On Eddie Vedder and Israel/Palestine

benjs

badbrains said:

benjs said:

badbrains said:

yosi said:

Just saw this from a close family friend and one of the best (I think) liberal (and religious, and Zionist) Israeli reporters writing regularly in English. Thought it represents a perspective that many here are rarely exposed to.

No one can remember how this round of violence started? I can, idf shot and killed 2 Palestinian teens ON video on Nakba Day. What's nakba day???

Nakba day:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba_Day

You're living outside of Israel and the Palestinian zones, and yet YOU, when faced with a heartfelt account where Israelis and Palestinians are trying to bond, mourn together, understand that each other are suffering, you refuse to move on, choosing instead to linger on how it started. You ask Israel to simply walk away from an occupation - remove walls? Allow free traffic in and out of the Gazan/West Bank East Jerusalem regions? And you expect the people living in the thick of it all to let go of the past and embrace peace when even YOU can't? I've bit my tongue plenty of times, but when you take an article like this, whose inherent message is of peace, and once again distort it to try and start a screaming match, you discredit yourself AND your cause. If you stand for peace, you aren't doing a good job of showing it.

EDIT: I realized you haven't mentioned where you're from, my apologies for my assumption that you're living outside of Israel and the Palestinian zones.

Ben, I could careless how u look at me. I reached out to and sent u a pm welcoming u into the discussion. And thought maybe you would want to have a decent conversation on the topic. And then I see u make a comment about you'd be buying the first beers when we all sit together including byrnzie when I made that beer remark. But as soon as u thought byrnzie was suspended, u went and cracked on him in one if your posts. So if you think that what u said bothers me, it doesn't. Yosi posted a post and IN THE POST it says no one can remember what started this round of violence, which I stated I do. You get all butt hurt I mentioned nakba and how it did start. You go and sort of call me out? No prob, who cares. Call me out all you want, WONT change the fact that almost 200 dead Palestinians in 1 week. Yup, and how many are children???? So excuse me if I felt that yosi's post was a bit of smoke and mirrors to paint Israel as the compassionate one. Ya, what those villagers did was kind to go to the wake. But that doesn't erase what the other settlers did to that Palestinian kid. Poured gas down his throat and lit him on fire WHILE he was alive?!?!? You want to call me out, have at it. I won't back down and so won't a lot of others here who see what's really going. And please, dnt bite your tongue and hold back. You're not gonna hurt my feelings. All this because I said I remember what started it all?!?! And u act like them visiting the dead child's parents is gonna erase 60+ years of occupation. I'm sure that's what you were hopping for but realistic man, come on.

Edit-just because I live outside of Palestine doesn't mean I dnt know what's going on. Funny how everyone thinks we have to live in area to know what's going on in that area. None of us live in Iraq or Afghanistan or Russia, yet we all have opinions on what to do or what's going on over there. Why is it that anyone who disagrees with Israel and it's government, must be uneducated or misinformed?

Also - for the record - I don't think you're uneducated or misinformed, and if there have been here that do, frankly, fuck 'em. And for the record - I disagree with Israel and its government on many things (and had an Israeli rant at me this morning about the stupidity and completely unnecessary nature of ending its cease-fire). I just really do have trouble seeing the cause-and-effect of how retreating from Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank - which would inevitably be seen as an admission of guilt of running an illegitimate occupation - could result in peace in the Middle East. If I could get assurance about that, I'll be waving both Palestinian and Israeli flags at the next rally in Toronto.

badbrains

Ben said :

Do you think that, maybe, Israelis might not feel so comfortable inviting Palestinians in with open arms if the predominant discussion ongoing is that of Israel's government inspired by Satan, and the people who remember being bombed and murdered by Israelis (neither of which can be denied have happened)? I'm just curious: what would you say if Israel backed away now and the Palestinian occupations revolted? And in your opinion, what's the likelihood and/or outcome of that?

