From The Changing Agenda of Israeli Sociology, Theory, Ideology and Identity by Uri Ram
Book Review by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)
[Originally published on Monday, Nov 3, 2003 -- republished because of the debate over the proposed UK boycott of Israeli academia]:

Even though this relatively short book (207 pages) is quite lucid in comparison with sociological papers, the text is probably tough reading for the non-sociologist. The first chapters that discuss the initially dominant functional school of sociology are probably the hardest, but they contain useful information. In particular, the discussion supports the contention that Israeli academia does not constitute a system of higher learning in any real sense but plays the role of a system of higher propaganda. The material in these chapters provides support for the boycott of Israeli academics because they are mostly not scholars but serve Zionist aggression and racism on the intellectual front.

The chapter on the sociology of elitism identifies the intellectual origins of the Israeli polity in Eastern Europe and bolsters the contention that Israel is a formal democracy that combines characteristics of inter bellum Poland and other Eastern European states of that time period with aspects of the Soviet organizational model. Americans often have difficulty grasping this point that Israel is only an apparent democracy because they are unfamiliar with Eastern European pseudodemocratic posturing.

From Max Blumenthal: Feelin the Hate in Tel Aviv (Huffington Post pulls the plug, again) by Philip Weiss:

If Hartman chooses to review the sequel [to Blumenthal's video], I hope he will explain how he has so stringently avoided any exposure to the crude racism, bellicose nationalism and anti-democratic sentiments I heard expressed on a daily basis by young, seemingly cosmopolitan Jewish Israelis during the month I spent living in the so-called “bubble city” of Tel Aviv. Or perhaps Hartman has been exposed to it, but believes racism in Tel Aviv must be concealed from the goyim to avoid tribal humiliation. Harvard University Yiddish literature professor Ruth Wisse has promoted this mentality, telling a group of young Jewish journalists in 2007 that they should not act as independent-minded critics but rather as “soldiers” for Israel, “armed with pens instead of Uzis," as Eric Alterman recalled.

Obviously, the problem does not lie merely with Israeli government officials, for extremist Jewish academics in the USA often have severe confusion about the role of scholars or journalists: Wisse Kokht Kugl mit Khazershmaltz!

Dr. Walt-
Long time reader, first time caller here.

Regarding the rightward drift of the Israeli state, there's pretty much nothing that can be done about it until the place implodes. Those contributing to the state's population growth are entirely self-selecting. Making Aliyah indicates a commitment not just to Zionism, but at least a level of comfort with the form of Zionism currently deployed. Given that, what morally serious liberal would knowingly join a state while simultaneously believing its actions pernicious? What lefty would want to claim any responsibility for it, much less implicitly endorse it?

As the state careers towards oblivion, it's worth keeping in mind that the only people comfortable moving there are right-leaning Zionists (who may or may not fit on some left-leaning social-issues spectrum here in the US). Feel free to reconsider your position on collective punishment.

The Israeli Extreme Left have no constituency in Israel. They can't get elected, they are beyond bitter and hateful of a public that repeatedly rejects them at the polls. The Extreme Left campaigns outside the country, then vilifies this same people to force their agenda on an electorate that has reviewed and rejected said agenda.

The burdens of war are felt across the spectrum in Israel. It is not like the US where you have a huge population with a virtually separate class of citizens serving in the military so losses are largely unfelt by the general population. Make no mistake the vast majority of people in Israel want peace. Israelis are prepared to make huge sacrifices to that end. Israelis are not prepared to enter into a suicide pact as the Extreme Left currently advocates. Most of the people in Israel are refugees from the Arab countries and they have a much better understanding of Arab intentions than these Professors. These same people don't wish to become refugees again any more than those who were forced to migrate to Israel from Europe.

As I repeatedly pointed out in this talkback, the election of Netanyahu et al is not an endorsement of Settlements or a rejection of peace by the Israelis as Professor Walt and others would have readers believe.

Netanyahu and company were elected, with most voters pinching their nose, because Israelis want to see a much harder line taken against Hamas (and Iran particularly the regarding the Bomb and support for Hizbollah). Further most voters pinching their nose voted Netanyahu et al to signal disgust with Kadima because of almost universal revulsion to then PM Olmert even though he wasn't standing in the election.

I agree that boycotts need to be carefully considered, and may be justified in some instances. If Israel ends up where South Africa was then this could clarify the issue.

