Comments on: (Another) Knesset Speaker endorses one-state solution

By: YOSFA

YOSFA — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:01:49 +0000

One state also requires the full support of the Arab States combined, camp david style accords, joint development funds for under developed West Bank and Gaza (of which the funds are not handed to corrupt PA but to independent multi-national committee) and full membership in the Arab League,

Call it Canaan, Phoenicia, or even Semitatia… prosperous, federal, multi ethnic and free from foreign play state that lays ground for tolerance and proves religious zealots wrong for once,

By: Bosko

Bosko — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 04:48:57 +0000

Richard
OK, like I said on other threads, I too would advocate compromise on the more remote outlying more isolated settlements, like Hebron, for the sake of peace. But not for places like the Jewish quarter of East Jerusalem and Gush Etzion. Firstly because Jews have the right to be there but even more importantly because giving those places up would affect hundreds of thousands of Jews who already live there and that would mean civil war amongst Israelis. I would want to avoid that at all cost even if it means continued war with the Palestinian Arabs.
.
Having said that, the above points are moot because even if Israel WOULD give up the settlements, there is the “small matter” of the right of return. You have now seen some Palestinian posters on this site who all insist that the right of return is sacrosanct to them. And I have no reason to believe that they represent the minority of Palestinians. Have you, Richard?
.
So we are back to square one. Convince me, Richard , that the Palestinian Arabs have changed their mind. That they gave up on their 100 year old idea of stopping the existence of the Jewish state.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 12:19:15 +0000

“OK before I move on, I need you to explain what you meant by that. Are you saying that the vote for the two state solution in 1947 by the UN and the subsequent declaration of the state of Israel in 1948, was an act of injustice? ”

I am stating that the settlement enterprise movement that Sharon instituted in the late 70′s and early 80′s was based on the same geographic strategy of the original Zionist settlement strategy.

That was to establish “fingers” of groups of settlements that could comprise a micro-economy and jointly defend, AND incrementally purchase adjacent land, to the qualitative point that the region became primarily Jewish rather than primarily Arab, or indeterminate.

It was an intentional effort to take over sovereignty of sections of the land, legally.

The difference between the pre-1948 settlement effort (yishuv), then 1948-67 settlement effort, and then the post 67 effort, was qualitative.

The establishment of a Jewish state, “enough Israel” necessitated a strategy that advantaged Jewish settlements over Arab. It mirrored the intentional hippie strategy that I was part of in 1973, to help hippies buy interconnected communes in a section outside of Eugene, OR, to the extent that we had an economy, a society, and support networks. Zionist. Legal.

From 1948-67, the settlement effort seemed justified, filling the land with new immigrants, though Arabs that had been dispossessed did have legal claims to much of the land that Israelis populated.

It still could be justified by the need for “enough”, following WW2 and Post-WW2, and the mass forced emigration of Jews from Arab lands (some mix of voluntary and forced).

From 67 onward, the settlement project is NOT one of pursuing “enough” land, but of pursuing a policy designed to drive Palestinians out from what might be “enough” land for them, in the area of their residence, their ancestral (recent and distant) connection/home.

I’m yelled at at left-leaning blogs for my opinions that Zionism is justified, the period from 48-67 for example, even as I declare that with “enough Israel”, the claims for land from 1948 are likely reconcilable now.

Nothing is reconcilable if Israel continues to annex. NOTHING.

It is a war-making effort, even when conducted slowly.

By: Bosko

Bosko — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 21:24:41 +0000

Oh and Cortez, I take it you haven’t heard about the final solution in another context? Let me refresh your mind: Not that long ago, an attempt was made to implement the final solution to “the Jewish question” in some of the very countries that Herr Dannecker suggested is “the home of the Jews”.

By: Bosko

Bosko — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:58:05 +0000

Cortez
You mean SOME Jews prefer it.
.
Mitch
I think Richard strikes me as someone who tries to be fair but IS he fair? If you ask me, then my answer is that I disagree with him on some, maybe many things. Maybe I am right, maybe he is right. Either way it is frustrating that he starts a conversation and then just drops it in the middle.
.
I must admit though that depending on his answer, I am also quite prepared to walk away from the conversation if his answer reveals an unassailable chasm between our views.

By: Mitchell Cohen

Mitchell Cohen — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:45:49 +0000

Bosko, I think Richard is just ashamed to admit he is in check mate….

By: Bosko

Bosko — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 11:58:59 +0000

Richard
You made a statement. I asked you to clarify to me what did you mean by your statement. Are you just going to ignore my request??

By: Bosko

Bosko — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 21:34:41 +0000

Richard:
“The settlement enterprise was an intentional mirror of the settlement enterprise prior to 1948″
.
OK before I move on, I need you to explain what you meant by that. Are you saying that the vote for the two state solution in 1947 by the UN and the subsequent declaration of the state of Israel in 1948, was an act of injustice? Or are you saying that the Jewish refugees who came to build a home for themselves in their ancestral homeland committed a crime by doing so? Or are you saying something else entirely? Please I need to know what you mean because depending on your answer, I will have to decide whether it is even worth continuing this discussion or are we just wasting each other’s time.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:25:07 +0000

Burg’s thesis rests on the devolution of the potential for a viable Palestinian state, by virtue of the intentional settlement project.

It IS the subject at hand, not a distraction.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:23:52 +0000

Palestinians, like all other communities, predominately hold conditional views on what they will accept and not.

They have more than, more than equal, basis for distrusting the other, Israelis.

The settlement enterprise was an intentional mirror of the settlement enterprise prior to 1948, the finger strategy to settle constellations of community to form up the Jewish community and to divide the Palestinian.

The significance of the settlement movement, is that it is not necessary for the prospect of the Jewish community/nation.

When it is necessary to be aggressive to be confident and safe, maybe it is justified.

When it is unnecessary (the design of the settlement enterprise was not for residence, but for intentional expansion of Israeli state territory), it is cruel or worse.

Sensitivity to others needs is a relevant value in an individual, a community, a state.

The only options are:
1. Reconcile – and do the things that make reconciliation possible
2. War

The settlement expansion effort is a war approach, a slow one, a “some will rob you with a fountain pen” one, but a war nevertheless.

Those here that have been hyper-critical of Israel, are speaking mostly conditionally. Only very few bear unconditional hatred of Israel, permanently and in every situation.

As, there are few (maybe more than a few) that bear unconditional hatred for Palestinians.

Most have conditional attitudes.

But, conditioned on sincere recognition, not token.