Beyond Gaza--A One State Solution And More

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 12:36


I don't have a lot to say about Gaza and what's happening there now.  It is unspeakably evil. It should have been stopped 40 years ago. What else is there to say?  More words only serve to make it seem like it could possibly be explained, or justified or normalized. But it cannot.

However, obviously, in order to make right, one must talk.  But I have someone to talk for me.  From the Democracy Now! interview I wrote about yesterday, I will let South African freedom fighter Breyten Breytenbach speak for me, on the flip.

Paul Rosenberg :: Beyond Gaza--A One State Solution And More
Democracy Now! [with some emphasis added]:

AMY GOODMAN: We're speaking on a day when there are funerals for two Palestinian teenagers; where Gaza is under siege; where the head of the UN General Assembly, the Nicaraguan Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, has called for sanctions against Israel for the siege of Gaza, and where he compared South Africa, apartheid South Africa-

BREYTEN BREYTENBACH: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: to Israel

BREYTEN BREYTENBACH: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: -and what it's doing in the Occupied Territories. You've warned against, at least in the past, that kind of comparison. Why?

BREYTEN BREYTENBACH: For the simple reason that I think that we owe it to ourselves to see things as they are. If we're going to be effective in our means of opposing injustice-and what is happening in the Occupied Territories is a massive injustice-I think this is probably, I would imagine, probably the most important, although it's not the largest, maybe not the most consequential one in terms of loss of human life, and maybe not even in terms of the danger of regional conflagration, but this is the essential problem that the world has to face, the Palestinian-Israeli problem, the one of the Occupied Territories, the one of state terrorism, you know, the one of the extinction of the Palestinian people, because this is where it's heading. This is literally a disappearance of a people. And I do think that this is the core issue that informs nearly everything else that happens in the Middle East.

I think if you can find some kind of solution there, if you can find a way out there, if you had the moral imagination-and, by the way, I would plead for a one-state solution and not for a two-state solution. I do think that we've seen the means, the moral means of the parties concerned, as has happened elsewhere in the world, as has happened in South Africa, to be able to live together, even if it's a very complicated thing and even if you're going to have to gerrymander all kinds of structures to be able to do so, federal, whatever the case may be. But you have to do that. You cannot have this attrition going on. You cannot have this ongoing warfare with its strain of racism and cruelty and indifference and alienation, etc., including the alienation brought about to the young Israeli people who are involved in that.

I was there. I happened to go there. I was lucky to spend a few days there. And people asked me the question, "Does this remind you of apartheid?" And, of course, it is. The premises are very much the same. You have essentially economic exploitation. Now, this is about stealing. This is about stealing land. This is about stealing means. This is about exploiting people. That's the backdrop to it. And then racism. These are the two essential ingredients that we had in South Africa, as well. And then, to think that you can solve it by segregation and by having, you know, second-class citizens-in other words, some people have less rights than the other people have-these are the ingredients of what apartheid was.  So, in that sense, yes, it is.

But I would not-you know, I think it's a shortcut that blunts our potential instruments at understanding the specificity of what's happening, just to call it apartheid, in the same way as I always objected to people saying apartheid was a form of Nazism. Of course, it is in many ways, but, you know, it is trying to piggyback on an easy concept instead of doing the hard work of trying to dig into it and understand and make it clear what are the historical origins of this and in which way is it like that system that you compare it to and in which way is it different from it.

I found that what I saw in the Occupied Territories, in some ways, worse than apartheid. There was an intimacy to the cruelty. There was a proximity, maybe because the territory is so much smaller. There was a kind of a wantonness in the destruction, you know? I saw the Sakakini Cultural Center, for instance, in Ramallah after it had been sacked by Israeli occupation forces, something which I don't think we saw quite in the same way in South Africa.

He then goes on to talk about Israel, international law and the United States.  And for me, there is a terrible subtext here.  For international law should be the most wonderful instrument.  It should be, among other things, the only protection that the Jews ever need.  We should be for it 100%.  We should not be hiding from it.  We are one of the ancient sources for it.  It is, quite literally, flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone.