(Should we not look at Just War theory in considering boycott ethics: wouldn't there have to be confidence that the boycott would be effective in achieving its aims.)

The point about Gordon's action is that it makes a very strong statement, as we can see. That can be valuable and welcome, even if the general objections to boycotts you raise are valid. Everything might be just as it should be (if you see what I mean).

http://senseorsensibility.com

"I do worry about the double-standard issue (i.e., if you think it's ok to boycott Israel, why not China or Burma or any number of other countries?)"

.

who's the biggest threat to america?

if israelis are entitled to defend themselves from threats (real, imagined, or manufactured), arent americans entitled to defend themselves from threats?

isnt israeli control of american foreign policy one of the biggest threats to america, as america finds itself up to its eyeballs in "wars of choice" in defense of israel?

doesnt israel pose a threat to american democracy, as presidents, congress and justice are bought and sold, debate is stifled, and we're inundated with zionist propaganda?

.
seems to me that americans are entitled to defend themselves from anyone who's diverting resources that should be used to solve american problems... especially at a time when america seems to be disintegrating.

if "wars of choice" are a valid instrument of foreign policy, would america be justified in bombing israel?

would boycotting israel be preferable to bombing israel?

what if americans abandon their morals in defense of america?

what if some immoral faction of oily goy americans decides to nuke israel, blame oily muslims, and use the attack on israel as a pretext to rejuvenate the oil acquisition project ---aka the "war on terror"?

once you've abandoned your morals, anything is possible, isnt it?

maybe israel is being used as a weapon of mass destruction against america...

...by whom?

.
where does a sane person start drawing lines?

...there arent any lines left?

When the struggle against Apartheid in SA was picking up globally, did US academics also stop and say, oh no, we must not single out South Africa?

You mention China and Burma. Does the US givernment also give China and Burma billions in support and absolute diplomatic cover (aka veto) at the UN? Why does it single out Israel in its support, is the question! Plus, does boycotting Israel (until it ends the occupation) mean that we progressives are chum-chum with China and other oppressive regimes? Can't multiple boycotts co-exist?

It is very disappointing that someone of your intellect argues those points about the BDS movement. You can keep going on sharing opinions on what the Administration should do, what world leaders could do, ad infinitum, not realizing that we have at arm's reach the ability to end this problem just like Apartheid was ended, with the action of academics, artists and regular people.

Why Obama Is
No Realist
BY PAUL WOLFOWITZ

1982, israeli oded yinon recommends balkanizing muslim states, particularly iraq.

1992, paul WOLFOWITZ and scooter LIBBY, cheney’s convicted ex-chief of staff, produce a defense policy guidance paper. the paper was the first generation of what was to become PNAC and later official US foreign policy, and recommended attacking iraq. the paper was leaked to the new york times, and public outcry was such that wolfowitz’s paper was disowned and revised.

1996, richard PERLE and some of the usual likud israeli american suspects write a paper for bibi NETANYAHU calling for the occupation of iraq. the paper was entitled: “a clean break: securing the realm“… and the “realm” to be “secured” was israel.

1997, PERLE and WOLFOWITZ found PNAC with nominal founders robert KAGAN and bill KRISTOL, and all the usual likud suspects, plus deathwish christian and corporate fascist fellow travelers.

note that PNAC, the AEI and bill kristol's weekly standard, the neocon flagship publication, are all located in the same building in washington, DC,

google map.

text

september 2000, PNAC issues a document, “rebuilding america’s defenses”, calling for control of oil in the middle east and central asia. the document says that the military transition to enable that control will be slow to materialize without a new pearl harbor to mobilize america

september 2001, PNAC’s “new pearl harbor” materializes in the form of four hijacked airliners

september 2002, PNAC’s “rebuilding america’s defenses”, the document that called for the “new pearl harbor”, is adopted by the bunnypants administration as its National Security Strategy, in some cases, verbatim

.

so, realistically and pragmatically speaking, we have to wonder why wolfowitz signed a document in september of 2000 that said he and his PNAC cohorts needed a "new pearl harbor" to kick off the PNAC project.

then we have to wonder about the miraculous coincidence of the 2000 election being decided by a recount in a state governed by a PNAC member, who also happened to the the president-elect's brother.

then we have to marvel at the convenience of wolfowitz and his AEI/PNAC boys being installed, after the recount, into positions from which they could make their "new pearl harbor" happen.

then we have to imagine the joy within israeli american ranks once the "new pearl harbor" materialized on september 11, 2001.

