If they mean TRUE and COMPLETE disengagement -- that would be a good thing.

This would mean cutting off all aid for Israel.

In fact, it is not an option: it is a requirement. Our Arms Export Control Act requires us to cut-off military aid to any country found to have done illegitimate things w/ our arms.

In light of the Goldstone report, military aid to Israel MUST be cut off. Disengagement is not an option. It is requirement of US law.

Alan Hart – How Zionist lobby stooges in Congress brought shame to their institution:

http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/11/06/alan-hart-how-zionist-lobby-stooges-in-congress-brought-shame-to-their-institution/

The very underpinnings of the Apartheid Zionist state have recently been called into question by a Professore from Tel Aviv University:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966952.html

"According to the Tel Aviv University historian, Prof. Shlomo Sand, author of "Matai ve'ech humtza ha'am hayehudi?" ("When and How the Jewish People Was Invented?"; Resling, in Hebrew), the queen's tribe and other local tribes that converted to Judaism are the main sources from which Spanish Jewry sprang. This claim that the Jews of North Africa originated in indigenous tribes that became Jewish - and not in communities exiled from Jerusalem - is just one element of the far- reaching argument set forth in Sand's new book.

In this work, the author attempts to prove that the Jews now living in Israel and other places in the world are not at all descendants of the ancient people who inhabited the Kingdom of Judea during the First and Second Temple period. Their origins, according to him, are in varied peoples that converted to Judaism during the course of history, in different corners of the Mediterranean Basin and the adjacent regions. Not only are the North African Jews for the most part descendants of pagans who converted to Judaism, but so are the Jews of Yemen (remnants of the Himyar Kingdom in the Arab Peninsula, who converted to Judaism in the fourth century) and the Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe (refugees from the Kingdom of the Khazars, who converted in the eighth century).
Advertisement
Unlike other "new historians" who have tried to undermine the assumptions of Zionist historiography, Sand does not content himself with going back to 1948 or to the beginnings of Zionism, but rather goes back thousands of years."

more at:

http://inventionofthejewishpeople.com/

A minor correction:

...to a struggle for civil and political rights within an Israel that controls all of mandate Palestine.

Mandate Palestine included all of what is now Jordan too.

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/1923-1948-british-mandate.html

"...pretty soon everyone will have to admit that they are sitting around in the dark and pretending they see daylight."

More people are joining the non pretenders. Jimmy Carter stated in his last book that the window he saw would begin closing in September 2009. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat raised the specter of one state. One need only to look at the map of the West Bank: http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/270-palestines-island-paradise-now-with-a-word-from-its-creator/
It is clear that it is slip sliding away. The shift will be to demand equal rights for all people of the area of Greater Israel.

I'm not sure where Walt's vote total comes from, but here is the official role call, which is:

344 Yeas
36 Nays
22 Present
30 Not Voting

CAPTCHA: Ameri- half

1) I haven't read your book - or even your paper in full - but I get the gist of your argument(s), I think. Could you write a short - as in short - blog post as to what exactly the US should do?

2) Relatedly, look at how hard Gaza disengagement was. West Bank disengagement would be harder - by a lot. Any comments?

3) Based on your advice, in part, I joined JStreet's Facebook page. The infighting and opinions expressed were grotesque, almost like a parody of all your detractors say it is. I suggest you join, too (anonymously, of course) to get a sense of what I'm talking about. After reading what people write on their page, you have to wonder, are they REALLY a pro-Israel group (and I'm not writing from a pro-Likud viewpoint), or a group full of anti-Israel people who like the idea of joining an ostensibly pro-Israel group in which to spout their views?

A former student

The idea that Israel is not prepared for the eventuality of the collapse of the two-state idea is nonsense. They have worked towards it assiduously. There are only two options the Israeli government has accepted since the murder of Rabin: call a series of prisons a state and ride that out for as long as possible; transfer the Palestinian population out of the borders of Greater Israel.

In either case the American people through their Congress won't merely support it, they will pick up the bill.

"And the issue will gradually shift from the creation of a viable Palestinian state -- which was the central idea behind the Oslo process and the subsequent "Road Map" -- to a struggle for civil and political rights within an Israel that controls all of mandate Palestine." (Stephen Walt, Ph.D.)