AMY GOODMAN: So what do you think has to be done? I mean, you have the lame-duck prime minister who's been convicted on corruption charges-

BREYTEN BREYTENBACH: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: now sayingEhud Olmert saying that Israel should pull out of the Occupied Territories. But he is still the prime minister.

BREYTEN BREYTENBACH: Well, of course, he's still the prime minister. But let us see what are the possible levers that could-the United States has never exercised pressure on the Israeli state. And we know that through direct and indirect subventions and forms of financial support, this is what makes it possible for the Israeli military regime to continue doing what it is doing there. I think one should start there. I think that it should be conditional. I really do think it should be conditional.

One should start perhaps with the outer edges, which surely should be possible to do, to dismantle the settlements. This is illegal. By international law, this is illegal. The court in The Hague has declared it illegal. The United Nations has declared this illegal. Surely, it must be possible to do so. And surely, it must be possible to exert enough pressure on the Israeli government, whatever Israeli government there is, to dismantle it. These are their people. This is not something they should condone.

What's happening in Hebron at the moment, you have a few thousand people living in the heart of the city, surrounded by hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands of Palestinian people, and the Israeli army protects these people who are squatting the land of the Palestinians. I mean, this is madness, utter madness.

I think that has to be done, and again, partners have to be found. The progressive forces, and very often these would be forces from within civil society, need to be strengthened. There are wonderful attempts being made. There's a richness of history of people from within Israel, for instance, working across the border, Israeli-Palestinian civil society organizations trying to help people to plant and to harvest and to survive, or something like that, you know, resisting the settlers, resisting the occupation army. These things need to be strengthened. That needs to be understood.

But the essential thing, the essential moment here, I think, in history, is the recognition of the fact that Israel exists thanks to the support of the United States, not the international community as such, but the United States. The United States has, in one particular instance-it really has within its means to make a difference there. And if it were to do that, I think this would be the beginning of a whole new interaction with the Middle East, with the rest of the world. I think, you know, this is taking the sting out of bin Laden immediately, I would imagine. It's very simplistic, what I'm saying, but I do think that's part of it.

Okay.  I said I didn't have anything to say. But I obviously lied.  So I will say some more, again, here at the end. Breytenbach has reminded me.  It is this: he is absolutely right that the answers must come from civil society.  As it is here in America, the politicians cannot lead.  They will be the last to know.

As he said farther up, toward the beginning, "This is literally a disappearance of a people." That is genocide, pure and simple.  How could the Jews not just stand for this, but demand it?  I do not believe civil society-of Jews or anyone else-could demand this.  But governments very easily can.  Because we are still very far from understanding how to make governments be what they should be.

So we must teach them.  And the first act of such teaching is, we must remember how to be ourselves.  

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Beyond Gaza--A One State Solution And More | 53 comments
I hate to say it, (4.00 / 3)
but in my view, a one-state solution is ultimately the only solution. Secular states -- nation-states in general -- are fraught with all sorts of liabilities in the modern age, but to parachute a Jewish state into the heart of the Middle East has always been a recipe for disaster, the moreso when you speak of a partition which leaves the Palestinans on reservations, bantu preserves, call them what you will, then walls them off, presumably forever.

It's not at all surprising to me that the result has been an Israeli population which tends to look, however wistfully, to genocide as the only way out of their self-induced agony. This cannot end well, no matter how many billions in armaments our own misguided national consensus is willing to send them.

A single state is unthinkable, I know. Without it, though, and the compromises necessary to achieve it, both populations face doom in the end, however far into the future the blood of generation after generation may succeed in pushing that end.

"Secular, democratic state." (4.00 / 1)
   Um, the Islamists who have the balance of forces on their side vs. Fatah, will NEVER agree to a secular state. Esp. not One with Jews as equal citizens. The volcanic anger over the Occupation is too deep among the Palestinians is too deep and the distrust among the Israeli public, even on the Labour and Meretz blocs on the Left will never agree to a "One State, " solution. Only a two state or three state solution is in the works.
  Get real, dude, stop being such an utopian ideologue.
[ Parent ]
I've Long Believed In A One State Solution--But Accepted The Criticism That I'm Hopelessly Utopian (4.00 / 4)
So I've held that view, but not pushed it.  Especially since the Palestians generally have favored a two-state solution.