.

realistically and pragmatically speaking, how does all this fit in with the neocons' conviction that "we're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality"?

if PNAC wanted a new pearl harbor, and PNAC creates its own reality, we have to realistically and pragmatically assume that PNAC created its own new pearl harbor.

Professor Walt proves again that he doesn't even have a layman's understanding of Israel, let alone the expertise he claims.

1. Neve Gordon is not a zionist. He actively calls for the end of Israel even the most left wing Zionist would not do by calling repeatedly for a one state solution which is the end of Israel.
He is considered a joke in Israel who makes Ward Churchill appear right wing. Like Professor Walt, his only research about Israel is pseudo scholarlywith no original resarch.

2. Professor Walt shows his complete ignorance of the concept of free. The whole idea of free speech is to be able to critisize other speech, 4 harshly as you want, just not to an it. When Gordon,s speech is banned hen come back and repeat your argument.

I hope your collegues read this blog to see first hand how ignorant you are on these issues. Stop embarasing yourself.

3. Why do you never ever talk about the official extremism of the party that leads the Palestinians as an impediment to peace? Fatah just reaffired it's commitment to using violence against civilians to achieve it's goals. Not to mnention Hamas.

I was disappointed that you gave you little discussion from a realist perspective of the effect of BDS. We've tried it on a number of regimes. South Africa is often used as an example because apartheid did wind up being dismantled and the country was in many respects a first-world liberal democracy (remember that ancient Athens and early America also had voting restrictions). Others have claimed that sanctions boosted support for the National Party, and similar claims are being made now about Iran. What's your take, Walt?

The United States is in a position where it can actually influence a tangible shift in Israeli policy. The case with China and Burma is different, because we just do not have that kind of leverage when dealing with those nations. Sure, the double standard will apply, but we must act when we can make a difference, and it is our responsibility to use the power we have instead of sitting idly by citing unfairness when people are being killed and oppressed. If that is what is going to take to make Israel behave and act as a responsible member of the international community, then by all means.

It is rather sad to see that the eternal victims have not only become the vanquished but are fast losing the conscience they were once so revered for. This was the conscience of a people that emerged from sufferings throughout history culminating in the horrors of the holocaust. All that the Germans did to break their spirit leading up to the holocaust appears now to have been forgotten or put aside for the time being.

It is very sad what Israel representing the Jewish dream has become, a militaristic society with full democracy for Jewish citizens but something a lot less for her Arab citizens. This militarism has destroyed the once famed Jewish conscience against oppression anywhere and everwhere. This is probably the greatest negative fallout of the Jewish state's tough tactics against her Arab neighbors, this loss of her own soul.It is true that when this happens to a people or cause,it becomes imperative that they "save themselves from themselves". In a sense they must "save themselves" before getting to the "point of no return".

Prof Walt,
did you support the boycott/sanctions of South Africa?

So why not of Israel?

At the very least let's not support them to the tune of $5b per year.

Neve Gordon, a Jewish academic, has recently proposed in the L.A. Times a "global boycott" of modern-day Israel, the country of which he is a citizen. Nothing could be more richly deserved or longer overdue. What is the reason Gordon gives? Israel has become an apartheid state, and Gordon finds this disturbing. Hmm. "The most accurate way to describe Israel today is as an apartheid state." True and obvious, but unsurprising. One wonders what Gordon and other "peaceniks" in Israel were expecting, given the origins and history of Zionism?

No matter what the ultimate outcome in Palestine is, the Jews who remain and the Palestinians who return are going to end up with their own towns and neighborhoods, if for no other reason than the resentment which the Zionists have engendered for themselves due to war crimes and their general treatment of the Palestinians over many decades. It will take at least as many decades going forward to repair the trauma.

But we all know what Gordon is upset about when he addresses apartheid in Israel. It relates to the defunct apartheid regime in South Africa, which was arguably Tel Aviv's closest ally next to Washington. Gordon writes: "The Palestinians are stateless and lack many of the most basic human rights." The Afrikaner-dominated regime in South Africa shared a common problem with the Zionists in Palestine: what to do with the indigenous inhabitants over whom they ruled. This is not a unique dilemma in the history of the world. It certainly predates colonialism in South Africa and neocolonialism in Palestine.

