This is an amazing article. I can't believe such articles on such a contraversial and extremely sensitive topic still see the light of day.
African Americans can thank Jews in America for their invaluable alliance during the Civil Rights struggle. They helped put a white face on the movement, much to the dismay of those who would carry out the Jim Cow laws in those time. Even Obama mentioned that he doesn't know what has happened to the bond that blacks and Jews shared. So as a black man, let alone as a decent human being, I don't think I have a right to be anti-Semitic.
The cruel irony is that the Israeli's with the blessings of the American government are practicing the same oppression against the Palestinians that was shunned and frowned upon here in America.
To that end, I was shocked that Secretary Rice made that observation. That's one, count it, one thing she's ever said that I can agree with.
A Two-State Solution for the United States and Israel
George W. Bush thought it would be a good idea to help Israel celebrate its 60th birthday. So he showed up to celebrate, in spite of the gross contradiction his presence there offered against an appearance of impartiality in the negotiations between Israel and Palestine -- an accord whose success the president has said he intends to show as the diplomatic legacy of eight years in office.
In his speech to the Knesset, President Bush praised Israel in familiar and effusive terms. He also threatened Iran almost to the point of implying that Israel's birthday present from America would be a war against Iran initiated by the U.S. Finally, and strangely, he went out of his way -- in violation of a decorum observed by previous American presidents on foreign visits -- to attack a political rival in the United States.
Senator Biden, Barack Obama, and others were quick to respond to the charge that talking (not giving things away) to a hostile country must constitute "appeasement"; but the coat-trailing use of the word, meanwhile, caught the attention of the press; and Chris Matthews, interviewing a talk radio shouter, was led to some characteristic rumblings:
"You think it was fair to go overseas and take a shot at a fellow American?... Why is Israel now the center of the Republican Campaign?... Why the focus on Israel?.... Why are we turning Israel into Hyde Park Corner?"
The questions are pertinent and not easy to answer. Why has Israel become the place to test an American politician for loyalty and strength? Loyalty to what and strength about what? Something about the American view of Israel, and his own exaggerated version of it, made George W. Bush believe he could get away with the provocative words he used and the graceless choice of an occasion.
In the American mind today, Israel stands for a policy of benign chauvinism, justified preemptive war, and provisional domination of the Middle East: the very policy the Bush administration has sought to graft onto the United States, while borrowing Israeli army rules of engagement for use in Iraq. Doubtless the unpopular president felt a certain exhilaration and nervous release in cutting down a member of his family (nationally speaking) in front of another family. But there was a personal as well as well as a generic reason for it. Probably Israel today seems to George Bush a friendlier place than most of America does. It is, to him, a sort of fifty-first state, a good deal like Texas but cleared of the protesters.
One might end here, merely observing that, not for the first time, George W. Bush acted below the dignity of his office. Yet his defects were forgiven by his hosts; and that is not where the interest of the occasion lies.
When an American of such high visibility speaks without inhibition of American divisions to Israelis, one is made to reflect on the extraordinary censorship exercised by the American mainstream media against all allusion to the current political controversies in Israel. For example, the Israeli divisions over the oppressive treatment of the West Bank Palestinians. The word "appeasement" was misused by the president; but why should we not use it accurately? Why should Americans not follow the Israeli opposition, and speak of the appeasement by successive Israeli governments of the fanatical sects of settlers who seek to dispossess the Palestinians of their lands?
Condoleezza Rice broke the silence once. On a visit in October 2007, she said the sufferings of the West Bank Palestinians reminded her of the civil-rights struggles of American blacks in the South. Indeed, as Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar show in Lords of the Land, the more thuggish settlers in cities like Hebron have enjoyed many of the privileges that Americans associate with white gangs in the Jim Crow South -- a routine of harassment and ad-hoc violence against an inferior caste. The Israeli government acts as the federal government of the United States would have acted if it had said it could not move against the gangs because "these are our people."
Israel, Munich, and appeasement came up again when John McCain said, of Barack Obama's willingness to speak with diplomatic representatives of Iran, that one must never negotiate with anyone who calls Israel a "stinking corpse." But why should political thought be silenced and action obstructed by the trash talk of a small-time dictator? Demagogues say many things. It is in their nature not to be in a position to mean everything they say.
Nikita Khrushchev spoke for world communism in direr terms than these when he addressed to Americans the words: "We will bury you." Khrushchev went beyond calling his enemy a stinking corpse. He acknowledged that we were still alive, and said we were going to be turned into a corpse, and declared that he would be the one to do it. And Khrushchev actually held the levers of power in the Soviet Union -- something that cannot be said of Ahmadinejad in Iran. Yet President Eisenhower negotiated with Khrushchev, and President Kennedy negotiated with him, too. The idea that all contact with a hostile country that is not war, is therefore necessarily appeasement, is a poisonous offshoot of the Bush dogma which says "If you are not with us you are against us." Palestinians oppressed by Israeli settlers and looking anywhere they can for help are neither with the United States nor against us. If we treat them as enemies, they may well become enemies.
Another piece of the Bush doctrine -- a piece borrowed from Ariel Sharon, which John McCain seems poised to inherit -- is the idea that wars always improve the stature and increase the power of a warrior nation. Six years into the American occupation of Iraq, this ought to have become questionable. Yet John McCain's advisers on foreign policy are, to a man, neoconservatives -- supporters of the Lebanon as of the Iraq war, and disposed to flatter the militarism that is the most consistent trait of McCain's political temperament.
Israeli opinion covers a far wider range than American neoconservatism. In the Cooper Union debate on the "Israel Lobby" controversy, in September 2006, the former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami said that the United States had become a Colossus -- "an intrusive colossus that is hated throughout the Arab world," because of its support for the Arab autocrats. The solution, Ben-Ami implied, was not for the U.S. to intrude still further into the affairs of the Middle East but to change its course and resist the promptings of organizations like AIPAC. He wondered why so many American lawmakers were intimidated by the lobby, since the most it could do was to stop someone from getting elected, and, where a public good was concerned, not to be elected or re-elected might seem a small sacrifice for a politician whose duty is to tell the truth.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Bottom line. Zionists stole Palestinian land in 1948. There is no argument to turn this around. Palestine should be returned to the Palestinians. There is nothing to negociate.
The bottom line is you could not be more wrong.
"...a routine of harassment and ad-hoc violence against an inferior caste."
Judging from the hearing held by the House Progressive Caucus last Thursday to hear testimony from American veterans of our Iraq-colonizing campaign (formal committees of Congress apparently being afraid to hear from our troops) - which has since been carefully blacked out by most of our "media" - that is an extremely apt description of the way the American occupiers treat Iraqi citizens in Iraq every single day.
You can hear the raw truth from that hearing that the media (and most of Congress) wants you to overlook, here:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=205390-1
Ah yes, but Congress must rush to pass the - I'm not kidding - "DUNCAN HUNTER National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2009" - in addition to another year of "emergency" funding for our permanent presence in Iraq - before the summer campaign season kicks off. After all, it is imperative - above all - that all obvious avenues for ENDING the policy of Iraq colonization for oil be foreclosed to Congress before the fall campaign seriously begins.
For some humane perspective provided thanks to the AMERICAN "JEWISH Alliance for Law & Social Action" - concerning the power to declare and end war and to whom it does, or ought, to belong, and more - their Harvard forum from Friday is viewable here:
http://www.charleshamiltonhouston.org/Events/Event.aspx?linkback=homepage&id=100072
Thanks for this article. Its absolutely spot on.
The greatest gift that we could give Israel is to finally FORCE them, by any reasonable means, to abandon all settlements and the occupation. It would only HELP to secure Israel and the US. There is absolutely no downside to it save for the righteous indignities that will befall the fanatical settlers who have helped to prolong this international nightmare for decades.
Israel is CLEARLY incapable of doing it themselves, and the repercussions of their actions and our occasional complicity and constant enabling have begun to cause blow back terror against the US in the form of 9/11.
Why should Israel give up the land it has legally held since gaining it as the result of a defensive war in 1967. No one, especially you, has the right to ask us to give up more of the land we aquired, especially the Golan. To ask Israel to give up the strategic depth that prevented our destruction in 1973 is to ask Israel to commit suicide. I realize from things you have written in the past you'd have no problem with destruction of Israel.
I cannot believe you are blaming Israel for 9/11, that is one of the most despicable things I have ever read on HuffPo. It is a lie and anyone who would make such an accusation is clearly beneath the contempt of decent people.
Don't take it up with me, take it up with Tony Blair, the Iraq Study Group, Walt and Mearsheimer, the head of the CIAs Bin Laden unit, and MANY others, all of whom have made the very clear connection between the Israeli Palestinian conflict and the rise in terrorism that led to 9/11. The Iraq study group insists that there will NEVER be progress in the war on terror until that conflict is resolved. even Bill Clinton said that it is the philosophical underpinning of middle eastern terrorism.
Make no mistake, not a single country in the world recognizes the settlements. Not even the US. they are universally condemned. They serve no good purpose, and it is widely understood that they inspire terror against Both Israel and the US, and that they contributed in no small way to inspiring 9/11.
Apparently, everything you, Bubbac33, disagree with, will lead to the destruction of Israel.
For instance, if Fluoride in toothpaste is wrong in bubbac33s opinion, it will lead to the destruction of Israel.