First off, my question to you is WHY do the Palestinians feel that about satan inspiring their government? Secondly, for the irsraelis to leave they'd have to honestly leave and not sit there poking the Palestinians every chance it gets for them to respond and fire rockets so Israel can go back in AGAIN. Again, it's how this fucken mess started wether u want to admit it or not. Idf Shoot and kill 2 Palestinian teens protesting on Nakba day. (Poke) Palestinians respond with firecracker rockets, Israel has a reason to go back in. But this time it has the 3 dead Israeli teens as an excuse to broaden the attack. And they start the cycle AGAIN. Not really hard to see how it started. Well, unless u live in the states where the media is always anti-Israel

benjs

badbrains said:

Ben said :

Do you think that, maybe, Israelis might not feel so comfortable inviting Palestinians in with open arms if the predominant discussion ongoing is that of Israel's government inspired by Satan, and the people who remember being bombed and murdered by Israelis (neither of which can be denied have happened)? I'm just curious: what would you say if Israel backed away now and the Palestinian occupations revolted? And in your opinion, what's the likelihood and/or outcome of that?

First off, my question to you is WHY do the Palestinians feel that about satan inspiring their government? Secondly, for the irsraelis to leave they'd have to honestly leave and not sit there poking the Palestinians every chance it gets for them to respond and fire rockets so Israel can go back in AGAIN. Again, it's how this fucken mess started wether u want to admit it or not. Idf Shoot and kill 2 Palestinian teens protesting on Nakba day. (Poke) Palestinians respond with firecracker rockets, Israel has a reason to go back in. But this time it has the 3 dead Israeli teens as an excuse to broaden the attack. And they start the cycle AGAIN. Not really hard to see how it started. Well, unless u live in the states where the media is always anti-Israel

I think you're missing the part where I'm saying that both sides have reason to be angered by each other. You're probably right about where it started: what I'm saying is if both parties keep their heads in the history books - history shows they should hate each other. It's looking forward which needs to be made a primary objective.

badbrains

No doubt Ben, both sides have rites to be mad at each other, we all know that. I just hope we're not to late on peace ever getting accomplished there. It's 2014 and look what state they're in. The shit cycle continues.

Edit- and Ben, I DO WANT peace their. More then anything. No one deserves to live how the Palestinians live and in fairness Israel shouldn't have to worry about missiles raining down on them too. But until the leaders are chosen with PEACE as their intentions, we're gonna have what eddie said, people who just want to kill.

Drowned Out

If there was a withdrawal, and an end to the blockade, the Palestinians would have to commit to prosecuting or turning over anyone who attacks israel. And Israel would have to agree to let this happen, possibly even work with the Palestinians from an intelligence standpoint, without retaliating with military force. The end of the bush doctrine of pre emptive strikes, and the policy of collective punishment and strikes against targets sans proof of guilt is the first step post-withdrawal. And there would be a long cooling off period, probably 2 or 3 generations of relative peace, before true peace is achieved. The israeli's, in their position of power, and as a state with a military who follows orders from the state, have much more control over whether this works than the Palestinians who would have to deal with the problems all fledgling sovereign nations deal with - power struggles between factions who have different ideas on how the state should move forward. The israeli's would need to show restraint, and maybe an international peacekeeping force on the border could help in that regard. The first step is always to end the occupation/blockade, and dismantle (or preferably hand over) the settlements.

benjs

badbrains said:

No doubt Ben, both sides have rites to be mad at each other, we all know that. I just hope we're not to late on peace ever getting accomplished there. It's 2014 and look what state they're in. The shit cycle continues.

It certainly does. And I really hope you're right, man. I know it seems cheesy and bullshitty of me to just keep saying "let's focus on peace", but I just can't see any good coming from looking back. Israel and the Palestinian zones have both done some fucking horrific things and I am by no means blind to that. I just would love to talk about "what if" scenarios more... I'm an engineer, and fairly logic driven. I like to see the causality in decisions, and to follow them through to see where things end up. In this case, our dreamed-of end is peace for all. So what are the steps we need to actively pursue in order to get there? And please, badbrains, I'm 100% dead serious, I would love to hear how, in your opinion, we can help get there. Please walk me through the logic.

badbrains

Drowned Out said:

If there was a withdrawal, and an end to the blockade, the Palestinians would have to commit to prosecuting or turning over anyone who attacks israel. And Israel would have to agree to let this happen, possibly even work with the Palestinians from an intelligence standpoint, without retaliating with military force. The end of the bush doctrine of pre emptive strikes, and the policy of collective punishment and strikes against targets sans proof of guilt is the first step post-withdrawal. And there would be a long cooling off period, probably 2 or 3 generations of relative peace, before true peace is achieved. The israeli's, in their position of power, and as a state with a military who follows orders from the state, have much more control over whether this works than the Palestinians who would have to deal with the problems all fledgling sovereign nations deal with - power struggles between factions who have different ideas on how the state should move forward. The israeli's would need to show restraint, and maybe an international peacekeeping force on the border could help in that regard. The first step is always to end the occupation/blockade, and dismantle (or preferably hand over) the settlements.

What drowned out said. See he can write a hell of lot better then I can lol. I can think it, but he can write it lol

Drowned Out

I should add that the way things are headed, this scenario is a pipe dream. Israel will continue down it's current path until the two state solution is dead (it may already be). If this happens, I think eventually the world will be forced to demand equal rights for all peoples within 'eretz israel'....at which point, the Jewishness of the state is in trouble. This is why yosi tells us that many Israelis do see the settlements and aggressive policies as detrimental to the 'liberal' approach to Zionism.

benjs

Drowned Out said:

If there was a withdrawal, and an end to the blockade, the Palestinians would have to commit to prosecuting or turning over anyone who attacks israel. And Israel would have to agree to let this happen, possibly even work with the Palestinians from an intelligence standpoint, without retaliating with military force. The end of the bush doctrine of pre emptive strikes, and the policy of collective punishment and strikes against targets sans proof of guilt is the first step post-withdrawal. And there would be a long cooling off period, probably 2 or 3 generations of relative peace, before true peace is achieved. The israeli's, in their position of power, and as a state with a military who follows orders from the state, have much more control over whether this works than the Palestinians who would have to deal with the problems all fledgling sovereign nations deal with - power struggles between factions who have different ideas on how the state should move forward. The israeli's would need to show restraint, and maybe an international peacekeeping force on the border could help in that regard. The first step is always to end the occupation/blockade, and dismantle (or preferably hand over) the settlements.

This helps me wrap my head around this hugely - thank you Drowned Out!

yosi

Drowned Out said:

I should add that the way things are headed, this scenario is a pipe dream. Israel will continue down it's current path until the two state solution is dead (it may already be). If this happens, I think eventually the world will be forced to demand equal rights for all peoples within 'eretz israel'....at which point, the Jewishness of the state is in trouble. This is why yosi tells us that many Israelis do see the settlements and aggressive policies as detrimental to the 'liberal' approach to Zionism.

I'd actually go further than that and say that many see such policies as not just detrimental to liberal Zionism, but as inherently anti-Zionist (which is my position). The logic there is that the common thread that runs through every form of Zionism is Jewish self-determination in a part of our ancestral homeland. Insofar as the settlements risk undermining Jewish self-determination (which they do), and insofar as they systematically lead to a blatant disregard for and undermining of the rule of law (and hence the sovereignty of the state), which they do, they are fundamentally anti-Zionist.

Drowned Out

well look at that.... the I/P conflict solved on a smoke break >- )
The problems I see is that Israel would prefer land swaps for the settlements, over using the green line as a border (this muddies the waters). And also that there does not seem to be a whole lot of support for restraint in Israel. Judging by social media since the assault on Gaza began, the general consensus seems to be that Palestine deserves to be bombed if a missile is launched at Israel, regardless of who did it, why it was done, or how much damage it inflicts. The self-defence angle is always the go-to response despite the fact that rocket attacks always increase during Israeli air strikes. I don't think restraint and rule of law is too much to ask after 50 years of occupation.

yosi

Drowned Out said:

If there was a withdrawal, and an end to the blockade, the Palestinians would have to commit to prosecuting or turning over anyone who attacks israel. And Israel would have to agree to let this happen, possibly even work with the Palestinians from an intelligence standpoint, without retaliating with military force. The end of the bush doctrine of pre emptive strikes, and the policy of collective punishment and strikes against targets sans proof of guilt is the first step post-withdrawal. And there would be a long cooling off period, probably 2 or 3 generations of relative peace, before true peace is achieved. The israeli's, in their position of power, and as a state with a military who follows orders from the state, have much more control over whether this works than the Palestinians who would have to deal with the problems all fledgling sovereign nations deal with - power struggles between factions who have different ideas on how the state should move forward. The israeli's would need to show restraint, and maybe an international peacekeeping force on the border could help in that regard. The first step is always to end the occupation/blockade, and dismantle (or preferably hand over) the settlements.

I agree with this entirely. My only caveat would be that I don't see a good reason for the Palestinians to wait until after the end of the occupation to start policing themselves in the way you suggest. If anything they should start doing so immediately. The likelihood of Israel acting peacefully and with restraint would be much greater if the Palestinians show themselves to be actively policing those that attempt to attack Israel. And in the long term, Israelis will feel much more secure in ending the occupation if the Palestinians have acted to prevent violence and build trust.

Basically, I don't see that the Palestinians gain anything at all from firing missiles at Israel except for a propaganda victory if they are able to goad Israel into retaliating (excessively) and Palestinians die. At this point it's not as if anyone is unaware of how this plays out. Hamas knows that if they fire hundreds of missiles into Israel there will be a forceful response. Violence isn't getting the Palestinians any closer to a state. If anything, I think, it's massively counterproductive to their cause.

In short, I think many people too often think about the Palestinians as if they have zero agency when in fact both sides are responsive to the actions of the other. You only need to look at the relatively prolonged periods of ceasefire between Israel and Gaza to see this. Although there were certainly breaches of the ceasefire by both sides, so long as it was clear that Hamas was cracking down on rocket fire into Israel, Israel didn't (over)react to the sporadic rockets that were fired with the sort of operation that is now underway. Israel is certainly the more powerful party and is capable of doing more to move the conflict toward a peaceful resolution, but the Palestinians can and should act in a manner that is more likely to influence Israel to take the necessary steps.

Drowned Out

yosi said:

Drowned Out said:

I should add that the way things are headed, this scenario is a pipe dream. Israel will continue down it's current path until the two state solution is dead (it may already be). If this happens, I think eventually the world will be forced to demand equal rights for all peoples within 'eretz israel'....at which point, the Jewishness of the state is in trouble. This is why yosi tells us that many Israelis do see the settlements and aggressive policies as detrimental to the 'liberal' approach to Zionism.

I'd actually go further than that and say that many see such policies as not just detrimental to liberal Zionism, but as inherently anti-Zionist (which is my position). The logic there is that the common thread that runs through every form of Zionism is Jewish self-determination in a part of our ancestral homeland. Insofar as the settlements risk undermining Jewish self-determination (which they do), and insofar as they systematically lead to a blatant disregard for and undermining of the rule of law (and hence the sovereignty of the state), which they do, they are fundamentally anti-Zionist.

Truth. I hope your side wins your internal struggle before it's too late for everyone.

Drowned Out

yosi said:

Drowned Out said:

If there was a withdrawal, and an end to the blockade, the Palestinians would have to commit to prosecuting or turning over anyone who attacks israel. And Israel would have to agree to let this happen, possibly even work with the Palestinians from an intelligence standpoint, without retaliating with military force. The end of the bush doctrine of pre emptive strikes, and the policy of collective punishment and strikes against targets sans proof of guilt is the first step post-withdrawal. And there would be a long cooling off period, probably 2 or 3 generations of relative peace, before true peace is achieved. The israeli's, in their position of power, and as a state with a military who follows orders from the state, have much more control over whether this works than the Palestinians who would have to deal with the problems all fledgling sovereign nations deal with - power struggles between factions who have different ideas on how the state should move forward. The israeli's would need to show restraint, and maybe an international peacekeeping force on the border could help in that regard. The first step is always to end the occupation/blockade, and dismantle (or preferably hand over) the settlements.