Let's take America, north and south. The record of the Spanish in the Caribbean, Mexico and points south is not a pretty picture, starting with Columbus. It can be summed up as slaughter, enslavement and forced conversion to Catholicism, all mixed up in a fanatical quest for gold. Everybody was a heathen who was not a Catholic, and was treated accordingly. When the Conquistadores walked though the streets of the Mexica/Aztec capitol in November 1519--built on a lake, much like the lagoon of Venice--they were agog and felt they must be dreaming. The magnificent volcanic rock and limestone city of 250,000 inhabitants was "in fact, one of the largest and most beautiful cities in the world," according to Maurice Collis in his wonderful book Cortes & Montezuma. In a few years, Hernando Cortes would destroy the city totally and without qualms.

To the north, many of the original English-speaking arrivals on the Atlantic coastline were imbued with a similar outlook. There were no magnificent cities in north America as in Mexico and central America, but the record of English interaction with the native Americans was on a par with the Spanish. By the late nineteenth century, the Indians in north America had been vanquished and confined to reservations, separate and apart from the European settlers who had displaced them.

A similar scenario is unfolding in Palestine today. You will find last-ditch defenders of Zionism using the historical record in the U.S. to justify what the Jews are doing, and have done, to the Palestinians. The attitude is: "Look what you did to the Indians; how can you criticize us for our treatment of the Palestinians?" Like Communist propagandists before them, the Zionists will grasp any tactic to advance their cause, and sometimes they have a point.

But we live in a postwar era that is light-years away from the universe of Hernando Cortes and the Anglo colonists of north America. We are suppose to be living in a more ethical world, one for which titanic wars were fought in the twentieth century. Old Europe was destroyed. Along with it, the British Empire and European colonialism were relegated to the dustbin of history. In post-war Palestine, however, there was the immediate emergence of naked neocolonialism, legalized by the White House, the Kremlin and Whitehall.

A handful of conscious-stricken Zionists have recently come to the conclusion that this experiment in neocolonialism has been at least partly a mistake. They conclude that a course correction must be undertaken "to save Israel from itself", as it were. It is not clear what specifically Neve Gordon has in mind or what he expects to achieve by a global economic boycott of Israel. He talks confusingly about the one-state v. two-state solution, but that amounts to an endless kabuki dance.

Two things are certain: American economic sanctions imposed on Israel will never happen; it is a fantasy. Second, Neve Gordon represents a tiny minority of Jews who live in Palestine, and their influence upon Tel Aviv officialdom is next to zero. He says as much in his article: "The Israeli peace camp has gradually dwindled so that today it is almost nonexistent, and Israeli politics are moving more and more to the extreme right." In short, Zionism has subsumed and consumed Jewry. Gordon apparently expects decent, thoughtful people in America and Europe to come to the rescue. He is expecting too much.

Can you imagine a boycott Israel being proposed on the floor of the U.S. Senate and Congress? Whoever might suggest such an idea would be denounced as a crackpot, a terrorist and a Holocaust-denier. My progressive friends, Jew and Gentile, entertain exaggerated expectations, to put it mildly. Whom do they think is in charge in Washington? The politicians on Capitol Hill and at the White House have no motive to do the right thing, even assuming they would know what the right thing was. Washington office holders are in a box. To oppose Tel Aviv in a serious way would mean ending their political careers. They would become radioactive overnight.

Simply put, modern-day Israel is immune from outside pressure because its agents control the leadership and the agenda in America and Europe. President Obama has not been applying pressure. At best, Obama is trying to slow down the Likud juggernaught, and for this he should be given credit. But Obama, President of the lone surviving Superpower on the verge of insolvency, has no power to enforce a change. He and Hillary Clinton and German chancellor Angela Merkel are happy to waste time beating the drums for sanctions upon Iran, which policy will end in war, as was the case with Iraq. It is perfectly obvious why they are doing it, and it has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. On the other hand, sanctioning Tel Aviv for its many transparent transgressions of human rights and international law is not on the agenda for this or any U.S. President.

Germanicus
=======

When I typed this all the comments on this thread had been erased (guess they were restored). So I reposted and elaborated on my last post.

1. Professor Walt again shows his knowledge of Israel is less than a layman's. Neve Gordon is not a Zionist. He has repeatedly said he is in favor of a non-Zionist Israel (the so called one state solution). This is a state that even the most ardent left wing Zionist would not accept.