Apparently, this is even the case if a majority of Israelis disagree with you, as they do with regard to the settlements in the occupied territories. Most of them want them gone, and want a 2 state solution. That is the CHARTER of the Kadima party. That is why they the gaza was abandoned, and that is why the west bank and east Jerusalem will be abandoned. Its only a matter of time, and when it happens, Israel will ultimately be SAFER.
You are wrong, which is usual for you.
Making policy based on the charter of the Kadima Party makes as much sense as basing US foreign policy on the charter of the Green Party. In simpler terms, for your benefit, who cares about the Kadima Party.
It is a lie to say a majority of Israeli citizens want to give up the territories and the settlements. It just isn't true.
A two-state solution has been in existence since 1922 with the creation of Transjordan. Jerusalem is the historic capital of Israel and always will be the capital. The Kadima Party can want whatever it wants, but nothing will change the fact about Jerusalem.
NO one with any knowledge of the security needs of Israel would be stupid enough to say Israel will be safer if it gives up the territories. Without the strategic depth afforded by the territories Israel would have been defeated and destroyed in 1973. I fought on the Golan losing friends and comrades in the fight to stop the advance of the Syrian army. So, mock me all you want but I know something you'll never know. Some things are sufficiently important to fight and die for and Israel is one of them.
I like the idea of Federal type Republic, where there is a central government consisting of Arabs and Jews over-seeing the governance of the country and providing services and then the breakdown of the rest of the country into districts or states with their own governing bodies with Arab-Jew proportional representation.
It appears as though everyone is satisfied with the current situation. Israelis are willing to accept terrorism in order to justify holding onto the West Bank, and Palestinians are willing to accept living under occupation in order to justify fighting back.
And Christians are willing to accept ongoing conflict in the Holy Land because it will lead to the Second Coming of Christ.
So no one really has anything to complain about. Except US taxpayers.
Zionism and Nazism: there's little difference between a homeland for a "master race" and a "chosen people". The Holy Land belongs to Christians, Muslims, Jews and other ancient religious sects.
One state with freedom of religion is the only DEMOCRATIC solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Eretz Israel belongs to the Jewish people. We allow other religions the freedom to worship as they choose. From 1948-1967 Jews were not allowed to pray at the Western Wall, it took the IDF to secure Jerusalem for Jews to have access to our holiest sites.
Here is the solution to the problem. All Arabs unwilling to live in a Jewish state are invited to move to Jordan.
Wow. You got a lot of nerve, and I say that with all due respect.
Why do you deserve a Jewish state? Why do you need a Jewish state? Why not make peace with your enemies, instead of antagonizing them then getting upset when they don't want you around anymore? Why complain when they express desires to drive you out into the sea when Israel actively drives them out into the desert?
Jews are not the only people to be the victim of an evil dictator and his minions' wrath, so why are you the only people who get an entire nation born out of the victimhood?
Historian Tony Judt put it best (and I'm paraphrasing) that everyone has a victimhood narrative, including the Palestinians now at the hands of the Israelis. To turn that into public policy is catastrophic, and that's what we see today as a result of the AIPAC lobby.
BubbaC33: You mean after killing thousands of their bretheren and family members, expelling 800 000 Palestinians, stealing their nation, demolishing their homes, erasing their villages, attacking their holy sites and setting up a military occupation, they wouldnt let Jews pray at the Wall? Well ,that is just barbaric.
Elliott32: Very well put, there is no difference between the Master RAce and the Chose people concept.
I have no idea where you found the misleading and inaccurate numbers. I do not accept them as truthful, the figure you use is higher than the Arab population in 2948. I guess some left, came back to israel and then left again.
Actually BubbaC33, my figures are accurate and truthful, that's what has you so confused and blubbering.
BubbaC33: things were fine before Zionism and I assure things would become better after. All faiths and races lived harmoneously before the creation of Israel.
The figure you offer for expelled Arabs is so wrong it is out of touch with reality. But it is typical of Arab supporters, the folks who can't tell the truth about Israel.
The bottom line is your posting has nothing of value. Nothing of the truth.
Here's my idea of a two-state solution:
Cleave the U.S. and Israel into separate entities, extend best wishes to our former 51st state, stop sending American tax dollars to the Knesset and begin working for justice for the Palestinians.
Although your point is well taken, I have to respectfully disagree with the notion that Israel is the 51st state. Here are the differences between Israel and the current 50 states:
1. Each state pays taxes to the US government, while Israel receives taxes from the US government.
2. Each state has two senators and a number of representatives in the house that defends the interest of their state then consequently the country as a whole. Israel has 100 senators and 435 representatives it can count on to advance its agenda.
3. Each state are bound by the US constitution and the Civil Rights laws which precludes it from discriminating against its citizens based on race, ethnic and religion affiliation. Israel is a nation with a core identity based on a race, ethnic and religious affiliation.
I could go on but you get the point.
This was a well done article, and your comment is also well made. I would hope that donations by American Jews to the state of Israel will no longer be tax deductible, especiall y since no other Americans may donate to a foreign country, to its military, as well, and declare it as an income tax deduction. I would also hope that the oil subsidy given to Israel for giving back the Egyptian Oil Fields near Sharm-el-Sheik, will be discontinued, in addition to the extra subsidies given for milk and bread. Finally, that AIPAC be required to register as a foreign agency serving the needs of a foreign state.
This albatross on usa neck is causing us way tomany problems with rest of the world.Israel is using nuclear blackmail against the U.S. Essentially, Israel is saying that if we don't agree to use our nuclear weapons against Iran, then they will use theirs. Israel is determined to keep its monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East and is using its nuclear arsenal to force the U.S. to support its demand.
ISRAEL POLICY FOR USA..
Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered In US War And Occupation Of Iraq "1,209,263"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed (Officially acknowledged) In U.S. War And Occupation Of Iraq 4,079
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of U.S. War and Occupation of Iraq
$520,751,063,848
I REST MY CASE.
The US war in Iraq serves no purpose for Israel. Israel did want Saddam Hussein removed from power, but on at least five occasions the US prevented Mossad from ridding the world of Saddam.
Here is a question, where would you have us go? Where would you send the Jews of Israel in a modern day diaspora? I suspect you don't care, it is enough for you for Israel to cease to exist.
Ending the settlements and the occupation will SECURE Israels existence. Removing the settlers and IDF and replacing them with a temporary UN peace keeping force will keep BOTH sides honest as teh US and the rest of the world pile resources into the the occupied territories and helps the palestinians get their long awaited state underway, without the interference of Israeli bombings and settler aggressions.
There will be no diaspora. Israel is strong, and has the backing of the strongest nation on earth, and, once the settlements are gone, the backing and support of almost all the nations of the middle east (and the rest of the world). Until then, Israel endangers itself and the US for the exclusive benefit of ultra nationalist fanatics who will NEVER back down until they are forced out of their illegal settlements.
The idea of the land serving as strategic depth for the defense of Israel came from the Pentagon, not from any propaganda.
In 1973 the Arabs had new SAM technology that allowed them to destroy large numbers of the Israeli Air Force. As for hillsides serving a purpose one needs only look at a map of Israel to understand the need for sensitive and advance warning systems on mountain tops to protect Israel.
It is clear Adma and I Can't Tell the Truth have no idea of the needs of a modern military. So, let this seep into your mind. Israel exists and if you don;t like that, which seems clear, tough. We do not require the acceptance of folks like either oy y'all.
They are not strategically valuable to Israel, that is just their propaganda seeping out of your brain.
The fourth most powerful military in the world doesn't need to secure another country hillside valleys when it has stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, biological warheads along with a loads of ballistic and cruise missles. Fighter and ground-attack tanks and aircrafts are littered everywhere along with ground systems which include artillery and rocket launchers.
Anyone who believes giving up the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Golan will provide security for Israel has no idea about the strategic depth necessary for the Defense of Israel. In 1973 I fought on the Golan, losing friends and comrades in the fight to keep the Syrian army from dividing the nation and bringing about the destruction of Israel. The price we paid in blood was so high I can say anyone who advocates giving up the Golan is a traitor or a fool.
The land was stolen in 1948 and all who thirst for justice are working to get it back to it's rightful owners. Time for the occupation to end and the Europeans to go home to Europe.
Yes, the land was stolen from the Jews in 70 AD when the Romans expelled them. Since then there has been a continuous Jewish presence in the land. The Arabs came much later.
The UN partitioned the land and created a state. Jews were expelled from Arab countries and their land was stolen.
The Jews are not Europeans and in fact have been persecuted there for thousands of years through the crusades, Inquisition, pogroms and holocaust.
The land was not stolen, your thinking copuld not be more wrong.
Try reading "A Place Among the Nations" by Benjamin Netanyahu and perhaps you'll have some idea of how wrong you are about the restoration of Israel.
700,000 Palestinians were evicted from their land in 1948. 485 Palestinian villages were destroyed in 1948. The confiscation of land -- and the subjugation of the Palestinian people continues.
I have no idea where you folks get the idea that so many Arabs were expelled, but your figure is insanely high and out of touch with reality.
You must have forgot that there was a war of aggression imposed on Israel by 6 neighboring Arab states, the purpose of which was to kill all the Jews and/or drive them into the sea. There was no Palestinian state they were fighting for, no political or cultural institutions they were defending. No, they just wanted to kill the Jews.
You want someone to use a book written by Benjamin Netanyahu as an accurate account of how present day Israel came to be?!?! Please read below...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Hold on, I'm not done....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! No really, I think I'm done now.....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
Just be honest, the land was STOLEN...
Posted May 18, 2008 | 02:52 PM (EST)