, while strafing life rafts? No.
The Israels have been at war with the Palestinians since 1947. The Israelis have created a system that categorizes its inhabitants by race, segregates people by race, and grants people differing legal rights solely on the basis of race. THAT is apartheid.
I am not saying there is no reason to criticize Israel. Anyone is free to hate Israel, but it is not and will never be Apartheid.
Extremists call the Palestinians a death cult worshiping suicide, but this also would be utterly false. Extremist propaganda like Walt's only hurts the chances peace by hardening positions against compromise by dehumanizing the other side.
Also, the things you cite do have genuine safety reasons for them.
The separate roads are so the Israelis are not killed by snipers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Shalhevet_Pass
The separation "wall" (95% of it is not wall) has completely eliminated suicide bombing from the west bank. The barrier has been moved by order of the Israeli Supreme court to reduce the burden on Palestinians.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-09/2007-09-04-voa20.cfm?moddate=2007-09-04
Palestinians are not citizens of Israel so, of course, they have separate ID cards just as Americans and Iraqis have different ID cards.
Arab residents of East Jerusalem can become Israeli citizens, but most have chosen not to.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/24962.html
Over a million Israeli Arabs have full citizenship. There are Arab members of the Israeli legislature and an Arab Supreme Court justice.
The Israelis and Palestinians are two separate peoples who are at war. If Israeli Arabs (who have full legal rights) had no rights then Walt would be correct.
History doesn't have to line up perfectly, but in this case it doesn't line up at all.
Huckabee's "Jewish homeland". Where is that?
"Huckabee is either endorsing ethnic cleansing or calling for the permanent denial of democratic rights to the Arab residents of the Occupied Territories, which is a form of apartheid. Either way, he is no friend of Israel, and the policies he's endorsing will do great damage to US interests throughout the region".
Forgive me if I have missed the point here but with those comments from Huckabee, how is he not a total friend of Israel. He wants no other solution than an Israeli-oriented solution, more of the same. As for damaging US interests in the region, I would appreciate, like thousands of others, knowing what those current interests are supposed to be. Has anyone in the Obama administration come out and clearly enunciated the US objectives for the Middle East. The visit to Washington by Mubarak will serve little purpose as he has hardly been an independent voice in his part of the world.
But let's go through the motions. This does seem to be the name of the game; consult, but do nothing. Hard to offend anyone with that plan. Ultimately, it will be the AIPAC members who will decide until that becomes identified as an organisation representing a foreign country which it is, quite clearly.
This insidious influence has made the US a laughing stock in the world. The slippery, oversubsidised foreign tail wagging the big US, but toothless dog!
I'm more surprised someone didn't ask Hucka-bust a follow-up question along the lines of "Where do you want them re-located?", just to see him squirm a bit and try to dodge the fact that he may have called for ethnic cleansing.
In any case, none of this is surprising. Huckabee is a good-standing member of the evangelical Right, who by and large are devout supporters of Israel. I'd be more surprised if he actually had expressed something like a balanced, reasonable position.
Now TheWestBank is being disingenuous
Apartheid is a system of race based laws.
Of course people outside of Israel have separate citizenship and consequently the attending paper work. That is the established rule around world.
Further and more to the point, I don't recall the US, Europeans or Soviets giving Japanese or Germans citizenship en masse in their respective countries, following their wars of Aggression and the subsequent occupation.
As for the separation you allude to it is based on SECURITY not race.
But I am certain TheWestBank already knows all of this.
Here is what demonizing Israel with outlandish words like Apartheid leads to: ratcheting up worse and worse lies. Remember it's just anti-Israel not anti-semetic.
Swedish newspaper says Israelis harvesting Palestinian organs.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1108604.html
The link to this article in FP.com main page states "Huckabee would evict Jesus from the Holy Land". How do comments about Arabs apply to a Jew for the Galilee?
systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group
Israelis and Palestinians are nationalities not racial groups hence, by your own definition, it is not and can never be Apartheid.
The Israelis are at war with the Palestinians which is why my post above (quoted below) shows why it is not in any way Apartheid.
I am not saying there is no reason to criticize Israel. Anyone is free to hate Israel, but it is not and will never be Apartheid.
Extremists call the Palestinians a death cult worshiping suicide, but this also would be utterly false. Extremist propaganda like Walt's only hurts the chances peace by hardening positions against compromise by dehumanizing the other side.
Also, the things you cite do have genuine safety reasons for them.
The separate roads are so the Israelis are not killed by snipers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Shalhevet_PassThe separation "wall" (95% of it is not wall) has completely eliminated suicide bombing from the west bank. The barrier has been moved by order of the Israeli Supreme court to reduce the burden on Palestinians.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-09/2007-09-04-voa20.cfm?moddate=2007-09-04Palestinians are not citizens of Israel so, of course, they have separate ID cards just as Americans and Iraqis have different ID cards.
Arab residents of East Jerusalem can become Israeli citizens, but most have chosen not to.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/24962.htmlOver a million Israeli Arabs have full citizenship. There are Arab members of the Israeli legislature and an Arab Supreme Court justice.
The Israelis and Palestinians are two separate peoples who are at war. If Israeli Arabs (who have full legal rights) had no rights then Walt would be correct.
History doesn't have to line up perfectly, but in this case it doesn't line up at all.
You sound pathetic, desperate and without conscience or moral grounding as you try to use semantic gymnastics to cover state sanctioned, ongoing crimes against humanity.
How can I respond to such a well reasoned argument. Such "a ballanced view".
If you don't think that moving Israeli citizens ACROSS their internationally recognized borders onto the land of another people, forcibly removing those people with violent measures and constantly pushing further and further outside of their rightful homes while simultaneously subjecting them to a rightless and stateless condition is not apartheid and ethnic cleansing, then what would you call it, and do you find it an acceptable practice? Where else in the world is such a thing currently occurring in a manner that you would endorse as acceptable, or is this something that only Israel is allowed to do without consequence?
Look, I am in favor of not keeping 90% of the settlements and a two state solution, but until an agreement is reached, Israel has the right to defend its own citizens who were being blown up on busses and restaurants. There were no check points in the West Bank and no barrier until the suicide bombings started.
When peace comes I hope almost all the settlements are removed. Some right along the green line will probably stay and those that are not removed should be exchanged for equal amounts of land.
While I am against the settlements, you don't have the right to ignore facts.
Israel is not moving anyone (transfer is the legal term). People chose to move. The law was put in place because the Germans forcibly moved citizens into the Rhineland in Poland in WWII. The law also only applies to moving people to another country (High Contracting Parties). Palestine has never existed as a country. They don't even have a single entity that they internally agree on is their government. No one owns the empty land in the West Bank. The settlements are not sitting on top of Palestinian destroyed towns. You can argue that the settlements are horrible and a huge barrier to peace if you want (I might agree with you on most of the settlements), but the Geneva Convention does not apply.
There is no recognized border. The land right now is disputed. The Palestinians themselves agreed in Oslo that the border was to be negotiated so saying that Israel ends and any future Palestinian state begins at the green line is simply wrong even according to the Palestinians.
The Palestinians have been offered a state many times in 1937, 1948, 2000, 2008 and have rejected it every time because they could not get everything they wanted. Not to mention that the West bank and Gaza were part of Arab countries from 1948-1967 who could have created a Palestinian state at any time. Palestinians are stateless because they and the Arab countries chose them to be. If the Palestinians had wanted a state more than they wanted to destroy Israel, they could have had a state for the last 60 years.
Your outlandish rhetoric serves no purpose. It would be as if I said, "if the Palestinians do not make peace right now, the prove they are simply a death cult who worship suicide bombers and see becoming martyrs by killing Jews as the greatest thing one can do with their lives. Oh, and by the way, I want peace and a two state solution."
You don't have a balanced view whatsoever. You think Israelis want to be in the West Bank? You think they wanted to spend billions to create a barrier to stop suicide bombing. You think they wanted to enter Gaza before the rockets started landing in Israeli towns?
What happened when the Israelis completely withdrew from Gaza and the Gazans had their own international border with Egypt? They burned down the multimillion dollar greenhouses left for them to grow food, used the border to bring weapons in, and fired them at Israeli citizens.
Israeli restrictions on Palestinians are to stop attacks against it. The only reason for Apartheid was the color of people's skin. If you can’t even acknowledge Israel’s legitimate security interest in stopping its citizens from being murdered, then there is nothing more to say.
i cant imagine why.
"Israeli restrictions on Palestinians are to stop attacks..."
and what right did zionists have to terrorize hundreds of thousands of people from their homes and land in the first place?
Look, I am in favor of not keeping 90% of the settlements and a two state solution, but until an agreement is reached, Israel has the right to defend its own citizens who were being blown up on busses and restaurants. There were no check points in the West Bank and no barrier until the suicide bombings started.
If it were just the checkpoints, I'd be more supportive. But the secretive settlement-building belies the "security" justification.
People chose to move.
After their land is confiscated by the Israeli state and given to settlers, or simply taken over by settlers who then ignore Palestinian land titles.
The Palestinians have been offered a state many times in 1937, 1948, 2000, 2008 and have rejected it every time because they could not get everything they wanted.
Are you talking about the ludicrous plans offered in 1937 and 1948 - the ones that would have given the Zionists the majority of the land in spite of the fact that they represented a small minority in terms of both population and landownership, and dumped hundreds of thousands of Arabs into a state with no real say on it? The Palestinians were right to reject both.
The 2000 offer was a waste, but calling it a "state" is generous - the Palestinians would have control over 82% of the land in the West Bank, and eventually over 90% of it (after 5-21 years of Israeli occupation of the Jordan River Valley), with no right to have a military or even control their own borders.
2008 was more of the same.
You don't have a balanced view whatsoever. You think Israelis want to be in the West Bank?
A large enough fraction do that they managed to get Netanyahu picked as PM, and a number of them are still out there, setting up outposts on Palestinian land.
What happened when the Israelis completely withdrew from Gaza and the Gazans had their own international border with Egypt?
Well, there was the total chaos the Israelis left because they couldn't be arsed to coordinate the withdrawal with the PA, followed by their blockade in 2006 against the Hamas government when they didn't like the election results. Next question?
If it were just the checkpoints, I'd be more supportive. But the secretive settlement-building belies the "security" justification."
What secret settlement building? Please elaborate.
After their land is confiscated by the Israeli state and given to settlers, or simply taken over by settlers who then ignore Palestinian land titles.
Any proof of this? There was a report a few months ago by B'tselem that 9 houses in the 3000 person settlement of Ofra were built on land owned by Palestinians, the Israeli courts have ordered them dismantled.
majority of the land in spite of the fact that they represented a small minority in terms of both population and landownership, and dumped hundreds of thousands of Arabs into a state with no real say on it? The Palestinians were right to reject both.
In the part of the Palestine Mandate that became Israel, they were about 50% of the population (remember 90% of the mandate was turned into Transjordan) which doubled within a few years with Jewish refugees driven from Arab countries.
The 2000 offer was a waste, but calling it a "state" is generous - the Palestinians would have control over 82% of the land in the West Bank, and eventually over 90% of it (after 5-21 years of Israeli occupation of the Jordan River Valley), with no right to have a military or even control their own borders.
You are thinking of the understandably rejected Camp David proposal
http://www.imemc.org/attachments/jan2008/campdavid.jpg
instead of the later Taba offer which was 95% percent of the West Bank with 3% more land from Israel, and full control of borders. There wasn't even a counter offer to this proposal. Arafat just unleashed the second intifada.
http://www.mideastweb.org/Rossmap_Dec20000.gif
The Palestinian state would be demilitarized, but that is what happens when you lose wars. (ex: Germany and Japan).
Well, there was the total chaos the Israelis left because they couldn't be arsed to coordinate the withdrawal with the PA, followed by their blockade in 2006 against the Hamas government when they didn't like the election results. Next question?
The only reason they didn't coordinate with the PA is that the PA refused to coordinate with them unless it was part of a final status agreement--which no one thought was happening any time soon. And there wasn't total chaos any more than before the Israelis left. They could have taken the opportunity to better the lives of the people of Gaza, but they chose war.
Bottom line is that Israel has legitimate security interests in what it does. Can you argue they go too far? Sure. But it is not remotely close to a system of laws that discriminates for the sole reason of the color of skin.
What secret settlement building? Please elaborate.
Come on, Dave. Do I really need to say it? How about the way they keep authorizing new housing developments in the West Bank, under the guise of "natural growth"? Or the way they looked the other way on the outposts until Obama starting riding them on it?
Any proof of this? There was a report a few months ago by B'tselem that 9 houses in the 3000 person settlement of Ofra were built on land owned by Palestinians, the Israeli courts have ordered them dismantled.
You might want to follow-up and see if they actually were dismantled.
In the part of the Palestine Mandate that became Israel, they were about 50% of the population (remember 90% of the mandate was turned into Transjordan) which doubled within a few years with Jewish refugees driven from Arab countries.
And owned, what, 4% of the land, primarily concentrated in three urban areas? You have to actually look at the ratio of land owned by Arabs versus land owned by the Jews Israel was ostensibly created for to really get an idea of how ludicrous the division was. The Zionists received vast tracts of lands, particularly the Negev, in which they possessed only a small fraction of the land in question. To make it worse, hundreds of thousands of Arabs were dumped into Israel's territory with no say on their part due to the 1947 Partition.
instead of the later Taba offer which was 95% percent of the West Bank with 3% more land from Israel, and full control of borders. There wasn't even a counter offer to this proposal. Arafat just unleashed the second intifada.
I said 82% because, if I recall correctly, Barak wanted a security presence in the Jordan River Valley from anywhere from 5 to 21 years after the proposal went through. The area would eventually become part of Palestine, or at least that was the idea.
As for Arafat, well, the man cared about his political survival first and foremost - he saw what happened to Anwar Sadat. He did some good things for the Palestinians, but was generally a coward when it came down to it.
The Palestinian state would be demilitarized, but that is what happens when you lose wars. (ex: Germany and Japan).
Post-war Germany and Japan were occupied. If you're going to claim that the new Palestine would be operating under occupation rules, then don't pretend it's really an independent state.
They aren't de-militarized now (and there was limited militarization allowed afterwards), and in any case, both made up for it with being allowed to join a defensive alliance against a greater threat (the Soviets). The latest proposal would have specifically barred the Palestinians from doing so, which, along with the de-militarization, would have left them at the mercy of the Israelis. How stable do you think such an arrangement is, in that neighborhood of all places (where armed militias are ubiquitous and states support them as a tool of statecraft)?
And there wasn't total chaos any more than before the Israelis left. They could have taken the opportunity to better the lives of the people of Gaza, but they chose war.
Was that before or after they slammed down the blockade and rejected the elected government run by a party they had let go forward?
If you actually believe that was what I was saying, you haven't listened to or understood a word I have written so I have nothing more to say on the issue.
Somehow, I doubt that. I'll see you the next time Walt brings up Israel (which shouldn't take too long).*
*Speaking of which, I think our foreign policy experts are too oriented towards the Middle East.
Brett: 'The Palestinians were right to reject a state'
I think history shows otherwise. Even assuming they get everything they were offered in 1947, the intervening 60 years of statelessness and misery would have been avoided. And of course, they will get a worse deal than the one they rejected in 1947.
Huckabee thinks that the Palestinians of the middle east deserve to have the 24th Muslim Arab state in the middle east, just that it shouldn't be in between Jordan and Israel. He is excoriated for this.
On the other side of the coin, does anyone here believe the Jews of the middle east deserved their own state? Brett? Anyone? Or were the Jews of the middle east expected to continue living under truly apartheid systems, literally at the whim of their Muslim Arab governments, which at times had been benign and at other times deeply hostile and hurtful towards their Jewish populations?
And if you think the Jews did deserve to have their own state, where should it have been set up?
Do Jews derserve their own state?
On the other side of the coin, does anyone here believe the Jews of the middle east deserved their own state? Brett? Anyone?
...crickets chirping...
I think history shows otherwise. Even assuming they get everything they were offered in 1947, the intervening 60 years of statelessness and misery would have been avoided.
You're looking at this with hindsight, David. In hindsight, it probably would have been wiser had the Palestinians accepted the Partition in 1947, since they would have had one state that they would have dominated, and another state (Israel) where they would be a significant minority - and could have subverted the situation from there.
But look at it from where they were standing in 1947. They were the dominant group in Mandatory Palestine - they had the majority population, and owned the overwhelming majority of the land there. They were surrounded by Arab states supportive of their claims and extremely skeptical and hostile to the Zionists, who had sworn to invade if the Zionist state declared independence. They had every reason to believe that if push came to shove, they could overwhelm any Zionist state that emerged, so why should they have taken the unfair land partition that emerged?
As I mentioned, they under-estimated the Israeli strength, and over-estimated both the strength of their Arab allies, as well as their motivations (Egypt and Jordan used the occasion to make land grabs rather than go completely for Israel's throat). It's easy to see that they fucked up in hindsight, but understandable when you look at the circumstances that existed at the time.
Huckabee thinks that the Palestinians of the middle east deserve to have the 24th Muslim Arab state in the middle east, just that it shouldn't be in between Jordan and Israel. He is excoriated for this.
As well he should be, since millions of Palestinians live and call that area home, and since there's probably zero chance that Israel is simply going to incorporate the area and all its people as citizens, it's more or less an implicit call for ethnic cleansing.
On the other side of the coin, does anyone here believe the Jews of the middle east deserved their own state? Brett? Anyone?
You're assuming I support the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank out of some belief that the Palestinians have a fundamental "right" to exist there. I don't - I'm tentatively supporting it because it's the least worst option that doesn't involve ethnic cleansing. The best solution would be a series of secular states based on civic nationalism, not religion, race, or ethnicity.
I noticed a particularly egregious error by Professor Stephen Walt (The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy) in a blog entry entitled On Goldberg and Douthat when he writes:
1948: Palestinian Arabs attack nascent Jewish state; several Arab states eventually join in. Zionists/Israelis win, and approximately 700,000 Palestinians are expelled or flee from the new Jewish state.
In point of fact, simultaneously with accepting the November 1947 UN GA Partition Proposal, the Zionist leadership green-lighted the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population and put out a false story through Jewish gatekeepers and facilitators in the US and British newspapers.
From the names of the Zionist military operations, (e.g., biur hametz, burning of the [ritually impure] leaven), I believe mass murder of the native Palestinian population was intended.
While Palestinians remembering the Special Night Squads of the 30s organized defensively, Palestinian leaders, who were in exile or jail, were in no position to accept or reject the proposal, and the Palestinian population adopted a wait and see attitude because the Palestinian leadership had already accepted a 55% Palestinian 45% Jewish population ratio as Rafael Medoff, who is admirer of Jabtinsky as well as a modern Jabotinskian Zionist, points out on pp. 93-94 of his book entitled Baksheesh Diplomacy.
If all 300,000 Jewish DPs had joined the 600,000 Jews already resident, the Palestinian-Jewish division would have been a 57:43 ratio, with which Palestinians had no problem in a single democratic state.
Palestinians simply could not accept a partition of the country
- that divided families and clans,
- that separated farmers from their lands, and
- that put so many Palestinians under the control of Zionists, who had a record of violent bloodthirstiness since the 19-naughts. (See Timeline.)
The Palestinian position was hardly unreasonable. The commonly believed narrative of the Palestinian rejection of the UN Partition Proposal constitutes the Second Great Zionist Fraud. I describe the Primary Zionist Fraud in Every Israel Advocate a Madoff.
You're looking at this with hindsight, David. In hindsight, it probably would have been wiser had the Palestinians accepted the Partition in 1947...
Yes, that is what I was addressing. You didn't qualify it either way (current from 1947 or from today's perspective) when you said it.
The larger point which Dave123 was trying to make was that ultimately, regardless of how understandable the rejection was, it was a decision made by the Palestinians for which they are responsible. It was also a lesson they have not internalized yet.
You're assuming I support the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank out of some belief that the Palestinians have a fundamental "right" to exist there.
No, I'm not. You have been pretty clear that you don't ascribe to that view.
Notably, you are the only person who addressed the question...and you didn't answer it.
If the world were a perfect place, I grant that your wishful thinking solution would be best. But it is nothing more than well-intentioned fantasy. I am more interested in hearing about solutions that take into account the world as it really is.
Brett. Sorry for the confusion. My last post was not directed to you, but to "aballancedview" because of his inability to see any moral distinction between policies based on the color of one's skin and policies based on protecting your citizens from being murdered.
So, I would be glad to continue our discussion.
Come on, Dave. Do I really need to say it? How about the way they keep authorizing new housing developments in the West Bank, under the guise of "natural growth"? Or the way they looked the other way on the outposts until Obama starting riding them on it?
I don't think that any of these are a "secret." No new settlements, but allowable natural growth has always been Israeli policy and was based on an agreement with the US. Since Obama unilaterally changed this agreement, Israel has now agreed to stop contruction for three months to see if there will be any reciprocation. However, it is literally impossible to permanently stop construction in towns with tens of thousands of people in them. Any human civilization just doesn't work that way. You are completely correct, however, that the outposts should be destroyed as no new settlements are allowed by the Israeli government.
And owned, what, 4% of the land, primarily concentrated in three urban areas? You have to actually look at the ratio of land owned by Arabs versus land owned by the Jews Israel was ostensibly created for to really get an idea of how ludicrous the division was. The Zionists received vast tracts of lands, particularly the Negev, in which they possessed only a small fraction of the land in question. To make it worse, hundreds of thousands of Arabs were dumped into Israel's territory with no say on their part due to the 1947 Partition.
Before the end of WWI almost all of the land in what is now Israel was owned by absentee Ottoman or Egyptian landowners called Effendi. When the Ottoman Empire lost in WWI and ceased to exist all Ottoman land in what became Israel went to the British Mandate for Palestine. 70% of the land that became Israel was owned by the Mandate, 9% was owned by Palestinian Jews, 3% was owned by Palestinian Arabs living in the area and 18% was still owned by absentee Egyptian landowners. Add to that all the land stolen from the 850,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries and the division looks more than equitable.
I said 82% because, if I recall correctly, Barak wanted a security presence in the Jordan River Valley from anywhere from 5 to 21 years after the proposal went through. The area would eventually become part of Palestine, or at least that was the idea.
As I said before, an easy mistake to make between the Camp David and Taba proposals. The Taba proposal was for a few small emergency monitoring stations (which the Palestinians accepted), but no troops at all.
As for Arafat, well, the man cared about his political survival first and foremost - he saw what happened to Anwar Sadat. He did some good things for the Palestinians, but was generally a coward when it came down to it.
This kind of brings us to the crux of the whole matter. The Palestinians do not have leaders capable of making peace even if they wanted to because they do not even have close to a unified government. In fact, there is a civil war going on between Fatah and Hamas.
Now, a counterargument by Palestinian supporters might be, Netanyahu is too beholden to Israel's right wing to make peace either. But Israel is a real democracy and if there is a real compromise peace deal on the table he will get voted out office if he doesn't accept it.
Post-war Germany and Japan were occupied. If you're going to claim that the new Palestine would be operating under occupation rules, then don't pretend it's really an independent state.
At Taba, the PA negotiators agreed that Palestine would be a state with limited arms per Bill Clinton's proposal.
Was that before or after they slammed down the blockade and rejected the elected government run by a party they had let go forward?
Hamas' war with Israel started far before the elections. Just because the Palestinians elected Hamas, doesn't mean Israel had to be nice to them. The Palestinians had their chance to vote for a government who wants peace, but they voted for a government devoted to war. They are responsible for the consequences of their choices.
If Osama bin Laden was elected president of Mexico and vowed again to destroy the US, would the US simply say "oh well, he was elected. Guess we will send our congratulations on his election and have him over to the White House for an official state visit."
Insufficient to Call Israel Nazi!
Israel is only a piece of the problem.
The Zionist Virtual Colonial Motherland (or Judonia) orchestrated the colonization of Palestine, the 1947-8 ethnic cleansing/genocide and benefited from both (especially the theft of practically all movable and immovable Palestinian property and assets within Stolen Palestine (pre-1967 Israel):
- Virtual Colonial Motherland as Political Innovation
- Herzl and Normalizing Jewish Power
- Makdisi Overlooks US Journalistic Nazification
Nowadays, the Israel Lobby is the public face of the Zionist Virtual Colonial Motherland, which runs a vast imperial system, in which the State of Israel is the keystone or linchpin and the United States of America is an intimidated and dependent client state: [Stephen Walt] Obama meets the Lobby.
So far the USA has spent $5-6 trillion in maintaining the Zionist state in Stolen and Occupied Palestine and subsidizes the State of Israel to the tune of $60-100 billion per year.
As a client state within the Zionist imperial system, obviously the USA is subordinate to the will of Zionist plutocracy and intelligentsia (the Cacocracy) and cannot possibly be restored to political and economic health until the Zionist political-economic vampire is staked through the heart by means of:
- clawing back approximately $5-6 trillion from Judonia,
- purging Zionist subversives from all positions of responsibility within the USA,
- putting all supporters of Zionist terrorism in jail under anti-terrorism laws, and
- removing or obliterating the criminal Zionist conglomeration of racist, murderous, genocidal invaders, interlopers, thieves, and usurpers from Stolen and Occupied Palestine as is required under post-WW2 Nuremberg Law and the International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
According to AJC statistics 80% of American Jews are either Zionists or support Zionism and are therefore either Nazis or Nazi-supporters. America is dying because Jewish Nazis permeate the political, legal, economic, financial, cultural and academic elite. The USA can only be saved by purging Jewish Zionist subversives as supporters of Zionist terrorism.
Pretty weak shot there comping Little Satan fans to NSDAP. Most Americans support Little Satan because she is the only cat in that particular hood that is well - the most like us.
A tolerant, egalitarian society with a penchant for open, transparent periodic elections, a nat'l treasury under public scrutiny, a military under civie command, an idependent judiciary under elected gov oversight and a free press.
Baby Jesus, M'hammed or Moses aside.
Also Palestinian Sympathy Fatigue is still in full swing in Great Satan -- mainly because of the Strip's reaction to 911 -- passing out laffy taffy and having a great time celebrating the incineration of innocents 1,000's of miles away
Zionism, Fascism, Nazism for Dummies
Often I state definitions of Nazism and fascism in order to relate these ideologies to Zionism, but I have not done such a good job of explaining the ideological details clearly and simply. Except for confusing fascism with Nazism, Shingo recently described the ideological congruence of (Jabotinskian) Zionism with German Nazism almost to perfection in a recent comment on Mondoweiss:
- Zionism is indeed a political/secular philosophy and movement.
- Israel absolutely exalts nation and ethnicity above the individual, no question. Can anyone say, right of return? Israel is never described a state of individuals, but a collective belonging to the Jewish people and thereby qualifying the rights of individuals as secondary.
- Israel is a militaristic state, where the military lives by it’s own rules. The government is indeed centralized. One need only read the charter of all political parties to realize they are one and the same.
- Israel does not have an autocratic leader but does exercise severe economic and social regimentation as well as forcible suppression of opposition, in this care, the Arab parties.
- Suppression of non-violent opposition? Can anyone say Gaza, Fatah? Does shooting demonstrators not qualify as suppression of non-violent opposition?
- Politicized ethnic fundamentalism is rampant and unambiguous. All political parties are unanimously dedicated to the maintaining of Jewish state and to only recognizing the right of return of Jews. As the saying goes, the right are unabashed about wanting to remove the Arabs. The left will agree as long as the buses are air conditioned.
- Extremist organic nationalism is blatantly obvious. Israel has moved so far to the right that it will soon pop up on the left.
- Whether there are Jews of every race is irrelevant because Israel practices racial and bigoted discrimination against non-Jews.
- Social Darwinism might not have been a component of Zionism, but it has become embedded in Zionist ideology. [Actually both Herzl and Max Nordau were unabashed social Darwinists.]
- Biological determinism is a component of Zionism because rights (and presumptive character) of individuals are ideological determined according to birthright. Over half of the Jewish population in Israel believes the marriage of a Jewish woman to an Arab man is equal to national treason.
- Essentialism is the very foundation of Zionism. It is the belief that Jews are unique and as such, will never be accepted into wider society.