2. Professor Walt also shows he has no idea what free speech means. Free speech is a prohibition on the government restricting speech of individuals (There are some restrictions on commercial speech). A University is not the government and most importantly no one has even restricted his speech as he has been saying the same thing for years. Walt makes a mockery of free speech because he is saying the University is not allowed to use their own speech to counter his speech--which is the exact reason for freedom of speech in the first place.

3. Professor Walt also has no idea what the word Apartheid means. First Israel is completely within it's rights to control the West Bank. Any land captured in a defensive war is allowed to be held until the end of hostilities. Since Jordan and the Palestinians attacked Israel in 1967 without provocation the land is legally held by Israel.

A. While the settlements are a clear impediment to peace and I believe anything not close to the green line should be removed, building them are not illegal. Practical arguments are not the same as legal arguments. With the Oslo accords, even the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat agreed that there was no final border between Israel and a future Palestinian state and that it had to be negotiated. As a realist, Professor Walt should accept that some settlements along the green line will remain in Israel in exchange for land swaps in any final agreement. So why is building inside those a problem for the facts on the ground?

Once Jordan gave up its claim on the West bank, there is no high signatory (a state) from which the land is being settled. Palestinians certainly currently own part of the land in the West Bank that they have ownership deeds to and any settlements built on land owned by individual Palestinians should be immediately removed, but the empty land has never been owned by Palestinians or a non-existent Palestinian state. So there is no violation of international law in that respect. There is also no forcible transfer of population because the settlers chose to move. The prohibition on forcible transfer was made specifically because of the Nazis forcing Germans to move into the Rhineland.

I guess the force, stature, and importance of international law is just not applied to Israel when a moral conclusion is decided?

B. Palestinians are at war with Israel and are not citizens of Israel. Black South Africans were citizens of South Africa denied rights in their own country solely because of the color of their skin. Palestinians are not citizens of Israel and, as I said above, they are at war with Israel. No country has ever been required to give people it is at war with the full rights of citizens in that country.

Does Professor Walt believe the Taleban are entitled to citizenship in the US because the US occupies Afghanistan?.

C. The Palestinians could have a state tomorrow if they wanted one. They might not get all that they want but they could have a state demilitarized like Japan. They have also been offered a state three times and rejected it three times. Now you may think the offer was not good enough, but that was their choice not to accept. Personally, I think the Taba offer was a good one and should have at least been responded to with a counter offer and not Arafat unleashing suicide bombers. The Olmert offer was even more generous. Even if they did have a state, there would be no one to govern it as Fatah and Hamas are fighting a civil war.

D. Walt seems hung up on whether there are more Palestinians than Jews which is irrelevant based on the above reasoning. Even, assuming arguendo, the silly numbers test is the litmus test, Walt asks the wrong question. The test would be how many people have full rights as citizens and how many do not. Not how many Jews vs. how many Muslims. That means Muslim, Druze, and Christian Arab Israeli citizens would count as well as Israeli Jews as those with full citizenship rights--approximately 7 million people. Not to mention the Arab residents of East Jerusalem who have been offered full citizenship in Israel (250,000 people) but choose not to become citizens if Israel. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Jerusalem#Residency). The Palestinian government in 2007 listed the number of Palestinians in the west bank as 2.3 million and 1.4 million in Gaza for a total of 3.7 million people (this number is disputed as highly inflated http://www.biu.ac.il/Besa/MSPS65.pdf).

Please explain: Anti-Zionist Israeli Paratroopers?

Brett,

Sorry if the below gets a bit repetitive.

Bottom line:
1. Palestinians would not reciprocate.
2. Israel’s security would be worse.
3. Israel would be just as demonized as ever for not unilaterally withdrawing to the green line.

Besides, why doesn't Israel just do an unilateral withdrawal?

This would put Israel in a much worse position security wise and gain them nothing as the Gaza withdrawal proved. The Palestinians saw the last unilateral withdraw as a sign of weakness and were emboldened to launch 8000 missiles into Israel. The Palestinians would take this as a sign that they could just wait the Israelis out until the Israelis withdrew even more and make the Palestinians less likely to begin negotiating a final peace.