That may be what Professor Walt hopes is going to happen, but it is a scenario that has almost no chance of coming true.

What is far more likely to happen is that like the winners of most armed conflicts, Israel, as the victor will establish the borders that it chooses, leaving the rest to the Palestinians to do with what they will.

That means all of Jerusalem is likely to remain in Israeli hands (including the Old City); it means that Israel is likely to incorporate the Jordan Valley into its sovereign territory and certainly the territory on which the close in territories/suburbs sit will be incorporated into Israel. What happens to the territory on which the more remote settlements reside will be a matter of considerable debate in Israel but will eventually be resolved.

The Palestinians will get the rest of the land (probably about 60-70 percent of the West Bank) to do with what they will. It is highly likely that Israel will keep the IDF in the territories that the Palestinians are permitted to keep until such time as they can be safely removed (if ever).

Critics will decry this outcome as providing the Palestinians only with "Bantustans" but the term is an anachronism. Those nostalgic for the days of the fight against apartheid are sure to be disappointed.

Instead of thinking of the territories that they are allowed to keep as Bantustans maybe the Palestinians should think of them as their little Monaco, or Lichtenstein or Nauru or Tuvalu or San Marino. Actually the contiguous territory the Palestinians end up with will be significantly larger than the land mass of any of those sovereign states.

Or, if they prefer, the Palestinians can think of the land they are left with as their little version of Republika Srpska.

The march of history has decisively been in the direction of separating national/religious/ethnic/linguistic groups into their own nations. This process has been nearly completed in Europe (and where it's not, conflict still reigns) on the Indian subcontinent and in many other places in the world.

It will happen in Mandate Palestine as well. It's just that the Israelis will end up with most of the territory and the Palestinians will end up with far less than they had hoped.

That's what happens when you are militarily defeated.

Sorry there are no chosen people -- the 1 state solution will, and must work:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/25/medicalscience.genetics

Journal axes gene research on Jews and Palestinians

A keynote research paper showing that Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost identical has been pulled from a leading journal.

Academics who have already received copies of Human Immunology have been urged to rip out the offending pages and throw them away.

Such a drastic act of self-censorship is unprecedented in research publishing and has created widespread disquiet, generating fears that it may involve the suppression of scientific work that questions Biblical dogma.

'I have authored several hundred scientific papers, some for Nature and Science, and this has never happened to me before,' said the article's lead author, Spanish geneticist Professor Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, of Complutense University in Madrid. 'I am stunned.'

British geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer added: 'If the journal didn't like the paper, they shouldn't have published it in the first place. Why wait until it has appeared before acting like this?'

The journal's editor, Nicole Sucio-Foca, of Columbia University, New York, claims the article provoked such a welter of complaints over its extreme political writing that she was forced to repudiate it. The article has been removed from Human Immunology's website, while letters have been written to libraries and universities throughout the world asking them to ignore or 'preferably to physically remove the relevant pages'. Arnaiz-Villena has been sacked from the journal's editorial board.

Dolly Tyan, president of the American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics, which runs the journal, told subscribers that the society is 'offended and embarrassed'.

The paper, 'The Origin of Palestinians and their Genetic Relatedness with other Mediterranean Populations', involved studying genetic variations in immune system genes among people in the Middle East.

In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited.

Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East share a very similar gene pool and must be considered closely related and not genetically separate, the authors state. Rivalry between the two races is therefore based 'in cultural and religious, but not in genetic differences', they conclude.

But the journal, having accepted the paper earlier this year, now claims the article was politically biased and was written using 'inappropriate' remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its editor told the journal Nature last week that she was threatened by mass resignations from members if she did not retract the article.

Arnaiz-Villena says he has not seen a single one of the accusations made against him, despite being promised the opportunity to look at the letters sent to the journal.

He accepts he used terms in the article that laid him open to criticism. There is one reference to Jewish 'colonists' living in the Gaza strip, and another that refers to Palestinian people living in 'concentration' camps.

'Perhaps I should have used the words settlers instead of colonists, but really, what is the difference?' he said.

'And clearly, I should have said refugee, not concentration, camps, but given that I was referring to settlements outside of Israel - in Syria and Lebanon - that scarcely makes me anti-Jewish. References to the history of the region, the ones that are supposed to be politically offensive, were taken from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and other text books.'

In the wake of the journal's actions, and claims of mass protests about the article, several scientists have now written to the society to support Arnaiz-Villena and to protest about their heavy-handedness.

One of them said: 'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were genetically very special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one would have objected to the phrases he used in his article. This is a very sad business.'

Whatever the possibilities of the "two-state" solution, the alternative, the "one-state" solution is not a goer, as you say, unless Israelis accept it. They will not.

Supposing that that the Palestinians simply surrendered, and offered everything to Israel, the only result would be that Israel took the land legally. Israeli citzenship will not be offered to West Bank Palestinians. The fear of Palestinian demographic expansion is too great. The result would be some sort of South African Bantustans, with theoretical independence.

The first is that it is a meaningless prescription: There's no way to cut the aid package (or even put a hold on it, which is what Klein recommends) so long as Congress is in hock to AIPAC and the other groups in the status quo lobby. And unless I've missed something, I doubt groups like J Street would support it either.

It'd be a great way of building credibility for Obama in the Arab World while forcing the question, and forcing Congress to pass aid over his head and veto.

J Street might agree if you emphasized that it was military aid you were cutting, and that it was only temporary, until the Israelis agreed to a total settlement freeze and agreed to come to the table in all seriousness (whether that's true or not).

Remember: we are dealing with a Congress that just voted to condemn the Goldstone Report by a vote of 344-24. The aid package may be indirectly subsidizing the settlements and threatening Israel’s future as a Jewish majority state, but a supine House and Senate will still sign the annual check.

The condemnation was a meaningless non-binding resolution. But passing foreign aid over a President's veto, potentially risking confrontation in the Supreme Court - that is a whole other beast. I think Obama should go for it.

And the issue will gradually shift from the creation of a viable Palestinian state -- which was the central idea behind the Oslo process and the subsequent "Road Map" -- to a struggle for civil and political rights within an Israel that controls all of mandate Palestine. And on what basis could the United States oppose such a campaign, without explicitly betraying its own core values?

Well, maybe that has value in of itself. God knows a viable, secular-based state in that region would be a blessing, since so many of the "secular" states in the region are unpopular dictatorships.

Of course, what I think is more likely is that we'd end up with de facto Partition again, on the government of Israel's terms. As soon as it becomes apparent that it's either "no Jewish state" or "partition", they'll choose the latter, mark my words.

Pick your poison.

Whatever of the three you decide between not-racism, racism, and racism, you won't have to worry about old Uncle Sam getting in your way.

Take your time, you've still got a couple of decades.

It is true that Israeli propaganda is trying to divide them but regarding their wish to get rid of Israeli occupation they are not divided.Chaled Mashal said that Hamas are ready to make a deal for a Palestinian state in the territories occupied by Israel in 67.The problem is that Israel is not interested by any solution,they really pro-pose nothing.Friedman's "idea"is the better for Israel letting off the involvement of America first,and after it of Europe which is so necessary for Palestinians.Is an other trick of Israeli "diplomacy" which is so well known as Bibi have to say in his last speech "i'm serious,i want to make peace".Was once a prime minister of any country forced by the distrust which hover around the intention of his policy to declare :"i am serious"?And sure he is not.

No surprise Joe Klein's screed resonated with Mr. Walt. Neither seems to remotely comprehend the Middle East beyond the usual superficial clichés and their own preconceived notions and prejudices.

Joe Klein focused on Netanyahu building 'new' settlements on 'Palestinian land' in East Jerusalem. Netanyahu isn't building any new 'settlements' in East Jerusalem!!! He just happens to be Prime Minister, PM, when the court made their final determinations in a case they have been hearing for years.

Like Mr. Walt, Joe Klein has no use for the facts. Israel is a democracy and the PMs powers are not absolute. The PM is subject to the law. A PM cannot dictate a whim then it's immediately enforced.

The land in East Jerusalem was not Palestinian land! It was seized by Jordan in 1948 from Jewish landowners, and Arabs were settled there. These matters are now being resolved in the courts. I realise this is apparently of no small discomfiture to Klein and Walt et al who seem far more invested in the notion that Jews were usurpers and with no presence in Jerusalem preceding the Zionist immigration starting in the 19th century.

A PM can no more unilaterally stop or start construction in East Jerusalem than they can in Tel Aviv. A PM, as can many other parties claim an interest, can go to court and present a government position. However it is the courts who decide not the PM.

A PM has no power to prevent Jewish land owners moving into East Jerusalem on land the courts have determined they the Jews have legal title to. A PM also can't stop Arabs with legal residence from moving into West Jerusalem or elsewhere in Israel. And yes many do!

I had occasion to meet Thomas Freidman and I can say with certainty he does not have all the answers nor is he infallible as so many seem to conclude. Specifically he was advocating negotiations between Israel and the PLO in the early 1980s although not spelled out he was clearly advocating what is now called the 2 state solution. I repeatedly asked Mr. Freidman how he saw these negotiations concluding, if they (the PLO) refuse to even concede the basics, recognise Israel as a Jewish state and as homeland to the Jews or stop trying to claim a right to settle millions of Arabs. I pointed out then the only thing that Israel had to negotiate with was land and the terms by which that land would be exchanged for Peace. I would ask him the same question today. How does Israel disengage from the territory if the PA will not accept the fundamentals of a 2 state solution i.e. Israel as a Jewish state?

We are still at the same point. The negotiations are not breaking down on establishing a border. They continue to fall apart when the PLO now the PA cannot accept a permanent agreement wherein Israel remains a Jewish state with a Jewish majority.

Saying that Obama administration seriously bungled the negotiations is an understatement. So Mr. Friedman's prescription for the US to walk away with the ball, which they fumbled so badly is more than a little disingenuous. The US made a series of high profile visits which seemed to serve no other purpose than to show that Obama was reversing the previous administration's methodology. They never seemed to have the interests of the 2 parties Israel and the PA as a first or even secondary concern. It was always a show.

Negotiations to make serious progress have to be conducted in secrecy and not in the glare of media. A permanent peace agreement is going to require a come down from previously held positions by both parties and they will not be able to make necessary concessions, if these concessions are made public prior to an actual agreement.

Abbas is particularly vulnerable, not least of all to Hamas. He has painted himself into a corner with many of his declarations, such as the so called 'right of return' is non negotiable and he will not yield. Also as we saw in the past when public negotiations seem to be moving forward Hamas has fomented violence leading to an Israeli response and then Abbas pulls out of negotiations.

An agreement needs to be reached in secret and then moderate Arab states need to be behind both the agreement and Abbas in presenting that agreement. Yes pretty much the Oslo formula.

Unless everyone involved in the peace process is play acting, while trying to find a feasable ploy to get Mr. Abbas to talk without pre-conditions; indeed a possibility I still suspect, then for all intents and purposes, the two-state solution is over.

Alternatively, the one-state or bi-national state solution was actually considered by some Jewish intellectuals and thinkers in the 1930s prior to the establsihment of the state of Israel, and was advocated later on also by President Gaddafi on many occasions, but Israel has neither the capability nor the desire, to control Arab population centres in the west bank and Gaza, let alone, for an Israeli Prime Minister like Mr. Netanyahu, whom made the Jewishness of the state of Israel as a pre-condition for peace, to accept the management of over 4.5 million Arabs' life as Israeli citizens, without counting the refugees and their desecendants.

Again, I am tempted to entertain the idea that, maybe a concerted effort by the whole internatiuonal community, to manage the current status quo and prevent it from deteriorating into violence, may be possible until such a time that, the opportunity is ripe to re-open the subject of a two-state solution to the Palestinian problem, in the manner of crisis management rather than solution, but unfortunately at the same time, and from past experiences, I have a strong feeling that, the alternative to the current status quo is violence in the extreme.

So what is left really?. Perhaps a serious consideration by the international community, of an arrangement similar to the status quo ante of pre 1967 regarding Gaza and the west bank, may be undertaken. Because only under such a plan, that I can find it much easier, to explore possibilities for talks on the issues of right of return, the settlements, and the future of Jerusalem.

khairi janbek.paris/france

The U.S. should immediately stop all financial and military aid to Israel. Israel must be isolated and brought to account for its numerous war crimes and violations of international law.

Jimmy Carter did it once when Israel made an unwarranted invasion of Lebanon. He notified the prime minister of Israel at the time that this violated US law, in that US sale of weapons to Israel was predicated on Israel using the weapons for defensive purposes only. This is US law and was then too. They withdrew from Lebanon under that pressure.

George H.W. Bush forced a showdown with Yitzhak Shamir over Israel's West Bank settlements by threatening to link $10 billion in loan guarantees to Israel's compliance with a settlement freeze.

All Obama has to do is withhold, or let's say 'review' their aid. It is within his power to do so.

Bring in legislation to ban all bilateral trade with Israel until its government complies with international law, the UNSC and the Geneva Conventions. Now that would be harder because of AIPAC and our deaf, blind, and dumb congress.

Or, link settlement building or settlement evacuations to the loans, loan guarantees, and military aid packages.

Transport the illegal settlers out of the West Bank. Period. Put their names on the lists at the border crossings and checkpoints so they can no longer cross the greenline into the West Bank. Israel can monitor Palestinians, they can monitor law-breaking Israelis too.

They can put up tin shacks in the Negev if they want to be "pioneers".

Israel can wage war in Lebanon, Syria, killing thousands in Gaza but finds it "difficult" to evacuate outposts? Ridiculous.

Settlements permanent? Good. The '67 borders should be returned to, and any settlement can stay in the new Palestinian State, with the provision that the settlers are subject to any and all Palestinian law, up to and including dispossession. Arab towns and villages in Israel have existed for centuries and longer than all those illegal Jewish settlements.

RE: Be careful what you wish for. Israel is going to get what it has long sought: permanent control of the West Bank (along with de facto control over Gaza).

MY COMMENT: Take a bow, Mr Elliott Abrams!

Walt's latest rises to the level of uh, um, er, illogic in his eagerness to destroy Israel. His argument is that if we disengage from peace talks between a nation and its sworn enemy, we should stop foreign aid.

The goals and purposes of the two (peace talks and foreign aid) are quite different. The first is an attempt to forestall an escalation in belligerence; the second is to support an ally, build an economy and self-defense capability, and pursue the national interest.

Israel is the only country that many major US corporate heads have said would be disastrous to their business if they were forced to withdraw. Translation: Israel is strongly in the US national interest. Our aid has paid vast dividends in technology, medicine, agricultural, and many other innovations. If one believes science and technology Nobel prizes are a measure of contribution to humanity, Israel is unparalleled (after the US), the Arabs are virtually nonexistent, and the "Palestinians" contribution is derisory.

Re wigwags suggestion and way forward. He confidently describes an outcome whereby Israel keeps large chunks of the west bank and Jerusalem, just because its the victor of the wars. What he fails to understand is that he is basically suggesting a permanent occupation.

I can understand wigwag to want to refute and prevent the bitional state, but he did not do a good job of ending the occupation and preventing the binational state simultaneusly. If wigwag's predicted outcome was to be believed, then why is Israel having negotiations with the Palestians? Formality? Why not just impose your will and way on the them?

Neither the bitional outcome nor the occupation is in Israel's interest. Thats why a negotiated settlement is the only possible outcome.

One heard Mr. Sa'eb Ureikat; the chief Palestinian negotiator, say yesterday that, 18 years of negotiations with Israel have failed, and that Mr. Abbas does not believe that a Palestinian state can emerge, while Mr. Netanyahu is in power. I don't know if there will be US and EU pressures on Mr. Netanyahu; I personally doubt that, and I don't know if Abu Mazen will return to the talks without pre-conditions; I belive personally there are efforts to that effect, however, irrespective, I wonder why it doesn't cross the mind of the PNA leadership, to undertake a serious and open self-criticism, about the the past 18 years of peace talks?. Don't they believe that they owe that to the people whom they claim to represent their best interests?.

They certainly don't owe it to the Arab world, after all, the late Mr. Arafat had demanded the right for the Palestinian independent decision, and the PLO's sole representation of the Palestinian people back in 1974 in Morocco, and got both rights. He even favoured the Oslo kitchen paralell negotiations over the negotiations held by the Jordanian-Palesitnian joint delegation with Israel.

If the PNA doesn't undertake such a serious and transparent self-criticism, I don't think really, that it is fit to claim the leadership of the Palestinian people. This is the only way for a paradigm shift.

khiri janbek.paris/france