But over the last few years, I've grown more and more skeptical that any sort of multi-state solution can or will be adopted.  And since it was a second-best solution in the first place, why keep deferring on what I think is not just right and just, but also more satisfactory and likely to work in the long run?

Then, to top it off, Breytenbach weighs in, and says exactly what I would, expressing exactly what I feel in light of the South African experience, but he's actually lived the experience, paid his dues.  So it's no longer just me imagining the position he's taking.  It's me aligning with someone who's views across a wide range of issues and subjects seem very moral, very sober, very sound.

No one is saying this will be easy.  But the fact is, no plan of action will be easy.  So why not commit to the one that can actually lead to a much better outcome in the long run?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
You're right, however much comfort there is in being right (4.00 / 4)
Only a two state or three state solution is in the works.

At the moment, yes. For the last 60 years, yes. That's what the evidence of our eyes and ears tells us. Still, calling something a solution which is at best a truce, and at worst a war of attrition which Israel, for all its gunships and nukes, is bound to lose, is to be blind to what our mind tells us.

A utopian ideologue, I most certainly am not. Go ask the ghost of Chaim Weizmann if what is on the ground now resembles what he'd hoped for.

[ Parent ]
The most important point... (4.00 / 2)
that I agree completely with here is that in the end, Israel "is bound to lose."  This is not a point that is made nearly enough.  At some point we (the US) will no longer need a proxy bully in the middle east.  We will stop sending the military aid, and then its game over for the Israeli Jews.  We do not send this massive aid for the altruistic reason of defending the Jews from Muslim/Arab aggressors (the mainstream media myth) - we send it so we can sustain a proxy military force in the heart of the world's primary oil reserves.  The day we no longer need oil for our energy needs will be a very bad day for Israeli Jews.  The hope is that they see this in time to negotiate a solution, while they still have some negotiating power.  The minute our military aid ceases, all negotiating power the Jewish people have vanishes - and the end game for the Israeli Jews under such a circumstance would be terrible.  
[ Parent ]
I disagree... (0.00 / 0)
Israel is totally and completely able to take care of itself militarily. It has a pretty good armaments industry, and plenty of nuclear weapons.
[ Parent ]
True, But (0.00 / 0)
It will be a rough adjustment, nonetheless.  Even with continued "Christian Zionist" support.

What's that you say? Frying pan, met fire?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
If you are correct.. (4.00 / 1)
then they have no need for the almost 2.5 billion a year we give them in military aid.  Given our current economic situation we could certainly use that money.  Yet I have never heard an Israeli official say "we can stand on our own - stop sending the two and a half billion a year in arms."  

Anyway, no amount of discussion will probably lead to one of us convincing the other they are wrong.  In the end I actually hope you are right - that Israel truly doesn't need our 2.5 billion a year in military aid (although the fact that they get it seems to preclude them not needing it) - since this will mean that the Israeli Jews will actually be in a strong enough position to negotiate some sort of solution when we pull the cord (which is inevitable).  

[ Parent ]
This is the one topic where it would be helpful to (4.00 / 3)
"reach across the aisle" and understand both perspectives.

American mainstream media and Beltway political narratives have it that the agitating aggression is all on the Palestinian side. In this view, everything Israel does is a fully justified act of self-defense.

Leftwing narratives have it that Israel's actions are genocidal and fully and reliably illegitimate, and Palestine's actions are fully justified and/or infinitesimally minor.

Could it be that there are complex issues, legitimate grievances and sins on both sides, and a need for various parties to reconceptualize the situation?

Nah, we should all root for the "team" we prefer and ignore its inhumane actions and the flaws in its views about grievances and tactics. Our preferred side (whichever one that is) has no role -- other than victim -- in the ongoing strife.

[ Parent ]
That's probably (0.00 / 0)
the most eloquent thing you said. Thank you!
[ Parent ]
Thanks (4.00 / 2)
I find it comparably frustrating to read about I/P issues from leftwing sources and from MSM/rightwing ones. The MSM/rightwing narratives, of course, will reliably paint all Israeli actions as justified and defensive, and leftwing narratives will reliably swing the other way.

You might find this of interest, via Glenn Greenwald, one of the few reliable voices against Manicheanism:

While this morning's air strikes by Israeli Defense Forces in Gaza can be understood and even justified in the wake of recent rocket attacks, we believe that real friends of Israel recognize that escalating the conflict will prove counterproductive, igniting further anger in the region and damaging long-term prospects for peace and stability.

Respecting Israel's right to defend itself, we urge leaders there to recognize that there is no military solution to what is fundamentally a political conflict between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. Read the full statement here.

Today's IDF strikes will deepen the cycle of violence in the region.  Retaliation is inevitable, though we don't know how far the violence will spread or how many more Israelis and Palestinians will die and suffer in the days and weeks to come.

We call for immediate, strong diplomatic intervention by the United States, the Quartet and allies in the region to negotiate a resumption of the ceasefire which dramatically reduced violence and preserved quiet for over five months.

The United States, the Quartet, and the world community must not wait - as they did in the Israel-Lebanon crisis of 2006 - for weeks to pass and hundreds or thousands more to die before intervening.  There needs to be an urgent end to the new hostilities that brings a complete cessation to the rocket fire out of Gaza and that allows food, fuel and other civilian necessities into Gaza.

The need for diplomatic engagement goes beyond a short-term ceasefire.  Eight years of American neglect and ineffective diplomacy have led us directly to a moment when the prospects of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict hang in the balance and with them the prospects for Israel's long-term survival as a Jewish, democratic state.

We urge the incoming Obama administration to lead an early and serious effort to achieve a comprehensive diplomatic resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts.

I suppose this lacks the bracing moral outrage of playing "whose genocide is it, anyway?" But there might be some virtue in addressing this situation from a non-Manichean perspective.

Rejecting the impulse to see things in black-and-white does not mean failing to condemn oppression and terrorism, nor that all sins are equivalent.

It means being willing to admit and condemn them even when they are committed by the side to whom one is more sympathetic. And it means acknowledging that Renoir was right, that "everyone has his reasons."

[ Parent ]
Glenn Greenwald = A guter mentsh (0.00 / 0)
I love Glenn Greenwald. He thinks deeply and in shades of grey in a universe that demands it but with people in authority who prefer to speak in Black and White.

Note: this would have taken a shorter amount of time, but I had to figure out how to decline "gut" in Yiddish!  

[ Parent ]
In our other conversations (4.00 / 2)
I've noted how the left has shown Manichean problems of its own.

Not so much in its take on the Radical Right, which has been cruel, corrupt, and incompetent in the extreme these last few decades and deserves far more criticism than Beltway Dems and the MSM are willing to give it. But in its constructions that painted centrist Obama as beyond reproach and centrist Hillary Clinton as literally inhuman.

And we see it in the left's finely tuned hearing of Israeli excesses and its deaf ear toward those of the Palestinians.

Naturally, the "left" I speak of has few representatives in national office, where the Democrats massively fail in the other direction, gushing -- as Obama did -- that Jerusalem must remain Israel's permanent capital and so on and so forth.

[ Parent ]
Good point. (0.00 / 0)
And even though I do question some of Barack Obama's appointments (like Summers, Vilsack, Clinton (who would be better at HHS), et al.), I do think that this is a great sign. True, he's meeting with the hawkish Israel groups, but he's also meeting with the pro-pacific/diplomatic Israel groups too.

And David Sirota said it best: If you're don't have a seat on the table, you're an item on the menu.  

[ Parent ]
That is a promising development (4.00 / 1)
Thanks for the link.
[ Parent ]
I don't accept your frame at all (4.00 / 3)
The alternative press and progressive blogosphere provides a vital corrective to the MSM. If the MSM is largely biased one way, the corrective is going to lean the other way - but it's bringing balance, not taking sides.

The true left/progressive position is for peace - cessation of violence on all sides and a negotiated solution. You're making an accusation that leftists intend/imply violence against Israel. That's not true, though I can see where it might be a successful rhetoric tactic to change the subject and put critics on the defensive.

[ Parent ]
Quite True (0.00 / 0)
I should have said this myself a lot earlier on.

This really is quite a load of rubbish "vastleft" is peddling.