- Primordialism. Most Jews are not related in any way to the Biblical Israelites but are in fact the descendants of relatively recent converts to the religion.
- Perverted eugenic theory is indeed a fundamental aspect of Zionism. Zionism is based on the belief that all Jews and the descendants of Biblical Israelites even though the claim is founded in scientic impossibility [and explicitly contradicted by the Bible in the Book of Esther.]
- Opposition to race mixing: Over half of the Jewish population in Israel believes the marriage of a Jewish woman to an Arab man is equal to national treason. Many if not most Jewish Zionists believe that Jews who intermarry are self-hating Jews.
- If there is any state that exemplifies the belief in national revival through racial purity, Israel is it. Israel believes a piece of land belongs to Jews, which only makes sense in the context of Jews being genetically related to one another and descended from Biblical Israelites.
If German Nazism is substituted for Zionism, if German Aryan is substitued for Jew, if the German State is substituted for Israel, if Jew is substituted for Arab, and if ancient Teutons is substituted for Biblical Israelites, the above analysis applies almost exactly to German Nazism. [Note that Hitler was not nearly as autocratic as Western historiography tends to depict him especially because the obvious contemporary comparison would be the far more autocratic Joseph Stalin.]
In contrast, fascism, which is a revision of Marxism, attempts to demonstrate that class conflict can be transcended via national revival. In fascist thinking, the nation need not be defined according to racist or voelkisch principles, but when it is (especially in the German context), the precise terminology is Volkssocialism, and Chaim Arlosoroff expounded the fascist principles of Labor Zionism in book entitled Der juedische Volkssozialismus. The Strasser faction of German Nazism could also be described as Volkssocialist. The Zionist political scientist Zeev Sternhell dishonestly identifies Labor Zionism as national socialism, which he distinguishes from Nationalist Socialism or Nazism, in order to obscure its true voelkisch racist fascist of Volkssocialist nature.
The definitions of fascism and Nazism can be applied to the basic Zionist political categories as follows:
- Herzlian or Congress Zionism (both political and cultural): voelkisch (proto-Nazi) theoretically racist Imperialist — reformulated in the USA by Brandeis as Refugeeism.
- Labor Zionism: properly identified as voelkisch or racist fascism (Volksocialism) and comparable to the Nazism of the German Nazi Strasser faction.
- Jabotinskian/Revisionist Zionist: historically comparable to the spectrum from mainstream to extreme Right German Nazism with the Zionist version in many ways far more extreme and irrational — especially today.
- Voelkisch occult mystical Zionists: comparable to a minor current of thought within the German Nazi movement.
Today mainstream American Zionism, which developed from Refugeeist Zionism, is a full-fledged form of Nazism with an important currents of voelkisch occult mystical Nazism while J-Street and American Friends of Peace Now as remnants of Labor Zionist fascism represent a minor insignificant internal opposition to Jabotinskian Zionist Nazism.
Not Concerned about Palestinians
I am chiefly concerned with the damage that Zionist subversion does to the American political, economic, and legal system:
- Freeman, American Naiveté, Israel Lobby
- Jewish Financial Aggression, Worldwide Economic Nakba
- MSM Monitor: Mun Murder Cover-Up Complete
Obviously, I am not the only person becoming disgusted with Zionist subversion of American society: Shocker: Number of Americans Who Say U.S. should support Israel drops from 71% to 44% in one year.
I point out in Jewish Peril: 1933 Versus 2009:
Zionists have proven to be much smarter Nazis for they have built their thousand year Reich as a virtual state entity and have piggy-backed on US power and influence since 1947 in an effort to conquer not merely territory but to thoroughly colonize the minds of their Western victims, who are being lead like sheep to some sort of apocalyptic slaughter in confrontation with the Islamic world.
In comparison with the Jewish Zionist peril of 2009, the real albeit anti-Semitically tainted Jewish peril of the 20s and 30s, the German Nazi threat during the 30s, and the post-WW2 Communist Menace all fade into insignificance.
Joachim,
Thank you for finally saying out loud what pro palestinian supporters really think. You are clearly an inspiration to Professor Walt and all of those who oppose the Israel lobby.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(39)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE