The Palestinian Authority’s statehood bid is portrayed as a crucial step on the way to the two state solution, yet an independent Palestinian state appears to as distant as ever. Watch below as Gershom Gorenberg and I engage in a Bloggingheads diavlog to discuss whether it’s time to begin considering other options.
One sneaky note – you’ll notice I’m having considerable issue with Gershom’s portrayal of the one-state approach: He argues that this is akin to being on a sinking ship (the status quo) with the shore (the two state solution) too far to swim to, and suggesting we flap our hands and fly there instead. As many a discussion, counter-allegories begin coming up properly the minute you hang up. So for what it’s worth, here is my reading of the situation: All of us, Palestinians and Israelis, are stuck on a plane flying toward a long agreed upon destination – the two state solution. Trouble is, the destination keeps getting further and further away, and there’s every indication the plane is starting to run out of fuel. What I’m suggesting is that it’s time to consider a change of course, or even crash-landing the plane, while Gershom insists we must persist on our original track. I guess time will tell.
October 30, 2011
7:14 pm
“Richard: One can’t make peace with those who are not yet ready to make peace.”
I agree.
And, more than sadly, that leaves resistance as a selected option, as divorced from the possible as it is.
“No it isn’t. A moratorium was tried.”
That is a falsehood. A moratorium that included East Jerusalem was never tried.
October 31, 2011
4:43 am
Richard Witty said …
.
“That is a falsehood. A moratorium that included East Jerusalem was never tried”
.
I am glad you mentioned Richard. You are right, Jerusalem was not included in the moratorium. Why should it have been? Jerusalem today, as it had been through most of it’s history, has a mixed population. Both Jews and Arabs live in Jerusalem. Both peoples, the Jews and the Arabs claim it as their own, although two of Israel’s prime ministers offered to share it as a joint capital as part of their peace offers. In the meanwhile, under Israel’s jurisdiction, after re-unifying the city following another war of aggression by the Arabs in 1967, Israel allowed BOTH Jews and Arabs to live and build in the city. But you are backing up Abbas’s demand that Israel should discriminate against Jewish citizens ONLY and not allow them to build? Just because Abbas likes to pretend that Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinian Arabs? He has no legal justification to assert such a demand. At best, he could request a total freeze of all buildings in Jerusalem, by BOTH Jews and Arabs, pending resolution of the dispute. But he only demands a building freeze for Jews. A blatantly discriminatory demand. I would describe it as Hutzpah. The man is obviously not interested in peace. He wants to get as much as he can using others as proxies to pressure and blackmail against Israel. Then, after weakening Israel by such means, he hopes to deliver it a coup grace at an opportune moment, later.
October 31, 2011
6:15 am
It should have been because East Jerusalem is on the Eastern side of the green line, which is still regarded as the defining boundary of what is occupied region.
You are also incorrect that Arabs have been permitted to build in the city. The opposite is the case, that virtually no building permits are awarded to non-Jewish residents, and a building permit is required.
After a reconciliation occurs, you can accurately call the need for a moratorium on settlement construction in East Jerusalem, chutzpah. Until then, your argument is just nakedly the rationalization to avoid pursuing/constructing peace.
“Belong to”. “Belong to” is a phrase to describe property. And, the laws of title to property are clear and dependent on the test of whether the title is consented (by a reasonable man test). Where title is contested by a person, under law, they have the right to sue.
If you are speaking of sovereignty, modern sovereignty is defined also by consent, but by consent of the governed. A minority ruling over a majority is an imposition (both ways).
The rule of law protects all, not just a few. Advantage protects none, as it creates the precedent of power makes right, rather than principles of law make right.
October 31, 2011
12:42 pm
Richard Witty said …
.
” A minority ruling over a majority is an imposition (both ways)”
.
We were talking about Jerusalem no? So let me remind you again. Since the 1830s (even before modern Zionism) the majority population of Jerusalem was Jewish. Not Arab.
.
Only for a brief 19 year period was East Jerusalem pure Arab because the Arabs ethnically cleansed the Jewish population of East Jerusalem. What you and many like you are advocating is that Israel should recognise the validity of that ethnic cleansing and that it too should perpetuate it. That’s just not on. No cigar ..
October 31, 2011
3:08 pm
Richard Witty said …
.
“You are also incorrect that Arabs have been permitted to build in the city. The opposite is the case, that virtually no building permits are awarded to non-Jewish residents, and a building permit is required”
.
You might want to read the link below which presents a more balanced view rather than reflexive accusations against Israel’s policies in Jerusalem.
.
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hireview/content.php?type=article&issue=spring04/&name=davis
.
But even if you choose to disregard what is in the above link. Even then, Israel has not put a total freeze on buildings by Arabs in East Jerusalem. But Abbas is demanding a TOTAL freeze of building by Jews. That is discriminatory and it would be ludicrous for Israel to go along with such demands.
November 1, 2011
12:53 am
“We were talking about Jerusalem no? So let me remind you again. Since the 1830s (even before modern Zionism) the majority population of Jerusalem was Jewish. Not Arab.”
The site that I referred you to demonstrated that the majority changed frequently between 1800′s and 1948. It is a false assertion to declare that the majority of population of East Jerusalem (a specific area, not the general “Jerusalem”), was Jewish.
That is the reasoning of expropriation.
East Jerusalem (outside of the walled city certainly) has been majority Palestinian for an extended period, and is intimately connected to the rest of Palestinian society/economy on the West Bank.
It is naturally part of Palestine. Only by expropriation (stealing) is it majority Jewish currently.
A total freeze of building on land of contested title is reasonable. A total freeze on building on land that is intimately Palestinian sovereign is a reasonable communication of intent to not make reconciliation impossible.
Its does. So, if you desire that reconciliation be impossible, you will advocate for your reasoning.
A hunger for dates can be delayed without injustice. Figs will do if available. Think of yourself as unwilling to steal as a primary motive, then pick from options.
My very religious son is much much more risk-averse about stealing another’s property even inadvertently, than Netanyahu is to Palestinian terror.
November 1, 2011
1:02 am
Bosko,
The article you presented ignored the question of examinging the possibility of disproportionate issuance of building permits comparing proposals for building permits by Arab and by Jewish applicants.
Examine the claims, don’t just rationalize them away.
The claims of discrimmination sound more than plausible to me.
And, if there is prejudice in permitting, no matter who they vote for, or even don’t vote at all, then work to correct it.
Don’t allow yourself to be satisfied with rationalizations that shield prejudices.
November 1, 2011
3:04 am
Richard Witty said …
.
“The site that I referred you to demonstrated that the majority changed frequently between 1800’s and 1948″
.
Richardand I referred you to several other links that demonstrated a clear Jewish majority of Jews in Jerusalem since the 1830s. Here is one of them.
.
“the city was part of the Ottoman Empire and since 1830, it has had a Jewish majority.[8]”
.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positions_on_Jerusalem
.
Don’t be so selective in your readings, Richard.
November 1, 2011
3:14 am
Richard Witty said …
.
” It is a false assertion to declare that the majority of population of East Jerusalem (a specific area, not the general “Jerusalem”), was Jewish”
.
No it isn’t Richard. What IS false though is the proposition that you can cut and dice a city every which way you like in order to back up a false demand. East Jerusalem is part of Jerusalem which has a majority Jewish population overall. It certainly was a united city before 1948 and only for a brief 19 year period was the city divided after Jordon occupied part of the city, East Jerusalem, in 1948.
November 1, 2011
3:22 am
Richard Witty said …
.
“A total freeze of building on land of contested title is reasonable”
.
Even if it would be reasonable, even then, if the land is contested and a freeze is to be instituted pending resolution of the claims, it is NOT reasonable to require only ONE of the parties to be subject to the freeze. If you insist on a freeze then the freeze should apply to BOTH parties of the dispute. Both to Arabs and Jews. Not just to Jews. Otherwise you are advocating discrimination.
November 1, 2011
3:34 am
Richard Witty said …
.
“The article you presented ignored the question of examinging the possibility of disproportionate issuance of building permits comparing proposals for building permits by Arab and by Jewish applicants”
.
I presented that article in order to try to present you with a bit more of a balanced perspective than the sources that you seem to favour. But you ignored my real point that I made when I presented you with my source.
.
My real point was that even if you believe that Israel is discriminatory in issuing building permits, even then, there has been NO TOTAL FREEZE of Arab building activity. Yet Abbas insists on a TOTAL freeze for Jews only or else he threatens to take his ball and go home. He is acting like a petulant child.
November 1, 2011
8:37 am
Abbas insists on a temporary freeze as the basis of negotiations in good faith, rather than negotiation at the end of a legal rifle.
Temporary until resolved is reasonable.
Discrimmination is no permits issued to Palestinians while hundreds to Jewish Israelis.
The last internationally recognized frontier was the green line. I personally don’t expect Israel to relinquish sovereignty over the Jewish portion of the walled city, but I would expect Israel to regard itself as temporarily occupying East Jerusalem.
The boundaries of the annexed East Jerusalem, extend far beyond boundaries of any historic asserted claim.
Jerusalem can remain united, if Israel and Palestine reconcile and accomplish a real peace, so that the need for borders is incidental.
Until a treaty is ratified, Israel is in violation of both international law protecting the status of temporarily occupied territory, and of title law in which individually owned Palestinian owned property was taken by decree and/or force.
Its a reasonable request on the part of Abbas. Doable practically. Not doable if you put the cart before the horse, thinking that a resolution has already occurred.
Its a tragedy to see land under-utilized. But, it is the law that if contested, title is just not perfected, meaning that there is significant risk that subsequent property trasnfers will be judged to be void.
An owner really can’t sell property with that risk associated. And, a buyer, in conducting a title search, will receive disclosure of the status, so that they can’t later claim that they didn’t know, that they were innocents.
If a title search is required (as in the US), then they would know.
If the title registration laws do not provide for Palestinians to be able to contest land title rights, then the name-calling that is used against Israel, is at least partially descriptive, not only rhetorical name-calling.
November 1, 2011
9:41 am
As a communication, the permission for Jews only to build in East Jerusalem is a black or white statement.
There isn’t nuance or gradations.
If building is permitted, then it communicates Israel’s intent to expropriate, in violation of law.
If building is prohibited, then it communicates Israel’s intent to reconcile.
I prefer the communication of the intent to reconcile.
You?
November 1, 2011
12:22 pm
Richard Witty said …
.
“Abbas insists on a temporary freeze as the basis of negotiations in good faith, rather than negotiation at the end of a legal rifle”
.
Abbas insists on a “temporary” freeze for Jews only. And who knows how long the negotiations will go on for so “temporary” is in the eye of the beholder. By the way, have you read the latest revelations by Condelia Rice? In her memoirs, she blames Abbas for not reaching a peace agreement with Olmert. Her opinion was that Olmert made an unexpectedly generous offer involving Jerusalem. But like Arafat before him, Abbas walked away from it and could not bring himself to utter the word “yes”.
.
I don’t think I’ll have to wait long though for the spin to start explaining that opinion away and to conclude that in fact Abbas was the reasonable one and that it was all Olmert’s fault. Yet a base line has now been set and the Arabs will not accept anything less than Olmert’s offer in the future. Even though an unaccepted offer should not be binding. That’s the problem with “signs of good faith” and good will gestures. First, the expectations are one sided. They are always expected ONLY from Israel. Second, they are not reciprocated. Third, they become permanent expectations.
November 1, 2011
4:32 pm
I still find it mind boggling that in 1948, the Arabs ethnically cleansed East Jerusalem of Jews (They committed a CRIME). And after the 1967 war, in which the Arabs were the aggressors again, after Israel ended up controlling East Jerusalem and Jerusalem was REUNIFIED, Israel is expected to maintain the “status quo” that the Arabs created in 1948 (which was a crime) and keep East Jerusalem Jew free but allow ONLY Arabs to build in East Jerusalem.
.
It really is a Kafkaesque proposition. I am sorry but I can’t wrap my mind around it. It is a height of Hutzpah that is expected only of Israel. Any other larger mid range power would tell everyone where to jump into if it would be asked of them under similar circumstances. The only reason why there is so much support for the Arab demands is because Israel is considered to be a small inconsequential country by most. And because the Arabs are part of an influential power bloc of 22 Arab nations and Muslim countries. And because of their petro dollars and oil. But at some point, their oil will run out. What will they do then?
November 2, 2011
5:30 pm
East Jerusalem is nowhere near “Jew-free” currently, and won’t be if East Jerusalem is part of Palestine.
The question is of expansion, of greed, of theft.
November 2, 2011
5:36 pm
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/carlo-strenger-mahmoud-abbas-crucial-message-to-israel-1.393351
Have you read this article by Carlo Strenger?
November 2, 2011
5:47 pm
But Richard
The reason why it is NOT Jew free is because at least some Israeli politicians were willing to stand up for the rights of Jews to live in East Jerusalem. If it would be up to the Arabs and those who support them unconditionally (by the way, I don’t count you personally amongst those and I hope I am right), if it would be up to them, East Jerusalem WOULD be Jew free because they claim that any Jew who moves to live in East Jerusalem is a settler. And they are against settlements. All settlements. Isn’t that what we were discussing and arguing about on this blog?
.
As to whether the Arabs would allow Jews to live in Palestine, I doubt it based on what they have been saying. I gave you reference links which support my belief. But we will see. In any case, I don’t think many Jews would be willing to put their and their family’s lives at the mercy of the Hamas types who seem to be quite prevalent amongst Palestinian society.
November 3, 2011
5:10 am
Richard
Yes, I read Strenger’s article and I was pleased about Abbas acknowledging historic Palestinian Arab mistakes. That’s certainly a step in the right direction. But if he still acts as if Israel is the only one that has to fix the adverse outcomes that occurred as a result of those Palestinian Arab mistakes, then he still has some way to go.
.
Have you read quoted comments from Condie Rice’s memoirs yet? Here is a link to it ..
.
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=243917
.
She certainly thought that Abbas was not statesman like enough to accept Olmert’s peace offer in 2008.what do you think?
November 3, 2011
2:30 pm
In predicting what Arabs would think, I suggest that you don’t.
Abbas’ written statement conflicts with how you and others have been characterizing him.
In posting that, I’m asking you to review your impression of him.
He will always remain a representative of the Palestinian people, and should be respected for that, and not expected to conform to unnecessary demonstrations of obedience.
He should be respected, and negotiated with.
Noone that I’ve ever negotiated with in business or inter-personal is perfect, consistent with my wishes, or right by any objective definition.
But, they are people, and should be treated with the respect and understanding that you would afford to a neighbor.
As I tell advocates for a single state, based on Israeli prohibition from return following the 1948 war.
The statement grossly irritates them. They assume that I don’t empathize with their experience, history, current situation.
I say the same thing to you.
The past is the past.
We live in the present. Our responsibility, our ability, is to create a better present -> future.
Palestinians are 50% of the population that live between the river and sea. That is a LARGE population to experience some suppression.
If there is any way, and there certainly is, to reconcile, then it is our responsibility to make it happen. It is our negligence to rationalize why it can’t, why it shouldn’t.
Bases of distrust can be protected against. Again, that is the signficance of identifying risks, and optimally incorporating prevention from the risks into an agreement.
If the means of prevention harm the viability of the agreement, or delay the formation of the agreement, then those preventions are worse than the cure.
We need the cure, not rationalizations for avoiding needed treatment.
November 4, 2011
1:47 pm
Richard Witty said …
.
“He [Abbas] should be respected, and negotiated with.
Noone that I’ve ever negotiated with in business or inter-personal is perfect, consistent with my wishes, or right by any objective definition”
.
He is the one who stopped negotiating Richard. Even Netanyahu WANTS to gegotiate with him. But at every turn, Abbas acts like a petulant child when something happens which is not to his liking.
.
In 2008, he used operation Cast Lead as an excuse to stop negotiations. And now he won’t even enter negotiations because Netanyahu refuses to give in to his blackmail about settlement freeze.
.
You say, “Noone that I’ve ever negotiated with in business or inter-personal is perfect, consistent with my wishes, or right by any objective definition”
.
Well then, that applies to Netanyahu too. Abbas should negotiate with him. The best way to bring about the end to the “settlements issue” is to agree on the borders. After that, Israel would build new homes only within those agreed borders.
November 5, 2011
12:24 pm
If Netanyahu sincerely wants to negotiate, there is a simple pre-requisite, a complete moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem until an agreement is reached and ratified.
Its simple, doable. It doesn’t matter if its fair or not.
It indicates intent to negotiate without prejudice. The continued expansion indicates an intent not to negotiate.
November 5, 2011
1:30 pm
Richard, I am sorry to be stubborn about it but that is how I genuinely feel. So, I will borrow your own words and modify them to show you how I feel …
.
If Abbas sincerely wants to negotiate, there should be no pre-requisites. If he wants to resolve the issue of “the settlements”, negotiate and agree on borders. And voila … No more issues about “settlements” because Israel would only build new homes within the agreed borders. If some of the places which are now labelled as “settlements” would end up as part of Israel, Abbas would have no more grounds to object to new buildings. If some of those “settlements” would end up outside of Israel, then Israel would stop building in those places.
Its simple, doable. It doesn’t matter if its fair or not.
It indicates intent to negotiate without prejudice. The continued blackmail to stop Jews from building while objecting to restrictions on Arab building indicates prejudice, bad faith and intent not to negotiate.
November 5, 2011
2:40 pm
Richard
Abbas’s strategy is simple. I am surprised you can’t see it. He wants recognition of a Palestinian Arab state, within the best borders (for him) that he can achieve, which at this stage, the 1967 borders. He does NOT want to agree to a peace deal in exchange. So he does his best to avoid negotiations and goes directly to the UN to get them to recognise his “Palestine”. He then hopes to leverage that vote to pressure Israel to withdraw, while still not signing a peace agreement. He then wants to establish his state, bide his time, strengthen it, build alliances, an army and in due course to attack Israel again, without having to worry about someone reminding him that he signed a peace treaty because he did not. Because he refuses and will refuse to do so. It goes against his grain.
November 7, 2011
5:53 am
As I mentioned in the other video topic, Israel proposes pre-conditions, specifically the demand to regard Israel legally as the Jewish state, rather than the democratic state next to Palestine, that is for the foreseeable future Jewish majority.
It is a big difference.
I would not impose on my Christian neighbor that his children and grandchildren remain Christian. I would leave that choice up their majority, and by their determined protocols.
In some ways it is charitable on his part to not impose that on the current and future Jewish even citizens of Israel.
You fear that he strategizes to attack Israel again. Rather than seek to incorporate features that severely moderate that prospect, and be prepared for the eventuality, you opt to suppress in anticipation.
Its a wrong attitude. For two reasons.
One is the presumption that a fear is a prophecy that will happen. (That was the logic of Arab anti-Zionists before Israel was founded, that Zionists “intended” to take over and remove them. So, they attacked settlements and even old residences in anticipation, and Zionists built up local defenses and then organized communal defenses, which was interpreted as confirmation of the original suspicion.
Fears acted out without moderation and without courage, often construct exactly what they fear.
There is a severe dishonesty in predicting, when the reality is of fearing.
The second is that in this case, you are just wrong about Abbas and Fayyad at least.
You are capable of much more than just repetition ad nauseum.
I get that you think that the status quo is feasible and is more desirable than reconciliation in some way, all things considered.
I think that reconciliation is necessary, as the nearly certain consequence of extended state of conflict will result in the falling of the PA and a resultant SIGNIFICANT increase in terror (from desparation and frustration, and with no longer any organized moderating force).
Internationally, there will be a movement for one-person one-vote, which will leave Israel far more isolated than currently.
Your reliance on allies will disappoint you, as before the organized agitation for one-person one-vote occurred in South Africa, South Africa was a loved European bastion in Africa. Still, EVERY European and American power renounced their former friendship.
And, I think it is desirable because peace is possible, constructable, of mutual benefit.
For me, it is especially important relative to the Palestinians as a large minority of them are descended from Jews, and MANY are matrilineally Jewish (even by that “racist” basis of kinship).
Necessary, desirable, possible. Pretty compelling in my book.
November 8, 2011
4:32 am
Richard Witty …
.
“As I mentioned in the other video topic, Israel proposes pre-conditions, specifically the demand to regard Israel legally as the Jewish state”
.
It is not a precondition to negotiations. The demand does not Netanyahu from willing to negotiate. Contrast that to Abbas who is not willing to negotiate till he gets Israel to give in to his precondition.
.
Richard Witty …
.
“I would not impose on my Christian neighbor that his children and grandchildren remain Christian. I would leave that choice up their majority, and by their determined protocols”
.
Another red herring analogy. The demand to earmark Israel as the state for the Jewish people is not different than the idea that Jordan is earmarked for the Jordanian people, Egypt for the Egyptian people, Saudi Arabia for the Saudi people.
.
Richard Witty …
.
“You fear that he strategizes to attack Israel again. Rather than seek to incorporate features that severely moderate that prospect, and be prepared for the eventuality, you opt to suppress in anticipation”
.
Yes Richard, we heard those accusations about paranoia before. Yet fear based on observation, hearing what they say, wathing what they do/did is not paranoia. Have you heard the saying:
.
If it quacks like a duck, if it waddles like a duck and if it looks like a duck, then it REALLY IS A DUCK!!!
.
You on the other hand seem to want to convince all and sundry that if you ignore what is in front of your eye, glaring at you, then it will just pop and disappear. It won’t Richard! Abbas’s strategy is obvious and it seems that he will play his cards to the bitter end.
.
He reminds me of a tradesman who was called out to do a job that he didn’t really want to do. He then quoted a very high price, thinking that if they would be willing to pay his price, well and good, then he would be willing to do the job. Else, he would be let off the hook and he won’t have to do the job that he does not really want. There … That sums Abbas up to a tee.
November 8, 2011
4:41 am
Richard Witty …
.
“Your reliance on allies will disappoint you, as before the organized agitation for one-person one-vote occurred in South Africa”
.
Israel never was … It is not … and never will be South Africa. The differences between it and South Africa are much greater thant the similarities. Despite the fact that some on the left, love that analogy. But it still does not make it right. Most reasonable people in the world realise that. The ones who don’t, we can’t help because they are people who wish us harm, no matter what we do or don’t do.
November 8, 2011
4:48 am
Richard Witty …
.
“And, I think it is desirable because peace is possible, constructable, of mutual benefit”
.
Just because peace is desirable, it does not mean you can wish it to happen. The other party needs to wish for it too because if he does not, then he will gladly grab what you give him as payment for peace and will then proceed to demand more till you either give him everything that you got, or he will blackmail you more.
.
Peace will only come when both parties to the conflict make it their highest priority.
November 8, 2011
5:00 am
Richard Witty …
.
“Palestinians as a large minority of them are descended from Jews, and MANY are matrilineally Jewish (even by that “racist” basis of kinship)”
.
I have nothing against Palestinian Arabs. The only problem I have with them TODAY is that they don’t look at themselves in the terms that you describe them above. To them, we Jews are an alien entity, a virus that imposed on them and dared to stake a claim to the land that they consider their own, the land that Israel is on too, not just the West Bank. As such, they want to regain what they consider to be THEIR rightful posession. And no matter how you wish those facts to be different, you can’t change those facts. At least in our generation.
.
What we need is decades of peace, even cold peace based on deterrent. Then maybe in 100 years or so, who knows what will be possible. Hopefully good things but I won’t speculate. It will be up to future generations.
November 9, 2011
4:44 am
“It is not a precondition to negotiations. The demand does not Netanyahu from willing to negotiate. Contrast that to Abbas who is not willing to negotiate till he gets Israel to give in to his precondition.”
This is a childish rationalization. Your language is entirely of a precondition, a more considerable and permanent one than anything Abbas requests as an indication of intent.
“What we need is decades of peace, even cold peace based on deterrent. Then maybe in 100 years or so, who knows what will be possible. Hopefully good things but I won’t speculate. It will be up to future generations.”
Please look closely at that statement, and consider if that is a construction of even a possible peace.
Further, if Israel undertakes ANY incremental expropriation of land (titled land), then that assertion of a cold peace is a gross lie.
There are two ways to kill Israel as the state of Jewish majority, the Jewish haven.
One is by political or military means, even if self-inflicted by annexation without affording equal rights per its basis laws to all within its jurisdiction.
The second is by devolution of its character.
I was discussing the life of David with a chasidic friend on Monday. I told him of the dilemma of “the ends justify the means”, that what one has to do for actual defense is something that one would not do in normal conditions, and that at that point morality is determined by the justness of the ends more than by the means undertaken.
I asked, was David really such a great man, if he willingly adopted cruel means, even if as an old man he relented on what his character had become and repented.
The chasid told me that David asked God if he could build “Him” a temple, and that God responded ‘You are too tarnished by war mentality. The temple is to be built by a man of peace for a world of peace, not by a man of war for a world of war.’
Don’t project ever. Don’t repeat what someone else told you without really being sure.
Listen and reason.
And, then construct (rather than react).
Those on the left and right that advocate for BDS or speak ill of Israel beyond criticism of its actions, also adopt the “ends justify the means” criteria of their morality.
They say, “How can I do nothing when I observe oppression?”
The failure of both zealousness is the failure to remain sensitive and good while dynamically defending (Israel and Israelis or Palestine and Palestinians).
The great men in history that realized peace, were open to the other, sensitive, and usually always.
Not dismissive, not rationalizing cruelties on any basis ever.
November 9, 2011
9:13 pm
Richard Witty …
.
“This is a childish rationalization. Your language is entirely of a precondition, a more considerable and permanent one than anything Abbas requests as an indication of intent”
.
FACT: Netanyahu said he wants to negotiate. He is on the record of saying that he will sit down and talk without preconditions. Once doing so, he has stated an agenda of what he would like to achieve. One of those is the recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.
.
NOW SPOT THE DIFFERENCE …
.
Abbas said he won’t even sit down to talk to Netanyahu until there is a freeze in “settlement” activity. That is a PRECONDITION!
.
By the way, even when Netanyahu complied with that PRECONDITION for a limited time of 10 months, Abbas wasted 8 of those 10 months. He only sat down to talk again after 8 months. And then stopped negotiating again after the moratorium expired. It is obvious that the last thing that Abbas wants is to have a written peace treaty with Israel. He is doing everything in his power to scuttle any negotiations.
December 28, 2011
9:31 am
.
As long ago as 1854, this is what Karl Marx wrote in the New York Herald Tribune about his travels in Jerusalem …
.
“the sedentary population of Jerusalem numbers about 15,500 souls, of whom 4,000 are Mussulmans and 8,000 Jews. The Mussulmans, forming about a fourth part of the whole, and consisting of Turks, Arabs and Moors, are, of course, the masters in every respect, as they are in no way affected with the weakness of their Government at Constantinople. Nothing equals the misery and the sufferings of the Jews at Jerusalem, inhabiting the most filthy quarter of the town, called hareth-el-yahoud, the quarter of dirt, between the Zion and the Moriah, where their synagogues are situated – the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance”
.
1) MARX NEVER set a foot in Jerualem in his entire life
2) Why do you consider just Muslim Palestinians and not Christian Palestinians. In 1830 Palestinians were the absolute majority in Jerusalem and the fact that you consider just Muslim Palestinians is a flawed approach
3) The Jews became the majority of the population only in the last years of the XIX century, so after Zionism and not, as you wrote, before it.
4) Why to focus only on Jerusalem and not on the entire country, where the Palestinian were at the turning of the XIX century 9/10 of the total population?