But then, the handle itself is a double lie--neither vast, nor left.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I have no problem with this statement (4.00 / 2)
but there are things you can't be moderate on, like the fact that Israelis appear to be blocking food to Gazans, and many are eating grass, and their children are malnourished.  That can't be justified for the sake of defense, sorry.

My blog  
[ Parent ]
It's the women giving birth (4.00 / 2)
at roadblocks that gets to me . . .  

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
It's the occupation (3.33 / 6)
The "reasonable" approach would be most appropriate, for example, in a situation like the old tensions between Greece and Turkey.

This is an occupation.  Apply the above approach, for instance, to the Warsaw Ghetto before the Nazis annihilated it, and its sheer sickness is obvious.

Comparing Nazis and Israelis is considered impolite these days.  But the iron-heeled jackboot fits, and the utterances of the Israeli politicians themselves, let alone the settlers, shows their gleeful eagerness to wear it.

Read Haaretz.  They are editorially moderate by any standard, but the story in their pages EVERY SINGLE DAY shows the horror of the Israeli occupation.

Or read the body count:  280+ to 1.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
you mean, 280+ to 7 or 280+ to 5. And yes, it is relevant. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
One Doesn't Have To Think Anything Nice (4.00 / 5)
about Palestinian violence to recognize Israeli policy as genocidal.

Of course I can understand where that policy comes from--the trauma of the Holocaust.  But that doesn't alter it's objective result, which entirely independent of any Palestinian response, especially since that response is so incredibly feeble from an existential viewpoint. (Yes, it can and does kill people, and inflict hideous suffering on the innocent, but it can't remotely threaten the existence of Israel.)

There is nothing in either my views or Breytenbach's to correspond to your characterization.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
My characterization is that... (0.00 / 0)
... if it's a liberal blog, the narrative must be that Israel is genocidal and that any relevant Palestinian attacks, such as ho-hum suicide bombings and no-big-deal missile attacks, will either be ignored completely or relegated to being insignificant. Turns out that they're "incredibly feeble." Maybe they're even nutritious, who knows? I'll bet Gandhi would have fired those missiles if he'd been around to join the benign freedom-fighting.

I'm not sure why the threshold is "existential" risks, but if it is, there is a substantial case to be made that Israel is always in the shadow of existential risks, with numerous hostile neighbors who blatantly want Israel not to exist.

None of this is to say that Israel's recent punishing attacks or other strong-arm tactics are justified or wise. It's just to note that we have two parallel conversations in America -- one in the mainstream media and mainstream politics, and one in lefty circles, and both involve moralistic certainty that one side is viciously inhuman and the other is a blameless victim.

And almost nowhere is there the conversation that says both sides are completely insane to kill people in the name of fictitious deities who want them to own a particular scrap of land.

[ Parent ]
I See You've Moved The Goalposts To The Next County (0.00 / 0)
In your first comment, you wrote:

Leftwing narratives have it that Israel's actions are genocidal and fully and reliably illegitimate, and Palestine's actions are fully justified and/or infinitesimally minor.

I clearly rejected this characterization of Palestinian actions.  But you were determined to shoehorn me into your "evil left" category so you've been working quite assiduously to reposition/redefine the nature of the horrible left position.

"Bored Now"--Vampire Willow, "Doppelgangland", Buffy, The Vampire Slayer Season 3, Episode 16


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Isn't calling Israel's agenda "genocide" (0.00 / 0)
Something of a nuclear option when it comes to framing the situation?

What goalposts am I moving? I'm just observing the undeniable tendency of liberal bloggers to register outrage only at the behavior and presumed motives of Israel and rarely if ever to provocative and brutal acts by Palestinians.

I find it frustrating, because I'd rather rely on liberal bloggers as a source of truth than the MSM (or heaven forbid rightwing bloggers), but the reliable lack of even superficial attempts at understanding the perspective of people who face suicide bombings on a regular basis, and how that might contribute to aggressive responses is rather disheartening.

Again, none of that is to say that Israel's recent or other controversial actions are justified or sensible. It's also not to say anything about the appropriateness of Israel's founding or its claims to the occupied territories, and so on.