I agree with this entirely. My only caveat would be that I don't see a good reason for the Palestinians to wait until after the end of the occupation to start policing themselves in the way you suggest. If anything they should start doing so immediately. The likelihood of Israel acting peacefully and with restraint would be much greater if the Palestinians show themselves to be actively policing those that attempt to attack Israel. And in the long term, Israelis will feel much more secure in ending the occupation if the Palestinians have acted to prevent violence and build trust.

Basically, I don't see that the Palestinians gain anything at all from firing missiles at Israel except for a propaganda victory if they are able to goad Israel into retaliating (excessively) and Palestinians die. At this point it's not as if anyone is unaware of how this plays out. Hamas knows that if they fire hundreds of missiles into Israel there will be a forceful response. Violence isn't getting the Palestinians any closer to a state. If anything, I think, it's massively counterproductive to their cause.

In short, I think many people too often think about the Palestinians as if they have zero agency when in fact both sides are responsive to the actions of the other. You only need to look at the relatively prolonged periods of ceasefire between Israel and Gaza to see this. Although there were certainly breaches of the ceasefire by both sides, so long as it was clear that Hamas was cracking down on rocket fire into Israel, Israel didn't (over)react to the sporadic rockets that were fired with the sort of operation that is now underway. Israel is certainly the more powerful party and is capable of doing more to move the conflict toward a peaceful resolution, but the Palestinians can and should act in a manner that is more likely to influence Israel to take the necessary steps.

This is where the disagreement is: Why do the Palestinians, as an occupied people, have to lay down their arms first, and police their resistance movement? As I said, the FIRST step is to end the occupation and blockade, and get Israeli's off of Palestinian land....thus removing any doubt about the validity of violent resistance. Without that first step, there is always an excuse to continue down the current path.

callen

Great info and perspectives all.

fuck

The two-state solution is like a corpse that many "liberal" Zionists wish to perform voodoo over and revive. It's not going to happen. It's dead, dead, dead. And guess what, the Israelis were the ones themselves who prevented it from ever coming to fruition. Not the Palestinians. That's because the Israelis (even the "liberal" governments like that run by Livni) were never interested in making any deal that is in the least bit favorable to the Palestinians. We don't even need to go back to Camp David anymore to prove this: Just look at the startling 2011 revelations by Al Jazeera known as the "Palestine Papers" in which leaked documents of the negotiations revealed that even when the Palestinians were agreeing to the most insane demands, Israel still refused to make a deal.

Yosi's blame the victim mentality that Palestinians aren't doing enough is a typical argument of a client of an oppressive state (this is not an insult - you are a client of the Israeli government and society, which I consider an oppressive state). But the fact of the matter is that this conflict didn't begin a few weeks ago with "exchanges of fire" but rather several decades ago with the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their land, who still languish in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and even war-torn Syria, waiting to return home. And Israel is doing everything it can to ensure that their plight is ignored, and their right to return home denied. And by emphasizing on only the territories occupied in the 1967 Israeli invasion, Israel hopes that the discrimination Palestinians living within Israel proper face is also ignored.

All the arguments used here regarding the "hate both sides feel toward one another" are the same straw-man arguments propped up by those defending Apartheid South Africa only a couple decades ago, but many people saw through those arguments just as they are beginning to see through it in this case. This is about one side denying another their rights, and that's it. This isn't about mutual hate, this is about power and control, and the way the power dynamic is now (and has been since the start of this colonial project), one side has been using pretexts of shitty little resistance tactics like rockets that have only sprung up in recent years, and suicide bombings before that, as well as the nonviolent resistance that existed within Palestinian society since the start of the colonial project, as straw man arguments to continue the exploitation of a people and the expropriation of their land. That was a run-on sentence but you get the idea here.

People need to ignore these arguments. What is necessary here is a secular state in ALL of the land that can be shared equally among all the people. If the Israelis end their settler-colonial project and give rights to the Palestinians then we can begin dialogue initiatives, working together and building a proper state. But until then, prepare for more arguments that defenders of Apartheid South Africa used ("there is too much animosity between both sides, they can't live together!", "it will be civil war!", "if we give Palestinians equal rights, and allow refugees to come home, they will outnumber the Jews and then oppress them!", etc etc.) History will judge, as it did once, who is on the right side. Here is an example of an article, written in 1989, defending Apartheid South Africa. The similarities with those defending Israel are startling, such as how White South Africans "built" South Africa:

"Contrary to popular belief, the whites did not take the country from the blacks. When the Dutch settled in the Cape in 1652, they found a barren, largely unpopulated land. Together with French and German settlers, they built a dynamic society.

It was not until 100 years later, as they advanced across these vast unexplored territories that they met with the blacks who were moving south. Contrary to myth, the blacks were never run off their land. They settled in tribal lands of their own choice. When the whites met the blacks, the blacks had no written language, no technological knowledge, no cure for infectious diseases. In the 20th century, economic activity organized by whites gradually drew blacks out of their tribal lands into the cash economy and into the cities."

http://m.csmonitor.com/1989/1012/ekri.html

Drowned Out

I also agree with you...and this is where Finkelstein's negative comments toward the BDS movement originate from (if I remember correctly, he backed away slightly from them soon thereafter). If the Israeli's don't see an opportunity to self-determine as a jewish state under any peace plan, they won't play along. So some see the BDS movement as pushing toward a single state as an end goal, even tho the stated goals don't say this.
In my personal opinion....the single state is the best way to guarantee lasting peace. But I don't see it as realistic without massive bloodshed along the way. It would take severe international pressure, including from the US, using sanctions and every tool available, to force Israel to accept this. And they would probably bomb the shit out of all Palestinian land before they allowed it to happen.

Still, you're right...I fear the two state solution is already dead. Nettanyahu confirmed as much the other day:

Drowned Out

Netanyahu says there will never be a real Palestinian state
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/netanyahu-palestinian-state.html


Lots of folks are talking about this. Last Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a press conference in Hebrew in which he stated that he would never accept Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank because Israel’s security needs are too great in an era of Islamic radicalism. His remarks have been summarized by David Horovitz in the Times of Israel, with limited quotations.

“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: There cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan,” Netanyahu said, leading Horovitz to say: “That sentence, quite simply, spells the end to the notion of Netanyahu consenting to the establishment of a Palestinian state.” Just Bantustans, what we’ve observed again and again in recent years.

Here are fuller excerpts of Horovitz’s account:

He made explicitly clear that he could never, ever, countenance a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank. He indicated that he sees Israel standing almost alone on the frontlines against vicious Islamic radicalism, while the rest of the as-yet free world does its best not to notice the march of extremism. And he more than intimated that he considers the current American, John Kerry-led diplomatic team to be, let’s be polite, naive.

Netanyahu has stressed often in the past that he doesn’t want Israel to become a binational state — implying that he favors some kind of accommodation with and separation from the Palestinians. But on Friday he made explicit that this could not extend to full Palestinian sovereignty. Why? Because, given the march of Islamic extremism across the Middle East, he said, Israel simply cannot afford to give up control over the territory immediately to its east, including the eastern border — that is, the border between Israel and Jordan, and the West Bank and Jordan.

The priority right now, Netanyahu stressed, was to “take care of Hamas.” But the wider lesson of the current escalation was that Israel had to ensure that “we don’t get another Gaza in Judea and Samaria.” Amid the current conflict, he elaborated, “I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”

Not relinquishing security control west of the Jordan, it should be emphasized, means not giving a Palestinian entity full sovereignty there. It means not acceding to Mahmoud Abbas’s demands, to Barack Obama’s demands, to the international community’s demands. This is not merely demanding a demilitarized Palestine; it is insisting upon ongoing Israeli security oversight inside and at the borders of the West Bank. That sentence, quite simply, spells the end to the notion of Netanyahu consenting to the establishment of a Palestinian state. A less-than-sovereign entity? Maybe, though this will never satisfy the Palestinians or the international community. A fully sovereign Palestine? Out of the question.

He wasn’t saying that he doesn’t support a two-state solution. He was saying that it’s impossible. This was not a new, dramatic change of stance by the prime minister. It was a new, dramatic exposition of his long-held stance….

“If we were to pull out of Judea and Samaria, like they tell us to,” he said bitterly — leaving it to us to fill in who the many and various foolish “theys” are — “there’d be a possibility of thousands of tunnels” being dug by terrorists to attack Israel, he said…

Netanyahu hammered home the point: Never mind what the naive outsiders recommend, “I told John Kerry and General Allen, the Americans’ expert, ‘We live here, I live here, I know what we need to ensure the security of Israel’s people.’”

Earlier this spring, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon sparked a storm in Israel-US ties when he told a private gathering that the US-Kerry-Allen security proposals weren’t worth the paper they were written on. Netanyahu on Friday said the same, and more, in public.

Netanyahu didn’t say he was ruling out all territorial compromise, but he did go to some lengths to highlight the danger of relinquishing what he called “adjacent territory.”

These remarks are what Jeff Halper reflected in his great post on our site last week, saying that Israel’s plan for Palestinians is to “submit, leave or die.” They demonstrate that the era of the two-state solution is past, and we have entered a period of full-on struggle for equal rights inside one state that was generated by an ideology of Jewish nationalism–Zionism. It is no surprise that Palestinians quoted by Pam Bailey on our site have cheered the Hamas rockets as a symbol of undying resistance to that discriminatory regime, which doesn’t hesitate to use violence. It is no surprise that Rana Baker at Open Democracy also praises the rockets and says that Palestinians will never yield to the Zionist vision.

The Israeli Jewish public must understand that there shall be no security so long as they do not turn their anger and frustration at their very supremacist privilege and ideological system which is embodied in the Israeli government, left-wing, centrist, or right-wing. No one is asking them to leave, but they must accept Palestinian resistance insofar as they accept the arrogance which characterises the Zionist ideology. The radical potential of Palestinian rockets, of sirens going off, lies in these rockets’ ability to disrupt a system of privilege which Israeli Jews enjoy at the expense of colonised and displaced Palestinians. Rockets, in other words, are a radical declaration of existence and unmediated expression of self-determination.

Drowned Out

continued:
(why oh why did they bring back the fucking character limits?! My pet peeve!)

I happen to disagree with Baker, but the conflict has been freshly envenomed by Israel’s wanton killing of scores of civilians and children; and it is clear that many, many young Palestinians share her belief about the best ways to counter violent enslavement. And who has the right to instruct slaves on the ill-considered nature of their rebellion? Historian David McCullough said on Charlie Rose the other day that more than half the American colonists were against revolution; their sentiments were less important than the determination of idealists who were willing to use violence. Nelson Mandela also endorsed the use of violence at a crucial point in the South African struggle; and the Algerian rebels dedicated themselves to violent revolution after a 1945 massacre. The only argument I’d make to these young violent Palestinians is that help really is on the way: a global nonviolent movement to put pressure on Israel to transform itself is afoot. That’s why I’m for BDS, as actually a conservative outcome here, neither continued ethnic cleansing and periodic massacre, nor violent revolution. BDS has pressured Israel as no other international action before, even actions by the U.N. As Israelis themselves say, it is an existential threat, a threat of delegitimization. Is it possible for Israel to transform itself and grant Palestinian freedom and maintain itself as a Jewish state? I think not; that moment is passed, that was the magic trick of the two-state compromise, and it has patently failed. The ideology of Jewish nationalism won’t pass from the stage without deep grief and violence. Part of the struggle ahead therefore is to convince the adherents of the Jewish state in America, all the Jewish organizations and religious groups who believe that we need a Jewish state even though we are doing fine here, of the historical error in this belief. The record is clear, that the implementation of the Zionist vision has only generated rising violence in Israel and its environs (as the State Department and Franklin Roosevelt predicted in 1940s when plans for such a state were put forward). American Jews can do the greatest service to the future of Israel and Palestine and the broader Middle East by saying they don’t need a Jewish state; they are happy to see the end of Jewish privilege in that land. This is the great work that Jewish Voice for Peace and Jews Say No are doing, preparing the Jewish community for exodus from a false belief.

Aafke

Maybe they (and I) are a lot of pacifistic Hippies, but maybe it will be possible one day...