By Arik Segal
What is known in Israel as the Israeli “Peace Industry” – a broad reference to civil society organizations and individuals working to advance peace – is facing some tough challenges in 2012 and 2013.
The possibility of a preemptive Israeli attack on Iran, political and economic developments in Europe that will make it less supportive of peace-building initiatives, and the next general elections in Israel which seem likely to affirm Likud’s leadership, will make peace seem so remote that the work of peace organizations could lose relevance.
Despite working on the level of civil society, peace-promoting NGOs are directly influenced by the will of the decision makers. Another right-wing dominated Knesset could put more pressure on NGOs and foundations, following the lead of current Knesset in its attempt to adopt the NGO-funding law, which sought to restrict funding to left-wing NGOs. Moreover, the rise of conservatism in Europe and a possible Republican victory in Washington in 2012 would weaken them too. And the predicted economic downturn in Europe could also entail financial and political strains on the European bodies who fund many Israeli peace NGOs. Finally, if Israel attacks Iran and a regional war erupts, it will be almost impossible to promote grassroots conflict resolution models among the Israeli public, whose faith in peace has almost vanished already.
If this analysis is correct, then pro-peace NGOs have a short window of time remaining to revise and reshape their existing work plans to anticipate the situation. In this context, we can consider three main steps that could help boost their effectiveness under the likely constraints.
1. Change the target group: Focus on Israel
Build campaigns that target the Israeli public. The Israeli-Palestinian people-to-people initiatives have not proven to have any real positive effect on the conflict, and recently they encounter even greater difficulties due to the “anti-normalization” trend – many Palestinians are now encouraging a boycott of such activities, claiming they normalize, rather than end, the occupation. It is more expensive and less effective to get liberal-minded Israelis and Palestinians to engage in a mutual outcry somewhere in Europe, than to organize the same discussion between Israelis from all the full range of society right here at home. An internal dialogue between Israelis is crucial in order to diminish negative stereotypes about the left and right and create more understanding about what kind of a future the Israeli public wishes for itself.
2. Change the message:
Public opinion polls show that a large majority of Israelis (+70%) support the two-state solution. However at the same time, some of those people vote for right-wing parties which continue to grow in strength. I believe that many Israelis think liberally but vote and act differently, due to poor information about the left’s political agenda and because of the way that the Israeli left is perceived: weak, arrogant and “detached from reality” – an image which is not very appealing in a militaristic society.
This is where peace organizations should step in and work to tackle this by designing campaigns that aim not to advocate a political agenda but to explain it. A clear understanding of the values and interests that each liberal party stands for could increase their support by dispelling misconceptions and stereotypes, especially in times of social protest, when a liberal social agenda is more popular and many feel that change is at hand. In this respect, emphasizing the difference between the right-wing conflict-management approach and the left-wing conflict-resolution approach will be essential.
In addition, peace groups could brush off their image as remote, by being more open to other opinions they do not necessarily concur with. To reach larger segments of Israeli society, they should refrain from branding those who do not agree with them as “ignorant” or “fascist” and show more understanding for the origins of their beliefs.
3. Work together:
Most of the pro-peace organizations share the same goals, activities and difficulties. Overcoming those difficulties and increasing support could be easier with cooperation. Peace groups should let go of some personal ego and prestige which has so often kept so many of them working separately, and share resources, experience and capacities.
Looking at the half-full part of the cup, the challenges and changes occurring in the international arena can provide new opportunities as well. Today more than ever, the will of the people can have a bigger impact on decision makers and on states’ foreign policies. For the peace-building community, the rise in people power should become a great advantage for achieving its goal.
Arik Segal is a conflict management consultant at Segal Conflict Management. He initiates and directs track two and track three diplomacy initiatives between Israel and its neighbors.
For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.
Richard Witty
Thanks for the comments.
I think normalization efforts are still critical, and break through the politics.
The J14 movements in particular promised to break through racially or culturally divided definitions of “us/them”.
I also think that entirely non-violent dissent that includes Israelis and Palestinians can be effective at informing.
My pet is an idea to lay a green thread at the green line. Israelis and Palestinians can participate (those that can reach the actual green line).
Second is to act as if the land east of the green line is Palestine, NOT Israel, in the form of seeking entry visas from the PA, voluntarily paying property tax, and sales and meals tax on all purchases made east of the green line to the PA.
The reality can be created by Israelis as well as by Palestinian dissent and international pressure.
These actions comprise a voluntary effort, that is not threatening to Israel directly in any way, and amounts to a statement of solidarity with Palestinian two-state effort (if not abandoned).
Frustration can give way to hope. Hope in hearts and minds can give way to changes in policies and relations.
Philos
Arik, I am in Peace Now (well, sort of, I may resign because they’re a bunch of asses), and we are all painfully aware of your recommendations but they are unfeasible.
.
1. We have always focused on Israelis as our target audience. The problem is apathy and a tendency to simplify messages. So 70% of people are in favor of a two-state solution, great! Now how many are in favor of splitting Jerusalem? How many are in favor of Palestinian sovereignty over the Jordan Valley? Water? Airspace? When you go into the matter in depth there is actually a saddening and underwhelming support for this solution even among Peace Now activists. We, the majority of Israelis, don’t really want a an independent Palestinian state because that implies letting go of control, which is scary.
.
2. This is why I am thinking of resigning from Peace Now. Peace Now has decided to tailor the message for the society and abandon its core principles. Did you notice the silence over the massacre in Syria? Well, that’s because my colleagues decided in their wisdom that this is a non-issue and that if Assad wins we’ll be in favor of negotiating with that mass murderer for peace. What about Iran and the warmongering? Well, Peace Now has decided that they’re going to stand on the sidelines of this one too. Even though I told them a war with Iran would make the entire organization irrelevant because we’ll have bigger fish to fry than the two-state solution once missiles fall but they decided that the Peace Now brand will damage Dagan and the like. The same reason the “peace industry” stayed silent during last summer and didn’t speak out against the hypocrisy of “social justice” in a society that is colonialist.
.
3. This is simply impossible. Most peace organizations here are run like tyrannies. There is no democratic process and attempts at inject process into groups by activists, like Peace Now, are met with stiff opposition from those who are entrenched in the organizations. Who voted in Yariv Oppenheimer? I don’t know. What about Meretz? They had the same chairman for the last 30-years, which hardly makes them a bastion of liberal and democratic ideas. The bottom line is that all the organizations are beset by egoism and rivalries; attempts at teamwork have all systematically failed for the last several years.
.
I laud your article Arik, however, if you got involved you will see that the field is water-logged and muddy. The peace industry is dying because there is no Left in Israel. The fact is, and it saddens me to say so, if you get involved in the fight for peace long enough you come to realize that Zionism is wrong. Two-states for two-peoples; one Israeli and one Palestinian. But if the argument is for one Jewish and one Palestinian then it has no legitimacy. The Jewish State is rotten and it’s only possible redemption is in an Israeli State or (sigh) a single-state. Any state that is premised on religious belief is destined to ignorance, violence and brutality.
Beholder
Nice theory, indeed, yet completely out of touch with reality.
_
To make a change it will take a brand new political movement, which is quite impossible to organize and maintain due to lack of viable ideas, funds and other essential components.
caden
The problem is that the enemy has a vote. The withdrawal from Gaza was a perfect test case. And it failed miserably. I’m going to bet that the average Israeli would be more then happy to wind this up. With huge concessions. But they simply don’t trust the Arabs to keep their word on a end of the conflict deal. And they don’t trust the “international community” to back their right of self defense. And they would be right.
Rodrigo
Arik, it is a good article and I hope the first of many attempts to coalesce a viable left-wing pro-peace coalition.
.
1) I am not entirely sure how you can target Israelis when you are trying to teach them about peace with the Arabs and can’t get a Palestinian to show up. That doesn’t quite relieve Israeli concerns about the lack of desire of Arabs to accept them. Also, to disagree with Philos, the Israeli hard left-wing has been focusing on the Europeans for an audience. That is understandable since that is where their money comes from.
.
2) I honestly sincerely doubt that explaining the message and ideologies of many of the left-wing groups would benefit the pro-peace cause in any way. The position, like the one Philos takes that Zionism is wrong is simply toxic to any attempt to engage with a wider Jewish audience. To achieve wider reach there is no alternative but to argue for peace and two states from within the Zionist consensus and that involves demographic arguments (deemed racist by many), security arguments and actually demonstrating the acceptance of the continued acceptance of a Jewish state by some group of Palestinians/Arabs.
.
3) This is where you hit the biggest roadblock. The left-wing, pro-peace groups can’t unite because they really agree on very little. There is no agreed upon vision, even if one looks at the simple question of supporting a two state solution. You can’t make the case for a conflict resolution perspective where you can’t agree and propose what that resolution should be.
palestinian
Arik , you want to re-boot whats called the peace industry ,start with facts and real history,abandon the “chosen and one thousand and one nights”.Israelis have to listen to Hava Keller not Shimon Peres.
Philos
Rodrigo, the fact that you think Peace Now is “hard” left-wing goes to show how little you know. The consistent, vicious and continuous attacks on PN by the right has created an image in the public that PN is extreme. I don’t know what could be further from the truth. PN was mainstream in 1994 and it really hasn’t changed it’s position since then.
.
Also I’d appreciate it if you didn’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say advocating against Zionism is going to please anyone in Israel. I said that if you get involved in the struggle and really believe in universal values then the cognitive dissonances of “liberal” Zionism begin to wear you down. Zionism isn’t liberal, never was and can never be. It is kindred with nationalism and I haven’t encountered a liberal or non-chauvinist nationalism.
.
Finally, don’t believe the hype man. All the people who work in peace groups and anti-occupation groups have only one focus: the Israeli people. Your comment on pandering to donors is complete and total ignorance. Instead of ignoring the words of a disgruntled activist who has lost all hope in a two state solution or even a viable future here for secular Israelis why don’t you engage.
.
I think Zionism will lead us to catastrophe. I am seriously concerned at how normal Mizrachim Israelis can be evacuated to Europe and America when the whole edifice starts to collapse under the weight of theocracy, fascism, war and colonialism. That’s the state of the left: the blind, the stupid and the hopeless.
Rodrigo
Philos, I never called Peace Now hard left and I agree that it is within the mainstream. Now you are putting words in my mouth. I am not convinced that the author of the original article was referring only to PN when talking about left-wing organizations, and there are groups significantly further to the left than PN. Those organizations are full of people that openly believe Zionism to be wrong, including people that write articles for 972mag. I repeat – publicizing their values and interests is not going to ingratiate themselves to Israelis as seems suggested as an approach by the author of the original article.
.
I am also not convinced on the argument that far left groups are appealing to Israelis. They might publishing for Israelis as well, but the underlying funding comes from appealing to European sensibilities, not Israeli ones. Follow the money and all that.
.
Nationalism can be liberal, but it is true that most forms of Zionism are not. For example, civic nationalism (France or US) can be perfectly liberal, though such a concept would be foreign in the Middle East. On Zionism we have fundamentally differing viewpoints. I think in the Middle East following policies based on universal values are more likely to court disaster for Israel than those based on Zionism. The concern you have for the possibility of the need to evacuate the Mizrahim makes me question the underlying basis of your support for liberal/universal values as a guide for Israeli policy. Why should the Mizrahim be in any danger if the state collapsed?
Philos
Because the Muzrachim, unlike their Ashknasi cousins, cannot apply for passports to friendly European states based on their parents or grandparents ancestry. Something Ashknasi Israelis have been doing in greater volumes over the years. It’s simply unfair to Mizrachim that only the Ashknasim have a way out of here if the whole Zionist enterprise is going to end in disaster
Tal Harris
Well written Arik,
And regarding your points:
1. The Israeli Palestinian dialogue groups model is not The success we need. It’s important for building a core group of activists on both sides who indeed speak to each respective society. That’s why the @onevoice movement has israelis working primarily in Israel for the Israeli interest, and its Palestinians work primarily in Palestine (West Bank & Gaza) for the Palestinian interest. So dialogue as such should only be a means to sustain and keep aligned the two groups working in their very different societies so that at the very least they can continue to promote the same goal. All too often I hear peace activists from Israel or Palestine who DO NOT engage in any dialogue with the other side as they promote notions, principles, and “peace plans” that have absolutly no buy-in on the other side. This is often done in order to be able to sell peace more easily. Palestinian peace activists do it by lying to their society with a ridiculous concept of peace with Israel PLUS a return of refugees into Israel in large numbers. Israeli peace activists do it by lying to their society by speaking of peace alongside a Palestinian state that is not based on the 1967 borders. With all due respect to a discourse that’s focused on the good of your own side, any discourse that advances a peace deal which has no hold whatsoever on the other side is a rather pointless and even dangerous discourse. Second, I appreciate the desire to focus exclusively on an internal Israeli discourse. I should also warn here that while 70% support the two state solution there are teo caveats to that:
1. They don’t think its going to happen, meaning that their support of it becomes quite passive. We need (more) people passionately supporting the two state solution. For that they can’t only be focusing on internal Israeli meeting and NEED to see the other side speaking in one voice with them at least on the basics of the conflict (and its resolution of course) – in town hall meetings, in conferences, in viral video clips, in op-eds in the Israeli- and other media, etc. This too is something we work hard to inject into our work in onevoice, although it’s admittedly mostly done within “the borders” of Israel and in parallel within “the borders” of Palestine, rather than cross-border.
2. While supporting passively the two state solution they are actively anxious that most Arabs want to annihilate the Jewish people. That’s not helpful as a starting point to a purely internal Israeli discourse and any concession that Israelis would support passionately – and not just tentatively as they do now – would require them to confidently shake off that premise (and quire frankly it would also require less Arabs to support loudly and passionately the annihilation of the jewish state..).
That’s why i conclude that as much as the wide and non partisan internal discourse which you suggest is needed, it’s bound to lead to a dead end if it’s without any Palestinians involved in any way. The Israeli peace camp needs the Palestinian peace camp in order to win support, just as much as the opposition to the two state solution (YESHA council for example) needs the Palestinian incitement and violence to win support for its conservative and expansionist policies.
Finally concerning your recommendations I can’t agree more with your last words on cooperation, coalition building and even merging of efforts that’s needed in the peace camp. The left wing being divided is not unique to the peace camp and not even unique to Israel, but is a global phenomenon in comparison to an overwhelmingly unified right wing. Having said that, the split here is costly, in human and financial resources, as well as strategically, since when the opposite camp pulls hard in one direction and our camp pulls in all various directions – the advantage of the latter is eroded, although it connects better to people’s basic hope for peace, its principles enjoy substantial international and popular support, and it is even the declared policy of both the head of opposition and the head of the government in Israel…
A final recommendation from me (which, again and not very surprisingly, reflects the agenda of onevoice), is to focus more and engage more on the parliamentary-governmental level. Just like housing prices or subsidized education for toddlers requires eventually governmental intervention and decision, the Israeli Palestinian conflict would not solve itself on the civil society level. The majority of civil society in Israel as Palestine is great. We have won its support, or at least consent, to the two state solution even in the parameters of Clinton, Olmert, Geneva Initiative, Israeli peace Initative, Arab peace initiative, etc. (when presented to the public as a “package deal”).
Now it’s time to harness the powers we’ve in the existing Knesset and just as every party that tries to appeal to the general public in Israel and not just to a closed sector in it – from labor up to Israel Beytenu – has adopted the discourse AND policy (to a certain extent) of “social justice” because the demonstrations of the last summer utilized to a certain extent the opportunity they presented to engage MKs and ministers to forgo their capitalist policies, so can the peace camp do (where would we be without the Trachtenberg Committee or without Shelly Yechimovich for example that advance the practicalities of “social justice” in the government and in the Knesset? And where is the Trachtenberg Committee on the Israeli Palestinian conflict or the outstanding leader of the peace camp? Neither will appear on its own – we need to be focused enough to demand and create them!).
This is doable, in my mind, provided that the peace camp doesn’t behave like a Puritan, and dares to engage and influence by both close scrutiny or unashamed support, even the existing elected representatives aren’t my- or your cup of tea.
caden
Philos, I’m interested. You think Israel is an inch away from collapse and the Jews are going to have to flee for their lives again. And the ashkanasi have a safety hatch and the sephardic don’t. If your an Israeli what’s your plan. If your not, then things are going to happen to your liking and you should be happy. Which is it.
Rodrigo
Philos, is this a concern because you are relatively sure that Arabs wouldn’t apply universal values when dealing with Jews in the scenario that Israel collapses?
Susan
Philos,
You know perfectly well that Israel is not a state “premised on religious belief.” Many of the founders of the state of Israel were secular socialists. Ben-Gurion was an avowed agnostic. A Jewish state is no more destined to violence and brutality than a French state or a Czech state.
The left has also been focused on getting the US to pressure Israel instead of on doing the hard work of convincing the Israeli public of supporting them.
Arik Segal, being perceived as weak, arrogant and divorced from reality is not good in any society, whether it is militaristic or not. The addition of in a militaristic society seems unnecessary to me.
Philos
Caden, the destruction of my home from within (because there isn’t an external foe that can bring us down, well, except the europeans or Americans but we’re not there yet) is not something I would be happy about. And the abandonment of my Sephardic family here is a thought I can barely countenance. I have a foreign passport as well as an Israeli one but my family can’t exactly flee to Iraq now can they?
Philos
Rodrigo, although I think you might be being sarcastic i’ll take your question at face value. No I don’t think the Arabs will be very kind to us and I don’t blame them. Most people’s have shown little mercy or compassion for their colonial oppressors.
Philos
Susan, I invite you to come live in Israel and see how agnostic and un-militaristic of a society it is because your post belies the fact that you don’t live here
.
And again, stop buying the right-wing bullshit that leftists in Israel are trying to persuade a foreign audience because they are actually foreign agents. Don’t you even see how illogical that argument is?
palestinian
Philos, why dont Palestinians in Gaza (which is considered hell for an Israeli) attack Jewish and/or Israeli activists ? do you know how many Jews (the vast majority are Ashkenazi) visit some Arab countries openly as being Jewish ? I cant pretend non-Jewish Arabs adore the Jews ,but they dont get attacked and few are invited by families for lunch or dinner.
caden
Philos, you still haven’t answered me. Evidently your Israeli. When it all collapses where are you going to flee to. Or are you going to depend on the tender mercies of the Arabs. Serious question. It has to be one or the other. it can’t be both
Robert
U write
‘ weak, arrogant and “detached from reality” – an image which is not very appealing in a militaristic society.’
Yes you are arrogant and detached. We’re it not for the military you’d be dead.
Piotr Berman
Arik: being more open to other opinions they do not necessarily concur with. To reach larger segments of Israeli society, they should refrain from branding those who do not agree with them as “ignorant” or “fascist” and show more understanding for the origins of their beliefs.
Let us start with “ignorant”. What does Arik propose?
Arik: not to advocate a political agenda but to explain it
In other words, assume that the recipients of the message do not understand, Perhaps not exactly ignorant, but not to bright. Plus, what does it mean “not to advocate but to explain it”? Suppose that we think that it someone should change the height of bicycle seat using a screwdriver, but rather then implying that his seat is too low, I simply explain the concept: what is the screw, how to apply a screwdriver, and how is it that some people have seats at different heights. After preparing the new message, I approach my friend and start with friendly questions “do you know what a screw is?” etc.
Now the issue of “origins of their beliefs”. This is even worse morass then explaining your beliefs.
Summary: I have hard time figuring what Arik recommendation would mean in practice. Some examples could help. And whatever you do, the “anti-peace industry” of making the boogyman of “extreme left” the “enemy within”, a scourge to be squashed and eliminated, is much much bigger and alert to all “changes of message”.
Arnon Schwanzinger
I love this bit:
“many Palestinians are now encouraging a boycott of such activities, claiming they normalize, rather than end, the occupation”
So what does the author recommend we do?
“An internal dialogue between Israelis is crucial in order to diminish negative stereotypes about the left and right”
What a joke.
And tell ourselves what exactly? That there’s no one to talk to? That “many Palestinians are now encouraging a boycott of such activities”?
That has been the “right’s” message all along!
Now “pro-peace” NGO’s have to parrot the same lie?
Now that it has become true?
—-
“Public opinion polls show that a large majority of Israelis (+70%) support the two-state solution”
Yeah, so what?
It’s not going to happen anymore. Talking about it is akin to beating a dead horse (though it could be awesome for Hasbara).
And that’s even considering that many of those supporting a two-state solution, only do so because that’s the bon-ton. Not because they want what it implies.
It’s an easy lie. No one’s gonna call them on it anyway. They know it’s not going to happen – so why not support it? Makes us look good to ourselves and the world.
Hell, Bibi supports a two-state solution. He said so in his Bar-Ilan speech. Even Shaul Mofaz just said he’s going to push a two-state solution.
Empty words. Huge lies.
——-
The “peace process” is just buying time for the annexation of the entire West Bank. As is talk of a “two-state solution”. It’s just talk and smoke-screens. Aiding no one but the current regime’s agenda.
-
Arik Segal, I don’t know what track 2 or track 3 diplomacy initiatives are, but I do know when someone is selling bull.
The “peace INDUSTRY” is facing some tough challenges? I’m happy to hear that. I’ll bring pop-corn. I most certainly will not be taking part in any initiative to “diminish negative stereotypes about the left and right”. I will not partake in any activity that puts the left and the slanderous propaganda leveled against it on par with the right’s hard-earned and well-deserved notoriety.
Dahlia Scheindlin
@Arnon, your comment has been edited for profanity. Please do not use these terms on our site. We may not catch them every time, but they are not welcome.
Philos
Caden, if and when that happens I will flee with as many members of my family as I can to the nearest European country. Greece, Cyprus, Italy. It won’t really matter if such a catastrophe would occur.
.
Palestinian, whilst there might be some Palestinians who can live with Jews the empirical record in other places (Algeria, Congo, Vietnam, Zanzibar, et al) is that retribution and massacres are the order of the day for the colonialists.
Beholder
>Evidently your Israeli. When it all collapses where are you going to flee to. Or are you going to depend on the tender mercies of the Arabs.
If (not when) it all collapses we’ll make sure that there will be no winners. No one in this region is stupid enough to trust Arabs with anything.
We all well aware that there is a lot of “Palestinians” who are willing to die for their (their? land.
Well, we’ll be more than happy to help every single one of them to get to the heaven.
caden
Philos, what makes you think that any European country will take you. A bunch of stateless Jews.
palestinian
Philos , “there might be ” ? we arent uncertain about that fact .Do you often hear about massacres against whites in South Africa ?!
Susan
Philos, did I ever say that anyone on the left or peace movement is a foreign agent? No, I did not, because I don’t believe that’s true. That is not what I said. You also confuse me because you don’t believe in a Jewish state, but you think that Palestinians will massacre Jews if there is no Jewish state. What kind of state should there be in what is now Israel? I do realize the power the Haredi now have in Israel. They wouldn’t approve of me at all. I belong to a synagogue with a female rabbi and where women are allowed to chant the the torah portion. I do realize that it is a serious problem. I just don’t think that it is an insurmountable problem. No, I don’t live in Israel, but I have relatives who do.
Ahad Haadam
The intentions are great but misdirected. After all, Israeli peace activists such as Uri Avnery said the same thing 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, etc. and without one iota of progress. In fact, the gap is now as wide as it has ever been.
Anyone who has dwelt on the subject has long time ago realized that the problem is the exclusionary colonial state and you will not have a solution until you address the very foundation of Israel and its political structure. Israel is very similar to Apartheid S. Africa. No other than S. Africans themselves are at the forefront of the battle against Israeli Apartheid.
Israel at its current format as a Jewish exclusionary colonial state, cannot change from within, much like you can’t jump start your car by pushing it from the driver’s seat.
Israel needs to abandon Zionism and transform to a state of its citizen in order to achieve stability and integration in the Middle East. The best way to bring that much needed transformation is by advocating the abolishing of Israeli Apartheid and a one state solution (sans Gaza could be a first step). All other efforts or solutions are just a recipe for continued conflict.
Arnon Schwanzinger
@Dhalia:
I’m sure I didn’t direct profanity at any person or group of people.
I only use profane language in exclamation.
Beholder
>Israel needs to abandon Zionism and transform to a state of its citizen in order to achieve stability and integration in the Middle East.
Why is that?
Just name 1 (one) reason why there must not be 1 (one) Jewish state.
P.S. state of it’s citizens? with Arab majority?
What planet did you came from??
Susan
Ahad Adaam demonstrates the problems the peace movement has, because if even going back to 1967 borders is not enough for people like Ahad Adaam, then there is nothing left to talk about. Israelis will not abandon Zionism and the Arabs have to be willing to accept a Jewish state next to a Palestinian state. However, if Israelis cannot be convinced that Palestinians accept Israel’s existence why should they be willing to give up land? I’m not sure how widely Ahad Adaam’s views are shared with the general Palestinian population. I think the Palestinian leadership has accepted Israel’s existence. The Palestinians have to change the perception of the Israelis public and Ahad Adaam just reinforces Netanyahu’s obstinance.
phlegmatico
>> Do you often hear about massacres against whites in South Africa ?!
Sud Africa & Zimbabwe are pushing all whites out much more efficiently and more violently than the Hebrews are doing to Arabics.
When the work is finished, those two countries will be back where they started. Spend some weeks in Kinshasa to see what that looks like.
Ahad Haadam
@BEHOLDER, I think a Jewish State is an abysmal concept but I don’t oppose it on principle. I do oppose on principle a Jewish State in Palestine, which comes at the expense of others since Palestine was and is populated by non-Jews and that’s the root of the problem. In the same way I won’t support a Mormon State in Thailand.
@SUSAN going back to the 1967 borders is history – it’s not going to happen. You current have one state in which different laws apply to people based on their ethno-religious affiliation. That’s called Apartheid. And you abolish Apartheid by equal rights and one law for all, not by creating Bantustans, which is the Israeli “liberal” left’s idea of solving Apartheid.
palestinian
“Sud Africa & Zimbabwe are pushing all whites out much more efficiently and more violently than the Hebrews are doing to Arabics.” proves ? bombings ?
palestinian
how can I edit a comment ?
Susan
Mormons are not originally from Thailand, but Jews are originally from Palestine. Jews are an ethnic and national group as well as a religion, but Mormons are not.
I don’t agree that the borders are not moveable at this point in history. There may have to be some adjustments, but it is still possible. I think most Palestinians and most Israelis want their own states.
MikeS
Then “peace industry” might do better if it did not give the impression that it was always anti-Israeli and often anti-Jewish.
Ahad Haadam
yeah.. the good old “originally from 2000 years ago”… If you can show me a land deed or a key of a house or even the name of one of your ancestors from 2000 years ago, I would agree. Don’t hide behind a “national” mantle. Just you individually.
Otherwise, we all originate from Africa some time ago, therefore according to your rule have a right to settle there and perhaps even expel Africans? Perhaps a Mormon State in Africa?
How old are you? It’s one thing to repeat this preposterous claim as a child but as a grown up?!… You do realize that the 2000 year old claim is ludicrous or the Zionist kool-aid has clouded your brain?
Piotr Berman
“I only use profane language in exclamation.”
There are ladies here. “Beating a dead horse” is already in a “risky” zone as some would take it as an unsuccessful attempt at self-arousal (a.k.a. “wankery”). Just imagine that you are translating a dictated missive of a Foreign Minister into a diplomatic note.
“How can I edit a comment?”
My sentiments exactly.
“we may not catch them every time” (profanity)
Perhaps you can install a “family filter”?
emigre from Oz
very simple, push for electoral reform, chevrei knesset represent a specific geographic territory based on population #s. That way knowing their constituents have real alternative, to vote them out, they have to be more responsive to their electorate, less their party lists..