If you don't have a child between 7 and 13 years old, you're probably furrowing your brow right now, wondering what the word "pone" could possibly mean.
It hasn't made it into respectable dictionaries yet; but it's taken over the elementary schoolyards and playgrounds where I live. And there's no better word to describe how well Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has played the Obama administration.
According to urban lore, "pone" was coined by young fans of the boy band the Jonas Brothers (who recently rocked Abu Dabhi in what was surely one of the stranger concerts in human history), or even -- so the Brothers are said to claim -- directly by them. In reality, the term comes from a common misspelling of the word "owned" as "pwned" in text and chat messages. It roughly translates into adult-speak as being completely "owning" by an opponent in a sport or game, to the point of humiliation ("You got totally poned, dude," is a common refrain around my house after a particularly one-sided basketball or video game).
Considering the President's well known skills on the hardwood, it's doubtful Netanyahu could pone Obama in a game of one-on-one basketball. But on the field of diplomacy the Israeli continues to school his American opponent -- and have no doubt about it, the US and Israel might be close "allies," but Obama is being treated as little better than an opponent to be vanquished rather than a patron to be respected.
Despite the immense power disparity in the American's favor, it's not hard to figure out why the Israelis continuously win such lopsided victories, most recently in the agreement of the Americans to provided yet more billions of dollars worth of advanced fighter jets in return for another limited (read: illusionary) settlement freeze. The President might be from Chicago, but you can't play the kind of rough and tumble politics for which his home town is famous if the game is fixed and referees are on the take.
With the US weapondollar-petrodollar complex having a stranglehold on US policy-making in the Middle East and Congress and the media literally owned by conservative supporters of Israel, it's difficult to imagine how even Phil Jackson could design a playbook to overcome the political realities that have hamstrung President Obama in his quest to bring peace to Israel/Palestine.
Time to Change the Game
One underlying reason for this difficulty lies in the nature of the conflict itself. The basic problem of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has always been, and remains, two-fold: It is a zero-sum conflict over territory whose two opponents ground their identities in the notion of exclusive control of territory by one ethno-national group. This link between ethnicity and exclusive control of identity has constituted the standard (although not the only) model of sovereignty in the modern world, defining the political norm for hundreds of years.
Within Zionism and later Israeli politics, the Left, as represented by the Labor movement, has always failed to lead the Jewish national community towards despite despite a century of lofty rhetoric precisely because in the end Labor Zionism's territorial imperatives have trumped progressive ideals. And so it was the Labor movement that envisioned the "conquest of land" that became a cornerstone of Jewish settlement before and after 1948, while the Labor Party presided over the most damaging expansion of Israeli settlements, during the Oslo years.
Obama came into office hoping to change the rules governing US diplomacy towards Israel. But his efforts were doomed as he quickly ran afoul of the ironclad rules governing a century of zero-sum ethno-territorial conflict. Entering the diplomatic ring with neither the right equipment nor a team who understood these rules, the Administration was quite literally poned by the Israelis when it tried early on to get the Netanyahu government to agree to a settlement freeze, suffering a blow from which it has yet to recover.
Yet the President is by no means out of the game. What he needs to realize, however, is that if he can't change the game he can change the rules surrounding what constitutes a goal, and through it, victory- -o r rather peace -- in the conflict.
Moving Beyond Sovereignty-Territory Axis
It might seem strange to imagine a non-territorially grounded resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but there is in fact nothing to say that such a political-territorial arrangement is the only viable model for Israeli and Palestinian identities to take, or even the best one. Indeed, various alternative forms of identity have been imagined by members o the two communities for almost a century, most of them focusing on shared sovereignty -- either a binational or single-state solution.
The problem with such alternative solutions is that while most Palestinians would welcome them, hardly any Israelis would agree to them as long as they were offered in the context of a territorially grounded notion of sovereignty. The reason is clear: such an arrangement would very quickly mean the end of a Jewish state, with Jews living as a minority in a country they previously controlled.
It would seem that any viable solution in the near term would still have to involve two sovereign states "living side by side," as the much abused phrase describes it. Yet a two-state solution based on the Oslo-style land-for-peace formula is practically impossible, as Israel has achieved such a deep presence in the West Bank -- one that it continues to expand, despite itself -- that territorial separation is (and has been for a generation) all but impossible.
The conundrum for those working for peace, then, is how to design a solution that would retain two-states while moving beyond the zero-sum problematic that has always dragged down the two-state solution.
Solving a Difficult Puzzle
A difficult puzzle to be sure. But for the last two years a group of Palestinian and Israeli scholars and policy-makers, with the assistance of a former high-ranking Swedish diplomat with a long history of involvement in regional peace efforts have been working hard to solve it (here it's worth recalling that the "Oslo" peace process actually started in Stockholm, before being handed over by Swedish diplomats to their Norwegian counterparts after a new government ccame to power that didn't support their back channel efforts).
Called the Parallel States Project, the group, whose roster includes former senior settlement leaders as well as Palestinians with longstanding ties to the PLO leadership, early on concluded that nothing short of a wholesale reimagining of Israeli and Palestinian identities in a manner that moved beyond territorial sovereignty while allowing each community to identify and remain loyal to its own state and identity would lift the impasse that has for so long doomed negotiations.
The core component of a Parallel States solution is the move from a two-dimensional notion of sovereignty based on fixed borders, to parallel, or better, overlapping notions of sovereignty, in which Israeli and Palestinian states could each claim sovereignty over the whole territory in a manner that would not infringe on the rights and claims of the other state, or its citizens.
How to pull off such a seemingly impossible magic trick? The answer is as simple as it is profound: Disassemble the triangle linking the citizen to her or his state through the particular piece of territory -- Tel Aviv or Nablus, Ariel or Jaffa -- on which he or she lives, and replace it with a direct link between the individual citizen and her or his respective state that would holds firm regardless of whether one is a Palestinian living in Herzliyya or a Jewish Israeli living in Gaza.
Specifically, the two most important implications of a parallel states solution are that settlements are no longer an obstacle to peace and Palestinians could implement the Right of Return because. Enabling both is the ability of Jews and Palestinians to live anywhere in the space of historical Palestine/Eretz Yisrael in a parallel states scenario.
Jews could continue to live in their biblical heartland of the West Bank without being settlers (this accounts or why several of the core members of the group are active members of the settlement movement), while Palestinians dislocated by settlements would receive compensation and/or previously Israeli controlled land.
Palestinians, including the millions of refugees whose right of return is perhaps the single biggest obstacle to peace, could also live anywhere within the 1967 borders of Israel because no matter how many Palestinian lived there it would not change the demographic balance of the Jewish state, whose demographic basis would not be tied to territory. And of course, both peoples could live throughout Jerusalem, returning the city to the more demographically checkered and cosmopolitan identity it had developed before 1948.
And so the three biggest obstacles to peace -- settlements and refugees and Jerusalem -- would be resolved through a parallel states solution.
Of course, a parallel states solution would not be easy. Numerous considerations -- from how to develop the Palestinian economy in a way the finally gives it significant autonomy while retaining strong ties both to Israel and the larger world, to developing the unique security arrangements necessary to satisfy Israel's focus on strategic and personal security and Palestinians' need for physical security and freedom from occupation. The legal systems of both states would also have to be harmonized.
But if the totality of the innovations necessary to create a parallel states structure is unprecedented, the fact is that most of the individual changes are not, as they've already been conceived of and in even implemented (with varying levels of success to be sure) in conflict zones as diverse as Cyprus and Nagorno Karabagh.
What is needed more than outside-the-box thinking is outside-the-box leadership. And while Israelis and Palestinians could desperately use a new and courageous generation of leaders, the need is nowhere greater than on the part of an Obama Administration which has until now exhibited a tragic predilection for embracing the status quo while calling it change. If the President is willing to take the risk of reaching out for creative solutions to this interminable conflict, there is a chance he will help enable the kind of change Israelis and Palestinians can actually believe in. If not, he'll continue to get poned by Netanyahu and his American allies, and we will all be the losers for it.
I know southern Baptists that feel the same way about Catholics and Muslims, as Muslims feel about Jewish people.
Until we can collectively put aside our religious differences and focus on each other as human beings first, we will have these, 'my god is better than your god' wars.
It is pwned by China.
And it will be a great day when China pwns the Middle East as well.
China doesn't play games like the Palestinians and Arabs do.
My advice is to stop obsessing about Israel and start learning Mandarin.
True.
At its heart, this is a religious war. Islam had until recently conquered and subjugated the non muslims of the region. Israel, by virtue of not being a muslim state and its population not subjugated by Islam, is a thorn in the side of Islamic imperialism.
Proof of this is the fact that while Jordan and Egypt ruled the so called "palestinians", there was no call by these same "palestinians" for a "state". In fact, the palestinians themselves renounced all sovereignty over the west bank and gaza in 1964.
Proof also exists in the historical record. The arabs declared war on Israel even as Israel was within not the 67 lands, but within the 48 boundaries. War was declared even when there was not a single settler and the arabs controlled not just east Jerusalem---but all of Jerusalem.
It's always been a religious war.
Ignoring that reality is why there is little prospect of any peace. Because there can be no peace until the arab/muslim world is willing to view non muslims as equals and as having the right of self determination.
Where Jordan gave up land, Israel is taking more every year.
"there can be no peace until the arab/muslim world is willing to view non muslims as equals"
I basically agree with this too. Peaceful coexistence requires at least some degree of mutual respect. Generally speaking, the Arabs see Jewish sovereignty over any part of Palestine as a mortal insult to their honor.
Imagine if Israeli Jews were comprised of 60% by religious Zionists who saw it as a Jewish divine mandate to occupy and control all of the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. In that case, peace would be impossible no matter how reasonable and accommodating the Arabs were. Well that's basically how the Arabs are right now.
Sounds very theoretical to me.
The second possibility is that the Arab state will have actual power. Predictably in this scenario, the Arabs will sooner or later elect a Hamas-type government and all of that power will be used towards attacking Israel; attacking Israeli citizens; and trying to get Israel to hurt Arabs for PR purposes. Just like the situation in Gaza. Aware of this likelihood, the Israelis are unlikely to agree to a deal which creates an Arab state with any real power.
The upshot is that there is very little prospect for a peace deal along these lines.
Palestine is already far further down the road to statehood and has far more global support than Iasrael did in 1948.
"Poll: Most Palestinians view talks as precursor to 1 state
Disturbing US poll: Most Palestinians refuse to accept idea of Israel as Jewish state, view peace talks, two-state solution as first step towards creation of one Palestinian state in area; 58% support armed struggle"
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3987277,00.html
Unfortunately, that's just not true. The Arabs also want to eliminate Jewish sovereignty over the entire area including pre-1967 Israel. That's why they did not accept the 1948 partition plan. That's why they went to war against the Jews long before there were any settlements on the West Bank. That's why there are regular rocket attacks from Gaza. And that's why they insist that the West Bank be essentially Judenrein under any peace deal.
" They deserve no less than the Israelis provide for themselves."
They don't deserve any of this unless and until they grow up enough to resist the urge to slaughter and chase out all of the Jews. Which is exactly what they will try to do if they get the opportunity.
Because when you describe the "basic problem" of the conflict, you omit the fact that by and large, the Arabs cannot accept Jewish sovereignty over even one square inch of Palestine. That's why the Arabs rejected the original UN partition plan and that's why there were years of bloody conflict even when there were no Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
" . . . The President might be from Chicago, but you can't play the kind of rough and tumble politics for which his home town is famous if the game is fixed and referees are on the take.. . "
This is OUTRAGEOUS. The United States is estopped legally from violating the Anglo-American boundary convention of 1924, which has never expired or even been abrogated. Simply put, the USA has a treaty which requires it to consider Jerusalem (et al) and the WB as part of the Jewish National Homeland. The President can no more officially deny Israel's rights therein then Reagan was permitted to engage in Iran/Contra.
No state in the world recognizes that.
I will try to be positive about this. (It is really not organic for me).
The positive perspective is that at least we are getting to the crux of the debate, rather then the usual and standard practice of people jumping around to avoid dealing with the core issues.
You have summarized your understanding of International law. I happen to disagree for reasons previously elaborated in length. I have devoted pages of my own wording, as well as having utilized third~party linked information. You have summarized, to say the least. I will not assert that you are less qualified then myself to make conclusions of this nature, relating to 90~year old arguments involving International law. Why? Because frankly, international law is not now nor has it ever been a fully~formed regimen. Its NOT like British common~law for example, which has a several hundred-year old schematic behind it.
That said, you are mistaken. What (legal) difference does it make if Israel was finally chartered as codified in 1920, 1921, 1922, 1924, 1927, 1947 or 2001? Israel's rights to sovereignty were first formalized in 1919 or 1920, depending on how one looks at it, not 1924. 1924 is merely when the USA and UK created a contract reaffirming this. Why is 1924 a better date then 1920 or 1944? It isn't. From the perspective of international law, a second in time has the same meaning as and hour, a week, a month, a year, ten years or 100 years.
You wrote: "No state in the world recognizes that"
Sorry, I can no longer be 'positive' about this. I am candidly sick of hearing of what other countries like or dislike, recognize or do not recognize. Israel does not tell them where their borders can be fixed or remain. We do not live in a "one-world government" and thank God for that small miracle (which is looking smaller and smaller each and every day). This much is NOT sophisticated international law. It is 101.
You: "Israel has no claim to land that predates its existence and was not part of its border when created."
Your above argument might have some merit, if the 1948 armistice lines were firm international boundaries, which they were never. They were cease-fire lines. Thus, your argument lacks foundation and moment.
If you would like some comprehensive data on this subject, I suggest you read the following:
http://www.think-israel.org/mehlman.griefbook.html
Even I do not agree with 100% of it. But what I do agree with establishes the basis for my conclusion that Israel's legal boundaries include EJ, WB, Gaza and Golan. Or, don't read this 660 pages and you are free to continue publishing your bumper-sticker legal pleadings. The choice is yours.
Have a nice evening.
If you've ever met a person who has been badly abused by the court system, its like meeting a person who claims to remember their former life and no one believes them. If you believe that it was a defective and corrupt court rather then the person merely being disgruntled and unwilling to accept blame, they look at you like you just invented the cure for cancer. What does this have to do with Israel and the article? Quite a bit. What we have here is a very bad judge in the form of the United Nations. We also have a litigant who few people believe.
This above story is a concoction of unverified allegations, mixed with a strong dose of yarn-spinning. Israel does NOT own Obama.
". . most recently in the agreement of the Americans to provided yet more billions of dollars worth of advanced fighter jets . ."
People keep repeating this claim but I have yet to see any actual evidence of this agreement.
(Cont'd)
“Following Obama's 2009 Cairo speech and then his short-lived stand against Israeli settlements, Obama was warned by Democrats close to the lobby (including some inside the White House) that publicly disagreeing with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu would offend donors. That would harm the Democrats in 2010 and doom his re-election chances in 2012.”
“It is well-known in Israel that Netanyahu and his fellow right-wingers want to see the Democrats lose next Tuesday and then be rid of Obama in two years. They assume that any Republican elected President in 2012 will not only let Israel do whatever it wants, he or she will have Israel's back when it comes to making concessions of any kind. And Netanyahu's American cutouts are carrying the message.”
“It is not noteworthy when the single-issue lobbying organizations warn a president that pressuring Israel will mean political death. That is what they do.”
“But it really says something when a mainstream multi-issue organization like the American Jewish Committee issues a poll just three weeks before the upcoming election that seems designed to politically damage the president.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/israel-lobbys-last-minute_b_775382.html
Israeli Prime Minsters have never won a trial of strength against a US president when any disagreement has been made public.
Israel creates chaos in the world and there is a lot of money to be made from chaos !
Add it up yourself . Israel has never repaid a loan and enjoys National Health Care and Massive Welfore for the Ulrta Orthdox who will not work till after age 40 but they raise familys on Welfare.
Even the Israeli Government said if the Ultra's would work they could add $200 Billion to the Israeli Economy.
Hard Working Americans are supporting those who refuse to work and just read their religious books all day and pray .
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-oceans-of-blood-and-profits-for-the-mongers-of-war-2145037.html
While you are there, his column today on Wikileaks is also worth reading.
I want my Congressman to explain this !
Thanks again, hope we can stop these wars .
"A land without a people for a people without a land". The Israelis must come to terms with whats been done and acknowledge that it was never a land without a people and that they committed terrible harm to them by taking a land without compensation, and through violent means. They need to apologize, give those people the right of return or full compensation at their discretion, they need to pull back to the 1967 lines and dismantle all settlements and outposts, walls and checkpoints and bring whatever security apparatus they need as well as their Pitbull settlers to THEIR OWN borders. They can build a dome over their heads as long as it on their property. They need to make a just compensation for all the damage they have caused and take responsibility for what they have done and admit what they did was wrong, not only just to the Palestinians but to the world.
Most zionists will think this is preposterous of course but this is what is needed to BEGIN to make things right. The dream of a "Greater Israel" needs to be scuttled along with the idea that "every inch of Palestine belongs to the Jews". It doesnt and never did belong to just the Jews in the past 2000 yrs.
--Seymour Martin Lipset, "The Left, the Jews and Israel," Encounter, (December 1969), p. 24.
Zionism is just a political movement and its free for anybody to follow. People can support or criticize it any aspects of it as they wish or see fit.