Netanyahu today, Netanyahu tomorrow, Netanyahu forever!

[Odelay]

The results of today's election in Israel are not a big surprise to anyone actually paying attention - which rules out just about 95% of the media that reported on the race.

The only interesting thing is as Billmon in Twitter noted: Netanyahu decided to go the Full Monty on settlements forever to ensure a big turnout of the right wing base. Again, no one who has been paying attention is surprised that Netanyahu is declaring there will be no two state agreement while he is PM. The prospect of peace during his reign has always been zero - he just felt the need to dispel any illusions with his honest declaration.

So Palestinians, there you have it. The Israeli voters have left you in no doubt about what they think of your dreams. The Israeli Left and Middle have been spayed, neutered, given a ball gag, and enough Xanax to remain catatonic for the next decade. They are out of commission. Your move.

[broncofan]

I was disappointed that Netanyahu won. The Israeli public of course is not a monolith so not all Israeli voters have said what you claim they've said. I believe if Herzog had won and in good faith moved towards negotiations, you would have taken a cynical view of his actions at every point in time. Perhaps this is why we did not hear your interested view championing any Israeli alternative in advance of the election, but your cynicism after seeing the worst possible outcome is not surprising.

What's interesting is that we live in a country that carried out an invasion of Iraq that was illegal under international law. In addition to that invasion there were also documented acts of torture at black sites. In 2004, the U.S. public voted for George W Bush. Would you say the U.S. public let the Iraqis know that they support torture or support illegal invasions by voting for Bush? By your logic, even by casting a vote against him, you were and are a supporter of torture and militarism because you're part of the electorate.

When Dahlia created the thread about the six million Jews I was very heartened at your support, but I was puzzled that your reaction was that a major problem with her response was that it would undermine the credibility of real supporters of the Palestinians. Of course, she said nothing about Israel at all so of course I thought; someone is denying genocide and he's worried that it will weaken his position politically. Of course I am not saying that you did this out of animosity towards Jewish people..but you have a way of thinking this political issue trumps all others or is even responsible for altering events outside of its conflict zone (like it has some sort of mystical power akin to a curse that prevents peace and prosperity anywhere else on the globe).

Let me ask you something. When Palestinians voted for Hamas, a group that in its charter calls for the murder of Jews wherever they may be, is that a position worthy of guilt? Or does the guilt only run one way? If Palestinians vote for bad politicians, they do so as a reaction to Israel, but if Israelis do, they do so because of a rock solid belief system completely unaffected by the political climate they find themselves in?

And then the comments about the creation of the Palestinian state helping avoid further radicalization in Syria. I know an author had said that, but I don't even understand the logic in it.

[broncofan]

The results of today's election in Israel are not a big surprise to anyone actually paying attention -

Let me ask you. You thought Netanyahu was going to win and the polling showing he was behind was wrong. Did you say this in advance of the election? If you thought Netanyahu would win what were you basing that on?

[broncofan]

I realize my first post bordered on the personal and so I apologize to Odelay...I do think you believe this issue has implications far beyond its direct effect on the Palestinians and I do not. This is a sticking point for me (the other is about the entire electorate being at fault because the bad guy won 30 of 120 parliamentary seats).

Anyhow, as an olive branch, here's an article you might consider some good news. Obama did not congratulate Bibi (I applaud that decision) and his administration has struck direct blows at Bibi's election tactics.

For the record I thought Netanyahu was going to lose. Perhaps Obama can make the Israelis realize that Netanyahu puts in jeopardy the diplomatic relationship between the U.S and Israel.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/18/obama-netanyahu-israel-election-white-house

[Odelay]

I was disappointed that Netanyahu won. The Israeli public of course is not a monolith so not all Israeli voters have said what you claim they've said. I believe if Herzog had won and in good faith moved towards negotiations, you would have taken a cynical view of his actions at every point in time.

You may be right. From everything I've read about Herzog and Livni I am not all that impressed that either one would have been committed or serious about negotiating a peace. I don't expect you to remember everything I've said in this forum, but at one time I noted that Netanyahu now represents the middle of the Israeli political spectrum and that someone like Ariel Sharon, today, would represent someone to the left of the current left. By the way, that's not my original thought, I was just apeing someone I read.


Perhaps this is why we did not hear your interested view championing any Israeli alternative in advance of the election, but your cynicism after seeing the worst possible outcome is not surprising. The fact is, I hit "submit" on less than half of the things I write at Hung Angels. I did write something before the election but thought better of posting it. Well over half the shit I write isn't really worth reading. There are writers far, far better than me in stating my views. A guy like Max Blumenthal writes rings around me.


In 2004, the U.S. public voted for George W Bush. Would you say the U.S. public let the Iraqis know that they support torture or support illegal invasions by voting for Bush? By your logic, even by casting a vote against him, you were and are a supporter of torture and militarism because you're part of the electorate. You nailed it. Those are my views. I posted a thread in this politics forum about no longer caring. I own my part in the odious Bush administration and their immoral policies, and I own my part in the only slightly less odious Obama administration policies. I've been really disappointed in Obama. There is corruption in US politics, through and through. Basically we're all helpless to stop the corruption, but I don't think that lets us off the hook for allowing these people to represent us, even with nay votes. As I said in the thread, I can't do anything about my involvement in the US anymore and I'm not wealthy enough to move away yet, but once I am, then I will.


When Dahlia created the thread about the six million Jews I was very heartened at your support, but I was puzzled that your reaction was that a major problem with her response was that it would undermine the credibility of real supporters of the Palestinians.My cynicism slips sometimes. Sometimes I think someone, somewhere, or a group of someones who might be voting in an election, might wake up and start pushing for positive change. In the long run things do have to change or the entire planet will face an existential crisis. So in the long run, I guess I'm an optimist, but I think some things will get real bad before we face the music. My subject title is bombastic. Netanyahu will be replaced someday. But I'd bet anyone it will be by someone to the right of him. Israel isn't going to get a government to the left of Netanyahu for a long time because the Israeli people don't want it. The demographics are daunting. They're the reverse of the US. Religious Israelis are having huge amounts of children. Meanwhile Reform and non-religious Jews are having very few children. In 10, 20 years, the country will be way more conservative than it is today.

I some ways, even though I'm not impressed with Herzog/Livni, I believe they were Israel's last best shot for a long time. Something really bad will probably have to happen before Israeli voters consider any moderate leader.


you have a way of thinking this political issue trumps all others or is even responsible for altering events outside of its conflict zone (like it has some sort of mystical power akin to a curse that prevents peace and prosperity anywhere else on the globe). I do believe the I/P conflict is the worst thing for global peace because I have friends from Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Palestine who all say the same thing... the US position relative to the I/P conflict is disastrous. These are smart professionals, not radicals. They have lived and worked in the Western world. They might be Muslims but they don't reject Western values. They do, however, reject everything that's happening in regards to the I/P conflict. It truly is a curse on the world.


Let me ask you something. When Palestinians voted for Hamas, a group that in its charter calls for the murder of Jews wherever they may be, is that a position worthy of guilt? Or does the guilt only run one way? If Palestinians vote for bad politicians, they do so as a reaction to Israel, but if Israelis do, they do so because of a rock solid belief system completely unaffected by the political climate they find themselves in?The Palestinians do bear responsibility for their own actions, including who they elect. Absolutely. My friends would say the same. But who holds all the power in this conflict? Who bears the most responsibility as Israeli leader after leader allow more and more settlements every day, every year?

I know you have significant problems with my views. I have no problem with that. I used to be a friend of Israel just as most Americans are today. But I've run out of patience. The people and leaders of Israel have burned up any benefit of the doubt I used to give them. I distrust them, thoroughly, and I believe they're setting the world on a needless and treacherous path of destruction and violence. I now believe that creating a homeland for Jews on the Eastern coast of the Mediterranean was a bad idea. The problem is there is no way to turn the clock back. The Israel state will remain so we have to deal with the problem, as is. The thing is, my views are well represented. Blumenthal is only one of many voices on the American Left who are highly critical of everything that is happening in Israel. If you're actually shocked by my ideas, then you're not very well read, and I don't believe that's the case.

It's a bad day for Israel and those supporters, around the world, who are committed to a peaceful Israel.

One final postscript... what Dahlia was saying was garbage. Holocaust deniers are idiots. Just because I disagree with almost everything going on in Israel today, along with their misguided friends in the US and around the world, doesn't mean I support any bullshit revision of history.

[Odelay]

This piece is illuminating on the situation in Israel.

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/save-israel-now

The comments give even more food for thought. I assume the comments are moderated because the debate, if not exactly civil is not odious as unmoderated comments always are on the I/P issue.

I will commend Peter Beinart, a journalist who I've been wary of through the years, for retweeting this:


Last night Peter Beinart, the leading liberal Zionist, tweeted a comment by Rep. Adam Schiff on CNN that from now on the US must not veto Palestinian statehood resolutions in the Security Council.
At least he's willing to lay it on the line. Maybe that's a start.

[Odelay]

One other thing I forgot to say.... I am actually impressed with Netanyahu. He took off the mask that maybe he might be willing to negotiate a two state solution. Again, many, including me, never believed it. Now he's living out in the open, with honesty. Just as he always hated Obama, and his move to address Congress was an open and honest declaration of that hatred. Netanyahu might be the most honest nation/state political leader on the planet today.

[broncofan]

One final postscript... what Dahlia was saying was garbage. Holocaust deniers are idiots. Just because I disagree with almost everything going on in Israel today, along with their misguided friends in the US and around the world, doesn't mean I support any bullshit revision of history.
I wouldn't have said you did. No honest person was going to take what she said and use it as an argument against you or the Palestinian cause. I was just wondering why your mind was on that issue...it leads into this final disagreement we have about the pre-eminence of this conflict.

So I agree with almost everything you said. Here is the vehement disagreement:

Odelay:
"I do believe the I/P conflict is the worst thing for global peace because I have friends from Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Palestine who all say the same thing... the US position relative to the I/P conflict is disastrous. These are smart professionals, not radicals. They have lived and worked in the Western world. They might be Muslims but they don't reject Western values. They do, however, reject everything that's happening in regards to the I/P conflict. It truly is a curse on the world."

If your friends from these countries say that the Israeli Palestinian conflict is the worst thing for world peace I think they may be extremists. This is not a case of me whitewashing what Israel has done by saying there are worse conflicts out there. But when someone says one conflict is the greatest obstacle to world peace they should have some objective basis for making that claim other than the identity of the parties to the conflict. Over 200,000 Syrians have been killed by Assad (again this does not make the occupation less of a crime than it is). If your moderate friends believe that what Israel has done is worse than gassing children or worse than what Isis is doing then they are relatively oblivious to Muslims killing Muslims and incensed that a government run by Jews has done something quite severe, but at least objectively no more a threat to world peace.

Now let's take this a step further. Let's say they are moderates by not taking their anger and engaging in violence. But what about those who do? If a Jihadist blows himself up in Pakistan and says it's because of Israel, does that make it because of Israel? It undoubtedly means he has a grievance. But did the grievance cause the action? Without the grievance, could he have committed the same attack? Yes, he could have another grievance that makes him feel justified in carrying out an attack. Namely, all of the other conflicts in the world, some of which are more violent could be the pretext.

If you could ask your friends for me this question when you see them: What is it about Israel's actions that make it the greatest threat to world peace when there are other countries that have committed graver human rights abuses? One can say having their land occupied is degrading; I agree. It's also degrading to be buried alive, burned alive or have your head removed with a dull knife. Is Israel more of an affront because they are seen as interlopers who have no right to a nation even within the partition borders? I don't object to them seeing Israel as an obstacle to peace, but seeing it as THE obstacle to peace seems disingenuous.

In a world of responsible people, one person cannot commit an act of violence against an innocent victim and say it is because of a third party who is not present. One cannot kill a women in Arkansas because they were abused by their parents. Likewise, one cannot murder by the hundreds of thousands and say the Zionists made them do it. At some point the most proximate cause, their decision, is the most important cause. Otherwise it seems kind of like an Israeli Butterly Effect to me. A butterfly flaps his wings in Tel Aviv, a suicide bomber detonates in Karachi.

[broncofan]

You nailed it. Those are my views. I posted a thread in this politics forum about no longer caring. I own my part in the odious Bush administration and their immoral policies, and I own my part in the only slightly less odious Obama administration policies. I've been really disappointed in Obama. There is corruption in US politics, through and through. Basically we're all helpless to stop the corruption, but I don't think that lets us off the hook for allowing these people to represent us, even with nay votes. As I said in the thread, I can't do anything about my involvement in the US anymore and I'm not wealthy enough to move away yet, but once I am, then I will.

Actually I disagree with this. I think it's noble but unrealistic. Holding this view makes you consistent, but how will moving away from the U.S. change U.S. policy?

It may make you "feel" less culpable, but in what way are you currently contributing to the policies you oppose? By paying taxes? The U.S. tax base is not getting smaller (and that's not a jibe at your contribution; Uncle Sam wouldn't miss mine either). If you vote your conscience and support grassroots efforts aimed at reform, I don't think you've contributed meaningfully to that which you disagree with. Again, making a difference may require an extraordinary effort, but I'm not sure that failing to make a difference equals complicity.

[broncofan]

One final postscript... what Dahlia was saying was garbage. Holocaust deniers are idiots. Just because I disagree with almost everything going on in Israel today, along with their misguided friends in the US and around the world, doesn't mean I support any bullshit revision of history.
I appreciate that. Someone denying the Holocaust is no reflection on other supporters of the Palestinian cause. But I do hope anti-zionists stop every once in a while to inventory who is using their brand but spreading a different message. Because the myriad of things done in the name of anti-zionism to attempt to make life uncomfortable for diaspora Jews is worth noting and yes, if there is such a thing as a radicalizing pressure, it must run both ways.

I don't doubt that your friends from Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon have no problem with Jewish people, but that makes them a distinct minority in their countries according to polling done. The polls are not without controversy as they ask such trick questions as do you think the Jews control the media and the banks etc. Why has zionism attracted so many Jews from Egypt and relatively fewer from the U.S? You don't think you might find your answer in Egyptian news channels reporting such exhilarating stories as a shark attack on one of their beaches that was really a zionist plot. There were 75,000 Jews in Egypt in 1948, but maybe they were just really ardent Zionists and really had nothing to fear if they stayed.

So when you talk about Israel being able to influence Palestinian political affiliations with their actions more than vice versa, you should also keep in mind things that are done in the name of the Palestinian cause...by moderates and otherwise.

[Stavros]

The results of today's election in Israel are not a big surprise to anyone actually paying attention - which rules out just about 95% of the media that reported on the race.

The only interesting thing is as Billmon in Twitter noted: Netanyahu decided to go the Full Monty on settlements forever to ensure a big turnout of the right wing base. Again, no one who has been paying attention is surprised that Netanyahu is declaring there will be no two state agreement while he is PM. The prospect of peace during his reign has always been zero - he just felt the need to dispel any illusions with his honest declaration.

So Palestinians, there you have it. The Israeli voters have left you in no doubt about what they think of your dreams. The Israeli Left and Middle have been spayed, neutered, given a ball gag, and enough Xanax to remain catatonic for the next decade. They are out of commission. Your move.

So Palestinians, there you have it. The Israeli voters have left you in no doubt about what they think of your dreams.

-I think you might want to replace the word dreams with Rights. It is an important word in the US Constitution but when applied to the Palestinians seems to lose all its moral and political depth.

On currently available figures, Netanyahu won with 23.40% of the vote on roughly a 71% turnout, which means 70% of the voters wanted someone else, but that is typical of the proportional representation system they use in Israel -even Ben-Gurion had to form coalition governments in order to rule, though as far as I am aware, even Labour could not bear the thought of any Arab MKs being offered seats in a coalition government. It might be relevant that Naftali Bennet's Jewish Home lost five seats to Likud, as some early analysts believe that by adopting more extreme positions voters who think Netanyahu is soft (hard to believe but this is Israel) switched their vote from one millionaire to another.

The result confirms that the existential obsessions of Netanyahu, transforming every issue into a matter of life or death, plus his blatant anti-Arab scaremongering which led him to claim the left were bussing Arab voters to the polling station in droves -as if the Arab citizens of Israel had no right to vote or merely by voting were some kind of threat-- matched his blank dismissal of the peace process with the Palestinians though anyone who knows Netanyahu knows he has been opposed to the Oslo Process since it started and has been instrumental in the burial of Palestinian rights. In the meantime, there is still no proof that Netanyahu knows the price of a falafel, or even a hint that he has a policy to provide affordable housing for young married families in Israel.

Netanyahu cooked up a snide deal with John Boehner to address Congress as part of his election campaign, a deal so transparent I am surprised that Congress allowed it, but for them it is part of the war against a democratically elected President that has been going on since 2008, though I suppose playing dirty is also part of American democracy. The fact that the diplomatic protocols were ignored to give Netanyahu his third address is curious as Netanyahu is not head of state and thus is a junior figure compared to Obama, who is; but for Republicans like Boehner either the Prime Minister of Israel is more important than the President of the USA, or they needed to pull this stunt to get one over on the White House.

The truly depressing thing about all this is lies in the creation over the last 10-20 years of violently opposed political blocs which preclude the meaning of peace negotiations -for Netanyahu the only thing left to negotiate is a complete surrender by the Palestinians; for the Palestinians, they know every meeting they go into is a waste of time. If this is a gift for the extremists, then that is music to Netanyahu's ears, as he believes that Israel's military supremacy means they can do whatever they like as noone is going to stop them.
Moreover, tactically, it is little different from the way in which, in Iraq, IS provokes the Shi'a community by road bombs, suicide missions and so on, designed to so provoke a backlash that the Sunni communities sever all ties with the 'pagans' which, on top of the new government in Baghdad failing to end corruption or be even handed in its employment practices, is placing the Sunni minority in a position where they can't stand IS, but have no faith in a unified Iraq either.
Closing doors to practical political solutions is thus just as much a part of the IS plan as it is of Netanyahu who can claim that Israel is now threatened more than ever before by an uncompromising enemy, in spite of the fact that it is an enemy Israel has helped to create. It is not much of a surprise that Israel has clandestine relations with Saudi Arabia, on the basis that they both want to see Iran pushed back behind its borders, relations between the two -via the US- have always been, as it were, smokey.

Although I think the Israeli military command is still opposed to an attack on Iran, Netanyahu will continue to undermine the Obama Presidency and anything Kerry says or does which pursues peace talks with the Palestinians, and which maintains the negotiations on the development of Iran' nuclear programme -little or nothing has yet been said about Saudi Arabia's nuclear programme, and nothing at all about Israel's nuclear capacity.
It is common knowledge that Netanyahu is sitting there waiting for Obama to leave office as the next US President is almost certainly going to be one of the kind who does whatever Israel says, which for Netanyahu, is the only reason US Presidents exist (and to sign the cheques).

Make no mistake, the USA will be paying for this in the years to come, in dollars first and foremost, while the Palestinians whose territory is divided into three zones, who cannot travel from one zone to the other without the permission of the military, who cannot build on their own land, who see the fields and orchards farmed for centuries being illegally dug up and replaced by swimming pools and car parks -will be treated like lepers and ignored.

The word 'fail' is written in block capitals over this desperate part of the word, but nobody is innocent. Netanyahu represents the worst that Israel has to offer, as the years ahead will reveal in all their gory detail.

[broncofan]

I do believe the I/P conflict is the worst thing for global peace because I have friends from Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Palestine who all say the same thing... the US position relative to the I/P conflict is disastrous. These are smart professionals, not radicals. They have lived and worked in the Western world. They might be Muslims but they don't reject Western values. They do, however, reject everything that's happening in regards to the I/P conflict. It truly is a curse on the world.

Sub-topic: Greatest Threat to World Peace

I keep going back to this quote. What is it that's so compelling about the testimonial of these friends that it can trump common sense and logic? If you heard from as many people that there are dozens of conflicts in the world that also threaten world peace, would you find that as compelling?

I am sure you can talk to a number of people in the Jewish community who would say the proposition that one conflict in West Asia is the biggest obstacle to world peace is preposterous. Would that convince you otherwise (I am aware you can probably find a couple of Jewish opinions to bolster your view and ignore the thousands who think it's a load of nonsense)?

Here's a question from me to some of your Jordanian friends: The Jordanian ambassador to Israel explained that it does not allow people to travel to Jordan with any visible signs of Judaism to ensure the safety of their Jewish tourists. So this well-meaning and thoughtful mandate is intended to protect Jewish tourists from suffering serious harm for being identifiably Jewish.

Here's the question: Where on the list of threats to world peace does prohibiting Jewish religious items from entering a country because it might lead to murder rank? Does it rank? Would you be willing to smuggle in a yarmulke and wear it to show that the Jordanians are just being overly-cautious and typically thoughtful? Is the mandate a moderate one or an extreme one?

Where does Assad rank on threats to world peace? Remember, you can't say this is a deflection of Israel's record because the topic as framed in your quote is that the Israel Palestine conflict is the greatest threat to world peace. Does Assad using Sarin gas on civilians rank in the top ten? Would he not have done that but for the occupation?

[Odelay]

If you could ask your friends for me this question when you see them: What is it about Israel's actions that make it the greatest threat to world peace when there are other countries that have committed graver human rights abuses?
You've made some points that deserve a detailed response, but I have a deliverable I have to get out today so I only have time to reply to this one question.

First, I might have mis-worded my post but it's not my friends who think the I/P conflict is the worst thing for world peace. They might believe that but they haven't said that directly to me. That's my opinion. The national and regional atrocities going on in the Middle East are a huge problem. But as I said in the ISIS thread, I believe most if not all of these problems need to be primarily dealt with by Muslim/Arab neighbors. The international community should not lead the effort to solve these conflicts because it's a trap and a can't win scenario. It's a regional problem that needs a regional solution.

The I/P conflict, on the other hand, is an international problem. It antagonizes almost all Muslims who are spread around the world. I've been following this conflict, not as a scholar but as a simple citizen, from my middle school days, when I would sneak into the library at lunch and read newspaper reports of the 1973 Israeli-Arab War. For the last 37 years, since the Camp David accords, Israel has made no positive moves to resolve this conflict. In fact, they've only made moves to make it worse especially by allowing the WB settlements to grow unabated. All Muslims have noted this. Non-muslim people around the world have noted this. It would seem the only ones blind to it are Israelis.

37 years!

Do you now understand why I don't give anyone in Israel the benefit of the doubt? I'm surprised anyone does.

I'll post more, later.

[Odelay]

One other thing I forgot to say.... I am actually impressed with Netanyahu. He took off the mask that maybe he might be willing to negotiate a two state solution. Again, many, including me, never believed it. Now he's living out in the open, with honesty. Just as he always hated Obama, and his move to address Congress was an open and honest declaration of that hatred. Netanyahu might be the most honest nation/state political leader on the planet today.

See? I told you half the shit I write is stupid and not worth reading. Netanyahu has already walked this back. He's a liar through and through. No one should trust him, ever.

[Stavros]

The I/P conflict, on the other hand, is an international problem. It antagonizes almost all Muslims who are spread around the world. I've been following this conflict, not as a scholar but as a simple citizen, from my middle school days, when I would sneak into the library at lunch and read newspaper reports of the 1973 Israeli-Arab War. For the last 37 years, since the Camp David accords, Israel has made no positive moves to resolve this conflict. In fact, they've only made moves to make it worse especially by allowing the WB settlements to grow unabated. All Muslims have noted this. Non-muslim people around the world have noted this. It would seem the only ones blind to it are Israelis.


Allow me to interject a remark between you and Broncofan -If I were to split some hairs, I would remind you that there is a large Christian population in Israel and the Occupied Territories, so that not all Palestinians are Muslims (eg, Hanan Ashrawi). And I might suggest that after the 1979 Camp David treaty, the 1993 peace treaty that was signed by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat demonstrated that peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians could yield a positive result. One of the enduring problems on both sides, at the time and since, is that to demonstrate their commitment to peace, Palestinians want an end to settlement activity, and be free to build on their own land and travel freely, while the Israelis want guarantees that Palestinians will not engage in terrorist/'guerilla' actions like blowing up pizza parlours. Fateh have given up the armed struggle, while HAMAS has not, although in the past it has signalled a willingness to do so.
The 1993 peace process was derailed by the assassination of Rabin and the subsequent elections which gave power to people like Ariel Sharon and Netanyahu whose commitment to settlement activity is based on their nationalist ideology but which has resulted in a severe deterioration of both hope, a precious commodity, and practical measures to improve the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
It means that the options for change narrow as nationalists narrow the terms of debate -the re-construction of the Berlin Wall on land stolen from the Palestinians was a major set-back and remains an example of how hopeless it all seems to be.

But can a wider international involvement make this any better? Hillary Clinton, whose position on the conflict changed between 1990 and her election to the Senate and became more solidly pro-Israel is now in the position of banking on a 'two-state' solution that for all his backtracking (most people believe) Netanyahu doesn't really believe in. How this will play out in the Democrat Party as they await Clinton's decision whether or not to run for the White House, remains unclear, as was reported in today's New York Times. It would appear that Netanyahu is the least convenient Israeli Prime Minister for the Democrats, and they can't do much about that.

For outsiders, the problem is that the USA since 1967 has taken sides with Israel against the Palestinians, and did not change its position even when Israel, long before Obama's election, showed no signs of 'building peace' by not building settlements and ending the nonsense of dividing the West Bank into three zones. Before 1993 the PLO was alien to the US because it was being bankrolled by the USSR, because of its lukewarm attitude to the 'armed struggle', the involvement of Palestinians in regional and international terrorism (eg, Lockerbie), and because of the unreliability of Arafat as the man in charge. But the perception is that the USA could put pressure on Israel by cutting back on the enormous billion dollar subsidies that go from the wallets of American workers straight to Israel. I wonder about this because Israel is more successful economically now than it has been in the past, although I suspect most of the money going to Israel that is not ending up in foreign bank accounts is spent on weapons.

Complicating this is the fanatical devotion to Israel of American Christian evangelists like Pat Boone, for whom Israel retains its pre-eminent geographical status as the location for the long-awaited but soon-to-be-fulfilled return of Jesus and the end of history, the world, and life as we know it. But whether or not this gives the USA the leverage on Israel that would change facts on the ground I don't know.

[Odelay]

On currently available figures, Netanyahu won with 23.40% of the vote on roughly a 71% turnout, which means 70% of the voters wanted someone else, but that is typical of the proportional representation system they use in Israel -even Ben-Gurion had to form coalition governments in order to rule, though as far as I am aware, even Labour could not bear the thought of any Arab MKs being offered seats in a coalition government. It might be relevant that Naftali Bennet's Jewish Home lost five seats to Likud, as some early analysts believe that by adopting more extreme positions voters who think Netanyahu is soft (hard to believe but this is Israel) switched their vote from one millionaire to another.


The 23% doesn't mean much when voters that represent the right side of the Israel political spectrum easily represent 50+% of the voting population. Unlike in the US, where a breakaway Tea Party Presidential candidate would drain votes from the GOP and effectively push the election to the Democrats, Israelis to the far right of Netanyahu and just barely to the left of him can not only vote for alternatives, but get rewarded too by forcing him to accept someone like Lieberman as Foreign Affairs Secretary.

But even if the right was only 51% of the voters, the real story is even worse for any coalition of the left/middle because they would need the 10+% of MP's who are Palestinian, and that is unacceptable to far, far more than 51% of the population.

And as I stated earlier, the demographic situation only looks worse in the future where the population of young voters on the right is exploding while the children of the left are migrating out of Israel - and, really, who could blame them.

The situation looks pretty dire to me. Again, the Palestinians have no reason to believe that the 2 state solution isn't dead and buried in the backyards of the right wing voters in this last election.

[fred41]

The situation looks pretty dire to me. Again, the Palestinians have no reason to believe that the 2 state solution isn't dead and buried in the backyards of the right wing voters in this last election.

I'm not sure that the majority of Palestinians are for a two state solution anyway. I recall reading polls that suggest otherwise. The two state solution may be more of a western ideal, but I'm not an expert in this regard...just something I noticed.

[broncofan]

But even if the right was only 51% of the voters, the real story is even worse for any coalition of the left/middle because they would need the 10+% of MP's who are Palestinian,

Palestinian or Arab Israeli? When there is a two-state solution one of the states will be called Palestine. However, members of Israel's parliament are Israeli, Netanyahu's racism notwithstanding. They are likely of Palestinian descent, but I think there should be a distinction in terminology between Palestinians who are non-citizens of Israel (in Gaza for instance) and people of the same heritage who are citizens of Israel. Palestinian usually refers to the former.

I always wonder whether this is an intentional obfuscation when I see people do this. Do you support a two-state solution Odelay? I know you say you think the creation of Israel was a mistake...but it's a mistake that should remain? Could you elaborate on the mistake...what it means for those who first immigrated to Israel and those still immigrating there? What do your Middle Eastern friends think about the two state solution? Do you hear lots of optimistic platitudes like "I would love to see a Palestinian state living peacefully side by side with a Jewish state...both people deserve the right to self-determination?"

I generally don't read punditry, so no I haven't read Max Blumenthal. I have no idea why a set of attitudes should be normed simply because various authors have stated an opinion that's easy to appropriate. It encourages group think...have you ever met someone who waits until someone says something they like and they say, "that's exactly what I wanted to say I just couldn't find the right words." About 1% of the time they're being honest. About 99% of the time they have a general meme they want to hear and someone else has skillfully tapped into that emotion. That's what I think people seek in a lot of these books. There's someone here who thinks Russia's state owned propaganda arm says exactly what he's thinking a lot of the time.:D

[Stavros]

The 23% doesn't mean much when voters that represent the right side of the Israel political spectrum easily represent 50+% of the voting population. Unlike in the US, where a breakaway Tea Party Presidential candidate would drain votes from the GOP and effectively push the election to the Democrats, Israelis to the far right of Netanyahu and just barely to the left of him can not only vote for alternatives, but get rewarded too by forcing him to accept someone like Lieberman as Foreign Affairs Secretary.

But even if the right was only 51% of the voters, the real story is even worse for any coalition of the left/middle because they would need the 10+% of MP's who are Palestinian, and that is unacceptable to far, far more than 51% of the population.

And as I stated earlier, the demographic situation only looks worse in the future where the population of young voters on the right is exploding while the children of the left are migrating out of Israel - and, really, who could blame them.

The situation looks pretty dire to me. Again, the Palestinians have no reason to believe that the 2 state solution isn't dead and buried in the backyards of the right wing voters in this last election.

I accept that I have been too glib in dismissing the smaller parties, on the other hand, I am not sure I can completely agree with your view on voting trends. Likud's victory in 1977 was seen as a watershed because it put an end to Labour's dominant position in Israel as a generation of 'Oriental Jews' came of age and voted for a party that was not culturally European. But if it was such a demographic shift, this does not explain the subsequent resurgence of Labour and in particular, the Peace Treaty that was signed when Yitzhak Rabin was Prime Minister. It was an opportune moment for all parties, with the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the PLO's Russian subsidy, and the general mood that the time was right for bold initiatives. And I think that could happen again, but it needs a helpful political climate, and the right kind of politician, and I don't believe Netanyahu is that man, just as I think Mahmoud Abbas is weak and indecisive. The mood in Jerusalem and the West Bank recently has been described as close to boiling point, primarily because of the settlement activity and acts of violence on both sides which, as was seen with the kidnapping and murder last summer, can quickly get out of hand.

I suspect Israeli voters are nervously watching events in Syria and Iraq, and wondering if Israel will get sucked into this conflict. A positive view would suggest that if over the next 5 years IS is worn down and some form of settlement is reached in Syria, it will calm regional tensions, but that also depends on how Saudi Arabia and Iran conduct their proxy war. It is always foolish to predict what will happen in the Middle East, the saddest part is that it is not so foolish to be gloomy about it.

[broncofan]

The I/P conflict, on the other hand, is an international problem. It antagonizes almost all Muslims who are spread around the world.

Why does it antagonize Muslims around the world more than mass slaughter against Shiite Muslims and Yazidi Christians? You say that's a local problem. I think when people are being literally put into mass graves that's quite a cavalier thing to say.

You are talking about Muslims who are not in the West Bank being antagonized by Israel's actions. They are inflamed because other Muslims are harmed by Jews, but are not inflamed by other Muslims killing Muslims or Christians at equal proximity. And here you are, claiming that when they are inflamed we should be sensitive to it. We should be sensitive to all human rights abuses. Not just when Muslims all around the world feel antagonized by this one issue but not others.

[broncofan]

There's someone here who thinks Russia's state owned propaganda arm says exactly what he's thinking a lot of the time.:D
If there's one news outlet I'd like to rely on for progressive news it's the state media of a country that thinks gay men dedicate their lives to trying to convert children to homosexuality. I bet their news on Russia's annexation of Crimea was fantastic: "what do you mean Russia annexed Crimea? Crimea annexed Russia." I always love seeing videos of their talking heads telling us the latest news on climate change and all the latest in progressive politics:). This doesn't belong here, but it made me smile thinking about it.

Edit: Yes I realize I'm talking to myself, but I was trying to inject a little levity at Ben's expense...he's a good-natured guy and doesn't seem to mind. RT is a Russian propaganda outlet isn't it?

[broncofan]

while the Israelis want guarantees that Palestinians will not engage in terrorist/'guerilla' actions like blowing up pizza parlours.

This would be one of the necessary components. The others would be an end to the virtual Arab boycott of the state, the occasional threats to it from Middle Eastern countries, and at least some abatement of the spread of powerful and pernicious anti-semitic propaganda throughout the Middle East. I agree that the onus is on Israel to do justice for the Palestinians and that Netanyahu being elected is an enormous step backwards because he is not a man of peace. That's why I was hopeful some alternative would be elected and I believed up until the election Herzog would be, even though others apparently knew better.

Since Israel is in the Middle East here is a list of aspirations I have if they do the right thing and stop occupying Palestinian land. It would be great if Israel would no longer be accused of orchestrating shark attacks on Egyptian beaches or creating ostensibly Islamic terrorist organizations by copulating with satan.

It would also be nice if the Iranians would be willing to share an Olympic swimming pool with their Zionist competitors (they do not have to be in adjacent lanes). I will point out that those who assume that the antagonism towards Israel will end when a just resolution is achieved that Egypt and Israel have a peace treaty. Can you imagine having a peace treaty with a country who thinks you can telepathically force sharks to attack people? So I hope that craziness can end. I really hope all of these magical beliefs are a product of the unjust treatment of Palestinians and end as soon as there is a Palestinian state.

[Stavros]

This would be one of the necessary components. The others would be an end to the virtual Arab boycott of the state, the occasional threats to it from Middle Eastern countries, and at least some abatement of the spread of powerful and pernicious anti-semitic propaganda throughout the Middle East. I agree that the onus is on Israel to do justice for the Palestinians and that Netanyahu being elected is an enormous step backwards because he is not a man of peace. That's why I was hopeful some alternative would be elected and I believed up until the election Herzog would be, even though others apparently knew better.

Since Israel is in the Middle East here is a list of aspirations I have if they do the right thing and stop occupying Palestinian land. It would be great if Israel would no longer be accused of orchestrating shark attacks on Egyptian beaches or creating ostensibly Islamic terrorist organizations by copulating with satan.

It would also be nice if the Iranians would be willing to share an Olympic swimming pool with their Zionist competitors (they do not have to be in adjacent lanes). I will point out that those who assume that the antagonism towards Israel will end when a just resolution is achieved that Egypt and Israel have a peace treaty. Can you imagine having a peace treaty with a country who thinks you can telepathically force sharks to attack people? So I hope that craziness can end. I really hope all of these magical beliefs are a product of the unjust treatment of Palestinians and end as soon as there is a Palestinian state.

Israel has full diplomatic relations with Egypt, Jordan and Turkey, albeit strained for the usual reasons when something flares up; it would be hard to expect the UAE to have good relations with Israel when undercover agents of Mossad infiltrate the country using British passports to murder Arabs they don't like; Israel has goodish relations with Algeria and Morocco, and is or has been involved in the training of Kurdish Peshmerga guerillas in northern Iraq, while Wikileaks appeared to have documents showing collaboration between Mossad and the intelligence services of Bahrain, where the majority Shi'a population has been viewed by some as a fifth column for Iran in the Gulf region. In the 1960s the USA supported Saudi Arabia in its military conflict with Egypt in the Yemen, and sent arms to support the Saudi effort via Israel, and it is no secret that Israel's position on Iran is not much different from Saudi Arabia's, and indeed the Emirates of the Gulf, although in the long term, Saudi Arabia's ambition is to bring the whole of the Middle East under a Wahab inspired Caliphate, the first attempt to create this taking place with the invasion of TransJordan in 1921. Nevertheless, sometimes when you scratch the surface you find that some Arabs have a grudging respect for Israel.

I think an important perspective on some of the nonsense that comes out the region is needed. The narrative framework of Israel up to 1967 was shaped by Zionism, the political Zionism that was developed in the 19th century by men like Moses Mendelssohn and Theodor Herzl. This stressed the concept of renewal, and was based on the false assumption that Biblical Israel had been abandoned and was not developed or even well populated, an illusion that caused a lot of problems for the first Zionist pioneers when they arrived in the area in 1882. This kind of Zionism was thus heavily based on the restoration of the land, with agriculture at the social and economic base of the new Israel, and collective agriculture in the form of the Moshav or Kibbutz. For some Zionists, the Arabs were never going to be part of the plan, while for others a pragmatic acceptance that Jew and Arab would have to share the land was inevitable. A different narrative emerged after 1967 in which the Zionist framework was replaced by the Holocaust and the existential obsession with the very existence of Israel itself. This is because of the paradox that in 're-uniting' Jerusalem and the Occupied Territories -referred to by Zionists as 'Judea and Samaria'- a Zionist project intended to provide the Jews with a homeland in which they be secure, had in fact increased their insecurity, the occupation providing it with an unmanageable Arab population who, for the most part, hated it.

But for the Arabs this second 'catastrophe' of 1967 (following the Nakbah of 194-eight) seemed to prove that they were utterly incapable of dealing militarily with Israel, and produced a form of cognitive dissonance in which they could not make sense of the glories of Islamic civilisation, their vast oil wealth, their superiority of numbers -but their inferiority in achievement on the battlefield. This is one reason why so much Arab literature on Israel has both diverted attention away from their own failings and ascribed to Israel all sorts of weird extraordinary powers and influences -the Americans, the Rothschilds, the Illuminati, Freemasonry etc etc- to explain Israel's success, rather than their failure. One exception to this was the book the Syrian Marxist thinker Sadiq al-Azm published not long after 1967 -Self-criticism after the defeat, but this was an isolated example, and he spent time in prison for being such a pain in the neck to Hafez al-Asad in particular.

People like Ariel Sharon and Netanyahu have this milked this Holocaust revisionism because it suits their agenda to place Israel on the perpetual edge of extinction, yet it is the very occupation of the West Bank with its perpetual security nightmare that has created this problem, and until this is addressed, the political climate will be poisoned by the privilege given to ideology over practical reality -on all sides. In simple terms, settlement activity, particularly the illegal and provocative actions of Eled, must stop.

[Odelay]

Why does it antagonize Muslims around the world more than mass slaughter against Shiite Muslims and Yazidi Christians? You say that's a local problem.

I'm guessing that what's going on with Assad and separately with ISIS, does indeed bother Muslims around the world. Where did you get from my writings that I assume otherwise?


You are talking about Muslims who are not in the West Bank being antagonized by Israel's actions. They are inflamed because other Muslims are harmed by Jews, but are not inflamed by other Muslims killing Muslims or Christians at equal proximity. Again, I don't know where you're getting this. I can't see why Muslims would not be emotionally affected by Muslim v Muslim violence, and Jewish v Muslim violence.


And here you are, claiming that when they are inflamed we should be sensitive to it. We should be sensitive to all human rights abuses. Not just when Muslims all around the world feel antagonized by this one issue but not others.No disagreement with you here.hi

These are your issues that you've repeated in many theads. You are outraged by two things. One, the lack of international reporting on Muslim v Muslim violence, specifically what's going on in Syria. And two, violence in Europe against Jews - some of which is occurring by non-Muslims in Europe against Jews.

I contend these are related and I'm surprised you don't see it. As I contend that I/P conflict is an international issue. And it's not only affecting Muslims but non-Muslims as well. Answer me this, broncofan... when does violence against Jews and Jewish property happen most frequently?

From what I've seen, it happens when Israel takes very specific action against the Palestinian population. Like when they're deemed to be taking disproportionate action against people in Gaza. Or, like, when the leader of Israel says racist things about Palestinians and he states he has no interest in a 2SS. *Boom* Violence against Jews goes up.

To me, that's one of the big examples of evidence of the international nature of the I/P conflict.

You want another example? Look at all the UN votes that are pro-Palestine. Like in Nov 2012 when 138 nations voted for and 9 against. And the "9" is deceiving just like the Dec 2014 Security Council vote where 9 nations voted against Palestinian statehood (7 + US + Israel). Basically, John Kerry worked the phones hard on 7 allies so that the US wouldn't have to use their veto. But the world community sees through all that bullshit. You don't think foreign ministers around the world don't see through Kerry's actions?

The world is plenty aware of the I/P conflict and they've weighed in.

As to the Muslim v Muslim violence? Yes, I believe it's a regional problem. Muslims in Pakistan and Indonesia are probably not going to send troops into Iraq/Syria to defeat ISIS. But Saudi Arabia sure as hell should. And should the US and Europe be involved? Sure, but they should lend support, not lead. US support of a solution in Syria is well represented by John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

So again, I don't know what your true problem is. I do know you have the two pet issues listed above, but you seem to take affront at my positions that coincide with a vocal minority that condemns a lot of Israel's actions.

[Odelay]

Sub-topic: Greatest Threat to World Peace

I keep going back to this quote. What is it that's so compelling about the testimonial of these friends that it can trump common sense and logic? If you heard from as many people that there are dozens of conflicts in the world that also threaten world peace, would you find that as compelling?

I am sure you can talk to a number of people in the Jewish community who would say the proposition that one conflict in West Asia is the biggest obstacle to world peace is preposterous. Would that convince you otherwise (I am aware you can probably find a couple of Jewish opinions to bolster your view and ignore the thousands who think it's a load of nonsense)?

Exactly! This is my opinion that this is the biggest thread to world peace. Not the stated opinion of my Muslim friends. Is my opinion somewhat informed by the anecdotal conversations I've had with my friends? Yes. But that doesn't mean that as an engineer by education, I am projecting my opinion to a majority or even a signficant minority in the world. But I am guessing out of a planet of 8 billion, I'm not alone in my opinion.


Here's a question from me to some of your Jordanian friends: The Jordanian ambassador to Israel explained that it does not allow people to travel to Jordan with any visible signs of Judaism to ensure the safety of their Jewish tourists. So this well-meaning and thoughtful mandate is intended to protect Jewish tourists from suffering serious harm for being identifiably Jewish.

Here's the question: Where on the list of threats to world peace does prohibiting Jewish religious items from entering a country because it might lead to murder rank? Does it rank? Would you be willing to smuggle in a yarmulke and wear it to show that the Jordanians are just being overly-cautious and typically thoughtful? Is the mandate a moderate one or an extreme one?I don't have any ready opinions of my friends on this issue, only mine. As I stated before, the international nature of the I/P conflict leads me to believe that Israel should be working diligently towards peace and presumably as 2SS. I believe if Israel achieves a peace accord with Palestinians, violence against Jews around the world will lessen. It will be like a pressure relief valve. And maybe some day, Orthodox Jews will be able to freely travel within Jordan.

[Odelay]

Here's a question for you, broncofan.

How many of the civil and regional wars around the world, need to be resolved, before Israel is dutibound to make peace with the Palestinians? Because it sounds like from your stated opinions, some of these conflicts around the war need to be handled first.

[Odelay]

I always wonder whether this is an intentional obfuscation when I see people do this. Do you support a two-state solution Odelay? I know you say you think the creation of Israel was a mistake...but it's a mistake that should remain? Could you elaborate on the mistake...what it means for those who first immigrated to Israel and those still immigrating there? What do your Middle Eastern friends think about the two state solution? Do you hear lots of optimistic platitudes like "I would love to see a Palestinian state living peacefully side by side with a Jewish state...both people deserve the right to self-determination?"

I generally don't read punditry, so no I haven't read Max Blumenthal...

I do support a 2SS, but am not hopeful. Reading Stavros' longer historical pieces actually raises my hope a tiny bit. As to the mistake, I have a couple of comments. First, my view is completely in hindsight, which of course is 20-20. I was a supporter of Israel until around the time that negotiations during Ohlmert's time broke down. It was then that I surmised that there was a big portion of Jewish Israelis that have no interest in a 2SS - not just the nutjobs who were willing to assassinate pro-peace leaders, but big political parties with big #'s of voters.

The mistake can be attributable to two sets of people - the Jewish leaders on the left and in the center that could not persuade the righties to live peaceably with their neighbors. And the second group are Western countries, mainly the US, who have stood with Israel and funneled much military and economic aid to Israel, even when their actions didn't warrant it.

Basically, the West needed to put boundaries - real ones, in fact - around the Zionist project. The fact that Israeli's could not control themselves and the West was not willing to use leverage to encourage better behavior, leads me to believe the original idea was flawed.

- - - - -

Max Blumental is a voice amongst a few in the US leftist intellectual community. I would guess most of this community could care less about being branded anti-semite. I know I don't care. Just because someone would brand me an anti-semite, doesn't mean I promote violence or discrimination against Jews. Unless, of course, the labelers deem that my friendship with Muslims automatically means I promote violence and discrimination. If that's the case, then you got me.