There has to be quid pro quo. There would at least have to be an official statement from Fatah (not just the PA) and all the groups it controls (i.e. al aksa martyrs brigades) that it is renouncing violence against Israeli civilians completely ("resistance") in exchange for such a withdrawal in both Arabic and English and movement towards preparing the population for peace such as an end to the "kill all Jews" indoctrination that they get from childhood. Unfortunately, at the recent Fatah convention, Fatah just reaffirmed its use of violence against Israeli citizens until all of Palestine is liberated.

Second, what would Israel do if they started being attacked from the West Bank again? Israel would have to go back in and this would result in more civilian deaths and they would be condemned and accused of war crimes even more than they are now. No one except Israel and the US would care about its security needs.

That would solve the demographic issue, as well, since studies suggest that the Israeli Arab population will probably level off at about 25% of the population.

As I wrote in my post above there really is no demographic issue and the issue is irrelevant anyway. 7 million Israelis have full citizenship and there are about 4 million Palestinians (250,00 in East Jerusalem who could have citizenship if desired).

Before you answer "political reasons",that's my point - the Israelis frankly aren't ready to get into that position, which is what they'll end up in with any Two-State Solution. If you really wanted to get there, the above route would be the fastest (and you could follow it up by paying the appropriate bribes to Fatah in the West Bank to promote them).

As I said above this would just harden the Palestinian position and make peace negotiations less likely. All this would do is make people in the West possibly feel a little better about Israel. More likely, Israel won't even gain anything from doing this and Palestinian supporters will find another way to demonize Israel. The same people would continue to be calls for boycotts and divestment.

simply adopt the "Hamas in Gaza" approach of quarantine plus bombing them harshly if they ever try to launch rockets or carry out terrorist attacks.

All this would lead to is accusations of war crimes by Israelis making them demonized as much as they are now.

Let me end my post. If the Israelis gave into every Palestinian demand except full right of return--withdrew to the green line and withdrew all settlements we would be no closer to peace because then the Palestinian demands would simply become "a million Palestinians must return to Israel" and Hamas would still be in charge of Gaza. Israel would still be demonized for making Gaza a"prison." The complete withdraw to the UN mandated Blue Line from Lebanon proves this. Israel did what it was supposed to do and then the issue of Sheba Farms pops up. There would still be no final peace agreement with the PA not in control of Gaza.

On the other hand, if every Palestinian accepted a state beyond the security barrier there would be peace tomorrow or Netanyahu would be thrown out and someone would be elected who would accept. in other words no matter how much the Israelis give, the Palestinians could not make peace. On the other hand, the Israelis would make peace immediately if the Palestinians FULLY accepted a state on less land than they want.

I have to say that more and more Israel is becoming the second most restrictive and authoritarian of the worlds honest democracies (I personally feel Turkey to be the first and foremost on the list). Between requiring racially-based oaths of allegiance, demanding that history books remove all references to Israel's foundation as a 'disaster' (whether it was or not I won't get into but you can be sure that all this will do is encourage Muslim children to see the schools as dishonest), and currently refusing to consider the two-state solution (to which there is currently no valid alternative) I am quickly losing the admiration I had as a child for Israel's military exploits.

It is no wonder that Israel is demonized when people get facts so wrong.

Between requiring racially-based oaths of allegiance

No such thing exists. It was suggested by one person that all Israelis take one.

demanding that history books remove all references to Israel's foundation as a 'disaster' (whether it was or not I won't get into but you can be sure that all this will do is encourage Muslim children to see the schools as dishonest)

Does the United States teach to school children that its founding was a disaster because of what happened to Native Americans? I certainly wasn't taught about that until upper level college courses and the founding still wasn't presented as a disaster. No country teaches that its own founding is a "disaster." Does removing a word from a textbook really make Israel a pariah? They aren't banning all reference to Palestinian suffering just acknowledging that one word is not enough to describe a controversial historical event.

and currently refusing to consider the two-state solution (to which there is currently no valid alternative)

Even Netanyahu said he would agree to a two state solution several weeks ago (albeit on terms the Palestinians don't want, but that is what negotiations are for). Both Hamas and Fatah are the ones who even today explicitly reject a two state solution.

One state solution. Easy.

but captcha still must think i'm human...

fooled 'em again

"tation milkmaid" (?)

lefrak's lucidity

grow the fuck up

take the long way home

...if the wonderful zionist jews are willing to blow the rest of us to radioactive smithereens on their journey home.

just when i needed you most

man of constant sorrow

...is willing to face the human consequences.

what are we supposed to think?

are non-jews subhuman?

is that what zionism finally boils down to?