Ehud Olmert, Jew-hater

Via Steve Clemons, whatever his other flaws may be, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert seems to understand the basic shape of the Israeli dilemma:

Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said failure to negotiate a two-state solution with the Palestinians would spell the end of the State of Israel.

He warned of a "South African-style struggle" which Israel would lose if a Palestinian state was not established.

We remember, of course, that people threw a fit when Jimmy Carter said this, but it's true whether or not people like to hear it. If Israel insists on governing millions of Palestinians forever and ever, those Palestinians are going to demand citizenship in the state that governs them.

Oh, well. Meanwhile, Commentary decides to be more Zionist than the PM and condemn Olmert.

Comments

Well, there are also a number of commenters who show up here and condemn any Israeli who, like Olmert, thinks there's some negotiating to be done with the Palestinians, as appeasers of Hitler, and the mildly liberal Haaretz newspaper as virtually enamored of Hamas -- so what else is new?

Posted by El Cid | December 3, 2007 3:36 PM

in israel itself, of course, there exists an actual possibility that those who think olmert aren't sufficiently zionist would turn to assassination, the murder of rabin still being fairly recent history.

Posted by howard | December 3, 2007 3:42 PM

The Carter link isn't working.

Posted by thread_techie | December 3, 2007 3:55 PM

Saying something will be a "South African-style struggle" is a far cry from saying Israel is like apartheid. I bet Israelis wish the Palestinians would "struggle" for change via the methods of black south africans than suicide bombers.

"but it's true whether or not people like to hear it"

You clearly hate Israel Matt (or you think Israel bashing gets you more hits from Israel haters on your blog). How could you not if you think it's the same as apartheid?

Posted by Dave | December 3, 2007 4:02 PM

OK, Dave. What was the other "South African-style struggle" besides the one against apartheid? Clearly, you have some secret Olmert decoder ring to which we anti-Semites do not have access.

Posted by Toady | December 3, 2007 4:09 PM

Black South Africans used some violent resistance against apartheid. Not suicide bombings, but bombings.

Both Israel and Apartheid South Africa basically involved a privileged minority ruling over a disenfranchised, darker-skinned majority. You can point to a ton of differences, but that seems like a pretty fundamental similarity. I'm glad Olmert recognizes the bleedin' obvious.

Posted by Tom | December 3, 2007 4:10 PM

Since I posted an off-topic comment on this awhile back, I wish I had a relevant comment on the former subject available. I don't.

Lots of people owe Carter an apology.

But I repeat myself.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 3, 2007 4:11 PM

What Olmert is saying may be true, but it is probably a bad idea for him to say it. It encourages the most radical Palestinians to refuse any two-state solution, in hopes of getting a single, Palestinian, state in the long run.

Posted by Njorl | December 3, 2007 4:12 PM

Philip Weiss posted similar thoughts a few days ago:

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/11/is-olmert-an-an.html

Posted by Chris | December 3, 2007 4:12 PM

What Olmert is saying may be true, but it is probably a bad idea for him to say it. It encourages the most radical Palestinians to refuse any two-state solution, in hopes of getting a single, Palestinian, state in the long run.

I'm trying to imagine the alternative. Business as usual? Well, that will lead to the scenario that's "probably true".

I suppose the alternative to "saying it" would be to mime it.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 3, 2007 4:18 PM

My favorite comment on that Commentary post reads as follows:

"I read somewhere that Olmert is actually a higly observant Jew, not some kind of secular humanist as one might otherwise assume. So we have to consider the possibility that he incarnates the liabilities of both classic anti-Zionist Talmudism and sentimental, gush-over-the-Other Yiddishkeit. I know it’s tough to reconcile this with his being such a slippery lawyer, but perhaps we should allow that Olmert, not Haaretz on the one hand or Naturei Karta on the other, most dangerously (and Jewishly) embodies the return of the repressed."

Get it? Olmert's Jew-hating may result from him being too Jewish, unlike the cosmopolitan sophisticates at Commentary magazine.

Posted by adrian | December 3, 2007 4:19 PM

I wouldn't deny some similarities, including the potential--if no settlement is reached and Israel governs the entire territory--for a very painful integration process.

But there are manifold differences between between (a) trying to preserve the Jewish homeland that was set up after the horrors of WWII and (b) trying to preserve the herrenvolk democracy that was the legacy of kleptocratic Dutch and English imperialism. Viewing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the moral frame of apartheid seems more useful to rigging the outcome of negotiations than to understanding the current problems.

Posted by southpaw | December 3, 2007 4:21 PM

Israel is also trying to preserve the herrenvolk democracy that was the legacy of kleptocratic English imperialism.

Posted by otto | December 3, 2007 4:27 PM

southpaw wrote: "trying to preserve the herrenvolk democracy that was the legacy of kleptocratic Dutch and English imperialism"

If you read the history, you'll find that the Boer, the founders of Apartheid-era South Africa, were horribly prosecuted by the British. In fact, the term "concentration camp" originates from this period. The history is quite tragic, although not on the scale of the Nazi Holocaust, but still enough to scar the survivors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Africa#Anglo-Boer_Wars

Posted by Chris | December 3, 2007 4:27 PM

Over at the The New Republic Martin Peretz continues to deny the obvious:

Desmond Tutu, leader of the Anglican Church in South Africa, clings to his comparison between Israel and apartheid South Africa. It is such a
gross analogy, factually and philosophically, that by now it almost needs no rebuttal.

Posted by ndm | December 3, 2007 4:31 PM

It makes no difference what the crook Olmert says. He is eventually headed for the slammer for his corrupt dealings. As for the two state solution, there is no Palestinian state and there will never be a Palestinian state. Eventually, the West Bank will be handed over to Jordan with the border between Jordan and Israel decided by negotiations. Since Jordan is already 2/3 Palestinian, Jordan will be come the Palestinian state.

Posted by SLC | December 3, 2007 4:36 PM

"The Return of the Repressed"

I saw it in the theater. Not as good as The Repressed but A LOT better than Son of the Repressed. And the less said about Repressed IV: Blood Libel the better.

Posted by JB | December 3, 2007 4:37 PM

Meanwhile, Commentary decides to be more Zionist than the PM and condemn Olmert.

So, so awesome. Soon people will be able run "Commentary or The Onion?" features. I can't wait for the brave new tomorrow.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 3, 2007 4:38 PM

Okay we need to settle down and unpack these statements just a little.

Jimmy Carter stated that Isreal currently -IS- an apartheid state.

Olmert stated that IF the Israelis are unable to arrange at a two state solution with the Pals THEN it will be involved in a south african style struggle which it will loose.

These are in no way the same statement. Carter says Israel is an apartheid state -now-. Olmert says that if Israel gives up on a two state solution it -will be- an apartheid state (which necessarly includes an implicit assertion that Israel -IS NOT- an apartheid state now).

They are saying very different things.

Personally I agree with Olmert and disagree with Carter. Israel is not an apartheid state. It is in danger of becoming one but it is not one yet. The arabic representatives in the Israeli government and the way Israel treats its arab citizens alone preclude the label of apartheid state, unless one reads that definition very broadly.

It could be argued that Israeli Arabs are treated better than arabs in any of the Arab states, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Posted by Minnesota | December 3, 2007 4:40 PM

which necessarly includes an implicit assertion that Israel -IS NOT- an apartheid state now

Well, "necessarily" is wrong. But it's a fair point that Carter and Olmert are probably saying different things.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 3, 2007 4:43 PM

They are saying very different things.

Reading "Minnesota", one can't help but come to the conclusion that Orwell was a piker.

Posted by ed | December 3, 2007 4:45 PM

"Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said failure to negotiate a two-state solution with the Palestinians would spell the end of the State of Israel."

If this is true, then why would the Palestinians ever agree to a two-state solution? To win in the long run all they'd have to do would be to be intransigent. So, whether its right or not, Olmert's statement looks like a negotiating blunder.

Posted by Aaron | December 3, 2007 5:06 PM

"Both Israel and Apartheid South Africa basically involved a privileged minority ruling over a disenfranchised, darker-skinned majority. You can point to a ton of differences, but that seems like a pretty fundamental similarity. I'm glad Olmert recognizes the bleedin' obvious."

The first statement isn't correct, in two ways. Palestinians who can't vote in Israel aren't a majority in the borders of British Palestine, and there are a lot more black Israelis than there are black Palestinians. (Strangely enough, there are both black Israelis and black Palestinians. And I'm not just talking about the Dimona group either.) Otherwise, there is no clear darker-skinned vector between the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians, which isn't surprising, since about half of Israelis are decided from Arab (or Persian or Kurdish) Jews.

Posted by Hektor Bim | December 3, 2007 5:06 PM

Zionism has to go. It's a disgrace.

Posted by abb1 | December 3, 2007 5:47 PM

I think Hektor obscures the main point, so I want to restate it more clearly:

South African whites were a significant minority during Apartheid, Jewish Israeli's make up a majority of the population within the green line, Gaza and the West Bank. Excluding Gaza, which seems like a more reasonable way to do the calculation given the complete withdrawal, Jews make up a substantial majority. So, no, it isn't the same.

The Arab fraction of the population has been increasing over time, however, notwithstanding the withdrawal from Gaza.

Posted by Larry | December 3, 2007 6:00 PM

Aaron -
Olmert was not negotiating. He was talking to Israelis, in an effort to persuade them that they must be willing to make concessions.
There is a reluctance among the majority of Israeli Jews who favor a two-state solution actually to take any risks to achieve it. The attitude is that so long as difficult choices can be pushed into the future without too much discomfort in the present, then things are okay. What this leads to is that the majority of Israelis who favor the two-state solution are busy doing other things - building businesses, writing software, inventing new medical technologies, making money - while the Israelis who want to hold on to the territories forever are building settlements.

What Olmert is saying is what Sharon said before him: if change continues to be pushed off into the future, the ultimate situation will be much worse for Israel. The time to make the hard decisions is now. He is using strong rhetoric because his goal is to shock Israelis out of their complacency. Unfortunately, Olmert's personal credibility is so shredded that it's unlikely he can shake Israeli public opinion.

Posted by Bloix | December 3, 2007 6:39 PM

Minnesota writes: " The arabic representatives in the Israeli government and the way Israel treats its arab citizens alone preclude the label of apartheid state, unless one reads that definition very broadly."

The problem with your thinking is that Israel effectively exercises control over Gaza and the West Bank. They act with impunity, they control movement, they control trade.

That Arab citizens of Israel are relatively well off does nothing to offset the situation for the millions of Arab non-citizens over which Israel rules.

Posted by Jon H | December 3, 2007 6:52 PM

Ed: Classy. An empty appeal to 1984, no arguement, no refutation, no point.

My own view:

Israelis have to get rid most of the land outside the green line though they'll probably keep the sparsly populated golan heights. There'll need to be a land swap for some of the biggest settled blocs, some kind of tit for tat. The Israelis learned that they can't just give it back since when they unilaterally withdrew from Gaza they have been rewarded with a pretty much consistent barrage from that abandoned land ever since. So they need to cut a deal. The problem is who to cut it with? Abbas seems willing to make a deal but completely incapable of holding up any offers on his side of the table. Hamas could probably stop the barrage and cut a deal, but they really don't seem to care to. So everyone is pretty much stuck.

Posted by Minnesota | December 3, 2007 7:04 PM

Re abb1

Mr. abb1 is a poopy head.

Posted by SLC | December 3, 2007 7:07 PM

Correction: Carter did NOT say that Israel was an apartheid state. He said that Israel was running an OCCUPATION that had all the earmarks of an apartheid state. He did not say Israel itself was an apartheid state - although he could have, given the legal disparities between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs.

As usual, the Zionist lovers tag Hamas as being the real problem - when of course it is Israel that is and always has been the hangup on coming to a two-state solution. The notion that a few cheap rockets - which have only killed maybe one person since the rocket attacks started - are somehow such a threat to the nuclear armed Israel that no land can be given up is a hoot. This nonsense has been trashed so many times it's barely worth the effort to trash it again.

The reality is that the Zionist thugs running Israel are not going to stop their ethnic cleansing until, as SLC wants, the Palestinians are driven into Jordan and/or Lebanon - or anywhere but in Palestine. Once that's done, of course, Israel can then unilaterally attack Lebanon, Jordan, Syria - everybody around them, basically - and start expanding their land grab. They will no longer be an "occupation" but merely "defending" themselves from "hostile Arabs". Their actions against Lebanon last year clearly establish this as their priority.

There will be no "two-state" solution or a bi-national state solution until the Zionist thugs are run out of power in Israel. And since that isn't going to happen, Israel is doomed to be destroyed eventually by either a nuclear incident (probably by one of their own weapons) or by an excessive act on their part that forces the international community to revisit the original partitioning and reinstate the Palestinian Mandate.

Either way, Israel as a purely Jewish state has no future whatsoever.

Have a nice day, SLC!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 3, 2007 8:27 PM

"Israel is not an apartheid state. It is in danger of becoming one but it is not one yet. The arabic representatives in the Israeli government and the way Israel treats its arab citizens alone preclude the label of apartheid state, unless one reads that definition very broadly."

3 million Palestinians are subject to the whims of a government that grants them no representation, period.

"It could be argued that Israeli Arabs are treated better than Arabs in any of the Arab states, but that's a whole different kettle of fish."

You could, and you would be right. On the other hand, Palestinian Arabs are poorer than all of their neighbors. In fact, The West Bank has a lower GDP per capita then every Middle Eastern Country except Yemen, a desert nation that just emerged from a still simmering 40-year civil war (and it is almost a tie).

Innocent Palestinians are often arrested and held for years without trial, are commonly killed by military actions, and cannot engage in any internal or external trade because of the vast networks of checkpoints.

Interestingly, Israel has spent millions of dollars developing road infrastructure and building modern highways in the West Bank. The problem? They are reserved for Jews (Arab Israelis are commonly kept out of the West Bank for security purposes,). Palestinians are forced to use century old dirt roads.

That does not seem like apartheid at all?

Posted by David Shor | December 3, 2007 10:48 PM

"South African whites were a significant minority during Apartheid, Jewish Israeli's make up a majority of the population within the green line, Gaza and the West Bank. Excluding Gaza, which seems like a more reasonable way to do the calculation given the complete withdrawal, Jews make up a substantial majority. So, no, it isn't the same."

3 million people are without rights of any kind, and are arrested and killed frequently. They cannot vote.

It is almost exactly the same.

Posted by David Shor | December 3, 2007 10:51 PM

No, David, it is not almost the same. The crucial part of Apartheid was that it represented a minority ruling over a majority. In that sense, it is far, far more similar to the way the Sunni Arabs in Iraq have viewed the rest of the country.

Israel, rather, both views and treats Palestinians the way every state has viewed and treated minorities:

In good times, they are ignored or assimilated
In bad times, they are pilloried or marginalized
And in times of revolt, they are ruthlessly struck down

Israel's singular problem is that, as the Jewish state, it cannot assimilate its minorities. Meanwhile, as a liberal democracy, it is not willing to take the steps necessary to rid itself of its minority problem.

In fact, David, the "peaceful" Europeans were very effective at ridding themselves of ancient minorities. During the 19th Century, they practiced assimilation, which is the only reason France speaks French or Germany speaks German; it is also why Prag became Praha again, and why the Polish aristocracy became Russian. Obviously, during and after the Second World War, these countries relied more on ethnic cleansing or expulsion.

Israel wants no assimilation but refuses to use expulsion or genocide. Hence the one million strong Arab Israeli community, or the further 2.5 million languishing in the occupied territories.

Posted by Greg | December 3, 2007 11:25 PM

David,
I haven't read any comments on this thread in favor of Israel that seem to contenance the idea of Israel retaining control over the three million people you are referring to. I personally wouldn't support the country at all if that were the case. Obviously Israel has to get rid of the territories. Gaza, if nothing else, has demonstrated starkly that the country was willing to do so.
Hacks' scenario as described above you doesn't seem to contain any explanation for the unilateral withdrawal the Israelis performed under Sharon. It wasn't something that was easy for them, they had to drag the -real- zionists out of the place. But they did it. Perhaps Mr. Hack doesn't think a steady barrage of "cheap rockets" and an occasional death is a big deal. I suspect the Israelis disagree. Either way the fact is that they pulled out of Gaza and this is the reward they're getting. Do you think that this rocket bombardment; cheap and only mildly lethal though it alledgedly is, is acceptable behavior by the Gazan Palestinians and Hamas? Will it be acceptable if the rocketteers score a "lucky" hit and kill a score of people? It seems to me that had that bombardment not occurred the Israelis would have bailed out of a lot of the West Bank already as well.

Posted by Minnesota | December 3, 2007 11:38 PM

"Do you think that this rocket bombardment; cheap and only mildly lethal though it alledgedly is, is acceptable behavior by the Gazan Palestinians and Hamas?"

No, but neither is a lot of the stuff that Israel does either. Remember, Hamas maintained a 3 year unilateral ceasefire rather strictly. It only stopped after 5 months of crippling sanctions and a deadly Israeli artillery attack on a crowded beach during a public holiday.

But, that is just food for thought. I condemn violent attacks against civilians, no matter who the perpetrator.

"It seems to me that had that bombardment not occurred the Israelis would have bailed out of a lot of the West Bank already as well."

I find that doubtful. Homegrown Palestinian terror attacks were very rare, at least by current standards, until after the 88 intifada. During this period of relative peace, Israel pressed on building settlements, attempting to build "facts on the ground". There is a significant minority, which is unfortunately very influential, that does not ever want to leave the West Bank.

Nobody even considered the issue of Palestinian statehood until those rockets began falling.

And before you cry that the Palestinians need to try nonviolent protest, read more about the 88 intifada, and the Beit Sahour tax revolt in particular. Israel responded brutally against non-violence, and faced no consequences. Sadly, the only thing that seems to work for them is violence.

Posted by David Shor | December 4, 2007 12:04 AM

It seems to me that had that bombardment not occurred the Israelis would have bailed out of a lot of the West Bank already as well.

Every bit of polling ever done in Israel suggests the exact opposite. The more lethal the conflict is for Israelis, the more popular the idea of the idea of deals become. This is crossed up by the CW in Israel that anyone who makes deals under fire is weak and crossing a red line. Unsuprisingly (but harder to test because Israel won't quit killing folk long enough to get good sample data), the same equation exists among Palestinians.

This suggests that regardless of public opinion, everyone on the planet would be better off with a new version of 242 worded and backed more like 687. Israeli politicians could be secretely relieved while they demoan the awful anti-semitism of it all, American politicians could be secretly relieved from having to make embarassing performances to a bunch of nutballs, Palestinian politicians could pretend they had something to do with it. It would boil a lance on the ass of the planet that incites an incredible amount of stupidity that has marred the opening of the 21'st century.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 4, 2007 12:05 AM

And to preempt anti-Semitism accusations, I am an Israeli Jew. Most of my family is in the army, and a couple of them have died to preserve this senseless status-quo.

Posted by David Shor | December 4, 2007 12:09 AM

678 not 687, lance a boil, etc..

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 4, 2007 12:29 AM

"Israel wants no assimilation but refuses to use expulsion or genocide"

Actually, Israel's rulers would be delighted to use either expulsion or genocide, but unfortunately - for them - have to kowtow to the United States public who would frown on that sort of thing - especially Jewish Americans who have bought into the notion that Israel is intended to prevent another "Holocaust". Kind of hard to commit a Holocaust when you're relying on one to justify your state's existence, right? There's also the question of how many of Israel's Jews would sit by and allow a real genocide to take place. An expulsion, yes; a genocide - I doubt that would be acceptable to many of Israel's Jews.

So they have aimed for slow motion expulsion by ruthlessly oppressing the Palestinian population to a degree little different from the Nazis treatment of (non-Jewish) occupied populations. (I specify non-Jewish only because Israel, for the reason stated, hasn't set up any "concentration camps" - yet - although their prisons are no joke for Palestinians.)

Again, the notion that the rockets are some sort of reason for not advancing the peace process is a joke shop concept. If the Israeli rulers wanted peace, they would ignore the terrorist factions and make deals in honest negotiation including with Hamas. Nothing could be further from their minds, however.

The entire Annapolis conference was about trying to isolate Iran and Hamas. It had almost nothing to do with the Palestinian issue at all and absolutely nothing will come of it with regard to the Palestinian issue. Even the attempt to wean Syria away from Iran's influence will fail once Israel launches its attack on Syria and Hizballah again. The entire episode is a smokescreen to cover up continued planning for a major ME war to be started by the US and Israel.

The expectation is that Israel will first attack Hamas in Gaza. The Annapolis conference was partly about isolating Hamas as the true representatives of the Palestinians. Once that is established in the MSM and the public mind, Israel will invade Gaza and try to destroy Hamas. It will, of course, fail miserably. But the death toll will be high.

Subsequent to that attack, at some point, and especially as a result of that attack IF Hizballah supports Hamas during it, Israel will use that to justify attacking Syria and Hizballah. It will claim Hizballah is a "threat" and because Syria supports Hizballah, that Syria must be taken down in order to allow Israel to attack Hizballah in the Bekaa Valley via Syrian territory.

At the same time, the US will attack Iran - or Israel will launch a (cursory) bombing run against Iranian nuclear facilities in order to provoke Iranian retaliation against the US, thus justifying the US attack on Iran that Cheney seeks.

The end result will be a disaster for Israel, the US, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians all together.

I expect 2008 to be the year a major ME war begins - and it won't end for ten years this time.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 4, 2007 2:26 AM

To reprise the Woody Allen joke, I thought Commentary merged with Dissent to give Dissentary.

Posted by bob h | December 4, 2007 7:29 AM

David,
I never call anyone I talk to online an antisemite. The term is overused and abused with more cliche in it than meaning anymore.

Obviously you'd have a better understanding of Israeli opinion than I. My own experiences with the country are only five or so years old. I have no doubt that in eighty eight noone wanted to go anywhere. That was an entirely different world. It's almost 2008 now and obviously the Israelis have been trying to disengage for a lot of that time. Their public opinion is firmly against the idea of trying to keep all that territory and it's Palestinian owners. Now I'm willing to accept the arguement that the only reason it has changed has been the ensuing violence. That suggests a very grim and sad lesson there. Personally I hope that opinion has changed because of multiple factors; the end of the cold war, moderation by at least some of the countries neighbors, increased imbalance of military power between Israel and her neighbors,

Again correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the beach attack due to the fact that Hamas had been firing off some kind of weapon on that beach? My memory of the event is foggy but wasn't it either counterfire or an accident on the part of the palestnian mortar team that caused the explosion? I hardly think that the toll of Hamas spnsored suicide bombers really constitutes a strict ceasefire.

The fact remains that they did pull out, there's not so much as a zionist trailer left in Gaza. I wish something better had come of it than what is happening there now. Life isn't that simple it seems, alas.

Posted by Minnesota | December 4, 2007 8:26 AM

"And to preempt anti-Semitism accusations, I am an Israeli Jew. Most of my family is in the army, and a couple of them have died to preserve this senseless status-quo.

Posted by David Shor | December 4, 2007 12:09 AM"

That means SLC hates you because he admittedly hates Israelis.

Posted by Reality Man | December 4, 2007 8:29 AM

Richard:

when of course it is Israel that is and always has been the hangup on coming to a two-state solution.

Is and always has been?

Even between 1948 and 1967?

That's some pretty impressive Zionist magic, as is erasing from your mind the 1967 Arab League Kharthoum Resolution and a few other key details, but whatever.

But is and always has been the Zionists, so says Mr. Hack.

Posted by SoCalJustice | December 4, 2007 9:50 AM

Even between 1948 and 1967?

I don't even know what this would mean. Between 48 and 67 they had completely erased mandate Palestine, drove everyone into the sea and done all the bad things that bogey the imaginations of their decendents about what the Palestinians might like to do to them. They certainly weren't looking to try and live with Arabs, the remnants of the Arab community that were allowed to exist inside the green line lived under martial law until '66.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 4, 2007 11:00 AM

I don't even know what this would mean.

It "would mean" that the West Bank and Gaza were not under control of the Zionists between 1948 and 1967.

Aside from that, going back to '47, the Zionists accepted the U.N. vision of a divided (read: two state) mandate, and the other side did not.

Alleging that it was only the Zionists who had always and forever been the stumbling block to two states is pure fantasy.

Posted by SoCalJustice | December 4, 2007 11:15 AM

You can credibly argue that Arabs should not have accepted the U.N. vote dividing the mandate, but you can't at the same time then argue that Israel "is and always has been the hangup on coming to a two-state solution."

That's just patently and obviously untrue, starting at the beginning.

Personally, I believe that today - and going back a couple years to the "end" of the second Intifada, that Israel (the government, internal politics, terrible decisions, continued settlement, etc...) is much more of a stumbling block two achieving a two state solution than the Palestinians, even divided as they are between Fatah/WB and Hamas/Gaza.

But to say that Israel "is and always has been the hangup on coming to a two state-solution" is a complete rewrite of history, and obviously wrong, starting from the initial U.N. vote on the subject.

But if you want to throw your hat in with Mr. Hack, by all means, go ahead.

Posted by SoCalJustice | December 4, 2007 11:23 AM

But if you want to throw your hat in with Mr. Hack, by all means, go ahead.

On second thought, I wish I hadn't posted that line. I'm apologize to both of you.

Posted by SoCalJustice | December 4, 2007 11:25 AM

You clearly hate Israel Matt

That didn't take long. Maybe he's created a keyboard shortcut for it? CTRL-ALT-SHFT A S "You clearly hate Israel _____"

Dude, you forgot the comma.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 4, 2007 12:11 PM

Minnesota writes: "The fact remains that they did pull out, there's not so much as a zionist trailer left in Gaza"

Regardless, Israel maintains, and uses, the ability to crush Gaza by restricting trade, electricity, and other necessities required for Gaza to be economically viable.

Just because there aren't any zionist trailers there it doesn't mean Israel isn't making them miserable.

Posted by Jon H | December 4, 2007 12:31 PM

You do have a point there Jon. Israel still controls Gaza's waters and airspace. That's not good and it would be great if they just stopped and let the Gazans do whatever. The other side of that is of course that if things could flow in and out of Gaza without interference then the rockets flying out of the strip will get a lot less "trivial and primitive" really fast. That's an unpleasant prospect. From my comfortable perch in America it seems like giving the inhabitants of the strip 100% control of their territory would remove any arguements for them to claim that their bombardment is legitamit. On the other hand try telling that to the Israelis living next door. Not a simple situation at all.

As for giving away electricity to the Gazans they should probably give notice to the Gazans that since they're not paying for that utiltiy the Israelis are going to stop giving it to them. A good length of time should be in that notice so that the Gazans have time to build their own power plants. They would probably be happier without filthy zionist oppressor electricity anyhow.

Posted by Minnesota | December 4, 2007 12:41 PM

"David,
I never call anyone I talk to online an antisemite. The term is overused and abused with more cliche in it than meaning anymore."

Thank you, I appreciate the civility that is unfortunately rare in this discussion.

"That suggests a very grim and sad lesson there. Personally I hope that opinion has changed because of multiple factors; the end of the cold war, moderation by at least some of the countries neighbors, increased imbalance of military power between Israel and her neighbors,"

I hope so too, but faced with such uncertainty, I can't blame the Palestinians for engaging in attacks, at least from a Real-Politik point of view.

"Again correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the beach attack due to the fact that Hamas had been firing off some kind of weapon on that beach?"

At first, Israel denied they fired the shell, and tried to blame it on Hamas. After a couple of months, Israeli officials leaked that the shelling was unauthorized, and was an "accident". To my knowledge, The Israeli government has never apologized for the "accident".

But of course, that was not really the reason Hamas called off their ceasefire. Hamas leaders found it increasingly difficult to maintain the ceasefire in the face of the sanctions Israel imposed as a response to their parliamentary victory. This attack gave them an excuse to back out.

"I hardly think that the toll of Hamas spnsored suicide bombers really constitutes a strict ceasefire."

If you check, Hamas only engaged in one attack from the period of 2003-2006, and this was by a rogue agent and condemned. Within this period, Hamas did indeed follow a unilateral ceasefire, in order to spark a peace agreement. This lead to a rather drastic decrease in terrorism(Around 70-80%).

Sadly, this did not get much coverage in the Israeli press, and Israeli's attributed the drop to Sharon's security measures.

Posted by David Shor | December 4, 2007 2:51 PM

David,
I can understand the realpolitic consideration arguement with regards to the Palestinian attacks, yes.

Thank you for the clarification, since I get most of my news from the press (I have a couple of friends in Israel mostly in Haifa and Jerusalem but you know how anecdotes are) that's where I form my own opinions.

Did the halt of aide to Hamas constitute a sanction? It has always been presented to me as aid. That with Fatah at least saying they want two state peace that aid was willingly given but that the election of Hamas with its very emphatic rejection of the two state solution meant that the donor countries declined to continue to donate?

Posted by Minnesota | December 4, 2007 5:04 PM

"Did the halt of aide to Hamas constitute a sanction? It has always been presented to me as aid. "

I can understand cuts in aid, even if I don't agree with them. But this went a bit further.

Taxes collected from Palestinians on behalf of the Palestinian Authority by Israel are a rather significant source of revenue. Israel withheld this after Hamas's victory.

Israel then tightened the borders, making trade impossible within Gaza, and extremely difficult in the West Bank. This is more akin to a classical sanction.

Posted by David Shor | December 5, 2007 8:39 AM

Thank you for your view. I don't know enough about this specific issue to be able to argue much about it. I am a bit confused, why do the Israelis collect taxes from the Palestinians on behalf of the PA? Why doesn't the PA collect the taxes itself?

Border control, of course, is a gordonian knot that defies cutting. If you tighten border control you stifle development and trade and foster resentment. If you loosen border control you get blown to skittles. What a mess.

Posted by Minnesota | December 5, 2007 10:31 AM