Just pointing out the twin biases of two ends of reportage and analysis, each of which is attuned to outrage for the sins of only one side. I simply can't see how either of these two parallel worlds is helping bring a holistic understanding.

[ Parent ]
I deplore bad acts by Palestinians (4.00 / 3)
Happy?

I also deplore the MASS MURDER committed by Israel in THE PAST 2 DAYS.

Oh, and I deplore the fact that Gaza is so painfully similar to the Warsaw Ghetto before it was annihilated.

But in your view there is only conflicting bias.  There is no reality.  I could add page after page of facts to buttress this, but you know these facts.  So you seize a METHODOLOGY of equivalency that simply robs these facts of all human meaning.

But hey, if that's what it takes for you to look at yourself in the mirror every day, who am I to quibble?

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
I'm not arguing for equivalency (4.00 / 1)
In fact, I'm the sworn enemy of false equivalency.

But the fact remains that in lefty circles, you'd almost never get the sense that bad acts by Palestinians are deplored, or that they play a role in fanning the flames.

I am decrying two parallel forms of limited-context reporting and analysis, one on the the right (and in mainstream media and political circles) that is blind to the situation on the ground for Palestinians and one on the left that is blind to the situation on the ground for Israelis.

I make no claim that the crimes of both sides are equivalent. I am just frustrated that no one's reporting seems well-rounded and fair.

[ Parent ]
See Glenn on how the MSM approach works (0.00 / 0)
(Which is indistinguishable from the right-wing and mainstream political view):

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...

Now, look at the leftysphere and see how rarely Palestinian actions are scrutinized. Apparently their suicide bombs and rocket attacks are wholly benign and justified and play no discernible role in the ongoing strife. How often in a lefty blog do you see a photo of wounded or mourning Israelis? Do they not bleed? Or do they deserve it?

It seems that acknowledging the humanity of Israelis is off the table in our world, just as acknowledging the humanity of Palestinians is off the table in that other world.

To give a shit about the victims of Palestinian attacks is tantamount to treason in the left, and it's reliably and instantly contorted into being a rationalization for Israeli misdeeds. I used to admire my fellow lefties for their gift for nuance, but the handling of I/P issues and of the "death march" 2008 primary have given me pause.

[ Parent ]
Do you have any independent media analysis other than your own sense of victimhood (4.00 / 3)
It's been my recollection over the years that injured and dead Israelis wind up on page one and at the top of the news, and injured or dead Palestinians wind up on page B23 in a box.

Of course, that could also partially be a result of the vastly asymmetric  nature of the violence that causes there to be so many more dead Palestinians than Israelis. As Jeff said so well above, "your METHODOLOGY of equivalency that simply robs these facts of all human meaning."

[ Parent ]
Ah, the gentleman has a taste for red herring! (4.00 / 1)
Do you have any independent media analysis other than your own sense of victimhood

It's been my recollection over the years that injured and dead Israelis wind up on page one and at the top of the news, and injured or dead Palestinians wind up on page B23 in a box.

What "victimhood"? It's called a "critique." And since we both agree (see my numerous comments in this thread) that the mainstream media is generally biased toward Israel's grievances, what media analysis are you demanding from me? An analysis of left-of-center blogs? I wasn't aware that anyone in the media was doing a proper job of that. Is that a required step in order to level a criticism at the left blogosphere and lefty intellectual circles?

Of course, that could also partially be a result of the vastly asymmetric  nature of the violence that causes there to be so many more dead Palestinians than Israelis.

How does a relatively large number of Palestinian deaths explain the MSM's traditionally greater coverage of attacks on Israelis?

As Jeff said so well above, "your METHODOLOGY of equivalency that simply robs these facts of all human meaning."

If harping on the idea that I'm claiming an equivalency (or equivalency-related programs, or however that ALL CAPS "methodology" is supposed to bolster your case) which I am not claiming is your idea of a good time, then rock on! IMHO, ignoring the full context in which these two sides go at each other "robs the facts of all human meaning."

As it stands, we have our pick of two content streams that see the situation through a filter. Asking for one of them -- the one with which I ordinarily affiliate -- to do better is not to claim that an honest analysis of the situation puts both sides in some equivalency.

It's plain as day that lefty blogs virtually never express outrage or even acknowledgment of the role played by Palestinian attacks on Israelis. That robs a little "human meaning" from the situation, no?

We ought to buy Palestinian jerseys and yell, "Go, team!" if we're not prepared to discuss the complex web of grievances and countergrievances and the evils of terrorism whether it's state-sponsored or not.

[ Parent ]
When A "Fact" Isn't Actually A Fact (4.00 / 1)
But the fact remains that in lefty circles, you'd almost never get the sense that bad acts by Palestinians are deplored, or that they play a role in fanning the flames.

We're arguing facts. You're arguing feelings as "facts".

Bit of a difference there.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Paul, is there an ignore filter for the RSS feeds? (0.00 / 0)
I've come to really enjoy Open Left but I'll do us both a favor by not reading or commenting on your posts any more.

You continually sidestep the content of dissenting posts and go ad hominem at the drop of a hat.

Adios.

[ Parent ]
Shorter vastleft (0.00 / 0)
"I got nothin'."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
I've got plenty, not nothin' (0.00 / 0)
But I'm tired of your penchant for ad hominem and talking past me. Life's too short.
[ Parent ]
I tried googling references to sderot and hamas rockets at openleft on google (0.00 / 0)
And got 2 hits and 3 hits, respectively.

Is there some other key word to use in a search that might indicate that rocket attacks into Israel have been mentioned here on Open Left?

[ Parent ]
Paul, you've never made me cry before (0.00 / 0)
Thank you.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
Should've stopped (4.00 / 1)
sixty years ago.

I think this is probably, I would imagine, probably the most important, although it's not the largest, maybe not the most consequential one in terms of loss of human life, and maybe not even in terms of the danger of regional conflagration, but this is the essential problem that the world has to face.

Well Yes (0.00 / 0)
But I'm trying not to be "utopian" and "ideoloigcal" so I'm cutting them 20 years of slack.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
situation on the ground (4.00 / 1)
American Evangelicals (4.00 / 2)
want the Palestineans out of Palestine.  Dead, moved, disappeared, it doesn't matter as long as the Jews get all of the land from the Mediteranean to the Jordan river.  Any Republican who supports that position gets their vote.  Any Republican who does not, loses their primary.  So there will never be any Republican support for a settlement.  And Israeli hard-liners will just hold out for the next Republican President, or Republican control of one house of Congress.  In the meantime, the Democrats won't apply too much force on the Israelis for fear of losing the Jewish vote.  Poor Palestineans.
But at least the republican sentiment is grounded in reality... (4.00 / 1)
...The democrats are afraid of their own shadow...
[ Parent ]
I should have been clearer... (4.00 / 2)
At least the republicans actually have to worry about their own base voting against them. With the democrats, even Jewish voters (like me) would support a more even-handed policy, so the republicans' fear that their base would vote against them on the basis of Israel policy is grounded in reality. The democrats, not so much.
[ Parent ]
Thanks, Paul (4.00 / 2)
Despair is where I've been stuck for the past day.   Thanks for so clearly reminding me--us--that there are indeed obvious paths, perilous though they may be, through this ...  

I wish I could offer more.  

Thanks for breaking the silence here, Paul (4.00 / 3)
One-state proposals were once anathema but are now being increasingly tolerated in the mainstream. I don't see this as a good sign, however. I think these proposals are secretly welcomed by the US and Israel because they have dissolved from a threat into a tool of the constant US-Israeli efforts to concoct an image of defense and undermine the primary peace effort that, though severely debilitated, remains a threat and very damaging to their propaganda campaign. Israel would much rather argue it is defending its Jewish identity from those dirty Arabs than defend its opposition to the longstanding international consensus on a two-state solution based on UN Resolutions 242 and 338.

Of course, there are major flaws with the two-state solution as well, and I concede it's possible that it's even more unlikely than a one-state solution. Ultimately I'd prefer a no-state solution, but that's the ultimate utopian fantasy.

Whatchu talkin' 'bout? Anarchy? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Yes, aka libertarianism, though in the correct, original European usage (0.00 / 0)
Not the way it's been distorted in the US to stand for total tierney.
[ Parent ]
A good point (0.00 / 0)
Yes, I think you're right that a one state solution seems so improbable that both Israel and the United States do see encouraging it as yet another way to further delay a confrontation with the inevitable.

Nevertheless....

[ Parent ]
Compulsory zionism is what finally drove me from my 3-day-Jew observance (4.00 / 7)
I could handle being an agnostic Jew.  But when I came to the realization about 6 or 7 years ago that I opposed (modern, state) zionism, I found I couldn't attend shul even just on the High Holy Days -- there was just too much reflexive support for the concept of The Jewish State.  I'd bet that if you polled American Jews, Zionism would be more widely supported than any other significant issue for the community -- keeping kosher, marrying non-Jews, observing Shabbes, English davening, egalitarianism, you name it.

Zionism, in its modern form, seems to be an outgrowth of late-19th century European nationalism.  By the 1890s, even the Germans and Italians had nation-states!  Why not the Jews?  Well, by 1914 and 1915 European nationalism probably didn't seem so hot.  By 1918 it seemed sort of horrific.  By 1933 and 1939 and 1945, it seemed like an utter disaster, and, in fact, Europe has spent the better part of 60 years trying to dig itself out from under the rubble it brought down on itself with that ideology.  But we Jews bought into it anyway, and transmitted 19th-century European nationalism to the Middle East -- complete with xenophobia, militarism, jingoism, and more or less permanent expansionist war!

I can't even bring myself to engage the debate any more, to be perfectly frank.  Given the damage done and hatred sown, there's nothing recognizable as a "solution" available, only greater and lesser disasters.  And from what I can tell it's still basically unacceptable to say in an American Jewish community that you're opposed to state Zionism.

I reached the point of despair and personal withdrawal years ago.  The brutal crimes committed against Gazan Palestinians are, in a quite literal sense, overkill.

You have my sympathy (0.00 / 0)
In my community most of the people have been to Israel at least once and feel very fiercely that it is a place of concentrated holiness. That would be OK except for the casual prejudice and support for any kind of brutality. And it is hard to make peace with people who you are convinced are determined to drive you into the sea.

IMHO if a congregation is willing to affiliate with Jewish Renewal or is an independent minyan they are about worshipping and not being about part of the Israel lobby.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

[ Parent ]
There's a very big Reconstructionist congregation with lots of Renewal aspects near where I work (0.00 / 0)
All the lefties belong to it, it's very, very self-consciously progressive, hosts Palestinian speakers from time to time, and is serious about opposing the Occupation.  And yet, their official Mission Statement is 100% zionist ("we are dedicated to the survival of Israel as an independent Jewish state").

In my experience, the more a Jewish community is willing to see the Palestinians as human beings, the more they bend over backwards to prove that they're still really Jewish by loudly insisting on being zionists.

We survived every kind of attack and deprivation thrown at us for thousands of years -- legal discrimination, progroms, forced conversions, expulsions, ghettos, etc.  I kind of think that Judaism is in the process of destroying itself from within through its unwavering commitment to modern, state zionism.  We may get the Land, but we'll lose the whole Book to get it.  And there are evidently a whole lot of folks who are perfectly willing to make that deal with both eyes open.

[ Parent ]
One state (0.00 / 0)
This has the great merit of stopping the fight over Jerusalem. It also has the merit of equal economic opportunities for everyone living there. But it is not the solution to "destruction of the Palestinian people". The citizens of one state will be neither Palestinians nor Israelis but something else altogether. Also one state is a great target for the hardcore jihadists who want an Islamist state in Palestine.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  
If you could not do one state in 1948, (0.00 / 0)
you perhaps cannot do it now with the passage of sixty years of hate and grievance.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  
[ Parent ]
But you probably can't do 2 states, either (0.00 / 0)
The hate and grievance are there on both sides, regardless of where the borders are drawn.  Furthermore, because of Israeli settlement policy, the two populations are utterly intertwined -- you simple can't draw a border between them.  And the track record of partition (Ireland, India, Cyprus, Yugoslavia...) is hardly encouraging.
[ Parent ]
Beyond Gaza--A One State Solution And More | 53 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox